ALine

You are correct, there are way too many different intangible elements which must be considered in order to make appropriate rational arguments, however even if there are billions of them to consider they must all be considered in order to allow for the understanding of the well being of all individuals apart of the society within this "utopia." And it is because data lacks any "feelings or pain" that we can start developing appropriate rational models for how to go about each individual, keeping into account all of there thoughts, beliefs, and rationals. This is to determine if they can become integrated into the society. Starting off there will have to be a large number of philosophers and logic reasoner and rational minded individuals in order to come up with the very basic building blocks of the society. They would need to go through ALL possible encounters and possible interactions to create the "articles of foundation" which would be the seeds to grow the society. Yes, however in this society maturity would be based mainly upon empirical data which in turn would grow using rational and logical arguments which would have a basis in that empirical data. It can not be assumed that everyone in today's society would be accepted into this society. It would be like creating an entirely new society so all previous understandings would be considered and ones that are not grounded in reality and reason which is rooted in reality are saved as a part of history but would not be in the main articles of foundation. Also because this society is constantly increasing in creativity and intelligence it would eventually be able to fully analyze the brain to give an exact date to when a person is old enough to have children while also understanding the consequences of having children. Also because it is such an intelligent society it would be able to quite possibly remove the need for having children in the conventional sense and could just have automated systems perform the actions for them. And if it is determined that maturity levels are fluid, depending to be different for everyone then the society would form around this idea. Having an age limit for when an individual is out of school and then go into their specific field of choice.

Yes, this is true, however, if morality is determined and based upon purely rational and logically thought which coincides with empirical data taken from observed instances of general actions being played out then you should be fine. Like, say having an intimate relationship with a child. This is considered to be immoral due to a proven empirical evidence that a child is not mentally developed to be able to comprehend the action that is being performed. This would be an example of basing rational morality on defensible evidence. This is how all rational thought would be based upon, if there is a "rational thought" based upon non-provable empirical evidence then it is not rational and based in reality. Also, its beliefs would be dependent upon those who initially began the society and not just a single individual. It is similar to how America began with certain beliefs like the right to be free and singular. But over time it grew and grew until it reached the point of where it is today. They still rely on the constitution which was created by the founding fathers however things were added in order to consider new possibilities that were not considered. I do not have any empirical evidence to support this claim. I am making the presumption that the more research papers being submitted and the more detailed they are along with the more art and engineering designs that are being submitted the more "intelligent" or more developed the society is. It would not be about quantity however it would be about quality.

It would be a morality examination to determine if you are swayed by rationality or reason. If they pass then they pass, once you get in then your past does not matter. If you mess up then everyone would know because data is shared with everyone so everyone would know what you did. If you are off the grid then something is presumed to have happened if another person goes off the grid. Also, health data is known because that is apart of data as well. Yep, you need to study, intelligence is shown passively the more the country produces in medical research, scientific research, and the arts and engineering. The society and research centers could develop a method to determine intelligence gain.

It is like an entrance examination to determine who would be allowed into the country and once you pass it then you are free to stay or leave as long as you wanted. If they fail the test then they would not be allowed into the country. It's fine if you are born there because you are able to grow with the system. The form of education that we are currently using does not allow for both creative and strict learning process. The education would be designed so that all students would be encouraged and given everything they would need to succeed. But they will not be helped to succeed. It would be like they will be given the legos to play with but they must build whatever they want to build with or without an instruction manual.

Ok, sorry about that. I was not able to comment for 24 hours. Ok, so the Utopia I was thinking about was one that constantly increased the well being of all of the individuals by "not" forcefully slowly increasing the general intelligence of the individuals apart of the utopia. This would be achieved by helping any student no matter the age go to school and fully pay for there schooling while also giving them as many resources as they need to succeed. They would also be given individual or group learning depending on where they are in there learning and also who they are; some people like learning by themselves vs. being in a group. The intellectual property would be fully expressed and free for anyone who is in the society can build upon the idea fully without worrying about anything. There would be no rules or government because everything is fully automated and only people who pass a test is allowed into the nation. Because there is no government there is no one to fight against so if anyone tries's to come to power people would be smart enough to see it.

Hey so my question is the following. How would you create a perfect society from a philosophical persepctive. Like would you set any rules, how would your society run and protect yourself. Also that society must be able to exist in the real world.

Thank you for the response, You are right studiot. To add to what you are saying I would like to incorporate my own idea of how teaching new ideas should be presented. That is in the combining both the structure created from formally developed ideas along with a fluid development of new ideas then you can eventually start creating legos for students to play with.

