Modern neurobiology would indicate there is a lot of "unconscious" experience and mental activity? — prothero

I would certainly appreciate that!

As for the quip there, I think this is contradictory. The previous discussion didn't seem to touch that issue - if it's unconscious, its not being experienced. That's somewhat baked in, as best I can tell/as far as I know. With that out there..

Do you think all experience is limited to consciouness? — prothero

Yes. I don't think there is any other option. Subconscious (or even pre-conscious) activity doesn't seem to be experienced ny anything but hte mechanisms undergoing the changes required to actually constitute those activities. But again for me, that's somewhat baked-in to the words and concepts being used.

If something is not made conscious, whence comes subjective experience?

:ok: Very good example. That is what faith does, for a 'believer'.

The important point here is that subjective experience need not involve, and can be detached from, consciousness. — prothero

Could you elaborate? This seems prima facie ridiculous to me, so wanting to assuage my worries.

Trump? If so, yes, i'd say so. I think he's far more cynical than bigoted too.

And there we are.

An example of misogyny is violence against women, which includes domestic violence and, in its most extreme forms, misogynist terrorism and femicide. Misogyny also often operates through sexual harassment, coercion, and psychological techniques aimed at controlling women, and by legally or socially excluding women from full citizenship. In some cases, misogyny rewards women for accepting an inferior status. — Wiki - Misogyny

Sounds like this is very much appearing as a ghostly apparition (not in the sense it doesn't exist, in the sense it is weak and not very effective) in the Western world. This isn't to say someone like Trump doesn't embolden thoughts in those who have them - but if you were to ask any person, and press them, on their views about women, the chances that you'll come to anything close to what's represented in this definition (not going to wade in Manne's nonsense) are not so much low, but rare.

This is why defining things on their outcomes is an extremely bad practice, if we want to change outcomes. Defining things by their intent allows us to illustrate that someone who is, at base, not misogynistic, is, in fact, behaving in a way that perpetuates misogyny without forcing them accept a mind state they literally do not hold.

Probably worth stepping back a bit, taking a breath and realizing we're not in a fucking crisis either. Women have never been more powerful, revered or protected in the West. And we're doing better than anywhere else by far.

It looks to me like each period of madness in history ends in greater destruction. Is this one big enough to be the last? We can hope not, but I left my faith in humanity in the 20th century. — Vera Mont

This strikes me as the exact out-of-perspective thinking that everyone of every age who wants to feel good about themselves would put forward. We are not at any special stage of history, other than the forefront. Our time will be relegated like any other, and a future time will be more important at that time. It strikes me as nonsensical, and panicked. Hence, step back, take a breath - this is not a crisis. It's a point in history. LIke any other. Pretending we're in special circumstances is a really weird move, other than to ensure you don't give up - whcih seems weak to me.

This is why the US is broken. No laws seem to have any effect on the people in power. — Christoffer

Can I please know from what position you're watching this film? It's not one i've seen. Definitely not a documentary.

This, roughly, was going to be my response. That the methodology espoused is easier, and more satisfying in terms of 'getting somewhere', I cannot help but assume anyone interested in consciousness will feel they are settling to explore those issues, rather htan the fundamental questions of consciousness (what, why, how etc... as priors to the above methodology).

Yes, definitely falls along those lines. I think being honest is probably hte crux. With yourself. Stop arguing about things you don't even believe. If people did that, we'd be able to remove teh trash around our feet and notice we stand on the same ground.

I think — ChatteringMonkey

This is not hte way to do things. This leapfrogs everythign I think is important in that discussion/post.

Nominal? I'll take that! Without accepting th premise LOL

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/young-women-now-earn-more-than-men-as-gender-pay-gap-reverses/ar-AA1A6Gwu?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=e3bc660083b1439abdd6362a4f0927a8&ei=4

That's sorted, I guess :rofl: (yes, I am kidding).

I don't think anyone fit the category of forum rules against evangelism better than you do. — Christoffer

Mikie does. Patently.

I don't think the analogy is apt. It's a good one for getting the average person to consider morality as something we can discuss and work with.
It does not, however, indicate that there is anything remotely close to objectivity involved in morality. "Good health" can be objective without a morally relevant consideration. "Being in good health is good" is not a similar phrase. It doesn't kow to the same logical inferences and it has no genuine basis for adherence, other than preference.
Which is what morality is, at base, in my view.

Seems like this would simply lead to a circle of non-productivity and non-progress.

I also think it is not in our best interests to treat everyone with empathy. This is where, as a pretty clear lefty in terms of box-ticking, i get off the train. the "Be kind" crowd have fucked everything up in my view.

Does "prehemispheric structures" refer to the pre-frontal cortex? — Gnomon

Brain stem structures, is my understanding - the nerve bundles prior to the hemispheres of the brain around the top of the spinal column and 'bottom' the brain. I see subhemispheric is also used:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/split-brain :

"Perception around the body in the periphery of the visual field, including ‘ambient’ pre-attentive awareness of space and motion properties of objects, is not divided in the split brain, indicating that subhemispheric (brainstem) systems, which remain unified, can integrate perceptuo-motor functions."

