WWW

You would simply be taking back a small amount of what the government has stolen from you over the course of your lifetime, assuming that you were born in this country, went to a public school, payed taxes, and participated in the military. If anything, you are redirecting money away from the government to use productively, that most likely would have otherwise been used to fund government programs, the military industrial complex, etc. As Josh F stated, "...the more people exploit the system, the sooner it crashes."I am currently using the GI Bill to fund my education, and this is the justification that I use for it. I Hope that helps.

cynicist, Fair assessment. Given the amount of data that the project has generated over the last 15 or so years, what correlation would there be between the unusual activity of the RNGs and the significant events that occurred within the same timeframe? Assuming that you have already analyzed the data, what conclusions can you make about this correlation? Coincidence, or unexplainable evidence completely unrelated to consciousness?

cobra2411, Ok, so you are basically suggesting that Netflix should be responsible for the capacity expansion of the ISP networks, because of the unusual amount of data Netflix users are generating. Sounds reasonable as long as the FCC is out of the equation. dsayers, If the Supreme court has ruled that the FCC has no jurisdiction or control over such free market activities than we shouldn't have anything to worry about as far net neutrality goes. The guy in the video responded to the issue as if it was the end of the internet as we know it. It must've been alternative media fear mongering for views if what he claimed the FCC was panning was legally illegitimate based on a previous ruling of the Supreme Court.

Apparently the FCC is pushing for internet regulations that would compromise net neutrality. "The FCC's plan would restructure the rules that govern online traffic by granting internet service providers the ability to give some websites 'preferential treatment' - i.e. faster traffic - in exchange for money." What implications would this have on FDR if these regulations were to be implemented? http://youtu.be/3YRI5qk6KZY

Soldiers are subjected to unbelievable amounts of brainwashing and propaganda almost to the point where they are trained robots with little to no empathy for human life (in general). They are practically a direct extension of their chain of command (the state) and when given direct orders will follow them on command even if it means taking another life. There is a distinction between soldiers and murderers. Murderers kill voluntarily, whereas soldiers kill as a result of being almost completely deprived of their free will/ identity/ rationality/ etc.

AustinJames, The book sounds very interesting, I will definitely look more into it. Thank you for the reference! You stated that you struggled in your ability to summarize what you have read which is understandable given the topic at hand. Do you have any thoughts as to what you think consciousness is from your personal understanding of the concept that you have gathered from other sources?

This is a very controversial subject, so I will do my best to tread lightly. I'm going to answer this question as it pertains to UPB just for clarification. Generally, an individual that is beneficial to the overall prosperity or well-being of mankind does not have suicidal tendencies. Individuals that are not beneficial to mankind in some way or another (physical disabilities, mental disabilities, mental conditions, societal issues etc.) often are the ones with suicidal tendencies. Similar to what dsayers proposed, an individual that wishes to commit suicide has the right to do so regardless of their state of mind (rational or irrational), as long as there are no repercussions/ consequences/ trauma inflicted on the immediate family, friends, or those consciously connected on some level with that individual after the action has taken place (unless the burden they have on society outweighs the emotional pain inflicted on those involved, which as far as I know, there is no way to measure other than by the strong seemingly irrational emotions felt by the individual with suicidal tendencies). It would be in the best interest of those socially involved with this person to do what they can (adhering to the NAP) to convince them otherwise and get them mental help. Saving one or more lives as a result of the voluntary taking of your own life would also apply. On average, organ donors save around 7 lives, so an individual that empathized enough with humanity to give their own life for the sake of those around him/ her should also be an exception to the above rule. It should be emphasized that the above actions are voluntary.

I can assure you Kevin, that "trolling" and "justifying the existence of god" are not my intentions. To refrain from inevitable degrees of cognitive dissonance when discussing such issues, I try to avoid subjugating myself to certain labels (atheist, theist, anarchist, statist, etc.), but occasionally use them in introductory statements to aid in efficient conversation. I clearly stated earlier in the topic that my intentions were to theoretically discuss the nature of consciousness as opposed to making an argument for its composition or essence. I am only interested in truth. In order to come closer to absolute truth it is imperative that we occasionally venture into the unknown, which from what I've gathered, is the essence of Philosophy. On a side note, the video links that you provided earlier in the discussion were excellent and appreciated. If you find anything more related to the topic feel free to send me a link.

