Jump to content
Purplez(OD)

Things that make you go hmmmmm

Recommended Posts

Is free will real or an illusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of free will is a MAN MADE CONSTRUCT SO WE CAN ARROGANTLY ATTEMPT TO DEFINE ITS MEANING. Well if you wanna get all philosophical, you can say it is an illusion since we are to abide by laws or get thrown in prison or say we are free to do whatever; we just have to suffer the consequences of our actions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the choices we get to make. Whether we break laws, like me, or abide by them. Whether we murder someone, or just visualize it in my head when I order a large coffee no extras, and the Starbucks lady just stares at me and adds 4 questions. All of which I want to just say I said, plain black LG coffee, but I instead amuse her for her own sanity in job. I'd say its real. Just real hard to find. I left a prison a long time ago, to find myself in a global size prison. The worst prison of all is within the mind, but today I have found I have my own key, and can check my own self out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great description Townkill.  "The worst prison of all is within the mind, ... we can check ourself out"  I take that to mean we have the free will to make choices that make us happy.  We don't have to follow others, we just have to be true to ourself (and of course, try not to break any laws).  Choices and decisions are what define our lives in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another one.  If you try to fail and succeed which have you done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free will is real within the bounds of how we experience life, if we are to consider free will to be an illusion then we must redefine what we interpret to be reality. (Which if you are going to include the possibility of parallel universes branching out from every possibility, like a lot of theories of the quantum world suggest, then we might have to) But assuming we are not including that, then in the world we perceive we are free to make our choices based on our information and feelings, and will similarly be held accountable for those choices based on the free will of others.

 

3 hours ago, Purplez(OD) said:

If you try to fail and succeed which have you done?

 

Succeeded. It's a trick question because it tries to impose a "right answer/wrong answer" concept on a subject of personal principle. The choices that define our direction and objectives aren't measured as being correct or incorrect, it's just a question of which direction we want to go and what objectives we want to pursue. The choices we make in pursuit of those objectives can be regarded as correct or incorrect, based on whether they contributed to that desired objective.

 

In regards to this statement, the moment the person in question changed their objective from fulfilling a task to failing the task, they were pursuing a different objective from the one aligned with fulfilling the task. It isn't correct or incorrect, just a different choice. And in the pursuit of that new objective, they succeeded. If it was the objective of someone else to get this person to succeed at the task, then they consequently failed.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is some metaphysics of quality stuff!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Purplez(OD) said:

Here is another one.  If you try to fail and succeed which have you done?

You've succeeded at failing if you were supposed to fail. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you succeed at failing, or fail at failing, in the end, you failed. What matters is that you tried 😉 Therefore, the *correct* answer, should be that you tried.:thumbsup:

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could teach everyone in the world one concept, what concept would have the biggest positive impact on humanity?

 

 

My favorite is it causes more wrinkles to frown than to smile, so if each person made one other person smile a day, perhaps human kindness, compassion, and positivity would rule the world.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that we are all 1 race: Human, and we must band together, lifting each other up instead of breaking each other down.  We are all on this planet, fighting each other over beliefs, profits, resources, materialistic things, or imaginary lines drawn in the dirt. It is all pointless when considering the larger picture, and will eventually lead to our own demise. Start thinking of the greater good for our species, instead of what you can get out of something. Also, keep in mind that this concept can either scale down to something as small as a few friends, or a community of like-minded people, all the way up to something as large as our entire planet. Imagine an entire race of human beings working together for the greater good, rather than trying to profit from one-another? Our limits would only be our imaginations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I personally like the Original by The Beatles / Mr. John Lennon, but yea man....That song pretty much sums it all up 😉 .

 

 

Edited by CompFreak(OD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CompFreak(OD) said:

I personally like the Original by The Beatles / Mr. John Lennon, but yea man....That song pretty much sums it all up 😉 .

 

 

Old timer. But it is better, so I'll quote ya on it for a second showing. 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, CompFreak(OD) said:

Whether you succeed at failing, or fail at failing, in the end, you failed. What matters is that you tried 😉 Therefore, the *correct* answer, should be that you tried.:thumbsup:

 

Which is exactly what I'll say about you in this topic. =P

 

11 hours ago, Purplez(OD) said:

My favorite is it causes more wrinkles to frown than to smile, so if each person made one other person smile a day, perhaps human kindness, compassion, and positivity would rule the world.

 

I'm starting to think you are really just a purple care bear now.

