[Concept Formation Problem]

Its hard for humans to determine conciousness, because we are (as far as we know) the most concious beings and we can only see this matter subjectively.

I think we're all throwing bits and peices of information in because we're lacking a true, fundamental question here. I think first off, we need to determine a definition, what causes conciousness, and what its essential properties are.

Remember, these are my personal views!

What is conciousness?

The ability to comprehend and analyze sensory information, and utitlize that information towards finding a personal means of satisfaction different from instinct survival.

There are three levels of conciousness- primal (as in the case of animals), social (the ability to relate and recognize others, higher forms such as apes) and spiritual (humans, such as metaphysics).

What causes conciousness?

I believe that conciousness is caused by the diffusion of electricity in the brain. Some people become more self-aware than others by developing curiousities and investigating the questions. Given this, you can say conciousness is self-driven. So if I'm wondering what the purpose of life is, I'm going to read and investigate and FOCUS on that one question as opposed to Susie who may be questioning about five other things and choose to focus on what shoes she wants to wear. There is then a diffusion of electricity when I stimulate my brain with more information, making more nueral connections in my brain and making me more self-aware.

Now be it, Susie and I have the same LEVEL of conciousness, we can both think on a spiritual level but I am more self-aware driven by curiousities that may have been shaped by past events in my life or experiences. Remember, we are animals. So if I was younger, and my hand was slapped compared to a child who's hand wasn't slapped, I may be more curious as to why that slap hurt or why I was slapped to prevent me from being slapped again.

A concept of survival of fittest on a larger scheme of things.

I did have to write this in a small amount of time, so I'm going to apologize right now for any nuances or errors, but I'll have to come back later and make sure it doesn't sound like complete gibberish.

For a bit more explanation, I would look into spatiotemporal continuity.

Events create questions, what determines the difference in self-awareness is the motivation to find the answers.

[GOD! Save Me From Your People!]

Thats a very "absolute" scenario, and very few and far between do we find absolute scenarios in life.

No other way to subdue my attacker?

Lets say I did take that man's life, which if I was put in such an absolute situation, then I probably would just because of basic instincts;

it would not justify the murder. Even if I did kill that man, to save my own life, I wouldn't be able to satisfy my moral conciousness afterwards.

That would be my own decision. I wouldn't force that guilt on someone put in the same situation, but it would not relinquish the guilt if I was put in the scenario.

[Ethical Priorities]

I just finished a course in philosophy, only a high school ethics course, but one pertaining to the nature of philosophy nonetheless.

I think my teacher, Dr. Preston, taught a wonderful course that I could only wish others could take.

A very small segment of the class was actually debating, but rather he taught us how to debate using If then statements.

Such as....

1. Life is good.

2. If life is good, then absence of life is abscence of good (bad).

3. Death is the abscence of life.

Therefore, death is bad.

A very elementary idea, but instead of having to defend our own ideas and concepts using our personal logic, we had to argue using other philosophers' arguments. One week it was Aristotle, the next St Augustine, and so on in chronological order.

So we had to answer and had to understand how these great philosophers came to their conclusions and use those arguments to defend our points.

As in the case of Marxism or Nihilism, I could hardly say I agreed with their points or philosophy, and I probably had the biggest struggle with Marxism, but I still had to learn how to answer like someone who completely believed in that philosophy....

I'm just saying, maybe she's coming from that angle. Some teachers make you answer very basic questions using different methods of philosophy such as need-based vs. care-based.

[Do You Have The Right To Do These Things?]

Also don't people that get the death penalty have there rights taken away??? If so then rights can't be said to be absolute. Am I right?

I will reply with what I just recently posted.

I am a member of mankind, and I can allocate that because I have the capacity for logic and I apply logic to comprehend the world and decide what values are necessary for my survival (definition of human). But because I allow myself to live, I cannot justifiably take away another member of mankind's life. It would be hypocrisy, and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book).

But for the ruling majority, death should be allowed as a punishment under certain scenarios. I don't agree with those laws, but I live in a society where the majority does, so by living voluntarily in the U.S I must consent to those laws. I am under free will to move to a country or even state outlaws death penalty, but I choose not to.

There are three universal rights (or at least in my belief there are). Life, Liberty of the Mind and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In my opinion, a universal right occurs when there are no circumstances that exist in which those rights can be infringed.

But my ideas and morals are very different from others. Like I said beforehand, my idea of applying logic to reality is different than another person's concept of logic. As long as my rights aren't infringed, I don't mind what someone else believes. By being human, you are entitled to think whatever you want and practice those beliefs to the extent that you don't infringe on others' rights.

But by living under a certain creed of government that meets the bare minimum of first generation rights, you are submitting to the laws decided by the vast majority. You also have the right to challenge those laws or leave.