Interesting questions, thank you for your response. Consciousness or conscious energy (according to my current understanding/opinion//belief) is intrinsically present throughout all of reality and is perceived by our minds/senses as merely being an emergent property of the brain due to our limited spectrum of perception. The phenomena which you are describing can not be explained rationally or logically, and is generally only experienced through inexplicable or varying degrees/states of consciousness. Since we do not fundamentally understand consciousness, we cannot make presumptions as to the explanation or interpretation of the phenomena in which you are describing. It could very well be that we are taking the wrong approach when attempting to ascertain or uncover the true nature of consciousness, but only in time will we come to a better understanding.

Pepin, Thank you for your response. I only know of a handful of people who can effectively translate their thoughts into a format that can be almost entirely comprehended by the majority of a general audience, so I apologize ahead of time for any confusion my ability to accurately (or not accurately) describe my thoughts may bring you. The limitations of language are aggravating to say the least. Basically what I am suggesting is that given the nature of reality (reality requires two opposing forces: creation/destruction, something/nothing, life/death, etc.) how is it that we (as human beings) can differentiate between the two by labeling one as "good" and one as "evil" solely based on our perception of these forces as being desirable or undesirable? Let me know if that makes sense or if you need me to reword it.

dsayers,I agree with what you have stated except for the second to last word. We develop abstractions or principles within the context of our limited perception of reality (which is subjective practice by definition) in order to further improve or enhance the quality and overall understanding of our existence. To claim otherwise would be like claiming: subjective abstraction plus subjective abstraction equals objective truth, or 0 + 0 = 2. This methodology (logic and reason as opposed to spiritual enlightenment, which is topic for an entirely different forum ) is the closest that we can come to objectivity within the scope of the human experience, which is why I adhere to the methodology of Philosophy or truth seeking in general, as it improves the quality and meaning of my life and brings me closer to the understand and comprehension of absolute truth.To continue on with the original topic, it is not the polarity or spectrum of our experiences (desirable or undesirable) that improves the caliber of the essence of our existence, but rather the quality of these experiences (desirable or undesirable). I know Stefan isn't a big fan of Ghandi, but this quote is completely relevant in this context: Everything that you do in life will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. What would the implications of this notion have on society in general if it were understood, accepted and put into practice by the masses? Would it completely destroy our species as a whole, or would it bring us collectively closer to the understanding or comprehension of absolute truth, greatly improving the overall quality and meaning of our lives? cynicist, I am aware of Plato's theory of forms, and it too is subjective by definition because it is still derived from our perception of objective or absolute truth. Our interpretation of reality, or in Plato's case: perfect forms, is just that, an interpretation of reality, unfortunately there is no way around it (that I'm aware of). There are many theories as to the effectiveness of drugs, spiritual enlightenment through meditation, etc. that are effective alternatives, but there is no case to be made rationally or logically.

Our intelligence and our senses are limited, therefore we can never really conceive, understand, comprehend absolute truth only a vague interpretation of it derived from the human perspective/ experience.

cynicist, Science = UPB? Then why not use the term 'Science" rather than 'Universally Preferable Behavior'? It would definitely save some time and alleviate confusion. The methodology certainly appears objective, but since both Science and UPB are prone to human error and are based solely on human perspective technically they both are subjective ideologies. Only absolute truth can ever be objective, and given our limited spectrum of senses, I don't think it is possible for our minds to possibly conceive Truth. Objective is a term that is thrown around to haphazardly in Philosophy.Objective- Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in representing facts; not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. fractional slacker, Compared to absolute truth, reality, etc. dsayers, These ideologies certainly have value, but remember Science fundamentally is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. In other words it's an observable (derived from the human perspective) methodology used to describe our reality meaning that it is inescapably subjective by its very nature. In the defense of Science, Morality and Ethics may very well be as objective as humanly possible, but cannot be defined as objective including comprehensively or totally encompassing, absolute truth. I appreciate the constructive criticism, I will certainly keep that in mind. Thank you for your honesty. Also, I do like your signature, it speaks volumes of your intentions.

