BushMaster

obviously there are billions of things the average person thinks about these are just some of the main things i never claimed to have included everything, i just made that very post right now although its fairly easy to see why the human value system needs reform. and if my list is "worthless" how can my "biases" erode worth that was never present ? either my post is worthless or it holds some value it cant really be both.

In order to appreciate just how relevant negative feelings are to sentient organisms, it is perhaps necessary to start by defining how analysis of physical qualia should work, then defining which individual qualities, in the abstract, are worth applying the process of pragmatic selection to. Based on my own observations of physical reality, and on the confirming observations of others (even if I must always observe that a person has observed something myself, making all observation slightly suspect, but that's a separate topic), I've found that the quality of sensation is inherently negative, as it could not exist in the absence of discomfort or perceived deprivation (more on this later). However, this premise warrants further analysis if we are to properly convey that such sensations are, in effect, "bad" according to a well-defined and organized value system; otherwise, we'll wind up with people saying, "So what if things hurt? Your assertion that pain is bad isn't based on anything empirical!" Most children grasp why such statements are bloated and borderline pretentious on a raw, intuitive level, but rarely are they equipped to actually deal with the slew of contrived counter-arguments in support of the idea of the "subjectivity" of suffering. Let's see if we can help. Firstly, I cannot honestly claim to still support the dichotomy of empirical/a posteriori knowledge and mathematical/a priori knowledge. Math only appears "unempirical" because it is a raw abstraction, meaning that it is a mental conception of a general principle without any applied context, making it data rather than physical information. However, both data and information are essentially the same thing; it's just that data, again, lacks context, and, in being rather non-specific, cannot be useful until it has been properly interpreted and stored or acted upon as information. Math and empirical phenomena, then, are part of a unified continuum, just as data and information are, because math is essentially data, and empirical information is, well, information. What role does logic play in this? It can be applied to both empirical information and math; claiming that logic is somehow synonymous with math, while empirical information is in a realm entirely separate from logic is blatantly fallacious. Of course, logic itself could be said to be taken a priori, but given that I always refrain from making truth claims of any kind, this isn't so important to note. A visualization might look something like this: Logic=>Math; data || \/ Logic=>Contextualization; qualification; processing; interpretation; understanding (what it is) || \/ Logic=>Information; understanding (what it entails, concludes in, etc.) I apply logic to all three steps; it should be applied not only when converting data to information, but also when gleaning data, or when understanding information after it has been interpreted. With the above in mind, is it not likely that all "logical" claims are predicated on some kind of empirical observation via the senses? 2+2=4 is data, but two apples being combined with two other apples to form a group of four apples (or one group, depending on abstraction level) is an empirical phenomenon which requires repeated observation and peer review, just like anything with which we physically interact. 2+2=4, therefore, could not exist without the myriad claims similar in content to "Two apples plus two apples equals four apples." The bottom line: It's all empirical; in order for math to exist, we have to be able to first test things which provide empirical evidence of the existence of quantity. But what kinds of empirical information are there? Are there any divisions that we can make in order to bring coherence to our worldview? Well, the most obvious and fundamental of all empirical divisions appears to be into analytic and synthetic statements, as originally proposed and defined by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. In this work, Kant quite accurately proposes that there are two kinds of concepts: subjects and predicates. The logic goes that all syntax structures can be fundamentally divided into these two parts, with the latter being necessary in conjunction with the former if a syntax structure is to qualify as complete and independently functional. In essence, subjects define what a sentence is about, while predicates affirm or support the subject in some way with additional information, usually conveyed via verbs. Additionally, subject concepts can subsume predicate concepts, or contain them; in such cases, the subject can be defined by the ensuing predicate, making the statement as a whole an analytic statement. The inverse, of course, is when a predicate concept is not contained in a subject concept, making the statement as a whole a synthetic statement. If the definition of "circle" requires that things must be round in order to qualify as circles, then roundness is part of the subject concept of "circle." In a sentence, if additional clarification is provided after a verb, and the information presented is inherent in the definition of "circle" ("...are