I don't want to bring the tone down here but erotic lucid dreams can be very interesting indeed but how far can you get? Climax?
I think this is interesting from the standpoint of how the mind can control your own physical reactions in a lucid dream state

As I already typed Tom, I have no recollection of every typing the phrase, 'skepticism is self-refuting.'
I also did not type that I agreed with it. I merely typed that my skills as a wordsmith are rarely able to put words together in such an aesthetically pleasing way or at least aesthetically pleasing to me.
I agree with your application of skepticism towards any scientific theory, without sufficient empirical evidence or sound reasoning to support it. That would be my approach as well.

You hit the nail on the head when you said skepticism is self-refuting — Agent Smith

I don't recall ever typing the phrase 'skepticism is self-refuting,' If I did then I copied it from somewhere as it's seems greater than my skills as a wordsmith could muster. I am a great fan of skepticism but I think its true that whenever humans push the limits of propositional logic, they just seem to encounter paradox or self-refuting logic, quite quickly. Perhaps the knowledge that lies beyond that particular sealed door will remain off limits to the human race for some time yet. We just cant figure out how to open that door yet but......one day......

Humans can only be broadly categorised. Such categorisations are always going to be quite limited in accuracy and functionality when applied to a particular human as humans are so nuanced.
The bigger the list gets the more problematic it becomes.

:up: No worries. If the many worlds theory is true then you have already answered me in every way possible, superpositionally speaking of course. which must include an absolutely true answer as well, so the many worlds theory at least suggests that absolute truths must be possible within the many worlds reference frame.

:smile: :up:

Depends on what we mean.
When I say "not think about an elephant" do I mean in any universe or just this one. I would think I am only talking about this me. Not mes in other universes. — Yohan

I agree, and it also depends on whether or not all the superpositions of you are all connected as you.
They are not clones of you or separable from you they are all physically you, just in different states and positions in a multiverse. I am not convinced by the many worlds theory, I am more attracted to cyclical universe theories such as the Penrose bounce.

Thanks for QM explanations. I'm inspired to watch some YT videos on the subject. Confusing stuff! — Yohan

:up:

The Münchhausen Trilemma takes care of Descartes' cogito in my humble opinion. I ain't sure though, I'm a skeptic, comes with the territory or thereabouts. — Agent Smith

Google reports:
In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma, also commonly known as the Agrippan trilemma, is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics, without appealing to accepted assumptions. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof:

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.

Ok but do you think the speed of light in a vacuum, or the mass of an electron is the same for every measured electron are absolute, universal FACTS and are TRUE facts. Such measurements can always be improved in accuracy but if they are not absolute truths, they are probably the closest we are every going to get to such.

.I still can't both think about an elephant and not think of an elephant at the same time. — Yohan

It depends on how true 'superposition' is. In the many words theory you can think of an elephant and not think about it at the same time, just not in the same universe.

This question was asked on Quora:
How is it possible for atoms to be at 2 different places at the same time according to quantum mechanics?

The answer given by Michael Price (MSc in quantum field theory) was:
Not just two places, but an infinite number of places. All particles or objects (from electrons to elephants to galaxies) have their position (and state) given by a probability amplitude - called the wave function - which you can use to calculate the probability of the object being at some point (or in some state) if you look. After you look the wave function needs adjusting (wave function collapse) to reflect the fact of where you saw the object. Between observations the wave function evolves according to a wave equation, the nature of which is quite well known in most situations. Wave function collapse occurs either when a particle or object encounters decoherence (usually some form of environmental heat) or when someone (big, hot, squishy, decoherent things like us) observes it.
In the time between one collapse and the next, evolving according to a wave equation (as mentioned), the particle exists in more than one position or state. The interpretation of this is debated, there is no consensus. I go with the many worlds interpretation, but take your pick!

The answer given by the very popular Viktor T. Toth (IT pro, part-time physicist) was:

It is not.

The moment you imagine that atom as a miniature cannonball that is in two places at once, you lost the game: you are failing to understand quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does not say that the atom is in two places at once. What quantum mechanics says is that the atom has no classically defined position at all between measurements. Its position, rather than being represented by a set of numbers (as in classical mechanics, where the position would be a set of coordinates), is represented instead by the so-called position operator. Unlike the numbers, the position operator does not tell us where the atom is. The atom is neither here nor there, nor anywhere else. The position operator tells us how likely it is that we find the atom at a particular place, if we look. It does not tell us where the atom is.

But when you actually look and find the atom somewhere, the atom is in exactly one place: the place where you found it. It is never in two places at once. However, most of the time (that is, always when you are not looking) it is in no place at all, in a classical sense, as it has no well-defined position.

(And just to be clear, when I somewhat whimsically say, “when you are not looking”, I don’t really mean that a human or a cat has to look at the atom for it to have a position. No, the atom simply has to interact with a macroscopic object or instrument, one that consists of a very large number of particles such that any quantum behaviour is averaged out and it behaves classically.)

