Phi for All

I've thought of this as well, and I want you to know that so you don't think I'm just dismissing you. But look at how negatively you assume the limited life scenario is, and how you also assume that eternal life would be blissful and harmonious. Why can't you attempt your "bond" within your lifetime? I look at it this way. Given eternity, even a monkey could probably figure out bliss and harmony. I expect more of humans. It seems the eternal life scenario is pretty greedy to begin with, and has no mechanisms for ensuring bliss and harmony other than religious magic. Doing the best with what time I have sounds much more noble and intelligent, especially since I can't know if there even is consciousness after death. Wow. Is value determined by time? Hmmmmmm.

This really did bring a tear to my eye. I don't know what to say. I love this planet, I love the creatures on it, including humans. I see myself as a caretaker, part of a species that gave up claws and fur for greater intelligence, and are striving to figure out how best to utilize the improvements our intelligence is capable of bringing about. We get a longer life than many creatures, and we're smart enough to figure out ways to extend that even more. I'm content that I'm having my impact on this life in a positive, nurturing, beneficial way, and I'm striving to correct what seems destructive to me. And I think I feel this way in large part because I know I won't be here forever.

! Moderator Note Putting nonsense in the Philosophy section doesn't make it worthy. Start making sense, please, or I'll have to close this.

Everything humanity has accomplished in its short time on Earth has been without the direct influence of an afterlife. Many religions don't have a concept of an afterlife either. Why is a hundred years or so of life meaningless? What makes you say that, given all the things mankind has discovered in its evolution of intelligence? Why does life have to be eternal to have meaning or value? What if your religion is wrong, and the meaning of life is to create a species capable of leaving its homeworld?

You probably haven't noticed the pattern, but you've neatly boxed yourself in with your worldview. You have not given yourself a means of escape. Any kindness shown to you is an anomaly in your mind. You set impossible or conflicting parameters, like desiring to be accepted by beautiful people but detesting them for not having interesting thoughts. You've set a black hole in your future, an inevitable spiral into negativity with no way to avoid it. Instead, I think you need to plot a course that successfully gets you past the event horizon. Figure out a way to be successful instead of focusing on how shitty things are. You need to understand that even a shitty system is predictable. Navigation is simpler when when the path can be known. You just need to pick a path with a good destination. Right now you seem like you're cursing the quality of the road without turning off it, and you're busting through the signs that say "Bridge Out!", too busy to read them because you're complaining about the road workers.

I get it. I've mentioned something similar with driving on the highway and pack mentality. We often perceive others trying to merge with our "pack" to be disruptive intruders, much like your "flat notes" in the orchestra. We may be trying to convince ourselves that these people can't possibly bring a positive contribution to our circumstances. I'm guilty of confirming my own biases when I'm not being vigilant (although I know for a fact there's a correlation between clueless, inconsiderate drivers and Trump bumper stickers). Often these days, our interactions with each other are too brief to form meaningful assessments, yet they also seem charged with meaning, whether it's a FB post, or a tweet, or even just a chance encounter at the grocers.

! Moderator Note mantraphilter, you've had four pages to respond to questions in a way that explains your "logical" approach, and have obviously failed to satisfy any of the other members in that regard. Instead, you keep repeating yourself, which is soapboxing and against our rules. If you're interested in learning, you need to answer questions about your idea. To do science, you need to explain your idea to others so they can test it and see if it has predictive powers similar or greater to mainstream theories. If you can't do that, you're just waving your hands against mountains of evidence. I'm closing the thread. It's too frustrating to discuss an idea when you won't answer questions that might lead to insights you don't favor. It's also against the rules. Please don't bring this topic up again.

If you can say that without smiling, you have a good pucker face.

No. That's not skepticism AT ALL. Please don't redefine words to fit your idea, that's intellectually inefficient. Terminology is more important than you think.

When you build your custom home, you could use refurbished 9' x 9' x 40' steel shipping containers and a crane, like giant Legos. Nobody would accuse you of playing with toys.