Thank you for the response, I believe that this ideology must be corrected in order to allow for the youth of our future to excel in the fields they so choose to create and/or be a part of. But if others who see those who want to advance themselves academically in order to obtain a better grasp of reality through the means of both the sciences and arts, and by art I mean the art that mimics the expressionism of the artists who wish to depict reality in their own form and not this postmodernism bull, as a cog in there perfect world I say let them try to put grease of these wheels but just know that I made both the grease and the wheel ;P.

I would like to make a philosophical proposal, please bear with me because this is my first one and I want to become better at this over time in terms of organization I would like to propose a new idea, maybe new, which I would like to define as the "The Response." Proposal for "The Response" [ Abstract ] "The Response" is what I would like to call a "virus of the mind and not of the body." Just as nihilism is a mental disease of a man coming to terms with the removal of there "true world" the response is a mental plague which affects us all and by automatically denying it's existence you may be proving that it exists. [ Body ] The formal definition that I would like to give to "The Response" is that "The Response" is a mental disease which is classified by the following symptoms; prevention of accepting new ideas due to the developed formulation of one's own ideas, the voidness of rational argument which can be used to prevent an individual with the affliction from getting better, the immediate rejection of others thoughts and opinions by making distinct classifications of developed ideas. A more general definition of "The Response" is an automatic response given by an individual utilizing previously defined information without rational argument for determining where that thought or idea came from while also at the same time rationalizing on top of this thought and preventing one's self from questioning the original thought. It is the "thought before the thought which prevents future thoughts from forming on the initial thought." It happens so fast that one is not aware that it even exists and if you are not looking or reading each word in your head carefully then it can pop up at any time. Waiting to take control of the conversation. [ Examples ] Let's say that you are reading a post that you disagree with, like say a post on a youtube comment. Your first thought which comes to mind may be "wow that sucks, I have to correct that." That right there, that is "The Response." It can be very long or very short, however, once you grab onto it or accept it then you will follow that "train of thought" so far that you will forget where it came from. And when questioned about it further you will say something that will convince you that you are right and they are wrong. [ Conclusion ] " The Response " is a disease of the mind which affects all of us, no matter how young or how old. It is what causes us to get into arguments or even hurt the ones that we call our friends. If you do not through each word that you say then you will be affected by it. * Please respond with comments of open criticisms

Hi, my name is ALine. I am new to this community and would like to put my opinion into the ring. It can generally be presumed that those who visit this site fall into 2 distinct categories. (1) An individual who is highly curious about the sciences, however, has no background within it what so ever which causes them to ask seemingly strange and simplistic questions. For this individual who is simply naturally curious, you need to be more gentle with them in your responses. It is comparative to a child who just wants to learn something new or wants to express new ideas to a community who is primarily focused toward discussing these ideas openly and fluidly. Depending upon the individual's method of delivering his thoughts or ideas it can be inferred that they are either scared of being judged for there ideas because it is being submitted into an open "arena" or they are just anxious about doing so. It is as if one of you were to go into say the arts without ever having picked up a paintbrush before and is expected to draw the Mona Lisa. By being accepting of all possible ideas it would allow for more individuals to become interested in the sciences. That is not to say that you should lessen your scrutiny of there ideas because hey let's face it if an idea is not rooted in reality then it no longer becomes a science, it is known as an art. However, instead of abruptly pointing out flaws or errors in work submitted slowly guide them in the right direction. Rome was not built in a day. The more they come on here the more they will realize their mistakes and the more they will come to realize that it is they themselves that are wrong. People really hate it when they are wrong, that is one of the consequences of the human psyche, probably. Some people will need to be moved quickly to build them up faster and some need to be moved more slowly and gradually. In doing so you can have a "LOT" more passionate individuals and have a lot more creative individuals share their ideas on here while at the same time being able to slowly start to accept criticism. (2) An individual who only wishes to prove that they are right no matter what else happens. No matter what you say or what you do they will always claim that their idea is the best idea because it proves this thing wrong, and then they do not themselves prove it wrong. Who says they know the material without knowing the material. These individuals are a little bit more tricky yet simple to deal with. Just kindly ask them to explain how they came to that conclusion. When they give an explanation simply provide your explanation for how that may be correct or incorrect. Slowly work with them to deconstruct their argument in a constructive way. See how they got to that eventual conclusion so that you can assist them in there logical and rational train of thought so that you can train them and they can help train you to become better rational thinkers. You may learn something new as well. This is not a game of "who is smartest" nor is it a fitness function in which only the "smartest" survive. What you all have created here is an academy for the free expression of knowledge between student and professor. The student must respect the professor for how much he knows and the teacher must respect the student for how much he wants to know. Both most work in a synergetic union in order to build on top of each other. The student will know more than the professor creatively and the professor will know more than the student in regards to the wisdom that they have acquired.