Philosophy 101

'I think therefore I am', a subjective declaration by Descartes. — ArielAssante

Yeah? I am not academically qualified in philosophy, Computing Science is my expertise but I always considered descartes statement to be presented as a universal truth or an objective truth about sentient existence. I thought it was solipsism that challenged this as it suggested that this might prove to a person that they exist but it does not prove that anyone else exists. I have always considered solipsism to be nonsense but If academic philosophy insists that 'I think therefore I am,' is subjective then I don't really have the quals to argue.

You are working so hard to rescue me — Athena

Do you want to be rescued?

it is a matter of honor to end my life when I still can. — Athena

You have no idea what might happen in the time you have left. There may be more people you need to help and if you are not there then they may also perish before their time. How honourable is that?
Yes, you're right! I have just laid a unfair burden of guilt on you. So if you help another few people because you decided to stay a little longer then Kudos for me as well!

My son and daughter were teenagers when the family moved my grandmother into my home and they know they do not want to deal with caring for me. It is not a family disagreement but all of us knowing the unpleasant reality. — Athena

My own father went through 6 years of deterioration before he died due to multiple brain infarctions. He saw hallucinations all around him. He eventually reverted to an almost child like state with symptoms very similar to Alzheimer's but he had some lovely, rare moments of lucidity as well and he had many tender moments with my mother and his family before he died. My mother was also the main force when her mother took Alzheimer's as her father and her 6 brothers were not able to cope with it. 8 years of it.
My mother also states that if she took Alzheimer's she would rather just be gone. So I do understand your point of view but I know my mother would not surrender easily and I am sure you will do the same.

If we spent more money on medical research instead of paying it out to shareholders then perhaps we would have cured Alzheimer's by now.

If I had a million dollars I would create a space for people wanting to end their lives. We celebrate birthdays and weddings and why not dying? The space I would create would be surrounded by nature and inside I would use projectors to project on the walls any scenery a person may want. — Athena

Have you been watching the assisted suicide scene from the film Soylent green again?:


Don't worry about posting on TPF, post when you want to and have the time to.

Really? I never thought of that. What would be interesting about that? — Athena

The real lives of people are far more interesting that fiction. I have just finished the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. His portrayal of the Mexican war and his experiences in the America civil war, increased my knowledge and understanding of what drives people in very significant ways.
Your family has gained a lot of experience about how people live with economic, political and social abuse at the extremes of the society they exist within. That is very important on so many levels.

Do you know Jefferson plagiarized John Locke? But John Locke said "life, liberty, and property" not "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". — Athena

There are many arguments and counter arguments about who said what, when and why etc. You can only study the evidence yourself and judge accordingly. I would need at least 1000 years of life to even start to know the truth about what I really need to know the truth about.

But the brain issue means I won't be writing any books. — Athena

So dont write them, talk them, matbe your sister would type what you talk and would add her own stuff, maybe its the book that could help heal the family rifts. Suggest it as a social responsibility project towards helping the next generation understand the issue of homelessness and economic abuse, make it a business proposition, no emotional content so you can all ignore the family rifts.

I wonder if it was not also behind Hemmingway's suicide. — Athena

I'm not a Hemingway fan. He was too much of a self-obsessed, self-aggrandising, narcissistic pr***! for my tastes.

I think it is wrong to blame the doctors. So far we can not stop the deterioration of our brains and bodies. — Athena

Yeah they can be treated unfairly at times but they do have crazies amongst them as well.

The issue of this thread is life sucks and I am saying old age sucks. — Athena

I understand your complaint Athena. I sent you a song with the words 'dont give up' repeated often.
I even cited Helen Keller who had many 'cant do's to cope with but still lived to her last breath.
It's your life and your choice when to terminate it. I am just giving you my personal pennies worth that you should not surrender without declaring war first and losing every battle, and even then......

By all means read the words of Confucius and anyone else you choose but it's your life not theirs.

Is 'I think therefore I am,' subjective?

What do you mean here by 'basic economic parity'?
And what do you have in mind when saying "a system that works better"?
With any medium of exchange there likely is a measure of value, be they dollars, pack of cigarettes or squirrel hives. What is wrong then with this having store of value?
Do you have something against money in general, or is your criticism about the current monetary system? — ssu

Free comfortable housing, food, water, power, education, medical and social care for everyone born on the Earth, from cradle to grave. Such a system would work better compared to the current one as people would not have to compete for the basic resources of life and store such in excess as they are afraid of a change in personal circumstances which would mean they can no longer provide for themselves or their dependents.
In something like a resource based economy, a method of exchange is not required. Automation would be used as much as possible to gather, manufacture, store and distribute resources to people as they require it.
When it comes to access to technology and entertainment. Any new or existing device which can assist a human in their job or their life would be given freely. Any one who wishes to collect items can collect old devices no longer in common use or used in recycling.
Anyone who wants a castle with 20 bedrooms and 8 bathrooms etc, cant have one.
Access to entertainment, social activity, alcohol, legal drugs etc would need to be debated.
For example, to go to a music concert, we might have a system where you would indicate your wish to attend and a computer might choose those who can attend to capacity. The rest will have to watch on TV or through a AR (augmented reality) system. We might even keep a small credit type system, which can be added to by earnings for doing certain jobs that the community needs. Everyone would receive a regular fixed amount of credits to spend on things like your own choice of clothing, your entertainment, your hobbies etc but you could earn extra credits for doing any required community services which currently cannot be or are not automated.