round"), then that second half of the sentence is not only the predicate half, but is also contained in the subject itself. Where a quality is not inherent in the definition of "circle," however, like when stating that a particular circle is eight inches in diameter, the quality can be said to be a supporting predicate concept independent of the subject concept. To put it simply, "All circles are round" contains a subject ("...circles") and a predicate which is inherent in the essence of the subject ("...are round"). "This circle is eight inches in diameter" contains a subject ("...circle") and a predicate which is independent of the concept of a circle, meaning that not ALL circles must, by definition, possess the predicate quality ("...is eight inches in diameter"). Bold though it may be, I am, here and now, claiming that "bad," "needs to be fixed," "should be avoided," "needs to be reduced," etc. are predicate concepts contained in the subject concept of "suffering," making "Suffering is bad and must be reduced or eliminated altogether" not only an empirical statement (due to all logical statements being derivatives of some kind of empirical experience), but an analytic one as well. This one is long overdue, I think. To avoid having to repeat myself, I've attempted to make this entry adequately elaborative and encompassing. Hopefully, I've succeeded. In order to appreciate just how relevant negative feelings are to sentient organisms, it is perhaps necessary to start by defining how analysis of physical qualia should work, then defining which individual qualities, in the abstract, are worth applying the process of pragmatic selection to. Based on my own observations of physical reality, and on the confirming observations of others (even if I must always observe that a person has observed something myself, making all observation slightly suspect, but that's a separate topic), I've found that the quality of sensation is inherently negative, as it could not exist in the absence of discomfort or perceived deprivation (more on this later). However, this premise warrants further analysis if we are to properly convey that such sensations are, in effect, "bad" according to a well-defined and organized value system; otherwise, we'll wind up with people saying, "So what if things hurt? Your assertion that pain is bad isn't based on anything empirical!" Most children grasp why such statements are bloated and borderline pretentious on a raw, intuitive level, but rarely are they equipped to actually deal with the slew of contrived counter-arguments in support of the idea of the "subjectivity" of suffering. Let's see if we can help. Firstly, I cannot honestly claim to still support the dichotomy of empirical/a posteriori knowledge and mathematical/a priori knowledge. Math only appears "unempirical" because it is a raw abstraction, meaning that it is a mental conception of a general principle without any applied context, making it data rather than physical information. However, both data and information are essentially the same thing; it's just that data, again, lacks context, and, in being rather non-specific, cannot be useful until it has been properly interpreted and stored or acted upon as information. Math and empirical phenomena, then, are part of a unified continuum, just as data and information are, because math is essentially data, and empirical information is, well, information. What role does logic play in this? It can be applied to both empirical information and math; claiming that logic is somehow synonymous with math, while empirical information is in a realm entirely separate from logic is blatantly fallacious. Of course, logic itself could be said to be taken a priori, but given that I always refrain from making truth claims of any kind, this isn't so important to note. A visualization might look something like this: Logic=>Math; data || \/ Logic=>Contextualization; qualification; processing; interpretation; understanding (what it is) || \/ Logic=>Information; understanding (what it entails, concludes in, etc.) I apply logic to all three steps; it should be applied not only when converting data to information, but also when gleaning data, or when understanding information after it has been interpreted. With the above in mind, is it not likely that all "logical" claims are predicated on some kind of empirical observation via the senses? 2+2=4 is data, but two apples being combined with two other apples to form a group of four apples (or one group, depending on abstraction level) is an empirical phenomenon which requires repeated observation and peer review, just like anything with which we physically interact. 2+2=4, therefore, could not exist without the myriad claims similar in content to "Two apples plus two apples equals four apples." The bottom line: It's all empirical; in order for math to exist, we have to be able to first test things which provide empirical evidence of the existence of quantity. But what kinds of empirical information are there? Are there any divisions that we can make in order to bring coherence to our worldview? Well, the most obvious and fundamental of all empirical divisions appears to be into analytic and synthetic statements, as originally proposed and defined by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. In this work, Kant quite accurately proposes that there are two kinds of concepts: subjects and predicates. The logic goes that all syntax structures can be fundamentally divided into these two parts, with the latter being