I have seen some flaws in my argument thanks to you. I applaud you for your knowledge in the field. Perhaps my title takes on a new meaning? Democratic ideals are alive and well, but our old flawed versions of them are dying as they should. You have definitely put my mind at ease, friend.

In QP you get answers like "maybe" if you ask if a particle is exactly at a given spot.
On the other hand the subject here is philosophy and hence the human condition. I'm not yet sure how that sentence contradicts human freedom but I am sure it does... — Heiko

We may not know exactly where the particle is, but we are certain that the particle is somewhere just because we don't know where it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't somewhere, that was my argument.

you and that other guy are arguing with yourselves. I have never denied that we are "unique." So stop thinking you need to persuade me that we are "unique." And now in addition to "unique" you are claiming that we are "special". Fine, we are "unique" and "special". We are "unique" and we are "special" and therefore. . . . . . . . . . . . WHAT? When are you going to fill in the therefore. . .? Your own examples are absurd. We are so good at art that we can paint a picture that looks almost as real as the machine we built to take pictures. We can go to concerts and listen to musicians play music that sounds almost as good as their latest studio album. Did it ever occur to you that we are so "unique" and "special" that we could actually create a being that is more "unique" and "special" than we are? We are "unique" and "special" and therefore WHAT??? Make a freaking argument!! — Arne

Well, to start, I don't really know who you mean by the other guy. I guess someone else found the fallacy as well.

The point to us being special is that, yes we have self awareness, and yes, anything we make that has it as well is also special.

Therefore, yes, we have self awareness, yes, machines can be self aware, and no, animals are not self aware. That was my argument from the beginning and it seems that is the argument I will have at the end as well. You are simply being unreasonable at this point. While it seems wrong, we are special, we are different, we are self aware, and animals are not. To be frank, you should have more pride in being human. We have built every civilization on this planet and made all of its scientific breakthroughs. If you really don't think we are aware of ourselves, you are sorely mistaken.

The solution to liars is to call them out as liars. They get to lie. I get to call them liars. That's what free speech is. It's a bunch of people screaming at each other. Like here. — Hanover

To be frank, you should have more pride in yourself and the human race to call freedom of speech "arguing" there is a difference between that and a debate. While "freedom of speech" is of course up to interpretation, we should use that interpretation to its fullest. Everyone should be able to speak what they believe, and for everyone to get a turn, there must be rules. If they lose the debate, then they are wrong. That should be a system you should believe in if you truly believe you are right. Show your confidence to the world, and if what you speak is really true, it will be believed by those who know all the facts.

Sure, let's set up a Truth Committee and tell them what to believe. I want to chair that committee. — Hanover

This is the problem with Democracy we are trying to solve. You can't be on the Truth Committee and no one else can either. We need to find an unbiased way to investigate and prosecute those who wish to bend the system to their own ends. That is the million dollar question, I guess you could say. How do you think we could do it?

Yes, let's all join hands in unison and sing songs and the world will be hunky dory. Despite all the partisanship, diseases are still being cured. Somehow it's all working, despite our not coming to terms on everything. — Hanover

Diseases are still being cured yes, but not at the rate they would be if the whole world was working on that together instead of devising plans of invasion and strategies on taxation for welfare programs that we don't need. The sad truth is, cancer would be cured years ago if we didn't have to dedicate funds to military spending. We certainly do have to, but if we didn't, an estimated 1,688,780 people wouldn't have gotten cancer last year, and the lower number would have received treatment and survived. The status quo should not be ok with anyone ever. Improvement is what humanity has been built on since the beginning and that is not stopping now or ever. I guess to sum this point up all I have to say is -

Somehow it's all working — Hanover

Yes. We know for sure that 1+1=2. Everything has a state of yes, this is truth, and no, this is fallacy. Just because we don't know the answer yet does not mean the answer doesn't exist. Finding it requires people debating and that is the basis of philosophy and philosophy is the basis of math and science. To really believe the unknown will remain unknown is an affront to everything the human race has created. The answer is always yes or no, even in quantum physics, the answer may change upon observation, but it is always either yes or no at one given time, no matter if it fluctuates.

