Unity+

He is talking about a small minority of people who have committed the crimes, which I made analogous to how people treat Islam.

Yes, clearly since there are some Islamic extremists must mean all of them are evil. What an idiot I have been this whole time!

Basically, the right to make your own decisions, but instead of enforcing it through influence, have it influenced with actual control of their human mind, or being able to control exactly what they do.

I think all points in this thread are quite founded in how we perceive free will, and I think that can be discussed quite in depth. However, let us assume the concept of free-will does exist. EDIT: Though I would like to bring up the point that if free-will does not exist, then law itself is completely pointless because one's determination of being in violation of those laws is determined solely by destiny. Law's assumption is that an individual has the capability to make a decision. The definition of justice would be completely pointless because justice is also under the definition that one is able to make individualistic and conscious decisions. Whether justice exists is a philosophical debate, but I think the assumption is that free-will exists in the question. That is a valid point, but I think many of these things are due to the absence of information rather than complete control.

Well, from a legal standpoint, a person is responsible for the decisions they make at the moment, i.e. do I kill a person or let them live, do I give or take from the. I would agree that it would take a discrete definition in order to make such a decision. So, the best answer I can give is free will that is determined by the person's ability to make an individual decision without force by a third party(exceptions include indirect influence of interaction between people).

But let's say someone develops a hypothetical "mind control" device, where free will becomes nullified because you are ultimately under the control of that device. Would free will then become as such?

We consider humans to have the ability to make decisions on an individual basis -- the property of free will. The question is whether it is considered a human right. In the U.S., a person can commit a crime and have certain rights taken away because of this. If a person commits a n atrocious crime and has no ability to leave prison or is facing the death penalty, should their right of free will be taken away?

Well I still think the public recognition of it is pretty bad. As they say, any publicity is good publicity. A pompous nature can lead anyone down the road of irrationality as one feels himself or herself above facts.

I don't know exactly how it works, but I think there would have to be more tests for reliability. How sensitive is the sensor? Is there any chance that it could not catch very, very light breathing?

To be honest, I don't even see the point of making a case at all unless it is affecting the political side of things(or it is infecting science). Simply arguing against it sort of makes it more of a public debate, which it shouldn't be. Clearly the information is incorrect and has no basis, therefore it shouldn't even brought up.

I don't disagree with it. I have suffered depression in the past, though I don't speak for those with depression. Do you?

I think it is to be explored within a video game, or should be at least.

So, I decided to take up some video game development(Unity 3D, which is awesome). My game idea revolves around the topic of depression, the main character being a 16 year old girl who is going through the year of "self discovery." The specifics I am still working on. What I wanted an opinion on is which path would be the best to approach the topic of depression. I have two paths that I majorly wanted to talk about, but to lower the content I decided to choose one or the other, unless there is a way to combine them while making it short and sweet, if you will. The characteristic that fits the main character would be that she is pretty intelligent, one who approaches science with curiosity, but also being very philosophical and asking herself questions of philosophy, i.e the human condition. Here are the two paths: She questions the idea of faith, the existential crisis, the human condition. Although she has a fascination with science, she wants to go beyond and "discover" something about science and existence. In her attempt to explore this, she enters a depression in regards to deciding what side makes more sense. The reason I want to approach it this way is because I don't see many games approach religion, the human condition, in such a fashion. I wanted to be original in this way. She is currently going through both family issues and trying to find her role in society. Because of her family issues, she enters a state of depression. I wanted to go this route because it would be what people most associate themselves with and maybe simpler for the player to understand. What are your thoughts? Is there a way to approach both without extending the game so far out that it becomes too long? Or which one is best to approach? Thanks for the suggestions.

imatfaals explanation covers this. 0^1/0 = 0^0 Which is indeterminate.

Didn't you know? Greys are immune. Gosh, you need to do your research.

I bet it could be slow if we poured a bit of molasses on it.

That is definitely possible. Either that aliens are just waiting for us to develop the first technologies that will benefit them. Then, they can steal it and end the human race.

In the seriousness of things, I did have a shower thought that considered that maybe aliens don't want to reveal themselves yet because they want to wait till we are ready to join a "galactic union" because of how f'd up we are at the moment. Question is if we will ever be ready for such a state of humanity. Though, whether this speculation is to be taken seriously is up to you guys. I think the question of aliens really brings up a philosophical point of how we self-reflect on humanity. I remember Reagan stating how we would need an alien species to help unite us, whether it be from hostility or, even peace. Maybe the idea of an intelligent, alien species is the creation of a society to help us observe ourselves more closely and how we interact from our prejudices, violence, and policy.

I don't see it as absurd, more stretched though. I think the implications of aliens on Earth would leave many questions: Why are they even interested in us? If they are far more technologically evolved, what interest would they have in us? We tend to leave other species alone except for pets and maybe even research, but I think there is a consistency with how higher lifeforms treat lower lifeforms. It isn't impossible, but until there is actually evidence, all we can do is speculate, which isn't bad. However, speculations just leave "What ifs", which many feel uncomfortable with. But I don't think we are discussing unicorns.

They should have littering laws in space. Problem is the ones on Earth aren't even enforced that much.