geordief

So pleased you could renew your subscription with the Delphic Oracle.

I agree with your premise that it is dangerous and misguided to disassociate ourselves from the environment we are part of but I don't suspect we have left any golden age in the past generations. I hope that the prison walls we have gathered around our world view are gossamer thin and that the existential fight we now have on our hands will blow them away for many of us. We will ,nevertheless very likely revert to new paths of delusion if or when the dust settles because that is what we are by nature ,flawed. So no ,previous generations, while with equal potential for admirable qualities as we do ,surely had their own Achilles heels. We all have our own hurdles to cross in our own time here and the hurdles do not have to resemble one another down the ages.

Since I am the OP ,perhaps I have the permission to drift in an out with a basic question or two that may or may not contribute to the ongoing state of the thread. So ,that being said do the qualities of being alive and that of being conscious overlap ? Overlap 100%,or are there important distinctions between the two ? Or have I perhaps veered into the muddy terrain of definitions vs what those definitions "point to"? If I am going off topic (even as the OP) please let me know.

Think I agree Interpretation may be overrated. It always ends up needing amending? Kind of meaningless(oxymoron?)We can only talk about the "universe" as it affects us directly The parts are the only things we can talk about confidently. Some parts seem to exhibits forms of consciousness and others don't but as a "gathered" whole we can't say ,can we?

There are no real distinct demarcation lines between conscious and unconscious thought processes ,are there?Don't they blend into each other? You can't have unconscious processes without some kind of a conscious process in the background (and vice versa),can you? At the very least,they must "talk to each other" don't they? Unless I am quite likely talking rubbish.

I think so I think the mind ,on a deep level just cannot accept that anything is not unexplainable and so instinctively creates a "placeholder" so as to move on to to the next activity. Not a matter of convenience but a biological necessity. "God of the Gaps?" (I wonder could that behaviour even be observed in other animals.It might require some evidence of a long cogitation process bridged by a gap in the middle with the shape of the gap somehow being retained for later use) Do animals react to the unknown with fear?That fear factor seems prevalent in religious behaviour.(the Greek gods weren't your luvvy duvvy types as I have heard) I

I would ,again with no statistics (would they even be possible) be surprised if emotional (is "emotional" the same as non-physical?) abuse (or manipulation ) could be anyways neatly disentangle from physical abuse. Or even that they were in some sense opposites. It all sounds very ad hoc to me,but I agree with what has been said that this recent case shouldn't be taken as especially indicative of the situation at large even if both these characters are entitled to fair - but not exhorbitantly fair treatment in the paths and circumstances that they have chosen or taken. O

Oh,how does that automatic ban work? What is the Peacemaker? An official organ of the state? Is Kissinger really banned or are you making some kind of a tendentious point? I get a range of prices around 5.60$ for gas in California from this website https://www.gasbuddy.com/gasprices/california

That 3rd link doesn't say Kissinger is banned from Ukraine either Any more links that do not back up your presumably baseless assertion? Indeed have you any more presumably baseless assertions to share?

Where in that link does it say he was banned from Ukraine?

God's uncle.

Same here.I hated playing sport but I enjoy watching rugby and even boxing as people's will to endure can be so admirable. But then we look at Ali and wish he had cut it short.

Yes,I had that in mind.There are positions in rugby where quick thinking and the ability to get the ball quickly from the feet of your own players means that those who play that position are much lighter build. Think the position may be called scrum half. https://www.rugbyhow.com/rugby-scrum-half.html I myself played hooker as it was meant to favour smaller people with good foot skills.

So you would have some fairly thuggish males battering some slightly built females? (I know this happens anyway between males but would that be acceptable for a 20 stone man mountain to injure a slightly built female in the course of a rugby match?) I don't know if you saw the video of Boris Johnson "running through" a young school child in a game of rugby for the photographers. Found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5NN5S9sPFM Not really very edifying.

@iNow Suppose one did segregate along purely physical lines would there be an argument for running competitions in parallel that were segregated on traditional lines and finding out which setup was more satisfactory? Also,in Rugby (other other types of sport) different sizes and builds apply to different parts of the same team. (some are runners ,some are grunters and some are fielders/catchers) Would each part of the team have its own physical standards so that it would be open to anyone regardless of sexual attributes?

I think the French would have a "head start" if there were international crochet competitions https://lisawallerrogers.com/2018/11/03/the-tricoteuses-of-the-french-revolution/

There is a lengthy ongoing discussion of Hammond's idea (he is the OP) on another forum that is easily searchable. Can't say I would have the resolve (or even the understanding) to take part ,but he seems to be holding the fort ,or maybe the fairy castle) there.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220523162813.htm and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30505-2 Does that sound good?

I thought this was an interesting article on the BBC website. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20220519-does-hypnosis-work I was interested to read there that it might be a treatment for anxiety Has anyone any experience with or knowledge of the subject ?

I am sure you are right.I am probably equally poorly qualified both as a scientist and as a philosopher (ie not at all) My misapprehension may be that I view almost any open minded questioning as "philosophical" and by science I understand the data that puts a brake on freewheeling imaginative thought processes. I don't recall the religious arguments around legalizing homosexuality (in the UK) so much but perhaps I may have simply paid little heed to them or maybe at that time religious arguments were (at least in my circle of friends) a subject for ridicule and so not advanced directly but more under the cloak of conventional morality.

I suppose professional or trained philosophers contributed to the discussion.(probably quite extensively although I have no recollection as such) Not so sure the discussion was especially divided along philosophical/scientific lines but I think that was part of the debate.

How about the debate over first legalizing and then ,later normalizing homosexuality? I recall those advocating for treating homosexuals equally under the law making frequent reference to scientific studies which ,they claimed showed that homosexuality was not a choice but something people were born with. I didn't follow this area of debate personally as I felt there were other arguments one way or another but I can well believe that there were those who would have argued against those scientific findings as a way of maintaining their"philosophical" stance that homosexuality was a priori wrong/unnatural (and likewise those on the other side advocating for liberalisation might have argued against different scientific studies that they did not like(science can surely be abused and is not always benignly neutral) I anticipate that, over the coming decades there may be further scientific studies that will come out that either side of the debate will highlight to the benefit of their preferred understanding of the situation and application (or not) of social policies So I don't see any end game and I don't expect "science" or "philosophical interpretation " to ever have the final answer. Edit:I should have written "rub shoulders" and not "run shoulders" in the previous post Re-edit: perhaps I have strayed into scientist vs philosopher rather than physicist vs philosopher?

Both studies are potentially all pervasive. Given enough time ,in my suspicion philosophical questions will usurp scientific questions and alternately as time continues scientific question will usurp philosophical questions ,like a dynamic entwined double spiral staircase . Both areas of research cannot be limited to any demarcated region of human understanding and so they run shoulders and don't always get on.

The link's only "mistake" was not to use quotation marks around his quote. As he introduced the quote in bold letters he may not have thought it mattered but when he was quoted, along with BR's passage it became unclear as to when BR stopped being quoted and when the author's commentary resumed. To someone familiar with the article it may have been obvious ,but to a cursory reading I thought it was confusing. But I am always very fastidious about using quotation marks.I don't think anyone else has been much troubled. It is off topic now surely.