Not a neuroscientist though. Apt for our purposes: https://philarchive.org/archive/SLESTU :

"Most likely the place where the two visual hemispheric images integrate into a single coherent screen that can contain the space of our visual image, the “visual sensorium”, is in an evolutionarily older sub-cortical area such as the optic tectum in the midbrain. For that region is pre-hemispheric and most likely from where core visual phenomenal consciousness evolved prior to the embellishment of cortical-enabled intellectualization."

AFAIK modern science does not seem to support that. Are you aware of any evidence that only one hemisphere is aware of what's going on outside? :smile: — Gnomon

That's also my understanding - Jaynes work was extremely important to my research into the anthropological side of psychedelic use over a decade or so and it never made sense to me, unfortunately. Taking drugs would result int he same sorts of interpretations and when we have evidence of used (albeit, sporadic and sparse) psychedelics across most of human history, its hard to look past that as a source of the types of reports and themes that lead to the bicameral idea. Not that its a bad theory in and of itself, but its a bit like the Stoned Ape theory. Decent.... in theory.

The equity-inclusion crowds then, in practice, build an anti-diversity world; inclusion is at odds with diversity. The racist crowds are anti-human, so self-defeating, and much worse, but inclusiveness has to be grounded in a respect for exclusivity, or it may also tend away from the better world we seek. — Fire Ologist

Very good. I think not only is it self-defeating in that sense (which admittedly, might just come down to the linguistics of hte bumper-stickers) but is exactly opposite to what anyone truly wants - which is for things like racialised thinking to disappear. It is explicitly encouraging racialised and sexualised policies (most other aspects of DEI are reasonable, such as having ramps for disabled employees or whatever so that there's no barrier to hiring them).

We need to accept all the samenesses, not the differences first. — Fire Ologist

Yes. This seems particularly important for sex, imo. The conversation is so intensely stupid around sex/gender because this obvious starting point is ignored (or, misused to suggest something ridiculous). For race, its a bit less ridiculous because you can't miss that someone is black, or South Asian or ebony (here referring to mid-Africans with truly dark, sun-kissed tones and is not meant to be derogatory or anything).

One that's sorted, the differences become obvious, and the response should be similar to Shaun Murphys about 'being a boy'. THe question is ridiculous. You are the race you are, and you have the attributes you have. Its not a moral question, and has nothing to do with right or wrong. It is the case that we have all these races with (relatively) distinct genetic profiles which we can trace back thousands of years.

I think, though, we're missing hte point. the Alt-Right (and indeed, the intensely DEI crowd) pigeon hole people by observing behaviour, and tying it race. And both sides of that are woefully inept, and inconsistent. Statistics, basically. Which is what everyone does preconsciously, constantly, all the time, about everything. But couple that with 'ideology' and you have a timebomb.

The idea is that some people opposed DEI because they think it forces stupid people to the top, where they contaminate the elite with their stupid genes. — frank

I see. I may be ignorant to how well-subscribed that view is. My understanding is even the duller coterie among that sort of group aren't seriously suggesting that stupid people will become another race. I see you're adding in some futurism. Fair enough - I guess my response is just to that then LOL. I don't really see the connection. But thank you for that clarification.

This inspires me to look at all the significant viewpoints on the scene and place them as if on a chessboard where I can move them around and let them interact. Do I escape bias this way? Probably not entirely, but it's maybe a little more sophisticated than the rooting-for-my-team approach, which is just blind bs. — frank

Definitely true. I think the risk here is taht its going to still result in various, conflicting views. For instance, I feel I also do this to the degree that I am able, psychologically and in terms of my knowledge of history and the present - but my conclusiosn would be much different I'd think. View from nowhere rears its head i guess.

It's not necessarily about the stated goals of said ideologies, but about the policies they tend to support and the implications of those. — ChatteringMonkey

This seems to leapfrog the issues in the prior suggestions. What's wrong with less immigration? Or at least, and this is the general MAGA line, less illegal immigration? Those are, for this context, rhetorical. If you want to skip to the next paragraph, the one below it responds directly to the above quote..

I understand it's likely what you're pushing at is that the motivator for them is actually just "less wogs, pls" or some nonsense like that. But that's only going to cover a, probably somewhat small, proportion of that group. Many will just be plain ignorant, and then there will be varying degrees of reasonable argument (one being extremely sensitive, because it's allowable and in fact considered morally 'right' when applied to any ethnicity that isn't white. Which is patently racist - another discussion). This goes to what I was initially suggesting:

What's your goal? Reducing harm? Ok. Good goal. Lets discuss how to get there and hash-out the theoretics of X or Y course of action/policy.... This base-line is almost never set down and so the arguments proceed from one another's bias about how the motiviations (even though unknown) are somehow evil. There is no point talking about policies and actions unless you can hold them up to a stated goal and point out that either A. the goal is unwarranted, or B. the policies/actions wont achieve the goal. Even if this is purely practical, and its just that no ones going to listen to you when you can't even stop yourself from pretending to know their mind, that's totally valid imo. Don't do that.