Don't get me wrong though, it's certainly better to see an overwhelming waterfall of compassion and positivity gushing out of someone rather than the much-more-common ignorant and short-sighted vitriol that every internet troll likes to spout. The world could use a bit more positivity in it.

 

But would a world ruled by compassion and positivity really be better, do you think? Is flooding the world with kindness and selflessness really what is best for humanity? Consider this: an act of heroism can only exist in moments of strife. The greatest heroes we cherish in human history, Joan of Arc, William Wallace, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, Alexander the Great, all of them are the iconic heroes of their times because they were faced with situations of great conflict and suffering. In similar fashion, every great story and adventure is great precisely because of the challenges, conflicts, or moral contrasts within them. We measure our greatest feats and ideals by the horrors in which they are a contrast to.

 

As people, we grow to detest conflict and depression. We see the hardships and suffering it creates, and it makes us wish that such things would disappear so that no one need ever have to experience such pain. But the truth is that humanity's greatest potential comes out only in times of greatest hardships. There is no greater source of perseverance than that of resolve, no stronger motivator than that of great need, no country more united than the one which is threatened. In the face of a common threat people tend to rally together, focusing on a common objective, and historically many of our greatest achievements and advancements come during times of conflict.

I've seen it myself, and I've also seen what happens when you take away the common enemies and problems from a populace. Unity becomes division, progress becomes stagnation, interest becomes indifference. The truth is we need conflict. It is as much a part of what makes us who we are as our bonds. There is no good without evil, humanity can only reach its full potential with the existence of unity and adversity both.

 

True conflict can destroy the human race. But make no mistake, true peace could destroy us just as easily. Don't be too quick to reach for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some valid points @Terra   And, no, I realize that sometimes you have to have conflict to make sure things you believe in are upheld.  I don't get mad often.  I try to pick my battles.  When something is important to me, then I'll try politeness first and if that doesn't work and what the person is doing is totally wrong, I look for alternatives.  Unfortunately, throughout my career I've had to fire people or write evaluations which were less than satisfactory.  It's part of life.  

 

What I am trying to convey is that human kindness goes a long way to turning people around at times.  At other times, only the "hammer" will work.

Edited by Purplez(OD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Terra said:

 

Which is exactly what I'll say about you in this topic. =P

 

 

I'm starting to think you are really just a purple care bear now.

Don't get me wrong though, it's certainly better to see an overwhelming waterfall of compassion and positivity gushing out of someone rather than the much-more-common ignorant and short-sighted vitriol that every internet troll likes to spout. The world could use a bit more positivity in it.

 

But would a world ruled by compassion and positivity really be better, do you think? Is flooding the world with kindness and selflessness really what is best for humanity? Consider this: an act of heroism can only exist in moments of strife. The greatest heroes we cherish in human history, Joan of Arc, William Wallace, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, Alexander the Great, all of them are the iconic heroes of their times because they were faced with situations of great conflict and suffering. In similar fashion, every great story and adventure is great precisely because of the challenges, conflicts, or moral contrasts within them. We measure our greatest feats and ideals by the horrors in which they are a contrast to.

 

As people, we grow to detest conflict and depression. We see the hardships and suffering it creates, and it makes us wish that such things would disappear so that no one need ever have to experience such pain. But the truth is that humanity's greatest potential comes out only in times of greatest hardships. There is no greater source of perseverance than that of resolve, no stronger motivator than that of great need, no country more united than the one which is threatened. In the face of a common threat people tend to rally together, focusing on a common objective, and historically many of our greatest achievements and advancements come during times of conflict.

I've seen it myself, and I've also seen what happens when you take away the common enemies and problems from a populace. Unity becomes division, progress becomes stagnation, interest becomes indifference. The truth is we need conflict. It is as much a part of what makes us who we are as our bonds. There is no good without evil, humanity can only reach its full potential with the existence of unity and adversity both.

 

True conflict can destroy the human race. But make no mistake, true peace could destroy us just as easily. Don't be too quick to reach for it.

 

I disagree on the point that peace is a destructive force.  The existence of conflict does not generate unity in a group.  It is the existence of an external conflict great enough to supersede internal conflicts that generates unity.  Unity does not degrade to division due to a lack of conflict, it degrades because internal conflicts that were never settled come to the forefront in the lack of a greater external conflict.  I would argue that true peace has yet been attained by humanity, there are only times when the greatest problem is external and times when the greatest problem is internal.