Why, you experience the illusion of course. Self consciousness is the mind making sense of its world. There is no reason why your brain sees the color red as specifically that color. It could assign it any other shade, and in fact, it does often. Color blindness is the result of the brains inability to differentiate between two colors that to it seem the same, and to the rest of us, are different. Mental illness also interferes with self awareness. Seeing monsters that aren't real is just the brain playing tricks on the mind.

The things that you see are more or less accurate, but some things are chosen arbitrarily. Color is just waves of the light spectrum being reflected into your eyes. If you were able to see those particles outside of the human mind, they wouldn't be red or green or blue or yellow. Color is made up, but it is useful, and that's why we have it. Color is a very good example of the brain processing the illusion of consciousness for the mind to observe and decide what to do next. Imaginary shades of color seem so real to us, but simply don't exist outside our minds.

I believe your fallacy is that you feel a need to justify a non centrist view. You don't think that humans are special because to be so would seem... self centered. I agree that is how it seems, throughout history humans have had a tendency of thinking they are the center of the universe, figuratively and literally. However, completely disregarding that we could be special at all is absurd. We have very clearly defined differences from animals. We have complex architecture, we have many written languages, we have been to space. We have created art that may be indistinguishable from photographs because it's so good. We use electricity to power our lights and personal secretaries we carry on our phones. Humanity is certainly special. The mistake is thinking that we are biblically special. We have no divine purpose, and there is no evil to banish from the universe. We are here by coincidence, and what we have made out of our circumstances is what makes us special. That is what "separates us from the beasts" as I said earlier. We are special because of our luck, our intelligence, and our desire to improve.

I believe you are both taking this too close to home. This isn't about health care or living standards and taking sides. This is about an objective truth: For a democracy to function, the people must be free to choose, and those who don't know the truth can't choose freely. It is no secret that many factors hide truths and propagate lies in our nation and abroad. Regardless of what you believe now, we have to put our differences aside and work together for the common good of man. It doesn't matter who is lying, and it doesn't matter who you think is lying, we have to put our minds together and find a solution.

We are all friends here. We are all men of logic here, and if you aren't why are you here? If we ever wish to see the full potential of the human race, our future among the stars, curing disease, becoming even more than we could ever imagine, we have to work together and build a platform upon which our minds can be free. I beg of you, set aside your differences and use the brilliance of man to build us a brighter future.

While perfection is impossible, we must pursue it endlessly. If we don't we will be on this rock in millions of years when the sun engulfs us and our people die a horrible death. Even if democracy doesn't offer the best solution, it is the most reasonable. while at the end of a term, only 35% may approve, it is better than no one getting a choice and no one approving. My main problem with the dictatorship or oligarchy is that they are even more easy to become corrupt. It is easier to only please your army than it is to please your entire population.

I believe you misunderstand my concerns. America is going nowhere, it's the continued safety of freedom and knowledge I am concerned for. I appreciate your weariness for a common argument however. If we are ever to become better, we must constantly look for fallacy in preconceived notions

From what we know for sure, everything is either true or false. Just because something has an antithesis with good points doesn't mean it is possibly correct. Everything can be boiled down to objective science, and that is what we are doing. You must compare the choices before choosing the right one.

This has been one of my points of interest for a long time. Let me put my cards on the table.

Self awareness is hard to define. It is easiest to describe it as "what we have and the beasts do not" so yes, by definition, we have self awareness.

We could also break down the word. It is awareness of the self. I am aware that I exist, what about you? A dog is not aware that it exists. It is just the culmination of biological processes and chemical reactions. It can feel, but not ask why it feels. While we are made of the same material as them, we have self awareness because we are evolved enough to have such a thing.

What you described as "self awareness" is more of the level of awareness a god would posses. I suppose we could label this "deity awareness"

Computers (software, at least) is definitely capable of that, eventually. We simply don't have the hardware to support them, the knowledge to create them, or the energy to maintain them. That can change soon.