Ethics, morality and UPB are fundamentally subjective ideologies by their very nature, because they are derived solely from the human experience. The forces of creation (life) and the forces of destruction (death) are both essential for a reality in which everything operates symbiotically as one to exist. Right and wrong is subjective because it is rooted from perspective when obtained in such a paradigm that requires two opposing forces in order to manifest existence. This understanding or perspective of "good" and "evil" is the knowledge forbade by a multitude of mainstream religions, and for good reason. The comprehension of this objective truth goes against our very nature as living beings because it is counterproductive to our existence as a species. This is the objective truth, anything more is simply foreplay for consciousness.

Ethics and morality essentially describe universally preferable behavior ever-changing and prevalent throughout humanity, but according to the perspective of human beings leaving out 99.9999999% of the rest of the universe. In other words, it is completely bias towards human beings. We are merely a parasitical species on host planet earth. At what point does the human race as a whole become an obstruction or hindrance to life itself as it exists throughout the rest of the universe? Shouldn't universally preferable behavior be applied universally, for lack of a more appropriate synonym, taking into account all of existence as opposed to favoring our species (skin-bag bias)?

I would describe love as a deep conscious connection to the quality or virtue present in a person/animal/thing with the respect to his/her/its ability to enhance the condition and overall progression of life in general (your life, his/her/its life, mankind, etc.) as it relates to the human experience. So "I love lamp" could potentially be a valid statement . The more conscious a person or animal the larger the capacity it has to love or to be loved. Lust is more so derived from sex-drive (a short term desire) as opposed to virtue or quality (a long term desire).

You asked how the title "Good vs. Evil" pertains to the well-being of the moon. I responded with the question "Would you consider the destruction of the moon a 'good' or an 'evil' act?". Your answer to this question would hopefully answer your initial question. My intent was to further the conversation with you on this topic. Does that make sense?

Tiepolo, The destruction of the moon would have much larger, devastating implications affecting mankind than you are giving the scenario credit for, but that is really besides the point. What gives mankind the right to label anything "good" or "evil"?

Would you consider the destruction of the moon a "good" or an "evil" act?

Ethics- Moral principles that governs a person's or group's behavior. Morality- Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Both the forces of creation and destruction are intrinsically present throughout the universe as a necessary dichotomy that fuels our existence. Somehow we manage to label one as right and one as wrong when we exist in a reality in which everything is interconnected symbiotically as one. Ethics and morality are inherently rooted from the perspective of human beings, and often require an increased level of awareness and understanding sprinkled with empathy to universalize these ethical and moral, socially accepted principles entirely. Generally, what is good for the human race is often deemed morally justifiable or "good" in the eyes of society, and what is not beneficial to mankind as "bad" or unacceptable. This predisposition towards the growth or expansion of the human race is genetically engrained in our psyche from our conception, and tends to fabricate a kind of "skin-bag bias" prevalent throughout all of humanity, where what is beneficial to us in the short term or long term is often the preferred propensity of behavior. At what point does the well-being of the earth, the moon, sun, stars, galaxies, etc. outweigh the importance of the existence of man? Is it only when our existence as a species is threatened as a result? Why should we care about anything?

TheRobin, Criticism does tend to compliment controversial research. Feel free to analyze their findings yourself and come up with your own extrapolations. It certainly isn't an accurate means of measuring consciousness, but it definitely is an interesting study to say the least. Thank you for your findings, and please keep me updated if you happen to come up with anything more.I agree, it is a pretty intense topic to contemplate.

TheRobin, Great question, unfortunately I do not have a definite answer for it. Although, Princeton University has demonstrated the ability of the collective mind to effect "meaningful correlations" during times of pervasive distress within random number generators through what they call the Global Consciousness Project.

/ gaps of the god

Interesting, thank you for sharing.

Wazzums, I like your orchestra/conductor analogy, but it seems contradictory. If the orchestra (intelligence) creates it's own conductor (consciousness), but it is the conductor that decides to create artificial intelligence (other orchestras), then how is it that the conductor cannot function without the orchestra when it is the orchestra that needs the conductor to create it. Back to the chicken and the egg conundrum..