Edited by Altros(OD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Terra, While I can definitely appreciate the concept that without suffering, we wouldn't have a clue on how to gauge happiness, but that is not what I said. I think you started on the path, but didn't go far enough as to elude to what @Altros(OD) brought up with internal vs. external conflicts. I will agree that an external conflict would ideally bring the "unity" of our species against a common foe, be it extra terra-strials, or an E.L.E., only through banding together as a species, would we have a chance at survival. The concept I was talking about, was to stop fighting each other over unimportant things (internal conflicts), and start attacking the issues that we all face (external conflicts).

 

Enjoy 😉

 

 

Edited by CompFreak(OD)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What two questions would you ask to get the most information about who a person truly is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Terra said:

Which is exactly what I'll say about you in this topic. =P

At least I can say I tried! =p lol

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Purplez(OD) said:

 

What two questions would you ask to get the most information about who a person truly is? 

 

 

1. Why do you believe you are here / what is your purpose?

 

2. You are the driver on a train and the brakes do not work. A split in the tracks ahead. You have a magical lever on the train, that can change which tracks the train will follow. On one track, there are five random workers, and on the other, sits the person that means the most to you. Nobody can hear or see the train coming, and whichever track you choose, either the workers or that person which means the most to you will surely die. What do you do?

 

*Considering @Terra, @Townkill(OD), and I are all up for eval at the moment, I would be a bit disappointed not to find these types of questions posted by someone on our evals, to be honest 😉

 

Edited by CompFreak(OD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Altros(OD) said:

I disagree on the point that peace is a destructive force.  The existence of conflict does not generate unity in a group.  It is the existence of an external conflict great enough to supersede internal conflicts that generates unity.  Unity does not degrade to division due to a lack of conflict, it degrades because internal conflicts that were never settled come to the forefront in the lack of a greater external conflict.  I would argue that true peace has yet been attained by humanity, there are only times when the greatest problem is external and times when the greatest problem is internal.

 

I disagree with your disagreement!

People will set aside smaller conflicts in the face of greater adversity, that much is true. But in the absence of a greater threat, smaller conflicts develop a lot more frequently. When the groups or organizations or countries you affiliate yourself with are not in jeopardy, when the interests of the whole are not at stake, then the interests of yourself and those you are more strongly connected to become more relevant and more worth sinking limited time and resources into pursuing.

 

We've never attained true peace, but we've certainly transitioned between times of greater conflict and times of greater peace and can see the patterns that emerge the further we go in either direction.

 

11 hours ago, CompFreak(OD) said:

While I can definitely appreciate the concept that without suffering, we wouldn't have a clue on how to gauge happiness, but that is not what I said.

 

Well it probably isn't what you said, because I wasn't actually responding to what you said. I was responding to what Purplez said. Your scenario is similar but it has some differences.

All right, though. Let's look at what you said.

 

On 10/9/2018 at 8:12 AM, CompFreak(OD) said:

The fact that we are all 1 race: Human, and we must band together, lifting each other up instead of breaking each other down.  We are all on this planet, fighting each other over beliefs, profits, resources, materialistic things, or imaginary lines drawn in the dirt. It is all pointless when considering the larger picture, and will eventually lead to our own demise. Start thinking of the greater good for our species, instead of what you can get out of something. Also, keep in mind that this concept can either scale down to something as small as a few friends, or a community of like-minded people, all the way up to something as large as our entire planet. Imagine an entire race of human beings working together for the greater good, rather than trying to profit from one-another? Our limits would only be our imaginations!

 

Actually our limits would be profound.

The free market is a zone of fierce competition, businesses are in a constant struggle to outdo and surpass each other. And without question this leads to some of the greatest forms of greed and corruption that plague our species. It is not only inevitable but necessary, any company that does not make profit and success its top priority will lose to any company that does, and as such ethics and morality often take a secondary role.

 

But while businesses are pretty cut-throat to each other, and seemingly pretty greedy with their constant vying for money and profits, overall this actually works in favor of the consumer. The people and the world as a whole benefits greatly from a system in which businesses and corporations compete, because it is only in the process of constantly outdoing each other that advances are created and built upon.

 

Let's take a look at cars, for example.

 

1894-1944-history-worlds-fastest-product

 

A marvel of technological ingenuity, it was nevertheless pretty limited in its ability when first created.