I assume you have heard of the turing test. If not, essentially it is a test where you are put in a room with a monitor and a keyboard. In one window on the monitor, you are talking to a human, and on another window, you are speaking to a computer. If you can't tell the difference, the computer passes the test and has "self awareness". You may ask, how can this be? They have just learned to mimic human interactions incredibly well! And I may interject, how is that any different from how you or I interact with people? You had to learn how to interact with people from a young age. Self awareness is not some tangible end goal, it is something that evolves over time until you finally comprehend your world.

One could say babies are not self aware. They haven't developed object permanence, they can not speak, cannot write. However, you consider the baby more human than the computer on your desk that can do all of the above?

To be human (or self aware) is not biological, in fact, you don't even have to be biological to be a human. You just have to be very good at seeming like a human. Consciousness is an illusion, but a very very good one. This is why most people would consider Superman a human, even though he is in fact extraterrestrial.

I'm not sure how much we knew about the ancient world in the 1700's, but I would hope if Jefferson did know about it, his view would change. There is nothing we can do about the past however, we can only hope to build upon what is left for us and make the best world possible for our children to inhabit. I believe an old Native American proverb sums up the idea, and I apologize if I don't quote it correctly

We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.

Debate and persuasion is fine, my main concern is those who can not think for themselves. The truth of the modern nation is that ignorance is exploited for monetary gain and growth of influence. It is irresponsible to let people be swayed toward lies, no matter how bad they want to believe them. I believe that all ideas should have a platform, but sensationalization and propaganda shouldn't be able to cloud the minds of the voters and eclipse effective legislation and righteous reform.

In response to your thoughts on bureaucracy, it has much the same flaws as the elected position. People have a position of power, but don't represent the ideals of those who put them there.

While we have definitely made progress since the Civil War, that does not mean the work is over. Mankind has an obligation to improve itself, for the sake of the individual and the group.

And don't worry about skipping the history my friend, we all have our interests, and no one can have them all. They were more context for those who had none.

Some interesting insight for sure. I've had interest in Rome and the rest of the ancient world for a very long time, and I am a strong believer in learning from the past and applying those lessons to the future. Rome surely isn't a perfect mirror image of modern America, but it is rather close. I apologize for year discrepancy between years. I've never been one for dates, more stories, and that is a glaring flaw in any argument I make. When I referred to "populist strongmen" I was partially referring to the Gracchi brothers, but also to the others who used promises to the people to gain power and wealth. If I recall correctly, Julius Caesar was a populist. As far as the Principate goes, I am more concerned we will follow in Rome's footsteps, rather than I am stating that we already have.

I agree with your points. While corruption kills democracy, discrimination kills the peoples faith in democracy. However, it is very difficult to find discrimination nowadays, as you also mentioned. The only way for mankind to progress is to find a way to destroy these sins and promote brotherhood between the people of this planet

While I agree that some democracy is better than others, I do also see a lot of red and yellow on that map, and a lot of the same shade or lower as the US in Europe and South America. My thoughts on the matter are more of a prediction I suppose. I think that the people of the world are losing faith in democratic ideas without thinking about how to fix them first. I'm sure you can agree that rising violence against due process (Such as antifa and the alt right) are terrifying for the thinking man. My purpose of using Rome as an example as well was sort of me trying to say that unless we intervene, we may not have a future at all. By the way, thanks for stopping by on my little post. I see you a lot in the discussions on this site and you being here makes it a bit more legitimate if you understand where I'm coming from.

It almost does seem like a parody. I imagine political cartoonists are having a field day with this.