So just talk about then social democracy. UK Labour and the various Social Democrat Parties of Europe. Works as a political party in other Western countries and hasn't been such a ruinous totalitarian experiment as Marxism-Leninism has been every time it has been tried. — ssu

I do only type about democratic socialism/humanism, I don't advocate for any political parties. I would not allow political parties, just independents. If a majority of independents are elected who declare themselves as democratic socialists/humanists then they will influence every decision made by any authority formed from them for the fixed time frame they are in authority. New elections must be held every 4 years.

Democracy actually works by reaching some kind of consensus. Socialists can ask for something, conservatives ask for something else, some agreement has to be found between the two. It's naive to think that one side can convince everybody to back their agenda by reason, that simply doesn't happen. That's not only democracy, it is reality — ssu

Yeah, I know how democracy works. People will vote for those who can help them live the kind of life they want to live. It's up to socialists/humanists to convince people that they can provide the best and fairest sociopolitical system that will be benevolent to the vast majority of stakeholders and prevent the nefarious few from gaining power and control over the life and fate of that vast majority I mentioned.
If the socialists cant convince the people to elect them and give them the authority to start to make the required changes then they can keep electing those who maintain the current systems and continue to suffer accordingly. Usually when they have suffered enough they will return to democratic socialism/humanism.

So you would be fine meeting your friends in a pub that is fully automated? Would you prefer also fully automated restaurants? Yeah, I have no problem with the vending machines. Yet what you describe are a bit bigger vending machines, ones you walk into (or drive through). — ssu

I tend to be interested in the people I go to a pub or restaurant with or the other people in the restaurant/pub. If your socialisation is attracted more to the pub or restaurant staff then I can appreciate your issue with an automated staff but its not a big concern of mine. Perhaps you could get a human to serve you when you go to automated pub or restaurant and give them some of your assigned credits or you could barter and they serve you then you serve them. I am sure a future automated pub or restaurant could accommodate such personal requests.

But your providing, providing people what they need from cradle to grave, not that they would work for this (with their abilities and own motivation). — ssu

Humans need to have purpose who knows what jobs/activities there will be in the future. I would imagine that research and development would be enormous. Working with automated systems and developing more of them. Working with climate control and ecosystems would be very big, to maintain all fauna (including humans) on Earth as well as all flora. Space exploration and development would become massive as well. I would hope that each human would be able to pursue whichever activity most attracted them at whatever stage of life they are in. Have a look at the brief youtube videos I posted earlier on the Venus project (RBE).

So your answer is what? To give a committee or some central power the role to decide about the means of production, distribution, and exchange? That's it? That will improve our stewardship of this planet?
Hasn't worked so well in history. — ssu

What do you mean by your rather flippant 'That's it?' That's always been it! Control of the means of production, distribution and exchange is the core issue we have been fighting over since homo sapiens arrived on the scene. It was also a big issue for all hominid species. Yeah your right it hasn't worked so well in history, due to the rule of the nefarious few over the majority, due to totalitarianism/autocracy/monarchy/aristocracy/theocracy/plutocracy/capitalism. So the sooner we nullify such systems permanently, the better things will get for all of us.

If I had the kind of relationship with my family that your mother has, I would do as your mother is doing. I hope you realize how important that is to the decision. — Athena

I do and I don't know the details of the rift in your own family but I had many major fall outs with siblings and my parents in my life. My mother was always the main person who would work so hard to bring family members back together. It took some years to achieve in some cases due to the nature of some of the fall outs.
I can only exemplify from my own experience, only you know if there is anyway to close the rifts in your own family.

The book has nothing to do with my family — Athena

I know, I wasn't referring to that book you have started writing. I was referring to the book about your family members involved in fighting for basic human rights, that I think you should all write. From what you have typed so far, that sounds like it would be a very interesting book.

Last Wednesday I met a man at the senior center and I am praying he is there this coming Wednesday. A couple of months ago he had a stroke that makes it impossible for him to think and he is homeless. I can get him into shelter but I have to find him to do that. Last week I left the room to wash dishes and hoped he would stay and play Bingo until I got done with the dishes. I knew better. It was obvious he was not capable of playing without help and everyone else was avoiding him. If I see him this week I am not leaving him until I know where is sleeping so I can find him again. I hate it when I am trying to help a homeless person and I can not find them. My sister deals with the problem daily. It feels great to get someone to the hospital in time or get them into housing or give them a tent, but there are a lot of bad moments too. — Athena

Let me use one of those theistic morality tales you are fond of.
The story of the rich folks rolling their gold coins into the collection boxes, when a poor old bedraggled woman roles a small copper coin in and Jesus talks about how the old woman's contribution is worth more that all the gold coins rolled in by the rich put together. The idea being that the rich wont miss those coins but the old woman probably wont eat as much that day. This is a lead in to the 'rich man, the camel and the eye of a needle,' crescendo. You give of yourself to help others. This is much more that Bill Gates writing charity cheques. You love what you do so keep doing it until your last breath.

I like what my grandson said about dying. "I don't mind dying, I just don't want to see it coming." — Athena

I like Woddy Allan's 'I am not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens.' and what Spike Milligan has on his gravestone, 'I told you I was ill!'
I also like the many old gravestones and even some modern ones i'm sure, with the words:
As you are now, so once was I,
As I am now, so will you be,
Prepare yourself to follow me.

