The point?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Oh, ok.

Didn't realize this thread was about a movie you saw the other day.

reply to post by Mon1k3r


I'm not talking about the thread, I'm talking about your response to my post, which is what makes the content and inspiration of my post relevant. You addressed the quote from the movie specifically, which is why I continued to refer to the movie.

Now if you're done being difficult, let's get back to the actual topic. In case I wasn't perfectly clear, that means this conversation is now over and any further responses will be ignored.

reply to post by Mon1k3r


I'm not talking about the thread, I'm talking about your response to my post, which is what makes the content and inspiration of my post relevant. You addressed the quote from the movie specifically, which is why I continued to refer to the movie.

Now if you're done being difficult, let's get back to the actual topic. In case I wasn't perfectly clear, that means this conversation is now over and any further responses will be ignored.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Ok, just referring to your post within the context of the thread, not the context of your post. This is philosophy and metaphysics, and I was waxing thusly. Probably going to see that movie today. Saw the original a long time ago. I'm sure the new one has to be better.

Mon1k3r
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Ok, just referring to your post within the context of the thread, not the context of your post. This is philosophy and metaphysics, and I was waxing thusly. Probably going to see that movie today. Saw the original a long time ago. I'm sure the new one has to be better.

It doesn't matter to me. The discussion is over, let's get back to the topic.

I saw the Walter Mitty movie today and I was entertained and heartened. It was almost good enough for me to get over having to watch Ben Stiller for an hour and a half. I'm glad he makes a decent director, maybe he'll stay on the other side of the camera more.

reply to post by sulaw


"To every action there is a reaction, to every cause an effect. Two statements that are grounded in truth but why? What's the point?"

I don't agree that the two statements are grounded in truth. They are grounded in evidence. Not all events or actions have a cause.

I believe the point of cause and effect and also action and reaction is happiness.

"To the armchair warriors who come here everyday and indulge in the battle of wits, what's the point?"

The point is happiness. By believing things that are closer to the truth, we mostly become happier people. Its hard to be successful if you are working for something based on faulty information and bad directions. Also, when other people are happier I am happier because of my empathy for others.

Of course politics and religion are always the hot topics that I imagine you're talking about. I support a wide range of principles. Equal rights a foundation of all my political views. Joy is a foundation of all my religious views. I promote equal rights and I promote joy when I get a chance to. I get lots of chances to do both on ATS. When someone posts something I disagree with on the topics, I can see potential suffering and inequality being propagated. I then do what I can to stop that propagation and replace it with something more positive.

Fractal~

Perfect! I love this response! Thank you for contributing, so from what I gathered I will ask some further information from you, if you'd indulge me for a few.

Is evidence not truth? To the extent that events would not take place without actions to cause the event? When you are not in motion, one is experiancing death and when one is in motion one is experiancing life? To experiance life is to take action, and cause events to further the experiance in life? ( I know this jumped from A~Z but I formulated it thus far the best I could with the information jumping around my ca~noggin )

Or would it be better to stay grounded in the statement "Truth is in the eye of the beholder"?

I love this response by the way Equality and Empathy You are very correct in my opinion. Equality is a cynical beast, it's a word that is used and postulated by individuals with sinister meaning attached to it, that it doesn't really represent equality, just used to achieve a particular goal and or status both in political and religious aspects.

So what's the point in someone using Equality in this neferious way? By your post I could assume (and I hate using that word ) that because of your Empathy, using and displaying Equality come's more "natural", and you exude a very "Fair and Equal" persona/personality. To "a" point that Empathy magnifies Equality? Cause and Effect? See where I'm going?

Happiness, I can't say much in regards, this is a "theme" that is playing out as the responses roll in.

Thank you again for this response, if I am off on my response please let me know and I will reform my reponse.

Best regards,

reply to post by sulaw


I'm glad you liked my post. Evidence is not truth. Evidence is an increased chance of accuracy. Truth is an exactly 100% chance of accuracy. Accuracy is a result that matches an expected result. If a man on the street tells you that there is a ball under one of three cups, that is evidence there is a red ball under one of the three cups. It may or may not be the truth. If you were to then knock overall the cups and don't see any ball, there isn't a 100% chance that the statement was true, although certainly there is a greater than 99% chance of that.

Belief is an estimated chance greater than 50% of something. "I believe stuff happens" means you estimate its more likely than not that stuff happens. People use "truth" as a synonym of "belief", which is good for most contexts. You will run into issues of using that definition of truth for controversial topics though, so its better to avoid use of that definition for effective communication. In philosophy contexts, "truth" implies absolute truth as I defined at the start of this post, and not relative truth which is actually better described as belief.

Belief is in the eye of the beholder. Truth is in the eye of God. What I mean by that is to have truth, you must have all information in all universes and also universes that have the possibility to connect to ours. For example, I believe dirt is solid. But, there may be another universe connecting to this one temporarily rendering liquid dirt into apparent solid dirt by altering the laws of physics. While I have no reason to believe that, it is still in the realm of possibility. That universe could later stop making it seem that dirt is a solid convert dirt back to liquid. Only having all information on all connected universes from all times allows you to say "The absolute truth is that dirt is a solid."

Cause and effect imply a before and after. Your actions are all an effect of a series of causes. Is it possible to count the number of causes that leads up to your current action? If you can count the series of events that lead up to your current action then there was an "effect without a cause" to start the chain of events. If you can't count the series of events that lead up to your current action, then you have infinity number of events that have happened in order to lead up to your current action. That is a big problem because infinity is not a number. None of your actions have gone through the required infinity number of prior causes in order to arrive at your present action.

Empathy certainly has the tendency to lead to a philosophy of equality. I would guess that was the strongest factor for me. Other factors also lead to such a philosophy. Philosophy of everyone being connected could lead to a philosophy of equality. Speculation that one person cycles through time living all lives could lead to philosophy of equality. Fear of God or other retribution could lead to a philosophy of equality. Down the road I believe active political debates will center on definition of harm instead of equal rights. While I do have a "fair" vs "unfair" sensitive personality more than most, my definition of fair and just is dramatically different from many or most other people's definitions.

As to your other questions, I don't know. If you want to call physics as "we life in moments of action and then are dead all the other moments where we don't change" then I suppose that works. I have insufficient understanding of the universe. I tried to think about that topic last year in the context of experiencing happiness and failed to get any good ideas. It seems that actions take place in "gazillions" of tics of time. So, all we seem to have is a series of still frames.