It also seems patently clear that, over the years, many 'liberal' policies with both 'pleasant' stated goals, and apparently good reason to believe the policy will get there, have resulted in something else (unforeseen, unwanted etc..). So, that doesn't seem a great benchmark for either 'side' to critique the other.

There is no acceptable alternative.

In a legal setting, through the legal process. Preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. — tim wood

More likely to be balance of probabilities unless there's no disputed facts ;)

Certainly, we already cover criminality when known lies result in some genuine loss etc.. So i can't see why we would preempt that by making "lying" a criminal offence other than perjury. That a lie is punishable by prison would tie up courts in defended hearings literally 100% of the time, at all levels and is an utterly ridiculous suggestion, legally speaking.

When Trump pulls the US out of NATO, these people will cheer like crazy: "Finally, out of it! Good riddance!" — ssu

Which is an over-reaction. But so is NATO. Its 30 years out of date, at least.

Some kind of philosophy of hte species remaining a single, pure species (yes, that's on purpose) and the concept of liberal/egalitarian thinking.

I don't think they relate, let alone align (again, on first reading. I'm just beginning thoughts on it).

It seems obvious that there are empirical facts about what is good for us. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There truly doesn't seem to be any facts of this kind. There appears to be habits.

Oh yes, obviously.

This thread speaks extremely loudly for itself. Mods, this is in the correct place to be actioned.

Childs be childs i guess.

No.

Post again.

My understanding is the prehemispheric structures solve this problem in humans, and make sets of data from both halves cohere in our perception. I've not looked deeply into it but found that a very interesting suggestion.

*quotes Mikies entire post history and leaves an emoji. Like a fucking child*.

The philosophy of staying together is liberalism and egalitarianism. The philosophy of splitting is what Land is talking about. — frank

This strikes me as totally incoherent. They aren't related(on my first reading.. This isn't an impugning). the "philosophy of staying together" as a species? What thinker has broached this outside of sci fi? Real question, and not one I think is a gotcha. I'd like to know who to read on that, because its clearly a prima facie conservative line of thinking.

I think it's pretty confusing when people speak about 'liberal' values when referring to directly conservative actions. Is it that there's something more to the story of the dichotomy? I think so, and that conversation is rarely had prior to the kind of us v them utterings all throughout the forum on these sorts of threads.

You're a dick. Dress it up however you want.

Its beyond me why we allow a child to run around this forum insulting everyone, making absolutely insane posts that belittle the forum, its members and its intent - and he's just... Here. Doing all that.

Probably time to clean up. Congrats on the consensus Mikie.

In practice, it's worse than that. What often gets poo-pooed is a caricature of the other side's position. — Relativist

Very good point. Steel-manning is a practice few can actually carry out. I have a hard time, so i usually dont engage in those arguments.

And the immense contradictions of setting one race apart from others only follow. — Fire Ologist

Yes, and it's possible this is the reason for the pushback. Stupid people will see the hypocrisy in this, but not notice their own.

I don't care. You've proved yourself to be a risible character with absolutely zero self-awareness. Enjoy.

I very much hope you find something truly compelling to bring your life joy :) It certainly isn't this forum.

Having a thread which allows for a single stance is directly against the ethos of the forum. Mikies behaviour in general, for the last year at least has been almost unacceptably so.

This should not surprise. He's like the kid every lets run around and do weird shit because they're not to be taken too seriously.

Going through Woody Guthrie, Rosetta Tharpe and Mahalia Jackson currently. Also bought an old Joan Baez record recently and remember how god damn f**king good she was/is.

LOL. What a thread.

That's fair, as long as you're still making room for any an all degrees of error, whcih i assume you are :)

White workers bear the double burden of recognizing how they themselves are the victims of discrimination (as wage slaves) and how they may discriminate against other workers. Don't feel guilty about it; just recognize reality and do better in the future. Blacks are not your #1 enemy: it's the 1%, the rich man who is your enemy and the black man's enemy alike. Unite in solidarity. — BC

That final note cannot be achieved by the prior imperative.

The additional difficulty is that, without an account of subjectivity, nothing homo sapiens may allegedly learn about the world and themselves can have any claim to justification -- there can be no reasons, since reasons are not part of the objective world. — J

Very good. And a real problem for the question per se, I think. Maybe they simply cannot come apart and our world still be seen to cohere.

For me, there's also a question of 'truth' here. We're talking justification and related concepts - but truth only applies to beliefs and thoughts about things that (theoretically) already are. So, in line with another recent thread I think 'nature' is taken to be true to avoid this issue. If there is, in fact, a state of affairs prior to any mind apprehending it, then that would be 'natural'. For that reason 'objectivity' seems to be a concept which could only apply to consensus.