We are all going the same way, unless there is a major breakthrough in transhumanism or some kind of cloning tech that your brain can be transplanted into. We will all die but perhaps not today or tomorrow or.... whatever! That's all we get for now. I agree with euthanasia or assisted suicide but only when the alternative are ALL very bad!

They had to barter. Simple as that. The society was totally different and nowhere near the advance system of our society. — ssu

So people can survive without the money trick, yes. We just need a modern system of exchange which works better than the barter system and is fair for all and provides a basic economic parity. I think the human race is smart enough to do that.

Oh right... so a two hundred year old political ideology hasn't been just misunderstood or missused? Do you understand how much hubris is in this idea? — ssu

Socialism/humanism is a lot older than 200 years. Its been around since we came out of the wilds.
It is easy to understand and setup. The Epicurean commune system was an early respectable attempt at a humanist system but it was unable to defend itself against outside forces.
The servile revolts (the 1st led by Eunus, the 2nd by Salvius and Athenion and the 3rd by Spartacus), The Russian, French and Chinese revolutions, the English civil war, etc all started as socialist/humanist movements but true socialist are the first one targeted by the forces mustered against such movements.
The nefarious opportunists amongst your own rank and file often destroy the original purpose of historical attempts. So socialism/humanism has never got far enough to become fully established as a way of running a large civilisation. NOT YET anyway but as education reaches more and more people, socialist/humanist movements are not so easily usurped by outside forces or inner corruption. It therefore remains, as it has since our days in the wilds, INEVITABLE. The nefarious can only keep trying to do what they have always tried to do, DELAY IT.

Really? Or do put Marxist-Leninism or Marxism not to be socialist? Interesting. — ssu

Much of what Karl Marx wrote is socialism and humanism yes. Lenin sometimes spoke like a socialist but Lenin was a mass murderer who ended up personally owning 9 Rolls Royce cars. You must act like a socialist not merely talk like one. You must be judged on what you do not what you say you will do.

So you are talking about social democracy (or in the way they say in the US, democratic socialism)?

Well, I think there's a huge problem with that, just as is with the right-wing libertarians when they accept democracy. You see, in a democracy there will be people who oppose you. Hence in an democracy there will be both a left-wing and a right-wing, and the other simply won't fade out! And since a lot of people are OK with private capital, then socialism won't prevail. Just as in the right-wing libertarian democracy social democrats would feel totally fine to criticize the system. — ssu

As I have already stated, the label socialism has be greatly soiled in the US by the capitalists because they are terrified of it, so any American description of the term will be dubious.
If socialists cannot convince a majority of the population of a society, through reasoned argument, that their tenets will benefit all and be a fair and equitable way to live then they should not gain power. If they do gain power then they must demonstrate that they can be trusted and that they will do what they said they will do and if they don't then they cannot continue to hold power and they must step down and if they don't willingly step down they are not socialist and they must be removed.
The democratic process is the core of true socialism.

Or basically having human interaction in your average daily life, yes. And do notice I said waiter / waitress. — ssu

What kind of life of isolation are you living? You will get lots of human interaction, if you choose to interact with real people such as friends and family and even strangers when you go out for a walk or meet socially in pubs etc. You don't need to rely on visits to takeaway food shops for your doses of human interaction so I am sure you can live with such systems becoming fully automated.

Well, because when our leaders fuck things up and we end with high unemployment (thanks to stupid decisions), they will likely use that lie that the World has changed so much that we should redefine just what work means. If you can hide some percentage of the unemployed away with these kinds of redefinitions, they will gladly use that statistical trick to lie about how great things are and how they have tackled unemployment. — ssu

People don't need money they need resources and purpose. We need a socialist/humanist system such as a resource based economy to provide every human born with what they need to live a comfortable life from cradle to grave based on need and ability and we need to facilitate the aspirations and individual freedoms of each individual as much as is possible within the local circumstances presented.
I am not interested in those who opine that such goals are utopian. I will be a part of the group who will continue to struggle to make such a global socialist/humanist system a reality. I do not expect to see such a system fully established in my lifetime but I do expect to see further movement towards it. I am already aware of many examples of such efforts. The race remains one between a global socialist/humanist way of living and the alternative of our extinction.
There is nothing as mundane as hubris involved. Socialists and humanists simply believe we can do better than we are doing at the moment in how we live and how we enact our stewardship of this planet.
We still have not even left our little home nest. If we are to become an interplanetary/interstellar species we must first become a united species/planet.

Dirtbagging, on the other hand, was and is popular in the US and once again its advocates can go different directions with their lives. — jgill

Not a term, I am familiar with but a quick internet search led me to think its similar to the term backpacking, which is very frugal living as you travel around the world by thumbing lifts and working for your passage costs.

became wealthy beyond reason — jgill

Its interesting that you feel compelled to use words such as 'beyond reason,' when referring to such personal wealth. I agree, such examples as becoming a billionaire through making outdoor clothing is 'beyond reason,' and as such, should never be possible to achieve.