Forgive me for my US centric view, as I have never lived anywhere else. However, it is known that the US began this sort of "democratic revolution" by proving that the concept was possible. The revolutions in South America and Central America would never have taken place, or at least not with promise of a democratic/representative government, if the US hadn't been a proof of concept per say. Even if the revolutionaries of those lands didn't realize, they were influenced by the flaws of such a Roman based republic because they are so ingrained into the very idea. As for Europe, democratic ideas have taken a more moderate approach, slowly seeping into the consciousness of the public. The Magna Carta limiting the powers of the monarch but not overthrowing them is an example of that. The French revolution is an interesting example, because while it occured quicker than other similar changes, it seemed to put the French people in the same situation they had before. A dangerously unqualified political elite were in a lot of debt and putting down the opposition was a public affair. While I used the US as my example, I believe that my point still stands because it is inherent to a democratic system, the people are also dangerously unqualified to rule if they are dangerously ignorant to the nature of their decisions.

To discuss your second point, I would like to make a seperation between our ability to label ideas, and what we actually put into action as people. Words are versatile, but can only refer to specific things and ideas. Saying that a government is a "democracy" is inherently misleading because it is very vague. Is it a democratic republic? a direct democracy? maybe it takes the word to its roots, referring to the drawing of the rulers name out of a hat. Hypothetically, we could make a chart of all ways of governing, from democratic the authoritarian, and plot where every government lands on that chart. The boundaries are very distinct, there is a such thing as just a democracy, or just an oligarchy, or just a dictatorship, but if you choose one system, you get all of the flaws and advantages. You can negate some flaws by being flexible, which is why most nations don't fall strictly into those categories. I don't understand why that is a US centric view, the categorization of ideas to understand them more easily, but it is an interesting perspective, and I truly appreciate your input. If I am misunderstanding your point, I take full responsibility for that my friend.

As for the difference between a republic and democracy, the main difference is in how they make decisions. A republic makes decisions through the majority of only the elected. If there is one thing universal about politics, it is that people lie. If you can tell the people what they want to hear, you are more or less free to vote for anything you want once you have power. A democracy makes decisions based solely on the votes of the people. Propaganda and confusing wording can still have a similar effect to that of the republic, the main threat facing a democracy is the intelligence of its people. I don't know why you haven't heard of these kind of distinctions in other nations, but they are more or less definitions in the US.

I think that the basic flaw in this argument is assuming that a god would even perceive the world in a way we could put into words. A god is all powerful, and it can never be known how it thinks. No explanation can be correct because we simply exist on a lower level to them, similar to how we are on a higher level to our pets or insects. The only thing that will make us understand a god is evolution of our own mind. How I see it, there are two types of gods, the type that exists outside of the universe, made up of things we can't even imagine, and the type that exists inside of the universe, made of something we can identify, and not bound to the rules of the universe because it has the power to change them at a whim. The inside universe god is the only one we could truly understand eventually.

There is a lot of talk about this man. Think about it. This single man is the center of so much attention. A world leader has probably not garnered so much fame and infamy in a very long time. Regardless of your political stance, it is hard to say nothing has changed since he became president.

The fact that anyone even cares about the office of president has dumbfounded me since I was young. This man only holds 1/3 of the power of governance, a bit too much for my tastes, but he doesn't run the country or anything. There are due processes, the rule of law, all strategically positioned to make sure this man stays within his boundaries, and for the most part it seems to work. Even the big man himself, Donald J. Trump, can't just do anything he wants.

I suppose that was a bit of an introduction to my view on the topic. I don't like to be seen as a liberal or conservative. I believe that the only way to improve is to view the world objectively, to address fallacy, and adjust accordingly. However, do not mistake me as a centrist. Doing nothing is worse than being wrong.

America claims to be a democracy, but it is actually more of an oligarchic-republic hybrid. The people hold no real power. You can elect a representative, but politicians are infamous for their ability to lie. The power of the government does not come from the consent of the governed, it comes from the pacification of the governed. No one consented to increased tariffs on canadian goods, but no one is going to stand up and actually do something about it, so why should Mr. Trump care?