Its your right as a human. So if I live in North Carolina, where the death penalty is allowed but I'm morally against it,

I have the freedom to pack up and go. But if I'm convicted of a felony and punished with the death penalty, I cannot complain against the punishment because by living in that state I agreed with that law, and by committing a crime I agreed to the consequence of my action.

[GOD! Save Me From Your People!]

I'm sorry, what I said earlier was a typo.

But I'll elaborate still.

I am a member of mankind, and I can allocate that because I have the capacity for logic and I apply logic to comprehend the world and decide what values are necessary for my survival (definition of human). But because I allow myself to live, I cannot justifiably take away another member of mankind's life. It would be hypocrisy, and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book).

But for the ruling majority, death should be allowed as a punishment under certain scenarios. I don't agree with those laws, but I live in a society where the majority does, so by living voluntarily in the U.S I must consent to those laws. I am under free will to move to a country or even state outlaws death penalty, but I choose not to.

[Do You Have The Right To Do These Things?]

Do you have the right to yell "FIRE!" or "BOMB!" inside a plane or a public place? Do you have the right to print or say Classified information(Remember the Geraldo Rivera incident)??? If you do have the right to do these things then you shouldn't be penalized for them, correct?

Also don't people that get the death penalty have there rights taken away??? If so then rights can't be said to be absolute. Am I right?

these questions are so elementary its funny.

No. You're wrong.

[Selflessness Scenario]

He thinks that there is an appropriate, normative morality based on objective conditions, but those objective conditions are the conditions of the society.

An individual's moral stance is made of that person's logical conclusions to the events and scenarios in life, molded by their own prefences and beliefs.

To say that there is a "collective moral stance" would be comparable to depriving someone of their unique individuality. By assuming rights or laws, you're depriving yourself of those rights by depriving a logical conclusion to them.

Human beings are the only animals that posess the logic to pursue their own resources of happiness and make decisions on what makes them happy by using a process of logic and reasoning. Taking this logic away is to reduce a man to the level of any other animal.

makes sense to me at least...

I don't believe in any moral universalism with the exception of a mankind altruism which provides that it is hypocritical and illogical to recognize your own basic rights while ignoring the basic rights of others (such as life or property).

The only selfless act is an act in which you despise yourself for afterwards. Otherwise, you are (in some form) benefitting yourself.

[Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness]

I was actually hoping for an Ayn Rand citation, but that was given to me by the first post.

thank you very much for your help. I couldn't get those answers from

three different law firms, and two History majors.

a rather frustrating journey, but I don't think I conveyed quite clearly what I meant beforehand. However, the question I meant to pose was answered in a very effective and concise manner.

[Fixing the damaged media]

I have to agree with above,

A newspaper is a product, just like a toy, that is marketed and bought and advertised to a certain group of people for max profitability because news, in any form, is nothing more than a product of a long and complicated marketing scheme.

Media coverage is subject to the whims of the people, so to change the Media, you must first change the morality of the people who buy that news. The companies will then change their advertising and marketing strategies to meet the public's criteria.

[Tibet]

I think we're forgetting some basic human rights here.

Given that the land is public land and for minimal use by the independent nation, I would say that a group of people could secede under the conditions that their rights were being violated. So in the theoretical "Texas" situation, I would say no unless the group of people wanting to secede could logically prove that their rights to life were being taken away.

But let's allow for a small group of bigots living in Texas wanting to secede. You would need a large enough population, and probably a sucession of court cases proving that US Law violated their right to pursuit happiness in marrying more than one spouse, but then you'd have the challenge that by marrying more than one spouse you'd be depriving multiple people of their freedom.

In the case of Tibet, which I know very little about, if the group of people is large enough to start a small government and operate, that very same government does not violate any human rights, then I would see no reason for China not to allow them a small peice of government property which is owned BY the people so it should be for use OF the same group of people.

[And Now It's Illegal for Wal-Mart to....]

That does seem strange for a government to make that ruling.

I could see their fear of Walmart turning into a monopoly, but it doesn't seem like a problem if the company offers its employees cash.

It seems like that would be the employee's choice, and if the case may be that they would get less cash than the value of those coupons; I could maybe understand the frustration but, that does not justify it by any means.

Thats a very strange ruling, if the decision was in my hands, I would only hand out cash and refuse the coupons.

When you open a store in another country, you have to be willing to conform to their culture which in Mexico, happens to be handing out coupons.

Universal Declaration of Rights; Article 29-

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

I don't like the UN.

[Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness]

I'm starting research on my Senior Paper, in which I chose to focus on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Its understandable that these are the basic rights endowed upon any human who is born upon this earth, but why?

Why did the forefathers feel that liberty and pursuit of happiness should be guarenteed to any man on this earth?