I'm talking about those who are capable but do not supply goods, or services, or entertainment to society but want society to support them while they play. — jgill

You are describing most of the children of the rich and many of the rich themselves. The workers manufacture and distribute the goods and provide the services and entertainment (so its their society that supports/maintains the rich). The rich owners quickly become little more that the conductors of the orchestra. Don't you think that the workers should get an equal share of all profits? I think we should sort out the imbalance between what owners and such people with titles like CEO or company director etc, earn first, before we worry about those who abuse basic benefits systems. It's like jailing all the junkies instead of going after the real problem of the kingpins who control drug manufacture and distribution.

I was in Buxton for a mountaineering conference in 1985, and met a number of young Brit lads who had pooled their doles to rent houses and go climbing full time. They weren't representing communities - just playing in the mountains and on the cliffs. I didn't envy them - primarily because I wanted a life with more dimensions - rather I found their lifestyles unappealing. But that's on me , not them. — jgill

But this was just a stage for these boys, was it not? Even the hippies had to grow up. Well, most of them anyway. I dont mind if people want to go chasing rainbows for a while, let them, if the community they come from can afford to let them. Like you, chasing rainbows or climbing wouldn't do it for me full time but if you built your climbing skills to such a level that you could become one of the best at it then would that not add to the status of the community you came from? I would insist that every news program must deliver 50% positive reports as well as 50% negative reports about what's going on in the world. BALANCE! Tell me about the climbing skills some people are gaining as well as the story about the serial killer on the loose etc. Don't just deliver 100% bad news in every broadcast as that is not a true representation of the world we live in.

I become irritated when reading in a climbing forum arguments against carrying medical insurance. Why waste the money when you can start a Gofundme account and have others pay your bills?
It's a matter of accepting or avoiding responsibility for your own actions. Call me puritanical, I suppose.
I would support a UBI if it required some sort of contribution to the common good scaled to the recipient's capabilities. Giving away money, no. — jgill

UBI is about the basic means of survival as a human right, not how to fund climbing expeditions or medical insurance for such activity, all health care should be free..
I agree that people should take responsibly for their own actions but how many people do you know who deliberately cause themselves to be hungry and homeless? Are you talking of those with psychological problems, addictions etc. Are you happy to let such people self-destruct?
If you equate I would support a UBI if it required some sort of contribution to the common good scaled to the recipient's capabilities. with something like 'From each according to their ability and too each according to their need' Then I broadly support this BUT I would not enforce anyone to do a job they did not want to do if such could be accommodated. I would prefer that people were allowed to do a job that they loved doing.

Giving away money, no. — jgill

Money is bits of paper and metal coin. People need resources, not money.
Money is just a means of exchange, we can change that system all together by something like a resource based economy or give people enough numbers/credits in their account to LIVE! and obtain the resources they need to do so.

I sympathize with your views, China is communist in name only. — Agent Smith

absafragginlootly!

Do you personally want everything to be an automate drive or walkthrough? — ssu

Well it wouldn't bother me if takeaway food became such, as long as its quality was maintained! So it depends what you mean by everything.

I think I'd pay that few cents (and likely more) for the smile from the human waiter/waitress gives me when giving my coffee — ssu

So, you advocate for a smiling human female as you pick up you automated takeaway. Maybe some pretty girls would be willing to do that for a good quality UBI and the chance to encounter amazing guys like you and I. Maybe not however, we can only request it. At my age of 58 and with any good looks I once had fading fast, I would settle for a pretty robot with limited vision or what I would consider 'good programming.'

Oh God, you don't know how scary that sounds! Because, they'll likely try to do that... :grimace:
Contribute to the society... by being a nice person. That's all. Thank you for existing!!!
You should write the next book in the line of "1984" by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". The next dystopian nightmare we would gladly all read. — ssu

:lol: What worries you most in the future I am trying to paint for you? Where did I propose anything akin to Orwell's or Huxley's dystopias?
I am writing a book as it happens but its about a life after death, for a few only, not a chosen few only a few who have the correct nonbaryonic foetus.

The free rider problem, among others. And the incentive problem.

If how much I do work (or not) doesn't show in my income, wealth position or status, why would anyone try harder? Especially when the other guy next to me doesn't do shit and gets the same wage. — ssu

This is a concern I have heard many many times. How did humans manage to live any kind of life of value before money was invented as an exchange mechanism? Would you not pity the guy who decides to waste his/her life as an unthinking unchallenged useless purposeless couch potato? I Would!
Status will still very much exist. I for one will still admire the people I admire. Carl Sagan remains one of my hero's and that status has zero to do with any wealth he had or position he held.

It's great to get people to do something voluntarily for the collective, but to do everything for the collective is really hard, if not possible. With the experiments it has gotten twisted, corrupt and in the end the system has to be a totalitarian system in order to survive, because otherwise it wouldn't work — ssu

I really don't follow the logic of this. Are you jumping to some historical examples such as the system ran, running in Russia or China? These are not and never have been socialist or humanist even through they may have soiled the labels. Socialism is a democratic system. Russia and China have never employed democracy in any significant way, even under Gorbachev (their best effort in my opinion.)
The word communism comes from common/commune/community are these also bad words?
I am not a great fan of the imagery of the word 'collective' either but 'working for the common good,' is surely a good pursuit and a good purpose to have. I think individual freedom is also essential as is the entrepreneurial spirit but does a well balanced person really need to become 'the king of the world' (as portrayed in some horror story such as Al Pacino did in Scarface?) An entrepreneur should be allowed to own a small business if they want to but not become a 'king of the world' by doing so.
True socialism has never been successfully established because the nefarious global rich have always been able to stop it because they know that its global growth tolls the complete end of totalitarianism/autocracy/plutocracy/aristocracy/monarchy/theocracy and such like.

