To relate this to the OP - the problem I see with panpsychism is the attempt to 'objectify' consciousness or to locate it as an attribute of external objects without fully grasping its elusive nature even within our own experience. — Wayfarer

If you only have access to your own personal experiences then that is solipsism.

Also you could not make the claim "Subjective experience has no objective existence" as you would lack sufficient access to any objective state to assert such a claim.

You might say "I believe there is no objective existence of experience" but by definition, there is no way to logically validate your belief as you have no access to the objective.

So the problem I see with your stance is that you try to state your claim as though it carries some weight of objective import.
It does not.

I think I agree with this view and thanks again for carrying my thread.

Milo did concede that others would assume the role but he said it would be less stable for the world and more of a threat to democracy.
He did not explain why that should be so and I was hoping to here some one flush that point out.

Maybe some one else can come along and speak to that point by Milo.

Never had kale but I like iceberg lettuce, especially on sandwiches, so if kale is just as bad maybe I should try it.

The reason I posed the question is because I saw an interview with Milo Yiannopoulos and he basically said thank god for the US because the world would be extremely unstable without the US in the role of world police.
But I don't know if that should necessarily be true and if it should be true why.
Thought I would get some other opinions on it, so yeah thanks for responding to the question.

If you care to maybe you could offer your opinion on that particular point.
Does the US make the world more politically stable such that without the US there would be more war and overall oppression of the world population?

Of course if you are tired of carrying the conversation that is fine you don't have to respond to that question and I still appreciate you sharing your thoughts so far.

Why?

Good points.
I suppose you are right competition itself would continue to drive technological progress even if warfare was not there for motivation.
At least it did with the cold war, even though the technology was not being used for warfare there was still a pressing drive to not fall behind less it come to warfare.

I wonder about the other option you mentioned.
What if the US ceased to exist, suppose the bottom just fell out on the economy and there was no reset button.
Do you think it would drag the rest of the world down with it, or would some other actor step in and assume the role of superpower?

I am trying to imagine how the world would be different without a ww1 and 2.
Didn't these two wars lead to a lot of technological progress?

If I interpreted from your post that you intend to imply that if the US did not exist some other power would emerge to exert similar influence over global politics, would you say I understand the point you wanted to make?

What is SWP?

It was my understanding that most people fall towards the center.
With the left leaners having a slight numbers advantage.
But when it comes to far leaning the right has the numbers advantage.

I think in general population polls it is closer to half.

I pointed out then that conservatives hold utopian visions as well.
Conservatives consistently insist that if we just lower taxes utopia will ensue.

Again it is a matter of convenience, if it is useful for furthering their agenda the right wingers are just as likely as any leftist to appeal to a utopian vision.

I disagree with this characterization.

In my experience the right is just as likely to appeal to naturalism as the left and each do so in turn as it serves their agenda.

In fact I seem to recall you have made an argument from nature for conservatism on the old forum.

I agree here.

Evolution got us to the stone age and we were content there for thousands of years.
Critical thinking is what has allowed us to go beyond that technological level.

If you agree with all I've said until now don't you think we're making a mistake in so confidently blacklisting so-called fallacious reasoning? — TheMadFool

It depends on what you are after.
You can have a contented healthy life even if you go about it never knowing of logical fallacies or cognitive biases.
But when you are after a deeper understanding you will not make progress until you come to terms with these shortcomings.

When I was much younger and still believed in religious things I took these commandments literally.
Which meant worship of Jesus was a sin, because he was a man and not god.
And that the symbol of the crucifix was also a sin against god.

That is where we disagree.
I do not view syntax and semantics as interdependent.
You acknowledge yourself that there are examples where there is no meaning to account for the behavior of the lizard.
Syntax is not dependent upon semantics but semantics is dependent upon syntax.

Where is there meaning without syntax though?

If meaning is just syntax then there is no reason it can not be physical.

You asked what was the problem for dualism.
I answered.
The problem for dualism is to account for how the non-physical acts upon the physical causally.

The monist does not have this issue because they do not maintain that the non-physical acts upon the physical causally.

What do you mean by asking why it should? — Michael

I mean just what I wrote, why should the non-physical be such that it is causal but not physical?

Because unless the physical is defined as being whatever has causal influence on the physical (a circular and so vacuous definition) then having causal influence on the physical doesn't make you physical (at least not by definition). — Michael

It is not circular or vacuous it is economical.
There is less to account for, if the mind is physical, then that is what accounts for physical causation.
There is no need to multiply explanations beyond monism.

Maybe not if you only consider the interaction problem. But there are other concerns that dualists will claim warrant regarding the mind as non-physical. — Michael

How is dualism necessary?
Are you proposing that monism necessarily false?

Realpolitik is meaningless term.

If the mind is not physical then why should it have causal influence upon the physical?

If the mind does have causal influence upon the physical then how is the mind not also physical?

It goes back to multiplying beyond necessity.
The physicalist will say that if the mind is physically causal, then it is because the mind is physical.
Or rather that if the mind is physically causal it is not necessary to regard the mind as non-physical.

Until they have to deal with an automated teleservice.

We use the term like it is an empty set.

I don't agree that physicalism is a reaction to dualism it is simply monism for the sake of not multiplying beyond necessity.
We don't need dualism to describe the world, it is not necessary.
Nothing spooky about that.

Physical descriptions may be incomplete at this point, but there is substantially more physical description of what is than we find offered by dualism with regards to the non-physical.
So it is interesting to me that you feel physicalism has a hard time defining the physical.

We would spend our time complaining how lousy that the AI performs at its jobs.

I am not convinced.
I suspect that something deeper is going on that gives rise to the impression of a dichotomy.

Of course I am not smart enough to describe how that could be I am just going on intuition.
I don't believe fundamentally that there is a conflict between determinism and true randomness I believe these are probably two sides of the same coin.
I admit I could be totally wrong and a TOE may come along and establish that only one or the other can be the case in reality.

If did not have the third option that both can coexist without mutual exclusion then I would bet on determinism being the case.

You mean like a China brain?

My personal view is that determinism and probability are not necessarily incompatible and are aspects of something more fundamental.

shrugs
what can you do

Quantum mechanics is, by definition, probabilistic not deterministic.
Interpretations of QM are deterministic not the formal framework itself.

Mathematically, quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic. More specifically, in quantum mechanics each probability-bearing proposition of the form “the value of physical quantity A lies in the range B” is represented by a projection operator on a Hilbert space H. These form a non-Boolean—in particular, non-distributive—orthocomplemented lattice. Quantum-mechanical states correspond exactly to probability measures (suitably defined) on this lattice.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/

If we can conceive of p-ducks then duckness isn't physical
We can conceive of p-ducks
Therefore, duckness isn't physical

There are lots of problems with determinism.

John Earman's Primer on Determinism (1986) remains the richest storehouse of information on the truth or falsity of determinism in various physical theories, from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics and general relativity. (See also his recent update on the subject, “Aspects of Determinism in Modern Physics” (2007)).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#StaDetPhyThe

I am sorry I should have said I find it improbable that you have not ever visited a hospital.
I did not mean to suggest you were lying but rather that you were employing hyperbole rather than conceding my point.

I am also very skeptical that in a case of serious injury or illness of yourself or a loved one that you would maintain this position that you have now.
You just don't want to concede my point and do not have to because there is no life threatening illness or injury to you or a loved one.
But eventually there will be and I hope you remember my point then.