Quite anthropomorphic.

Suffering, worth, all these meanings are from us.

Pretending (that is, lying to oneself) that one can have an objective picture of the human condition could be considered the height of hubris. The God(s) - another human creation? - may have something to say about that ;-/

Hubris is identification with the gods, which is the exact opposite of knowledge of the human condition, which has nothing godlike about it: we're totally @#$%ed from the outset. Stuck in a monkey body inevitably doomed to die with a lot of preprogrammed ridiculous monkey desires that can only be satisfied temporarily at best, having animalistic desires in a repressive society, being vulnerable to constant threats of pain, disease, human aggression and natural disasters. Hubris is the exact opposite, namely when you imagine you're invulnerable to all that!

Thanks, excellent explanation. If I understand correctly there are two reasons to be optimistic about progress:

1) If you let the program run long enough, it will probably dither around until it makes ever greater discoveries (in a situation without time constraints, like research, rather than a chess game)

2) With the neural network, it's like you have several different scouts exploring simultaneously.

It seems some feel they are one of the only persons with a passing understanding of Buddhism, detachment, etc. Makes me wonder why this discussion regarding suffering even came up. Perhaps one is not as Buddhist as one believes, yet would rather lecture others about its virtues.

<Your explanation seems to undermine your conclusion. To objectively observe and understand the human condition is godlike.>

First of all, for real (non-vulgarized) Buddhism, gods are fellow sufferers bound to samsara (They are bound by chains of gold instead of chains of iron). If they were really enlightened they would step off the wheel of birth and death.

As to my philosophical vanity, how much great philosophical insight does it take to figure out "life sucks and then you die"?

Thirdly, I don't "compete with myself", I don't even belief the self really exists. It's all part of the world of the senses created by the body so it can trap the nutrients it needs.

You’re no different>

I can tell right away that <Everett> is altogether in another (higher) class than <chc>. The funny part is that <chc> doesn't realize how lost his position is. It's like watch a weak chess player play on, actually hoping to win, actually thinking he can win, with his bare king against the opponents Queen, rooks and king.

His uninhibited blathering discloses a true, sincere naivety; he prances around publicly, completely unaware that he is, intellectually speaking, stark naked.

Precious!

I like <Everett's> concise, insightful and powerful responses.

Actually it would be less peaceful, because in the animal kingdom, outside of mankind, it is kill or be killed, eat or be eaten.>

<tga>, I can't believe you took the time to explain that to IQ 85 <WPE>, who is on par IQ wise with <CHC>.

One would think that the IQ 85 people would think to themselves, <Hmmmm, I'm IQ 85. I should say less, because I only embarrass myself when I speak or write...> but NOOOOOOOOO!! That's not how it goes. It goes like this:

It wasn't even a year ago, but senile dementia comes as no surprise given the quality of your arguments. The fact that they are endorsed by the rancid Big Paunch says it all.

Thank you for your personal confession, Archie Bunker, at last I understand your motives:

<One would think that the IQ 85 people would think to themselves, <Hmmmm, I'm IQ 85. I should say less, because I only embarrass myself when I speak or write...> but NOOOOOOOOO!! That's not how it goes. It goes like this:

<I'm IQ 85 but too dumb to know better, so I'll go around sticking my foot in my mouth like an idiot and give full expression to the Platonic form of foolishness because somebody has to>>

I was hoping that <CHC> would provide a perfect example posthaste, and he did not disappoint:

<ChessHigherCat: <Everett> and <Big Pansy> I think I've become a moron magnet. I'm going have to scrape my shoes keep clean after sliding through you idiots.>

He furnished the forum with another perfect example:

<It wasn't even a year ago, but senile dementia comes as no surprise given the quality of your arguments. The fact that they are endorsed by the rancid Big Paunch says it all.>

And <CHC> skips along, frolicking lightly, skipping joyfully down the street, completely unaware of his nakedness.

Breathtaking.

I can understand this deluge of butthurt, coming as it does after <Everett> manhandled you in this little debate. Your pride is hurt.

It's the mark of an immature person. A man, a real man that is, does not operate from his emotions like <chc> is doing. A real man operates from logic, reason and without overreacting.

Reading <CHC> on this page reminds me of one of those fat, red haired, multiple-cat-owning, pagan, liberal FEMINISTS that you see blowing up in public once in a while, castigating their cuck husbands or boyfriends and giving full vent to her anger.

<CHC> my free advice to you is to not get angry when people disagree with you. It's just another way that you bare your intellectual nakedness whilst publicly owning your inferiority, all while being blissfully unaware.

Just put him on ignore and your site will improve 100%.

He is simply getting worse and worse and acting like a child who never had any recognition. And as such,no wonder he talks about strong men all the time.

He’s right. You need to hide from me, like the rest of th me weak men. Crawl under the blanket fort with <moron> and cuck together, and hide from <big pawn>.

How many of you have joined forces to take a stand against me on that other page?