Are You Human?

I'm well on my way to becoming human. Thank you all for the mundane accounts of your daily human activities.

.

who here believes in wrong and right? do you believe in such a thing?

if so then what are the criteria for which one can be compared against the other?

is it all opinion and personal choice? does an individual override what is right and wrong with what is preferred or not preferred?

is it possible that learned behaviors over time could be validated by this same process of preference and naturalized into our culture and tradition?

after a period of time would we know the difference? have we lost our criterion? what shall we reference to get it back, is there an authority that we would respect?

do we want it back? do we avoid knowing the truth conveniently? could the truth actually be a common sense that we suppress daily?

.

bunch of mental masturbation.

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:17 AM, troon said:

.

who here believes in wrong and right? do you believe in such a thing?

 

if so then what are the criteria for which one can be compared against the other?

 

is it all opinion and personal choice? does an individual override what is right and wrong with what is preferred or not preferred?

 

is it possible that learned behaviors over time could be validated by this same process of preference and naturalized into our culture and tradition?

 

after a period of time would we know the difference? have we lost our criterion? what shall we reference to get it back, is there an authority that we would respect?

 

do we want it back? do we avoid knowing the truth conveniently? could the truth actually be a common sense that we suppress daily?

.

i'd be a lot more willing to answer your questions if you did first.

i'll answer... **counter-troonin**

i believe in the concepts of right and wrong.

the criteria are difficult to establish, especially as absolutes, and i won't pretend to have any complete answers. i have strong doubts that moral absolutes can exist at all, though i believe there may be general agreements within the larger disagreement, depending on who is arguing.

i do not believe that right and wrong are -all- opinion and personal choice, though to a large degree that is what makes them up. as you allude to, society and culture have a large say in morals just as the individuals within a society do. morals change with the times in which they are used.

i believe the individual does not have the capability to override his own morals unless he has governed himself by an absolute rule of his own choice, and even if he has completely convinced himself of this rule as an absolute, his own breaking of the rule ought to prove that he must admit that it is not an absolute. rather, it is an ideal and can be broken at will. the consequences of breaking a rule one has imposed on oneself will vary from person to person.

it is possible that learned behaviors over time could be validated by a process of preference, and indeed that is what happens in every culture.

we would "know the difference" only so far as we are able to look at other cultures and into our own cultural past.

there is no universal criterion for the moral life, and if there is, you'll have to write an incredibly convincing philosophical proof to hand off your own morals to the rest of the world with any success.

i believe the ultimate authority we must listen to is one's self, because if you can not trust yourself, who or what can you trust?

as for your ideas of truth - if they are in reference to a set of moral truths, then you must first explicitly state those moral truths before you can expect anyone to know whether they are breaching them out of convenience. otherwise the breach is only in your mind, not theirs; the ignorance you sense in their actions may well be moral or truth in their eyes.

the "truth" of which you speak is not common sense, and it never has been, because "truth" in the sense you're speaking of - moral truth - has never been universally accepted by everyone at one time. perhaps it will be some day, but i have doubts.

But then we wouldn't be quickly being profiled. I wonder how many of these thread questions are just recycled from other forums/social platforms. Like that 30 days music thread.

sure that's recycled. but recycled and entertaining are not mutually exclusive.

i don't do that delet...

Really troon, unless you start demonstrating the qualities of a 'human', or more specifically fitting within the patterns and parameters of normal user posting. I'll read even less of what you write, than i don't now. My limits and tolerances for human activity are quite broad. But there are some basic behavioural structures, of which you are completely devoid.

One being that you never really engage, there is no sense of conversation from you. Secondly, you never stray beyond the constraints of whatever prosaic pre-scripted statement is being made. There is no idle banter or sense of your daily existence as distinctly coloured episodes, points in your life that vary dependant on mood or your interactions in real.

In other words, you don't exist. Perhaps you should correct this.

;-]

  On 4/2/2011 at 4:45 AM, vamos scorcho said:

 

what i fully realized was that if the universe is infinite then THIS is not real. because 0 is not real. the whole 'we are insignificant and might as not exist' basically translates to 'we basically DON'T exist. fully, seriously, no fucking around. this isn't real. this is but one infinitely small part of an infinite whole. it isn't real. nothing we think is right.

 

and yet, you still want to get laid

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:55 AM, delet... said:

One being that you never really engage, there is no sense of conversation from you. Secondly, you never stray beyond the constraints of whatever prosaic pre-scripted statement is being made. There is no idle banter or sense of your daily existence as distinctly coloured episodes, points in your life that vary dependant on mood or your interactions in real.

 

In other words, you don't exist. Perhaps you should correct this.

 

;-]

fuck. you nailed it.

troon wouldn't encounter so much hostility if he preached less and conversed more. like here!

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:55 AM, delet... said:

Really troon, unless you start demonstrating the qualities of a 'human', or more specifically fitting within the patterns and parameters of normal user posting. I'll read even less of what you write, than i don't now. My limits and tolerances for human activity are quite broad. But there are some basic behavioural structures, of which you are completely devoid.

 

One being that you never really engage, there is no sense of conversation from you. Secondly, you never stray beyond the constraints of whatever prosaic pre-scripted statement is being made. There is no idle banter or sense of your daily existence as distinctly coloured episodes, points in your life that vary dependant on mood or your interactions in real.

 

In other words, you don't exist. Perhaps you should correct this.

 

;-]

i mean no harm. this is only my shadow, a subtler version of the real me. it is not time yet for the real me to engage this forum openly. we've kept a safe distance but some day that will change, when the time is right

.