! Moderator Note Please stop, this site is for science discussion.

! Moderator Note Science discussion forum, not for YouTube reviews.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it can also be used to mock and vilify. Perhaps the objection is a kneejerk reaction until they can figure out if you're sincere (emulating a favorite black athlete) or mocking (black-faced while singing Camptown Races).

I, for one, don't have the time to consider "the realm of all possibilities". I'll stick with what reality reveals. I wish you luck with your considerations, and with the god thing. I'm a Humanist. If gods and afterlives wish to make themselves known to me, I'm happy to consider them. I've made no conclusions, merely set the parameters of reality a bit more strictly than you have. The realm of possibilities is far too large, full of guesswork and wishful thinking. I'll focus my efforts on people and situations I can observe. In choosing reality, I've jumped and stuck to no conclusions. You, on the other hand, are convinced that explanations you can't support are true. Who is jumping, who is sticking?

I've only heard of Dean Radin. IMO, he and other parapsychology researchers fail in their rigor as scientists by assuming that statistical anomalies that can't be explained are automatically evidence that psi energy is at work somehow. Any significant departure from the norm is labeled paranormal, which sort of begs the question, doesn't it? Methodology is important in science. And it's shown that there are no testable, repeatable forms of psychic abilities. No contact from the great beyond. No evidence of an afterlife. So there could be, but there could just as well be nothing. If there is an afterlife, we have no evidence of an interface with it.

The QB hands off to running backs. The QB can sneak in a very short run every now and then.

Like theory and logic, skeptic is a misunderstood term. Modern usage has people sitting on an eternal fence, not believing anything. In science, being a skeptic just means you don't accept anyone's assertions unless you can check the evidence for yourself to determine if an explanation is valid or not. You make a decision and move on, but you don't remain skeptical for long. Being open-minded doesn't mean you accept an explanation until it's refuted. Open-mindedness to new ideas doesn't mean you ignore a lack of evidence. Life after death is wishful thinking, and didn't start because we saw evidence of it. Life after death is a concept we want to be true, and have concocted a whole lot of justification for, but have found no evidence.

Drunk people seem even more irrational when you've been "smoking cigarettes".

Please show me the evidence they have for the supernatural. No claims of eternal consciousness have ever been able to stand up to a decent level of scientific rigor. I don't care if your experts disagree, they're free to present papers at any scientific review, and have their peers check the authenticity of their work. Why haven't they done so? I'm not going by anyone's teachings, nor am I voicing an opinion. There is no evidence of any kind of life after death. It's a fact. The chemical electrical processes in the brain cease, and no test has ever shown that anything "lives on".

Scientifically, there's no evidence for life after death. Like other supernatural claims, observation essential to scientific enquiry is impossible. No repeatable, testable communications is possible. Trying to test for some "other side" is like trying to observe god(s), it can't be done, almost by definition. The good news is you don't have to misrepresent yourself as a skeptic. A skeptic doubts a conclusion until he's tested it himself, and then decides one way or the other. You have nothing to test, so you can fall back on the best answer, "There's no way to know". It's supernatural, therefore not science.

The vegan version is made from sea salt and ocean plastic....

It's probably somewhat like the smugness we feel seeing you confirming your own mistaken biases all these years. You seem to have a limited understanding of science, but very few qualms about assuming it's entirely motivated by the biggest budgets and protecting mistaken concepts. I get it. You just saved yourself decades of study into what science really is, and all you had to do was ignore what really goes on, easy-peasy.

! Moderator Note This is an online discussion forum. It's not a face-to-face meeting. I'm dismayed that this needs to be said. No more comments about the participation of others. They are perfectly free to engage in discussion as long as they obey the rules. No comment about this note is necessary either, but you can report it if you don't agree.

! Moderator Note Unanswerable due to variations in text outlines. Thread locked.

When you put "businessmen" in the Oval Office to run the country like a business, you shouldn't be surprised if profit takes precedence over running the country like a country.* * "You" not being directed personally, of course.