I remember what Stephen Kotkin, who has written books about Stalin, noted that it's not that the Soviet Union just stumbled to the hands of Stalin, the whole system would likely had collapsed without an organizer like Stalin. — ssu

I was no fan of Stalin, Trotsky or Lenin. None of them were socialists. All three were narcissists.
The Russian revolution got rid of the monarchy and resulted in most of the Russian people being able to move away from a peasant/serf style life. Industrialisation also played a big role as it did in France eventually. Their revolution ended up replacing a king and an aristocracy with an emperor and a plutocracy but eventually, the French people also moved away from peasantry and serfdom.
You can see the slow trudge towards a united planet and one race. It will come. Global socialism/humanism is what it has always been! INEVITABLE!

I suspect the OP may have been written by AI. But look at the conversation it triggered! — jgill

:smile: Does that mean you have enjoyed the discussion or......

The American right has worked very hard to portray communism and socialism as 'reds under the beds,' even going so far as the embarrassing McCarthy witch hunts and the disaster of the Vietnam war.
I don't think these are such soiled words in America as they were but I don't deny that right wing politics in America remain terrified of socialism and communism.
The regimes ran and running in Russia, China, and places like North Korea have a lot more to do with totalitarian capitalism than they do with the true tenets of communism or socialism.
The politicians in Russia/ China etc are no different in power and wealth than the rich in America or Europe. There is almost no difference at all between a Russian Oligarch and an American millionaire/billionaire. The only difference is the Russians have a single crime boss to answer to called the premier (used to be called Tzar). The label is 'chairman' or president in China I think.

If you get more as unemployed than working at McDonalds, who would work at McDonalds? — ssu

Surely such jobs will be automated in the future, automated drive or walkthroughs.

Why just hmmm... enjoy sports or discuss things on a Philosophy Forum than take those orders at the drive in? — ssu

Sounds like good jobs to me. Train in sports to represent you community in friendly physical competitions. Train in philosophy and take part is on-line debate so you can contribute to teaching others about such important topics. why can these not be called jobs for which you are pain the UBI?

Unemployment benefit is never taken away. So basically, you'll get unemployement benefits until 65 years, and then you get state pension. Although they have, I guess, taken the American statistical gimmick that over certain period people aren't unemployed, they are just discouraged workers. As if those looking for jobs are just the ones unemployed. — ssu

so perhaps we need to redefine what a job is. a job should be something you want to do that also contributes to supporting the community/country/planet. Working should be part of living, you should not simply have to work to live, or live to work.

n fact they experimented with UBI here in Finland. The results were a mixed bag, but not so hugely positive that UBI would be implemented in Finland. Here's an official video of the experiment results: — ssu

Yeah, Kenya is trying a 12 years experiment but the money involved seems very small to me. The Welsh are giving those involved £1600 per month but I think they are going to tax their 'overall' monthly earnings so they may lose some benefit money they also get from the UK welfare state.
It seems to me that the positives suggested in the report summary you posted were quite important and substantial ones and based on only 560 euros a month! I hope a lot more movement is made in this direction in the future.

Pecunia non olet. :snicker: — Agent Smith

:lol: I always need an on-line translator when exchanging with you Mr Smith. Money does stink in every sense of the word, including the fact that it does have an actual odour.

I'm not saying we should let injustice continue but I don't see an alternative; if there's one then it's communism OR capitalism and we seem to have opted for the latter. Perhaps my ignorance of economics & politics is showing. — Agent Smith

So why not socialism/humanism and a resource based economy?

As an atheist, I think the Chris is correct, I lack faith in god(s) as I have zero faith in god(s). I think Alex is wrong as I think Chris does not reject christianity because he is too afraid to.

1. To get rich is ethical — Agent Smith

I agree totally, if your measure of 'rich' is a human right and is the measure of economic parity for all and I think your second and third criteria sound good to me but I don't think any capitalist would recognise or accept any of your typed criteria. Especially number 1, as interpreted by me. I think they would require your criteria altered to.

1, To get rich is ethical no matter how you achieve it and there must be a majority of poor, inferior undeserving unfortunates for the rich to compare themselves to.
2. To stay rich is ethical.
3. To get richer is even more ethical as the rich are chosen to be so or are the only ones who have the wits to become so. You think your gonna stop us? :lol:

So, should all us inferior, undeserving, unfortunates accept the dictates of the rich 'law of the jungle' predators or should we keep fighting against them?

