Reece101

There is no solution but to take those who want to get out to other sharia nations and starve out anyone who remains.

Well, there is another solution.

Here is my speculative definition:

History is (potentially) simply a propaganda made to inspire or strike pride in a nation's political, religious, or technological identity.

Well, Trump did keep a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand.

I was questioning the significance of our emergent consciousness as a necessary or unnecessary 

component of the universal event.

Are we an emergent property of the bigger picture and therefore significant as such?

And by "we" I'm also referring to material development/evolution upon planet Earth, and not just the development of the intellectual blob.

Three possible levels of self-centredness, our own, the planet's, the universe's.

Four...So what about ET?

And thoughts of Quantum Entanglement. LOL.

Where do you think we are, within the Universal timeframe?

Are we just an unnoticed and temporary accident?

This would be categorized as an accident approach to selflessness, and I don't agree that a person who accidentally acts in such a way that it benefits another is considered selfless. You could imagine a person who trades stocks accidentally makes the wrong decision and another benefits would not be considered selfless.

Why do we think if not to deduce or induce knowledge? It sounds like you are suggesting we rely on non-logically derived conclusions, which I can't understand. I can't currently agree with the validity of emergentism in this debate as it touches upon the bounds of sound judgement and the supernatural.

I cannot be of use to conclude or support ideas that cannot be tested and derived by evident knowledge known as evidence as it would otherwise be considered a philosophy or conviction rather than a rational deduction. At this point, I can agree that we disagree, and thank you for expressing your ideas enough that I can understand your position and reasoning.

Are you saying that a person can act selflessly with the intention of enhancing their moral self-image, or that they can be selfless without intention (accidentally)?

I agree that there is still more to understand about the world than just quantum mechanics but categorizing it as ineffable magic of sorts isn't the mindset of someone who intends to understand. As long as your position is rooted within evidence that others can know to be true, then I'm interested in understanding your thoughts in more detail; otherwise, I can't be sure whether your case is correct or not, making it of no practical utility, just a blind guess.

Here is what I found, please clarify this is correctly representing your belief:

The case made by emergent thought philosophy is that some aspects of reality, such as life, mind, and society, are not explainable by the simpler components that make them up, but rather arise from the complex interactions of those components. Emergent thought philosophy argues that these aspects of reality have their own properties, laws, and meanings that cannot be reduced to the lower levels of reality.

To say that something is reducible means that it can be explained or derived from something else that is more fundamental or basic. For example, some philosophers think that mental states are reducible to brain states, meaning that they can be fully accounted for by the physical processes in the brain.

To say that there are different levels of reality means that there are different kinds or categories of things that exist, each with their own properties and laws. For example, some philosophers distinguish between the level of quantum reality, where subatomic particles behave in strange ways, and the level of medium-sized objects, where we encounter things like tables and chairs.

The question of whether something is reducible or not, and whether there are different levels of reality or not, is a major topic in philosophy. Some philosophers are reductionists, who think that everything can be reduced to the most basic level of reality, such as physics. Other philosophers are emergentists, who think that some things, such as life, mind, or society, are not reducible to the lower levels of reality, but rather emerge from the complex interactions of those lower levels

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a religious belief; I'm only looking to discuss logically induced and deducted evidence.

I don't mean to discredit supernatural believers, but the supernatural is unexplainable being defined as supernatural, so it is not worth the time trying to understand.

Wanting to be selfless and being selfless are two different things. 

Simply telling me this teaches me nothing but that you disagree; would you precisely explain how they are different, and what makes this discernment valid?

Thought is either a functional process or not.

What do you think powers thought, if not a biological process?

You wouldn't be able to focus on your thought process if the very neurons that are creating the thought can't be aware of themselves thus from the perspective of the person's mind thinking up a thought, thoughts would indeed always seem emergent; but this does not make them so.

If you asked the mother who sacrificed herself to save the child, could you have lived with yourself knowing you had done nothing…

It was already concisely said by zedvictor4, but I will try to elaborate. The idea that if we intend to do something only for someone else makes the act selfless is an illusion. The very idea that we want to be selfless to enhance our own moral self-image is indeed self-less in itself, making it impossible to act selfless by intention; and if we were to act selfless by accident, I hardly think anyone would consider it to be selfless.

Is anything done without a self-centered purpose?

It is calculated that more than 26,000 rape-caused pregnancies may have taken place in Texas alone. The findings were published on Wednesday in JAMA Internal Medicine.

• The universe is about 14 billion years old.
  
• The Known (observable) universe is 93 billion light years in diameter. We don’t actually know the true size of the universe. It could be meany magnitudes larger. 
  
• Within the known universe it is estimated there are about 200-billion galaxies, several hundred-billion-trillion stars, and sextillions of planets. These numbers are on the conservative side in my opinion. 
  
• Simple life on Earth has existed for over 3 billion years, modern humans have existed for about 300,000 years, Human civilisation has been around for about 6000 years, humans went from the steam engine to the rocket engine within 200 years. 
  

Is absence of proof, proof of absence?

Interesting that one might have views concerning homophobia, but no views concerning potential lesbophobia.

Then part of homophobia or part of the reasons are rational because of the molestation factor. Do you follow ?

Do you agree that all gays are heterophobes?

Egg producer.

My generation just answered the phone, your generation googles the phone number.

Ready go, 

My generation cut off their mufflers your generation cuts off their dicks.

what would you expect from a "theory of everything" if you were going to take it seriously?