Someone here

Because you fear death.

That's a good point. As long as you are alive you have to be biased. That's how you stay alive in the first place. Because life is a bias against death.

Thinking may form habits, habits of future thinking and habits of the mode of perceiving and habits of intuitions. Thus thinking may have an impact on general experience of life, on feelings and moods and life energy. This then may influence what happens to oneself in life but I do not believe in "law of attraction" or determinism to be the true basis of what happens.

I do believe that the idea of the law of attraction, as described by Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and a number of other writers, is useful.This view is that what becomes manifest in the outer circumstances in our lives is dependent upon our thoughts in a causal way. It involves the argument that negative and positive thinking affect us to the point where we draw specific events to take place in our lives. I have found this idea makes sense for me and I know that my own mindset seems to affect what really happens in my own life, and that gratefulness in itself seems to lead towards a more positive flow rather moaning all the time. Sometimes, people have argued that the law of attraction doesn't always work, because we don't always get what we seek, in spite of our our strong wishes, but advocates of the idea suggest that this is probably linked to discrepancies between our conscious and subconscious desires. I have been wondering how this relates to philosophy recently. It seems to be based on a view that causality is linked to states of mind somehow. Of course, on a basic level, our thinking is a pathway to bringing forth the actions necessary for events to occur. However, I think that the theory is stating a little more, with intentionality being the key factor. Also, it has connection with the issue of chance in life, and is life a series of mere random events? I am not convinced that there are any chances or coincidences in life, although I realise that perception of does involve our own perception and construction of meanings in life experiences. What do you think? I am raising this discussion with a view to exploring the causal role of thinking and intentionality. To what extent do we have the power to change and determine our own destinies as creative agents, or are we bound to random events and our material circumstances as aspects beyond our conscious control?

No. That's a projection and a story. The actuality is a bunch of colors, sounds, feelings etc

What about "God" "dreaming"? That's an assumption. Look for the actuality of what you're talking about.

God is an infinite singularity. Forever exploring itself by being itself fully. Good story?

Too much unquestioned assumptions in your question.

Apparently for no reason at all.

??

@Alysssa thank you

@The0Self Can't BS me

Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself... The man who is not under restraint is free, to whom things are exactly in that state in which he wishes them to be; but he who can be restrained or compelled or hindered, or thrown into any circumstances against his will, is a slave. But who is free from restraint? He who desires nothing that belongs to others. And what are the things which belong to others? Those which are not in our power either to have or not to have, or to have of a certain kind or in a certain manner. Therefore the body belongs to another, the parts of the body belong to another, possession belongs to another. If, then, you are attached to any of these things as your own, you will pay the penalty which it is proper for him to pay who desires what belongs to another. This road leads to freedom, that is the only way of escaping from slavery, to be able to say at last with all your soul: Lead me, O Zeus, and thou O destiny, The way that I am bid by you to go.

Solipsism is another word for insanity

Murder is immoral, right? So, is it immoral to eat animals? We don't kill them in defense, it's murder. Right? I used to have a problem with this. I was a vegetarian once (no longer).. Some people do consider this murder, but I don't really consider this murder since some animals are meant to be eaten in many cultures. Of course, in India it is illegal to eat beef, so I tend to think it sometimes depends on one's culture.

As for us eating animals as a form of murder, it wouldn't really be a form of murder. Animals are not protected under the constitution and are not defined as creatures who have rights (why should they have rights when they cannot even recognize those rights? That is why murders are executed because they have violated someone else's right to life and have blatantly shown they do not recognize their own.) The only rights animals have is not to be tortured and abused. I don't think slaughtering animals is a form fo abuse (though there are some cases, once in awhile, that they do horrible things...PETA enjoys exploiting this as much as they can...even when it's decades old!) You cannot apply the same rights that humans have to animals. I know...Animals are important to the ecosystem...Then again, we seem to breed so many...we're not hurting the ecosystem.

Perhaps consider making yourself more clear and easy to understand.

@Windappreciator It's a little different. It's not like I go to a hunter and ask "please sir, would you mind killing an animal for me to eat?" What happens is I go to a shop. There is meat there. I buy the meat. Whether or not I buy the meat, there will still be meat there which means there will still be animals being killed. If everyone gave up meat, then yes, there would be no meat industry. But that will never, ever happen. So what difference does it make if one less person is buying meat? (this is similar to the question about why vote

But do you think we should make a distinction between "eating" an animal and "killing" it. I agree that killing animals is equally immoral as killing people. But not the eating part if you didn't do the slaughter yourself. .. dunno about you guys, but I've never 'murdered' an animal. When I buy meat, someone else has already done the killing for me.

Well we don't think that plants have consciousness. They are alive but they are not sentient (they don't experience pain).

only true cause of death is birth. Anything that is born will die. Everything that is created will be destroyed. When it comes to so-called "causes of death", the rest is at best merely a matter of perspective, if not a deceptive shell game. For example, consider a cigarette smoker who dies with lung cancer shortly after catching the common cold. Would it even make sense to debate about whether the so-called "cause of death" was (1) cigarettes, (2) suicide, (3) lung cancer, or (4) the common cold? I propose that it would make no sense to have such a debate or to assert that one of those is or could be the cause. No human can be saved from death. Thus, nothing else causes a human to die because the death is inevitable from the birth. The human will die regardless of whether they smoke, whether they catch a cold, whether they get lung cancer, whether they drive a motorcycle, whether they are suicidal, or whether they desperately cling to life in terrified fear of death. Neither the presence nor absence of any of those things--or any other things like them--will prevent the person from dying. Thus, those things and anything like them cannot be a true cause of death. One could argue instead that a given event or factor (e.g. the presence of smoking versus non-smoking) would speed up the time of the death. Slightly accelerating or postponing the timing of something is very different than causing it. Moreover, analogous to accelerations or decelerations in Newtonian physics, these factors are cumulative not mutually exclusive, and are thus in practice immeasurable and countless if not infinite. For example, if 8 dogs are pulling a sled, it does not make sense to say which dog is the cause of the sled moving, nor is it true that only the dogs are responsible for the sled moving. Rather, there are countless and presumably infinite factors at play, such as but not limited to friction, gravity, the weather, and how much the guy riding the sled ate for breakfast. Imagine the proverbial sled is going down a steep ice-hill, having black-hole-like properties, and thus the sled will reach its destination very soon regardless of any of those other factors, and some of the dogs are futilely trying to pull the sled up the hill but can only at best slightly decrease the rate of acceleration. That would be a more accurate analogy to anything attempting to prevent human death, such as exercising daily instead of smoking cigarettes daily. There is no preventing death, and no practical way to significantly change to its timing on cosmological scales. The length of a human life is but an itsy bitsy teeny tiny sliver in cosmological spacetime. As a human, each of us is going to die very soon. Every human dies quickly. There is no cause of death, besides birth itself. Once born, the death is inevitable. We are going down the black-hole-like ice-hill quickly, from birth to death, and no dog can reverse the trajectory. When one of us humans reach the bottom of the ice-hill (human death), it is absurd and nonsensical, worse than false, to point to any one dog, or even a few dogs, or even dogs as a whole versus gravity or what the sled rider ate, and accuse that thing of being the cause. It doesn't matter what any of the dogs did, and what the rider ate or didn't eat, and thus those kinds of things cannot logically be considered causes. If you take the cause away, then the result cannot happen. Therefore, if you take an alleged cause away, and the result does still happen, then the alleged cause is no true cause at all, reductio ad absurdum. Thus, the only cause of death is birth.

@Waken thanks Sure go ahead and suggest what has helped you.

@nistake ?

There is no actuality to death.