necessary in conjunction with the former if a syntax structure is to qualify as complete and independently functional. In essence, subjects define what a sentence is about, while predicates affirm or support the subject in some way with additional information, usually conveyed via verbs. Additionally, subject concepts can subsume predicate concepts, or contain them; in such cases, the subject can be defined by the ensuing predicate, making the statement as a whole an analytic statement. The inverse, of course, is when a predicate concept is not contained in a subject concept, making the statement as a whole a synthetic statement. If the definition of "circle" requires that things must be round in order to qualify as circles, then roundness is part of the subject concept of "circle." In a sentence, if additional clarification is provided after a verb, and the information presented is inherent in the definition of "circle" ("...are round"), then that second half of the sentence is not only the predicate half, but is also contained in the subject itself. Where a quality is not inherent in the definition of "circle," however, like when stating that a particular circle is eight inches in diameter, the quality can be said to be a supporting predicate concept independent of the subject concept. To put it simply, "All circles are round" contains a subject ("...circles") and a predicate which is inherent in the essence of the subject ("...are round"). "This circle is eight inches in diameter" contains a subject ("...circle") and a predicate which is independent of the concept of a circle, meaning that not ALL circles must, by definition, possess the predicate quality ("...is eight inches in diameter"). Bold though it may be, I am, here and now, claiming that "bad," "needs to be fixed," "should be avoided," "needs to be reduced," etc. are predicate concepts contained in the subject concept of "suffering," making "Suffering is bad and must be reduced or eliminated altogether" not only an empirical statement (due to all logical statements being derivatives of some kind of empirical experience), but an analytic one as well.

it goes both ways, prove to me children are amazing and great first.

Children aren't as nice/innocent as they are chalked up to be, they only act/seem peaceful due to their mental and physical weakness when in actuality children are much more malicious and all around disgusting than adults. most children tend to bullies or just completely rude.

In both real life and Internet dealings, I often hear people say things like "We humans are so insignificant in the grander scheme of things," or "How important could humanity possibly be? We're sooo arrogant, and yet the universe is soooo big!" It's almost become a cliché at this point, really -- and while it sounds good, or at least gives people philosophy points in social circles, it really isn't anything more complicated than a self-deprecating platitude. Here's a thought: What if our worth, our significance, depends upon something far less trivial than physical mass? I guess I don't get it; what does being relatively small have to do with the significance of the human species? Furthermore, given that we don't know how far down and up the scale reality extends, we could ultimately be relatively voluminous; after all, quarks are incomprehensibly tiny compared to a single human individual. And let's not forget that human bodies are not set physical objects, but continuously changing subroutines utilizing all of the universe in their procedures; abstracting a chunk of the suffering entity that we call the universe is tempting, given our evolved sense organs and their scale of operation, but it's not a very legitimate way of seeing things. However, for the sake of argument, let's temporarily assume that this isn't the case, and that humans really are on the smaller end of the scale. Let's assume that, if you were to take all of our sensory abstractions of the matter, energy, time, and space in the universe and order it all in a straight line according to mass, humans would be in, maybe, the bottom one percent. Why would it matter? The Grand Canyon is far larger than I, but if there's an avalanche nearby, is anyone obligated out of practical responsibility to rush the entire Grand Canyon to the hospital? No, but when a human being -- a vulnerable, sensitive creature subject to the intense chemical administrations of its own irrational cognitive processor -- gets trapped under the rocks, then anyone nearby is obligated to at least do something to help. We're not insignificant; in fact, until we have proof that super-intelligent extraterrestrials exist, we're the most significant thing in the universe. Not only do we suffer as a consequence of chemical syntheses irrationally acting to stop their corresponding systems from breaking down, we also can deliberate upon our suffering for hours, days, years both before and after it occurs, creating even more suffering and compounding the void that is sentience. Oh, and on top of that, we're the only living organisms capable of doing something about it. That makes us pretty significant to me. So why not worship ourselves, then? Well, that's simple: In addition to being the most significant thing that we're aware of, each of us is also imbued with an incredible potential for algorithmic decision-making and model-building. The problem is that almost none of us is taking advantage of this, leading to the most tragic waste of energy in the history of reality as we've come to know it thus far.