I believe we are in an era of a sort of "messing with the bull" politics. A modern war would cause major devastation, likely across multiple continents and cause a few billion deaths. Small countries would be obliterated. The balance of power would shift. That is undesirable because stability is predictable. Mr. Trump likes predictability, he is a businessman after all. So, the question is, how do you get what you want, without seeking trades that hurt you in the long run, or starting a war you might not make it out of? The answer is simple - if the enemy gives you an inch, take a foot. You took more than was offered, but it isn't so big a deal that your enemy will care. Kim Jong-un is a perfect example of this diplomacy. He fires off a few test nukes, the west gets scared, he opens up negotiations, gets some western wealth in return for promises to stop, rinse and repeat. The evils that take place behind Kim's borders are funded by the west's weakness and short sightedness. Kim will never nuke the west, or the east, because he would never survive that war. Trump, and Putin for that matter, engage in this kind of diplomacy often. Its a sort of "put the money in the bag and no one gets hurt" sort of scenario.

A lot of liberal articles I see like to mock Trump as incompetent or stupid, but I don't see it that way. Recently he has been mocked for being rather difficult at the G7 summit, but I believe they are missing the point. Before I make this next claim, let it be known that Mr. Trump is a businessman. Even if you truly believe he is incompetent, he does have a plan, and I believe that plan is to "switch sides" per say. One wouldn't need to stretch to claim that since the 50's, the world has had two sides, the west, and the east. The west is republican, relatively liberal, and likes to stress equality. The east is authoritarian, relatively conservative, and likes to brush the treatment of their people under the rug most of the time. Mr. Trump sees the G7 summit as a congregation of "losers" as he would say. These countries can not defend themselves, rely heavily on the US for economic help, and tend to be the pioneers of policies the US may eventually take, (such as banning firearms, universal healthcare, etc.). Trump wants to be with winners. Countries that can take care of themselves. It is no coincidence that he has warmed up to Russia and China. He wants business partners, not liabilities, which is understandable.

The above is not to say that abandoning the west is a good thing. It may not be sustainable, but all people have unalienable rights, yes? And what about Trumps other policies, his anti environmental views? All of this is to appeal to those who elected him. Trump chose the Republican party because it was stable. The democratic party was in shambles long before the election. Obama was an ok president, but he sure didn't sell the democratic party on anyone who didn't already support it. The Clintons (among others) were essentially using it as a cash cow. Politics had become business. Trump saw potential to run his competition out of business. Trump has never actually cared about the issues. Most politicians don't really. They just want the money and power.

The stage is set for the defining moment in human history. Democracy has been betrayed, its flaws have been revealed, the people lied to, the system rigged, and the nations of the world are almost done choosing sides. The next 50 years are going to be the most important in all of human history, if it doesn't end before then. Two sides are gearing up for war, and america seems to be the missing piece for both once again. The only hope for the individuals, the philosophers, the artists, and the scientists, is to ban together. We must value reason and let our children be free. Knowledge is the key to our salvation my friends, and no matter how you feel about Mr. Trump, let it be known that we can lead humanity down a path of salvation and truth. We just have to take action.

The human mind is very easily tricked. I believe the question isn't, "Will I date an android" it is, "Will I know I'm dating an android". Simply put, if it passes the turing test, it is human enough, and if you want to restrict its rights or enslave it, you are less human than the android.

My belief is that the respective parties view on religion is due to the people that support them. For example, Conservatives believe in maintaining the status quo, and for hundreds of years, religion and the family unit have been the core values in society. Liberals want change, and the direct opposite of holding religious beliefs is holding none. American politics, and western politics in general, is about herding as many easily convinced, ignorant, paranoid sugar junkies to your side. Taking strong stances on religion is a great way to pull at peoples emotions. That was the flaw in democracy I was referring to.

I've always seen the stances taken by the left and the right on religion as more of a pandering to the people they require votes from. I assume you are referring to the American political system with this question, so I guess I will go a bit further with my reasoning. The fact that religion is even associated with politics is due to a flaw in democracy itself. A democracy can't function properly if its people are ignorant. Ignorance of the public leads to political strong men who make promises that they don't plan to fulfill. (or can't, in this context) There is a separation of church and state, but people tend to forget about that when electing a new president or criticizing the current. The truth is, the left and the right shouldn't have any religious opinions, but they do which is a problem.