I mean we conventionally talk of different aspects of ourselves in seeking to define ourselves, but those are generally accidental or mutable. I wouldn't place any of it as some sort of "core of my being". If I want to cut away all that is frivolous and talk about me, then I can say this: I am. That defines me, being a unique existing entity. Unique in that I am not you and you are not me.

I don’t think that’s what makes a person unique.

What do you think experiments are? Aren’t they experiences? Do you think science doesn’t involve reasoning? Do you think mathematics is not reasoning?

Do you have knowledge of things you never experienced?

As someone who has like one friend and doesn't really interact with many people and infact am nothing like my friend, I highly disagree with this extrovert propaganda.

I have realized something: every political party is guaranteed to have flaws. Because in science, there is a path to truth. In spirituality, there is a path to truth. But there is no path to truth in politics because opinions are central to each political ideology rather than fragments of a greater truth. In science, the endpoint at which truth is realized is when a theory is proven, and truth is realized in spirituality upon death or enlightenment, depending on your religion. In this way science and religion are quite similar and a future where the two are synthesized into one field is possible.

Like the man said on the Blue Scholars track “we hardly know ourselves if we know nobody else.”

> people are treated fairly and given equal opportunity regardless of who they are. I also agree with channeling most of our resources toward developing those who have shown to be exceptional

Mutually exclusive. When mother wolf feeds her strongest pup and ignores the weak pups she's ruthlessly discriminating and it is the best for the survival of their species. I work as a math and physics teacher and I discriminate between my students. I give extra more challenging assignments to my smartest students and I make time to help them in the evenings. As a result my students are winning National and International Olympiads, five years in row in math and 2 years in row in physics my students are making it to the National Olympiad teams. That's the result of my focus on the most promising students.
> with women being a part of our military and so many other things that were typically done by men of course it creates challenges. I'm not saying women shouldn't be in any particular line of work

Women absolutely should be discriminated against being in military for two main reasons.

1. Women are physically inferior to men. Women who pass physical tests do so by bare minimum. Let me explain. Let's say you have a physical test. For the sake of keeping it simple, let's say the passing score is 6. A lot of women will pass this test by doing 6 or 7, which is in itself is not really problem. The problem is what happens after, when they get in the military. These women are already at their physical peak and no matter how much they train, they will never get to 9-10. Meanwhile, many men who passed the initial screening with 6-7 will become bigger, stronger, faster. When I did my military service(mandatory in my country) I saw this with my own eyes. Many weak men that had no prior training whatsoever surpassed women, who were coming from military academies after years of education and training, within few months. By accepting women into military you are settling with physical mediocrity and giving up on those who potentially could reach much higher physical prowess.
2. Women drop out of military with much higher rate, most within five years. This is true, at least in my country, don't know how it is in US or other western countries. Main two reasons they give 1. they get married and 2. stress of the work. So, government spends 5 years feeding, training, educating women in military academies and most of them drop out of military within 5 years. That's huge waste of resources, negative ROI frankly speaking. Government should stop accepting women in military.

ps. I hope mods will allow this discussion to continue at least for couple of days and allow people to debate against my points.

I was told one time that our life is like a boat, and the people we have on that boat will either sink it, or help it float. But you obviously can’t let the ship sink. A lesson I remembered far too late at one time.

I’ve heard a saying that you’re the product of the 5 people you spend the most time with. An oversimplification but along the same lines.

No, what makes you unique is the relationship between your consciousness and the physical reality, including your brain and body.

Interesting, I think I've always thought this but never articulated it to myself.

I believe most of our thoughts are subconsciously created from our environment.

Not all , more for some , less for others , but kinda like you'd never think of flowers if you never seen one.

I am too tired , I was going more for a brainstorm. Makes me think.

This is why I (and probably everyone else) try to cut toxic people out of our lives. Being toxic literally spreads to others and perpetuates the cycle of being a dick.

So what you're saying, is that I'm not unique because I don't have many relationships? Since I'm not embedded in others' lives, I've no identity?

[deleted]

Nothing except that one little detail

An amalgam by predisposition. I wandered. Paradoxically, while I am unique. I am me. There may only be 1 of me. One of my particles. I have but a single point of potential relation. My consciousness, is your consciousness, as I perceive it.

I think get your point, however, to say it’s ‘evolutionarily beneficial’, implies there is a driving force, whether you want to call it God or Meaning, you’ve provided a driving force. It’s like saying natural selections goal is to survive. Natural selection makes better survivors survive, but doesn’t make things survive.

What I was trying to say was more a recognition of a pattern and a hopeful attempt at extrapolating the pattern to all things. Maybe incorrect, but hopeful, that the universe would perpetuate itself by means of its very being. Foolish, but hopeful.

How I came to this was via stating that humans preserve themselves by living. A human who decides to live, makes the conscious decisions that extend their life. They arnt trying to extend it, it’s simply a bi-product of them living. Choosing to find shelter and food is to satisfy hunger and comfort but I don’t think people shop with “yes this will extend my life” in mind.

So the claim I was making, is that if humans and animals and cells, and maybe DNA and RNA, extend their lives not by trying to, but just by existing in their own ways, that possibly, all things extend their own existence as a byproduct of their existence. Maybe, just maybe, all things further their existence not by choosing to, but as a side effect of existence. For if not, then you would simply cease to exist whenever you weren’t trying to exist.

Thoughts?

Ur right, thank you

Very well said, thank you

Like if I become “anti-social” I am actually involving everyone I don’t socialize with in my identity?

[deleted]

Hume laughs at your weak propositions.

There simply is NO self.

> That means that a (obviously purely hypothetical) person who is 100% perfect at understanding and applying logic could always deduce the truth with perfect accuracy - without testing anything.

This I cannot agree with. First you are assuming an infinite regress of provable premises, which you cannot logically prove to be true. Even the claim that all logical statements are true is not something that is proven, it is assumed to be true because it has not be demonstrated to be wrong.

The fact that even you admit this scenario is impossible is the exact problem. You cannot derive knowledge via an impossible process.

This one https://tenor.com/view/blow-mind-mind-blown-explode-gif-17552382