So I felt like making a list of things the average person cares about. I think it's pretty all-encompassing, but I'm sure I've left some important things out. These are great examples of why we need to reform the human value system as soon as possible. Note: None of these applies to me -- at least, not intentionally; I like to think that they're a quick composite of the current state of society, and not targeting any group or person in particular. I hope he doesn't know that I'm a virgin. I better get a free sandwich because of this. This thing has no toppings! What do you expect? He's a liberal. What do you expect? He's a conservative. Why didn't he thank me? That deserved a thank you. No, I was the one who fixed it. Why don't you go ask so and so? He'll back me up. It was me, not the other guy! It was ME! No, I was the one who helped you, remember? What has he ever done for you? Forget about him. I do things out of the kindness of my heart! Jesus, how much do you think that guy weighs? He looks ridiculous. Wow, look at that guy. I bet he has no friends. Who did the dishes last? It isn't MY turn. It's HIS turn. Did you hear about whatshername? Yeah, she broke up with her boyfriend yesterday! Yeah? Well, at least I have a life! What are you doing using that? That's MINE! Public opinion is turning against my favourite pop star! Ugh, what can she do to be on top again? You really think your favourite pop star is better than mine? Please! My favourite is WAY more real, and even writes her own songs. Hey, I'm your FAN. No one cares more about what you do than the fans. We DESERVE something new NOW. Do you have any idea how long we've been waiting? I know that he's controlling and a jerk to other people, but I can't help how I feel about him. If I could just manage to talk to women and get a girlfriend, I wouldn't need anything else in life. God, I'm so socially inept and ugly. I'm a total loser. Our sports team won last night! We're the best! I can't eat that. I'll get fat if I eat stuff like that. I want a smaller nose. My life is pretty good, but if I could save up the money to get my nose fixed, I wouldn't have any worries. That celebrity wears way too much makeup. I would NEVER look like that. You don't have a Facebook? I didn't even know that that was POSSIBLE in this day and age. Is this fifty percent off? Better get two, even though I don't even need one. At least I don't drive an SUV. How much of the ozone layer do you think that guy is destroying with that thing? My friend laughed at me yesterday for being awkward in front of his other friend. I feel really bad now, because I want him to like me. I got a B on the final. Ugh, my GPA is going to suffer because of this. Ew, you smoke? You ARE aware that that's going to kill you and make you stink, right? Go a few more blocks and waste some more gas to get to the other gas station; gas is five cents cheaper there than it is here. Did you just spill that all over MY rug? You need to get out of the house more. This isn't good for your MENTAL HEALTH. Only poor, fat people eat at this fast food chain. That one documentary told me that fast food's bad for your health, and it doesn't cost much, so I put two and two together. Jeez, are you still not getting this? Sorry, but you are obviously wrong about your philosophical stance, here. Ever read a book by this guy? No? Didn't think so. Go read him; he'll change your life the way he changed mine. Maybe then, you'll understand things in as much depth as I do. You're obviously a blahblahblah-ist. Ever considered blehblehbleh-ism? Because that's what I am. Who are you to judge me? You know what? I don't care. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about me. Who are you to judge my favourite music artist? I'd like to see YOU make a hit album. Hey, do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't break the golden rule or hurt anybody else. Being sexy is important, but ONLY if you can do it without getting surgical enhancements. It's okay to spend tons of money on your appearance so long as it doesn't involve a knife. Who are you to tell me that I can't have children? What if my future son turns out to be the next Einstein? You would have prevented the next EINSTEIN from coming into the world. Wow, all you ever do is talk about the world's problems. How depressing! You need to either lighten up and have a little fun or kill yourself. You hate YOUR life, right? That's what you're saying, right? Love can change the world. Love everyone unconditionally! My life is meaningful because I am sexually liberated. Free your inner slut; you won't regret it! Society would be so much better if we'd get rid of all of the corporations and show nature a little respect. Down with corruption! Up with sustainability! You don't believe in aliens? Wow, talk about having a closed mind. There are trillions of stars in the universe, so I KNOW for