Present Evidence Here II

[Baruch]

Good for you.  but then, you are a theist and therefore more moral, ethical and a much clearer thinker than I, a lowly atheist.

Hardly.  You have more of an anger control problem.  And I deny all morality and ethics.

[Mike Cl]

Hardly.  You have more of an anger control problem.  And I deny all morality and ethics.

Probably.  But you have more of an ignore the facts problem than I.  But I also deny all morality and ethics. 

[Baruch]

Probably.  But you have more of an ignore the facts problem than I.  But I also deny all morality and ethics.

The facts are always subject to interpretation.  And I expect you, buddy, to seek out any outstanding posts I have made in the past week, and study them.  There will be a quiz ;-)

[josephpalazzo]

  But I also deny all morality and ethics. 

Hmmm... I don't think you do. We all set for ourselves certain rules of conduct. Otherwise you would be paralyzed, not knowing what to do the very next second. And that's not the case. Perhaps you mean Christian morality and ethics, which I would also subscribe.

[Mike Cl]

Hmmm... I don't think you do. We all set for ourselves certain rules of conduct. Otherwise you would be paralyzed, not knowing what to do the very next second. And that's not the case. Perhaps you mean Christian morality and ethics, which I would also subscribe.

That's correct, Joseph.  I do have both morals and ethics--but they are internal and guide only my actions--nobody else.  I actually meant to say there is no objective set of ethics nor morals.  I will suggest our system of laws and courts is this countries morals.  All societies make their own.

[Baruch]

That's correct, Joseph.  I do have both morals and ethics--but they are internal and guide only my actions--nobody else.  I actually meant to say there is no objective set of ethics nor morals.  I will suggest our system of laws and courts is this countries morals.  All societies make their own.

Nobody disagrees with private morality.  Jack the Ripper had that.  The problem is the social contract.  Hence the need for segregation, ala George Wallace? 

If it isn't a big tent legal system, a secular system, a non-ideological system.  But it is theological, then you have to kick out the non-members.  If it is ideological, then you have to kick out the non-members.  No difference.  In a situation of fanaticism, there can't be any tolerance, any pragmatism.

Lets say, if the Green New Deal had very high support in Cali, but not in the rest of the US.  Then Cali can't stay in the Union, they need a hippie Jefferson Davis.  How Democrat is that?

[Cavebear]

Indifference, obviously.

You need an object of love to love someone or something. The starting position is then first indifference.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

If indifference is a starting point, when does active interest begin?  There must be a change, at some point, right?

[Baruch]

If indifference is a starting point, when does active interest begin?  There must be a change, at some point, right?

When you meet a girl and she gives you some attention ;-)  Then it is OK to reciprocate.

[Cavebear]

When you meet a girl and she gives you some attention ;-)  Then it is OK to reciprocate.

Better not bet on that these days..

[Baruch]

Better not bet on that these days..

Y'all wanted the dystopia of man-eating Harpies.  And you got it now.  Only Jason and the (very manly) Argonauts can save you beta-males now.

[Sal1981]

If indifference is a starting point, when does active interest begin?  There must be a change, at some point, right?

When you encounter something that requires action.

I would argue that if our brains got no stimulation from our senses, then we'd pretty much be inert. But since we do, we obviously act on a lot of things.

[Hydra009]

I would argue that if our brains got no stimulation from our senses, then we'd pretty much be inert.

Pssht.  I'm like that most of the time.

[Baruch]

When you encounter something that requires action.

I would argue that if our brains got no stimulation from our senses, then we'd pretty much be inert. But since we do, we obviously act on a lot of things.

Didn't experiments with isolation tanks show that people who have no sensor input start to hallucinate?

[Blackleaf]

Didn't experiments with isolation tanks show that people who have no sensor input start to hallucinate?

Yes. Our brains don't know what to do with a complete lack if stimulation. If you're in a soundproof room, you'll start hearing your own heartbeat. If you're in a dimly lit room and stare at someone (including your reflection) it will look as if their face is morphing. I don't know why the brain behaves this way. It doesn't seem advantageous at all.

[Baruch]

Yes. Our brains don't know what to do with a complete lack if stimulation. If you're in a soundproof room, you'll start hearing your own heartbeat. If you're in a dimly lit room and stare at someone (including your reflection) it will look as if their face is morphing. I don't know why the brain behaves this way. It doesn't seem advantageous at all.

Right.  Scary.  There was that guy, in the movie, who used an isolation tank to regress, and went back too far, becoming a cave man ;-(

We often don't know the warning signs of bad health, bad mind.  No operating instructions.

Anyway this must be the source of much shaman experience.  Sleep deprivation, mild stimulants, isolation ...