Yeah that’s a hazard as there are no consequences. It’s unfortunate. Just remember that any such instances say everything about those making vile posts, and virtually nothing about the intended targets of those posts.

>Like I said
>
>Aren’t we formed through mostly atoms.
>
>Without them we wouldn’t exist.

And neither would evil...

So like I said.

If god made a universe with no life in it.

There would be no evil there.

THAT God would be good.

That's what I said in the first comment. Its completely pointless to talk about a "Good God" when clearly, evil CAN exist in the universe he allegedly made.

I do worry about philosophy in general when it accepts people like Kastrup as a proper philosopher.

I struggle to understand how any intelligent person takes him seriously.

>Bernardo Kastrup is the executive director of Essentia Foundation. His work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism

I agree. In which the whole point of the medium is also entirely different, and you get the support and relating irl. I have to say that reddit can be extraordinarily cruel and rude as well though. A bit like Twitter. The more anonymous people can be, the more uninhibited they are, which also means unthinking vileness unfortunately.

I agree there’s a broader philosophical question: Is humankind capable of responding to an imminent threat, when the constituents of said threat have been wedded to quality of life and well being?

Democracy isn't to blame. There are other countries that are not democratic that haven't solved climate change either, your argument is incoherent.

no

No, its already too late. If we do it will be from a technological solution, social solutions have already failed.

Democracy is only synonymous with good if people are good. We're not. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner is a democratic decision.

Yes, through SCIENCE> Philosophy is irrelevant.

No. It is not. We are walking around with the genetic baggage of 200,000 years of evolution. That will not change quickly enough

Philosophy doesn't do credibly very well. It finds everything insufficient.

Mind control

Well.

It won't.

I don't know but I know the philosophers won't figure it out

If you don't know by now you're not going to.

The US has never been a functioning democracy. In execution it's an oligarchy, as the founders intended.

I think it's very obvious what social media is good for (casual communication) and what it sucks at (explaining and providing meaning for life).

As always, having confidence, discipline, and self worth to be independently capable of happiness and moral goodness matters.

The entire purpose of democracy is to put the power in the hands of the people though. The people not choosing to address something that you want to be addressed doesn't mean that democracy isn't functioning

Like I said

Aren’t we formed through mostly atoms.

Without them we wouldn’t exist.

Evil will always exist in our case it the manifestation of growth. While others may be different. Evil can be described as different thing just as each culture may have its own evil.

Without atoms, most things wouldn’t exist aspect energy.

Then evil will have a nuance meaning

how would we be able to do action.

I don't think, creative accounting will set you free.

The basis is physics. Measure the share of responsibility by counting the fraction of molecules of anthropogenic CO2 that are causing the mass death.

And atmospheric CO2 is long lived. Plus, past emissions have already deteriorated the capacity of absorption of the natural system (e.g. acidic oceans will capture less and less additional CO2 emissions), so earlier emissions have even compounding effects.

People who talk about "source" in the case of arguments haven't read a philosophy book in their life. Prove me wrong.

You are caught up in a logical loop.

Yes, a vast number of people has no clue nor do they care (or are manipulated). And by the construction of democracy itself (e.g. majority voting) that has then been leading to this type of governance "not functioning properly"; the biggest problems stayed unsolved. Ergo most likely outcome is apocalyptic.

Waiting on sauce, and also not sure why philosophers would be considered knowledgeable on this subject.

The other half of that equation is that folks don’t want to look at (that is, share with you) your problems. So you get little to no attention if you post your real life, and any attention you get from that is negative or cloying.

I vastly prefer the reddit model. Anon posting, I can share my thoughts without sharing my life. And I can learn the stuff I need or observe the stuff that entertains me, instead of having to fit in with the herd.

> Climate change is a dilemma rooted in the petrochemical energy system that has powered modern civilization for 300 years, regardless of governance.

Bingo.

> China's cumulative responsibility per capita

oh, screw off with that. It's the absolute contribution that matters, and output / manufacturing output if you want to compare countries.

A lot of those don't seem like philosophical questions.

Every question is going to be swept away by the issues surrounding AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).

Passing the Turing Test seems like an achievable millstone for the 2030s.

What does it mean if a computer can, for all intents and purposes, appear to be as intelligent as a very smart and highly educated human?

Not just what does that mean regarding consciousness. What does it mean regarding Rights, our role in the universe, etc.

This issue is imminent and HUGE.

I am not really sure we needed neuroscientists and philosophers to understand that by comparing anything in your life to the edited personas of someone else’s life that is carefully crafted to look as good as possible for their “followers/friends” is not good for us.

Their lives are just as screwed up as the rest of us they are just better at hiding it. -David Goggins.

From the perspective of the common sense you're not wrong, but on a theoretical plane not only is the appeal to authority not an argument, but also philosophers themselves never just give opinion but arguments which are supposed to mentain their power indifferent of the domain they are used in. And also in general most theoretical physicists make appeal to philosophy, for the simple fact that to have a yet proven theory means to go beyond the subjective evidence you can empirically prove and to generalise, aka. do metaphysics. Actually everytime you go beyond pure experience by making a universal claim like "Dogs like this" ; "Women are like this", you are making a universal and so metaphysical claim. There is no escape metaphysics and so there is no escape philosophy. Hope this helps since it's my last reply.

Edit* Also I don't want to discredit anyone's knowledge but everyone who trully wants to understand the basic problems of modern science should read Hume.

You need atoms to have ambition.....

This whole conversation has certainly given me hardship, because nothing you say is consistent.

First you say evil can exist without atoms but then you say evil is created by an organism.

And the words "example particles" doesn't even make a complete sentence. I can't read your mind! What does that mean!?

IQ tests test the essence of most mental abilities though. Given people grew up in roughly similar environments, IQ is very valid as a measure of intelligence.

No matter your precise definition of intelligence, I assume you, and anyone for that matter, defines it as an array of mental abilities. What mental abilities exactly you think form intelligence isn't that relevant, because IQ tests test the essence of pretty much all mental abilities.