a FACT that aliens are out there. We're supposed to live in a progressive society, but gays can't marry? Unbelievable. I normally don't get so riled up about issues like this, but what can I say? This particular one is actually important to me, and is a big part of who I am. You have a WHAT fetish? Man, you need to see a shrink. I didn't know you liked THAT kind of music. It's not a big deal, I just never would have expected it from you, of all people. HE didn't show up for work today? He's never a missed a day before. That's definitely not like him, the little goody goody! He thinks that's a funny show? What, is he retarded or something? Then again, most people enjoy their low-brow humor... I don't care if that's my responsibility. I deserve a BREAK right now, alright? Piss off. He sleeps in until WHEN? Jesus, what a lazy guy. Can you even spell? I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say if you type like that. If I could only obtain the thing that I currently desire most, I wouldn't ever want anything else. I just need ONE MORE. It's not cheating if it's online, right? I deserve affection. I deserve respect. I am entitled to anything I want, so long as it doesn't cause anyone physical pain. Well, maybe I deserve most of those things, too. I work hard! I know that it wasn't my fault, but I still feel awful. Why did I do that? I regret it so much. I can't stop thinking about that one particular event in my life that caused me and/or those around me some degree of discomfort. Screw the rest of the world; I HAVE to focus on this. It's a big deal! I trust my senses, alright? You can keep on telling me what you THINK you heard me say, but I KNOW what I said. I'm not wrong. How could I be wrong about this? What school do you go to? Oh... Did you hear what happened on the news last night? I know that what he did was wrong, but that doesn't give you any right to talk to him like that. He's a FAMILY member. What happened to that country yesterday? Someone started bombing them? Yikes. Anyway, what else is on?

When was the last time that you had an argument with someone? Did either you or the other party end up changing stances by the end? Probably not. More than likely, this is what happened instead: 1. You introduced stance A. 2. They introduced stance B. 3. You provided a fairly sturdy argument for stance A. 4. They provided a fairly transparent argument for stance B -- even if, on the surface, it appeared to have some solidity to it due to its use of platitudes and memorized, regurgitated phrases. 5. The both of you went back and forth for a while, neither budging. Despite their stance being obviously flawed, you couldn't find a way to really hit them over the head and wake them up to this fact. 6. Finally, you introduced a poignant, concise meme which crushed the opposing argument directly and explicitly. The absurdity of the other party's argument was subsequently quite out in the open. 7. The other party replied with "You're starting to frustrate me. Why do you have to overanalyze everything? Can't we talk about something nice for once?" 8. The argument ended abruptly with no resolution and the prospect of such growing vanishingly small. The other party then appeared uncomfortable and confused. What has just been described, I hypothesize, is the result of terrible parenting. The other party participating in the argument realized, in some recess of their consciousness, that your logic was sound, but another, more biologically beneficial part of their mind interceded. What happened? Well, during childhood, your conversational partner had probably participated in similar conversations that went something like this: "Dad, why can't we see god?" "I don't know, son. That's just the way it is." "But how can we know he's real if we can't see him?" "He's testing us. It'll all make sense when you get to heaven. You'll be rewarded for waiting so long!" "But... how do you know that?" "Look, he's just real, okay? What's with these questions all of a sudden? I'm trying to watch the news. Why don't you go outside and play ball with the kid next door?" Upon encountering the problematic "foreign object" within a logic chain, kids are programmed to switch routines and do something personally rewarding or pleasurable. Because our society is relatively affluent, everything from happy meals to high tech video games is almost always a few seconds away from the grasp of children, so there is zero incentive to do "the right thing" when immediate self-satisfaction can so easily be substituted in its place -- with no consequences or scoldings. The mentality birthed during this period of development apparently carries over into adulthood, where it germinates until it becomes a contributor to the monstrosity that is our current situation. This is absolutely unacceptable for adult humans in this day and age. We cannot continue to act like children.