Well the important activity is to keep trying Mr Smith. I always liked Obama's call of 'yes we can!' I personally support the main tenets of socialism and humanism. I also like some of the ideas being put forward by those who talk about a resource based economy, such as @Josh Alfred I am a little suspicious of characters such as Jacque Fresco, having read some more details about his life based on watching this 8 minute clip some time ago:


I preferred this 18 mins one by Sue Everatt, even though she is connected to Jacque. My mind is not yet made up about Jacque as a benevolent force or not.

Won't those just be bought and paid for by those same self-serving individuals, like most media is today? — Tzeentch

Its very reasonable to raise such 'alarm flags.' You go on to suggest one or two examples of where such circumstances may be bypassed or avoided. I would like to see a national computing infrastructure owned by the public and monitored by the elected authorities. A public computer network (pcn), free of charge to all users, no adverts. There would be standard topics set up, 'politics,' 'Science,' 'philosophy,' 'sports,' psychology' etc. Any member of the public could start their own group on any topic and the rules would be similar or perhaps better than those available on typical discussion sites today. The government would not have full control over this system it would have joint control with an elected citizens group made up of stakeholder groups.

It's worrying to me how quickly things like freedom of speech end up on the chopping block when it suits the powerful, and what worries me even more is how easily people accept it. — Tzeentch

I agree. BUT I don't think anyone should have the freedom to incite violence or spread hatred and that can be a complicated one to enforce fairly, but we must always try our best to.

Playing the advocate of the devil here; wouldn't world domination be the wet dream of any uncivilized savage? — Tzeentch

Absolutely, there will always be such individuals and even some significant groups with such plans but I hope for a system which can identify them and stop them. It is the responsibility of us all to decide EXACTLY WHO the enemy is. WE MUST get that part right!

I don't mind what the title is 'The Ring,' 'The Pit,' 'Limbo!,' etc. Hot debate could be misunderstood as 'sex talk.' or is that just my mind working overtime?
A moderator could invite two or more hostile members into the ring but he/she could 'throw them into the pit' and give them no access to anything else on TPF until they solve their problems with each other to the satisfaction of the moderator. It would be their 'last chance saloon' before a permanent ban for life!
BTW are there any female moderators on this site?

Well, it does feel terrible to be at the bottom of the food chain. — Agent Smith

Can you hear all the animals protest at your claim, especially the chickens!

it seems to be the way nature works - its gotten us this far hasn't it? — Agent Smith

Well, the chickens are also still here and not extinct but they don't have the freedoms most humans do.

Your own family tree is probably marked by many ruthless, brutish characters - you wouldn't be here otherwise — Agent Smith

That's a dark and rather depressing claim Mr Smith! I think the past also has a healthy number of loving, gentle, altruistic people who I can claim as ancestral in my family who are also the reason I am here now.

In short, on the matter of survival (of one's genes), morality is a hindrance; that's how I explain this to myself anyway. It's in our nature to, well, "neutralize" competitors. — Agent Smith

It is so recorded in our law of the jungle heritage BUT we have also united tribes we have warred with, by such concepts as 'treaty,' 'marriage (joining bloodlines), surrender and then merging with the victors etc. Finding ways to unite and grow into nation sized groups. Perhaps just one main competitive style barrier to get over, nations merging into one planet!

Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. — Agent Smith

Yeah, the christians call it The garden of Eden but just like the first matrix, its a fable. There has never been a perfect human world and I don't think there ever will be but we can create a much better human world than we have now. Help, by condemning in your strongest terms possible, the rich and powerful who still follow the law of the jungle policy!

So how about my idea of 'The Ring.'

@Baden
@Jamal
:up: Where would you place topics such as antinatalism? I can certainly get heated on that topic! I am glad I am not a moderator on this or any other site. Maybe we need an 'angry PM style facility' where you can declare another member as a 'hostile,' which means a moderator can ask both parties if they wish to verbally fight it out. ( A wee boxing ring icon might be appropriate). This allows them to insult each other to their hearts content in 'The Ring' but only those involved and the moderators can view the content.
They can stop fighting when they have exhausted every useless expletive they can think of or they just get bored.
EDIT: the moderators can also decide if one or both of them seems 'not right in the head' and can decide to ban them or not.

I think religious discussion can be as heated as political discussion. I heard the regular warning in my youth of 'If you want to live a long life then never bring up politics or religion in a local Glasgow pub.'
Do you want to include 'religious discussions,' as well as political ones along with shoutbox and the lounge, in the guideline entry, you cited?

If you mean the fact that the disagreeable, competitive, competent types get to rule, yes, I think mankind is unable to change that except if it somehow this personality type would cease to exist. — Tzeentch

I disagree. I think that the future effects of global social media and its resultant global organisation of the masses will drown out such small minority self-serving individuals.

They excel by nature at accruing wealth and/or power, and it seems impossible to prevent this from happening because to do so would mean one has to employ coercive measures, and that power then has to be wielded by someone - who is going to do that? The exact same type of person. — Tzeentch

There is a great deal of historical evidence to back-up what you type here but I don't think it will be ever thus. Social justice and an acceptable level of economic parity has been fought for since we left the wilds. Progress has been slow, but there has been clear, undeniable progress and 2022 years or even 10,000 years of tears is only a few seconds in the cosmic calendar.