Fortunately for us, it was created in a world with a competing market. Where one company manufactured and sold these new inventions, another looked at what they were doing and said "I bet we could make it faster, and then people would buy ours instead". And they did, and people did. And then another company made another improvement so people would buy from them instead. Cars were developed to be faster, travel further, be more fuel efficient, more aerodynamic, better handling, more comfortable seating, better carrying capacity, and on and on and on.

 

Each one a direct result of businesses improving on a design for the sole purpose of outdoing the other and turning a greater profit, eventually going from that first old-timey car from before, to this:

 

acura-for-2017-whats-new-feature-car-and

 

This is the result of economic competition, the conflict of the open market.

 

Now I know what you are thinking; "But Terra, my whole point is that we would be so much better if people just did these things anyway to make humanity better, instead of competing."

Except, my dear Compfreak, we can't. Conflict paves the way for production and progress in a way simple good intention never can. Advancement only comes when preceded by need, and profit is among the most fundamental of all needs.

 

Still skeptical? Well let's look at two examples of humanity, one of conflict and economic competition, and one centered on values and greater good.

Look at the history of the Eastern world compare to the history of the Western. On the one hand you have in the East, civilizations of people forming kingdoms and empires. In the west, communities of first nations with their balanced cultures and unity with nature. The very culture and tradition of the first nations people revolved around working for the greater good. Tribes did not hunt and gather for money and profit, they did it to feed their people, promote their way of life, and live in comfort. But while they worked for their greater good, the East was rife with conflict. Kingdoms warred, Empires subjugated, kings and warlords alike cut bloody conquests again and again.

Although the first nations people had their moments of skirmishes between tribes, for the vast majority of their history they lived relatively peaceful lives, and their problems were limited to the natural causes of food and resources. But in the East, people developed swords and shields and plate armors to better subjugate. Then they developed stone and brick castles and fortresses to better prevent subjugation. Then they developed catapults and trebuchets to better subjugate again. The free market took root, businesses competed for profits, and technology developed. Bows became crossbows, crossbows became muskets.

 

There are other factors that influenced eastern culture and development as well, but there is no doubt that conflict and economic competition played insurmountable roles. And by the time Eastern humanity crossed the ocean and came to the lands of Western humanity, the cultures of peace and unity stood no chance against the superior technological development and methods of the culture forged in conflict.

 

So, what would the human race look like if everyone worked solely for the greater good of all? Something more or less along the lines of this:

scaletowidth

 

Exactly like many secluded tribes still in existence in places like South America today, who have kept to their ways of working for the greater good of the whole, like they always have for thousands of years.

 

Because once again, it is only through adversity that humanity can achieve its greatest potential.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Terra I appreciate all of your hard work and dedication in trying to argue against what concept I would like to teach to everyone in the world, but you missed the key factor in my concept... We are both in full agreement, that conflict and free market has driven us to succeed in bringing new technologies and inventions, and without it, the technologies and inventions we have today, most likely wouldn't exist. My concept, however, is to change the point of contention. Instead of conflicting with each other, to shift our collective focus to the external.  I believe that we have come to the point where we have exhausted the benefits of conflicting with each other, and need to start shifting focus outwards. For example, there are actually many popular films and television series to choose from, that depict a world in which this has happened: Independence Day, Star Trek, Armageddon, Geostorm, Deep Impact, 2012, etc. . Within these films / shows, humanity unites against a common external foe, be it our planet, an alien species, an asteroid, etc..

Let us take "Independence Day" and more specifically, it's transition to the sequel, "Independence Day 2" as a model of how humanity, united against an invading species, not only survived, but then incorporated the new technologies used against them previously, to protect themselves from future attacks and bettering the quality of life for everyone.  Many inventions and technologies are dreamed of and created as a tool to resolve the conflict, supporting your statement of "only through adversity can humanity achieve its greatest potential". We are not arguing that here at all, so let's circle back to the question at hand:

On 10/9/2018 at 10:45 AM, Purplez(OD) said:

If you could teach everyone in the world one concept, what concept would have the biggest positive impact on humanity?

I proposed to teach everyone in the world, the concept of humanity itself, "The fact that we are all 1 race: Human, and we must band together, lifting each other up instead of breaking each other down. ".

 

I must have missed the concept you proposed? Instead of trying to find fault with others' ideas and "breaking each other down", I'd like to hear what idea you would like to teach everyone!

Edited by CompFreak(OD)
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two parter today.  Do you believe people are losing the art of conversation because of a reliance on social media?  And how much does language affect our thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×