I've been trying to clarify my answers through Human Right documents, but unfortunetly, I can't seem to cite any sources that explain WHY humans deserve life, WHY we deserve liberty and WHY every man has the right to pursue his own happiness.

Its such a fundamental topic that it befuddles anyone with a mind as to who would ask those questions.

Its fun, but considering a research paper has very little room for personal thought, its very frustrating. I just want to write my own personal thesis on why man deserves his rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality]

Romantic Love is the only proper, moral, form of sexuality. The issue is whether any consensual sexual relationship is either romantic or fake or promiscuous.

I guess the argument would then lead to if a relationship is hollow, or as you refer to it, fake.

I don't think anyone can define love for any other human being. There is no conventional love; each is unique. You may love someone in a manner that is wrong, or grotesque or morally deprived; but in that you still love them. Is love nothing more than the infestation of thoughts and emotions as interpreted by the mind? Can we choose who we love?

I believe those are all questions that can really, only be answered by a personal faith in love.

A truly idealistic man can love a woman through logic, but we're not all idealistic men.

My belief is from a survivalist point of view.

I believe that since a homosexual couple cannot produce offspring, the action is irrelevant and detrimental to a species' survival, which means a homosexual love is not natrual but rather, an intense infatuation.

That is my belief though, I'm not going to argue with a gay man whether he loves his partner because although I can question the geniunity of that love or its moral integrity, I can't redefine his definition of love because his is based on faith, not logic.

[Isn't Everyone Selfish]

I think using self interests for the point of motivation can be explained by the flow theory.

I can't do the theory justice by breaking it down into simpler terms than what I know, but it truly is relevant to the causes of motivation and types of productivity.

[Prove that god doesn't exist. (Proving a negative)]

Arguing about how to argue the point is getting just a little esoteric, don't you think? ES

I think it has a very useful purpose. I enjoy seeing how others have reached their conclusions on how to interpret life. As well, sometimes if you're lucky and you meet a Christian who's uncertain or has an open mind; you can show them true logic and reason. I would say the best outcome in arguing with a Christian in whether or not a God exists is having them read some material by Ayn Rand and showing them how you've reached your personal conclusions.

If you're arguing with someone who you can sense is very close minded or not open to discussion, then I completely agree with you. But we can't stereotype because that isn't the case for every Christian.

[To live for myself.]

I absolutely need to find some clubs or something in my area. I live in Orange County, and being a high school student, it is so ridiculously hard to find anyone of intellectual merit.

I'm not being pretentious here, but its hard not to consider your peers dumb, when they chose to vote for a new president based on the color of their skin or the genitals between their legs or (even worse) shit they hear on the goddamn Colbert Report.

I'm not even kidding.

That is extremely true. I live in a rick hickety town of North Carolina, and its very depressing to talk to the youth of America.

But I find the biggest problem with teenagers is how ignorant they really are, or how close minded they are to new ideas. Or their complete incompetence.

I've talked to literally hundreds of people, and I only know two people who have the ability to think on a higher level.

God...we read Ayn Rand in my Sophmore year, and to hear the comments that I heard....you would've cried. I nearly did.

So many of these dum-prick girls would say that they didn't understand, they couldn't even understand how to distinct the 'we' between 'I' or comprehend what was happening. I don't know about you, but I always thought Anthem was like the baby step to philosophy.

I feel like a matyr for objectivism (even though I know how morally wrong a matyr can be), sometimes I will try and try to make some of my classmates understand. Sometimes it clicks, but they never truly grasp it. Some just listen because I can speak well, but never grasp the concepts. The majority think I'm the idiot.

I've been called an idiot, intense, a cynic, even crazy.

My favorite above far was the crazy.

I feel like I'm morally degrading myself by trying to make objectivism available to them, but at the same time I feel like its extremely important to at least give these kids the chance to see where I'm coming from and try to give them some sense of philosophy.

The kids aren't the worst though; its the teacher who've never even picked up a copy of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. Thats downright pathetic.

[GOD! Save Me From Your People!]

I would use this as an oppurtunity to show him the truth.

I personally enjoy talking with Christians, because their logic is so faulted; its not that difficult to show them their faults and bring them 'to the light'.

We have to start from the beggining, this Jason believes that because God created humans, and gave us life, and that all life is good.

He's coming from a position where we are endowed to an unknown diety that created us by no choice. Its almost like a brainwashed mindset- suggest that if a child was born in a communist nation, does that mean he owes the dictator his unyeilding loyalty? No. Because above all, we had no choice in the matter of being born, and owe no one nothing. There was no choice in the matter, it was merely forced upon us by survival of the fittest. You were the fastest out of milllions of sperm, and you were the strongest of any other fetuses (by making it past the first trimester of pregnancy). You born out from parents by their innate sense to keep their genetic line going.