.

youre boring.

thinking about how small everything around us is, is a good way to detune after a stressful day at work, a way that doesn't involve alcohol or exercise. Philosophy, curing what ails ya, mentally.

  On 4/3/2011 at 2:07 AM, troon said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:55 AM, delet... said:

Really troon, unless you start demonstrating the qualities of a 'human', or more specifically fitting within the patterns and parameters of normal user posting. I'll read even less of what you write, than i don't now. My limits and tolerances for human activity are quite broad. But there are some basic behavioural structures, of which you are completely devoid.

 

One being that you never really engage, there is no sense of conversation from you. Secondly, you never stray beyond the constraints of whatever prosaic pre-scripted statement is being made. There is no idle banter or sense of your daily existence as distinctly coloured episodes, points in your life that vary dependant on mood or your interactions in real.

 

In other words, you don't exist. Perhaps you should correct this.

 

;-]

i mean no harm. this is only my shadow, a subtler version of the real me. it is not time yet for the real me to engage this forum openly. we've kept a safe distance but some day that will change, when the time is right

.

.

every time i start to sort of warm to you, you spit out some pretentious-ass bullshit like this.

  On 4/3/2011 at 12:47 AM, luke viia said:

I'm well on my way to becoming human. Thank you all for the mundane accounts of your daily human activities.

Yep, messageboards would be a great way to train an AI.

  On 4/3/2011 at 2:07 AM, troon said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:55 AM, delet... said:

Really troon, unless you start demonstrating the qualities of a 'human', or more specifically fitting within the patterns and parameters of normal user posting. I'll read even less of what you write, than i don't now. My limits and tolerances for human activity are quite broad. But there are some basic behavioural structures, of which you are completely devoid.

 

One being that you never really engage, there is no sense of conversation from you. Secondly, you never stray beyond the constraints of whatever prosaic pre-scripted statement is being made. There is no idle banter or sense of your daily existence as distinctly coloured episodes, points in your life that vary dependant on mood or your interactions in real.

 

In other words, you don't exist. Perhaps you should correct this.

 

;-]

i mean no harm. this is only my shadow, a subtler version of the real me. it is not time yet for the real me to engage this forum openly. we've kept a safe distance but some day that will change, when the time is right

.

.

r u jesus

r *d j(esus)

  On 4/3/2011 at 2:08 AM, delet... said:

thinking about how small everything around us is, is a good way to detune after a stressful day at work, a way that doesn't involve alcohol or exercise. Philosophy, curing what ails ya, mentally.

pretty much. it's a tool that can untangle certain problems and worries.

  On 4/3/2011 at 1:17 AM, troon said:

.

1. who here believes in wrong and right? do you believe in such a thing?

 

2. if so then what are the criteria for which one can be compared against the other?

 

3. is it all opinion and personal choice? does an individual override what is right and wrong with what is preferred or not preferred?

 

4. is it possible that learned behaviors over time could be validated by this same process of preference and naturalized into our culture and tradition?

 

5. after a period of time would we know the difference? have we lost our criterion? what shall we reference to get it back, is there an authority that we would respect?

 

6.do we want it back? do we avoid knowing the truth conveniently? could the truth actually be a common sense that we suppress daily?

.

1. Morality is something we invented for our own safety. Does this hurt me in some way? Does this make our community more difficult to keep track of? It's immoral/Jesus doesn't like it, etc.

2. " "

3. " "

4. Beer and tits.

5. Pussy. Football.

6. Big asses.

Morality we didn't 'invent', perhaps you could say nature created it and we reside blissfully under it's shady branches.

  On 4/3/2011 at 3:23 AM, delet... said:

Morality we didn't 'invent', perhaps you could say nature created it and we reside blissfully under it's shady branches.

to say nature invented us and we invented morality is an equally valid POV

here is what makes me know everything we say and think to be true is probably not. it just doesn't work.

ok, here we go:

what is this? what is reality and existence? what is this? why is this happening? why does the present moment exist? where did it come from? how can the moment end? from where did existence come?

how is it possible that existence exists? how could nothing exist? why do nothing and something both exist?

why is any of this happening?

why?

is why the question? I mean,

it's just too big to ignore. we assume that it's real, that what we think to be true is true, from the start. on all levels.

the so called 'matrix' thing doesn't explain ANYTHING!

because what made the stuff outside of the matrix? how could something just exist?

what is infinity? what is finity?

what the fuck is the point, not just on a job, meaning, enlightenment level.

we accept that reality and existence on a base level, consciousness... it's all just what it is. what we accepted that it is, what we have always thought and believed it to be, it is.

our opinion on what 'this' is [what we are all, all of us, experiencing reading this sentence] is the same as it was in our youth. it hasn't changed. the basic idea has not changed.

but then you can tap into this feeling... that says, what is this? what is this actually? what is happening? how does this exist? beyond just, accepting that it does. there is no explanation. there is no explanation at all for what 'this' is. where 'this' came from.

how could something just be. what made it. how could the universe have just 'happened?' what predicated it?

what predicated that?

by ALL scientific definition infinity or infinite eternal existence seems to be the only explanation. this is too much of a mindfuck.

some say, 'it is finite. neither finite or infinite.' that doesn't explain anything. it doesn't explain what this is, actually.

this always blows my mind.

so if God just 'happened.' if the universe just 'happened.' then what?

how can anything exist without something before it. what IS IT!??????!!!!!!

someone refer me to some good philosophy that goes into this. Heidegger ?

what is morality? morality is the innate sense that humans have to tell right from wrong

what is right or wrong? right or wrong are what humans tend to call morality as a convenient shorthand.

right or wrong are very flexible concepts. hence morality is a very flexible concept.