I like the idea of not allowing political parties — Tzeentch

:up:

And while this isn't a criticism of your idea, I would note the following:
- No system is immune to corruption. It seems even systems that disemminate power, feature short terms and plenty of checks & balances, etc. eventually fall to corruption. — Tzeentch

I cant claim the 'no more political parties' as my idea as it has been around for a long time but I certainly do support it. People are corruptible and people can corrupt systems. I refuse to believe that problem has no solution.

That centralization concentrates power in the hands of fewer people, and will speed up the process of corruption. Additionally, taking this power away again rarely happens, not in the least because those in power will try to consolidate. — Tzeentch

I actually support getting rid of all concepts of nationhood and I support world government. Perhaps the biggest hierarchy possible on the planet is the best way to go. Who will we compete with when we are united as one planet and one species? Especially if we have also got rid of money and party politics.
We would still need powerful checks & balances and strong local authority systems but we would also have a fully socially networked global population to keep the nefarious in check and as time goes on, more and more people are becoming educated in the methods the nefarious use and how they can be stopped

That is. I have more in my home today than nobility had in years past. — Hanover

Perhaps in functionality or technicality but not in exchange value, not if converted to currency compared to the exchange power any noble had during any era you care to mention.

You still have a underclass in your envisioned society. It's just a bit higher an underclass than what currently exists — Hanover

I think this would only be in a similar sense that a wine buff might refer to those who drink wine as a weekend plonk. If you can take the basic means of survival for granted and live a 'comfortable' lifestyle then who cares if some di**head calls you part of an underclass as they think you have no class! As I typed before, I think we should stop using the word 'class' to categorise people.

Some one is going to own of the automation, rather it be of higher class, or some collective insured ownership. — Josh Alfred

Why not 'owned by the people?' I try never to use the word 'class' as a label to categorise people, it seems almost like a caste system to me.

There's plenty on youtube about the RBE system — Josh Alfred

Yeah, and some are even worth watching, but I prefer to read about your personal interpretations.
Here is a nice vision of the future and its only 4 mins long:

Perhaps that is true, but it is also unavoidable. — Tzeentch

Do you really think that the human race is powerless to change this?

When it comes down to it, there aren't many more flavors and it's a shit sandwich either way. — Tzeentch

I posted this on quora! I would be interested in your opinion of the idea.

Party politics and the first past the post voting system is not working for the benefit of the majority in the UK.

There is the old posit that in certain constituencies, if you selected a donkey to stand in the election, it would be voted in as long as it had the correct party rosette affixed to it.

650 seats in the house of commons. How about this:

1. Each constituency has an official political debating group that anyone in the constituency can join. The constituency group can have as many district branches as are required. No political parties would be allowed. You become nominated for local or national elections through your branch and constituency group. Each candidate would stand as an independent.
2. The 650 elected to the house of commons for a 4 year term would all be independents. The first job would be for the 650 to elect a prime minister and a deputy PM from their number. These two would then choose their cabinet from the remaining 648 based on their profiles, personal discussions, personal preference etc. The cabinet, Pm and deputy would then invite others to become the government backbench until they numbered 326. The official opposition would then be made up of the remaining 324 MP’s.
3. No house of lords but a citizens house made of elected members. This second house would be made up of ‘stakeholder’ groups of equal size. Group names such as ‘science,’ ‘military,’ ‘police,’ ‘educators,’ ‘construction industry,’ ‘business,’ etc. This house would function much like the house of lords does now but with much more ability to apply checks and balances to the house of commons.

Would this system not offer a better way to do politics in the UK?

If you don't have a home, you are subsidies from the city/community that you get a small flat (or in the country side, a small house). Unemployment is perpetual, until you die. So you can live on these meager welfare and if you can find a low income job, a cleaner or an assistants position in a hospital or pensioner's home, you really have to judge which option, taking the job or not, will you take. Your basic income will only marginally go up and then you have to work 9 to 5 or more. — ssu

Very interesting! Do you think the welfare offered should not be so meagre then? Why is unemployment perpetual until you die? Is it simply because of only been offered menial jobs which wont increase your income much? Is free training/education not also available so you can do a job you want to do?

Some simply give up: once they have never worked earlier, they will not get hired. And that's that. There are families in Finland where the children have not worked and where the parents have not worked. It's a huge stigma and once met these dropped out teenagers, I couldn't believe the level of apathy it takes you into. But this is only the bad side. — ssu

Yep, sound like there are still problems to be solved but Finland seems so much ahead of the UK welfare system!

The good side is that there's no homeless people in the streets. — ssu

Well done Finland!

The beggars that you find in the city center (if you find them) are from other EU countries, likely from Romania, not Finns — ssu

Not so good Finland!

Those who are criminals, likely really want to be criminals. — ssu

Do you think the criminal mindset is born or created by experience or a bit of both?

The era of old style homeless men (some WW2 veterans back in the age) are not so frequent in parks at summer. — ssu

Traumatised people need the most help and care to recover, if they even can recover from such hell as war.

Hence when you have perpetual unemployment benefits and housing is a right, it really questions why UBI? — ssu

The Finish system seems much better than the UK one but it seems to me from your description of it, shows that its not FINnISHed yet (sorry! :blush: ), perhaps a UBI which is enough for an individual to live 'in comfort,' is needed. Is your health service free at point of delivery?