Even if there was a God who created us, that does NOT mean that you owe him your life. Let us say there is a god in this universe, lets say there is some concrete proof about heaven and hell. I still wouldn't obey the bible, because I would be forging one of life's greatest entities, the choice in defining what makes ME happy by defining MY OWN moral codes, in esscence, I would be throwing away my individuality because I would be blindly listening to this God.

And in his idea that "God's Law is written on every heart"?

HELL NO. Christians took a common round-up about what everyone thought was moral way back in the day. It was a general conglomeration of public law. Why do you think the bible is so closely related to Code of Hammurabi, which was the FIRST written account of law?

Murder is justifiable to some people. Not the general public, but what of serial murderers or sociopaths? Obviously, if they innately thought what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't do it. No, they murder because they enjoy it and have defined their own sense of moral code.

I believe murder is wrong because I don't think any human being is equipped with the decision to decide who should live or die.

But I believe its derived from an altruistic sense in human beings that as a species as a whole, we shouldn't kill our own kind.

This Jason has no logical path from which he's derived his thought. He just has point blank one liners, with absolutely no reasoning behind them. Its infuriating just to read what he has to say.

I was born and raised in a Catholic church, I know the bullshit they tried to feed people. The ideas in the Bible are completely redundant.

Jason makes it sound like EVERYONE believes in the ten commandments. If you want to curse, go ahead and curse. Have outrageous sex, steal the biggest diamond you can get your hands on, go for it. As long as you aren't violating my personal rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) then I couldn't care less.

Of course, I'm not going to go steal my neighbor's ox and have sex with his daughter on it, but if the guy across the street wants to, he can go and have a try at it. I won't stop him, but I'm certainky not going to encourage him.

Well....maybe a little.

[Beautiful Image of Hong Kong]

That first picture though, man, trust me, as fun as it all looks, it's confusing as hell trying to find your way down a Hong Kong street. You'd think with all those signs it would make things easier, but... no.

I think the purpose of a city is to be a vast collection of resources; but if I'm a businessman and it takes me twenty minutes to get to my office; thats not very efficent.

In smaller cities, the sidewalks are only packed in the tourist areas as opposed to the larger demands of a city like New York, where there are so many people, everywhere is packed.

Thats as best as I can clarify for how I would determine a city efficent or not.

[Beautiful Image of Hong Kong]

I believe the photo of Norway is best.

Artistic beauty aside, both Hong Kong and New York are too cluttered in areas, the cities aren't nearly efficent enough for their purposes.

But I must argue, as I was born and raised in Seattle, that smaller cities are by far my favorite. You have the advantage of resource and beauty without the overkill of shoving everything into as little space as possible. Toronto is a nicely organized city as well.

[Prove that god doesn't exist. (Proving a negative)]

I must warn you; I am what is reffered to as a "young objectivist", so my improper grammer and spelling may in fact make you implode with anger.

I believe both sides have been making logical remarks, in that, both sides have reached their arguments by following a clear syllogism of ideas. Although, I do have to say I'm not a big fan of Mr. Enthymeme's arguments, I can see from what direction he is coming from (no matter how twisted his map may be). I think that this argument would be great for another forum, whether that may be grammar and linguistics or interpretation of the senses and their accuracy. I'll cross my fingers for the latter to show up on the message boards at some point in the future, because this really is a fascinating argument.

Unfortunetly, this particular board was starting to argue how to prove a negative, rather how someone would prove that god doesn't exist.

I believe that proving a negative is like proving a scientific method; there isn't any sensory proof that God exists; but there is a lot of evidence supporting the argument.

Its almost like arguing if gravity exists. Gravity is not something you can touch or pull or give a specific identity to- but when we throw an apple in the air it falls back down. The apple is the evidence supporting that gravity exists.

So when someone argues that God exists, they can't touch or pull or show anyone that a god exists because god is more of a concept. What they can do is present a list of arguments for god, but like previously said; many of those arguments are contradictory and senseless.

One of the arguments I had a coworker recently use is that "if a god exists, wouldn't you prefer to follow his rules"?

I'm a huge fan of using John Milton to argue back with Christians, particularily because he was such a religious man himself.

"It is better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven."

Not exact, but you get the idea.

Let us imagine for a moment that a god does exist, that for some foresaken reason, a foriegn diety did decide to give us life. It is my personal conviction that you are born in this world owing nothing, that life wasn't given to you as a choice but rather forced upon you. So what makes you owe this strange god anything? Because he made you exist without any choice involved?

But I usually get so flustered I can't properly execute my arguments. I mean, I can usually trump my opponets ( I have to argue with high school students- how hard could it be?) but I'm not as...graceful as I would like to be.