Sorry, don’t see anything relevant to what I said above.

This is basically a philosophical zombie.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

Yes, but there is more genetic diversity within a group than between them. When it comes to political use of the term 'race' it is more or less about appearance and assumption (not based on genetics).

Someone can look 'white' and have predominantly African or Asian heritage. 'Race' is a bit like nationality. It says something about your cultural upbringing bit certainly doesn't completely determine how you were brought up or how you view the world.

From Washington Post:

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when Defense Department leaders, acting on a directive from President Biden, informed the nation’s 2.1 million troops that immunization would become mandatory, exemptions would be rare and those who refuse would be punished. Yet troops’ response has been scattershot, according to data assessed by The Washington Post.

For instance, 90 percent of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, whereas just 72 percent of the Marine Corps is, the data shows, even though both services share a Nov. 28 deadline. In the Air Force, more than 60,000 personnel have just three weeks to meet the Defense Department’s most ambitious deadline.

I hope people in the military in the US don't get vaccinated because it will weaken the position of the government in effectively forcing people to take medication.

'Anti-vaxxers' - where I'm from - are generally people who refuse to give their children immunization against horrible diseases. Protesting for the right NOT to take a vaccine is fine by me. I guess if I agree with the rights of people not to take vaccines then I'm an 'Anti-vaxxer'?

This is clearly sensationalism at its worst caused by mass media. Covid isn't particularly terrible and we've got a much better understanding of it now so it makes no sense not to get back to normal asap ... and perhaps deal with things that actually kill far more people globally like heart disease (due to greed in the food production industry) and basic poverty (which has been intensified due to lockdowns).

I'm glad people are sensible enough to protest against governments backing employers and actively encouraging them to refuse work to those who cannot, or will not, take a vaccine.

Of course. I was asking more or less about how other issues (like intelligence) is accounted for within this scheme.

It looks to me like a rehashing of the dated concept of 'nature vs nurture'. Clearly there is no dividing line between what is and isn't 'nature' or 'nurture' it is a mishmash.

Sorry, but I can imagine that even without humans around, the chemical elements what we call "hydrogen" or "gold" will exist and have their peculiar characters. — ssu

And this is where I see some making the leap that you CANNOT imagine because you're human, so if there were no humans they'd be no science nor any 'Periodic Table' (trust me I've seen this kind of argument used).

Also,

That we describe the differences between the elements by using the atomic model and have a periodic table doesn't change their existence. — ssu

That we can describe observe and measure intelligence (albeit poorly) doesn't deny its existence. 'g' is about as objective as anything else, but we don't fully grasp what it is.

I am playing devil's advocate a little here :)

There are some telling genetic differences between certain groups. Some medicines are tailor made to help such groups. Sadly the historical scientific beliefs/ideas surrounding 'race' and the advent of Darwin led to a whole lot of uninformed speculation that was considered 'objective' at the time.

Of course with that definition the word is utterly useless. — ssu

I guess you don't care to offer up any definition? Are there hazy areas for any definition you offer? Does any definition serve to reveal something of importance for the social sciences or is it mainly based on assumptions and opinion? ;)

In short I would define philosophy as the investigation of human thought, reason, interaction, understanding and experience.

'Investigation' here could mean a variety of things including inner thought, logical analysis and/or scholarly/historical work on philosophers/philosophies.

What makes something 'philosophical' depends upon the context the term is used in. Colloquially we use this to mean something like an ethic or moral code, or a practical way of dealing with day-to-day problems (as in 'My philosophy of life is ...').

In other respects I think it is better to view something philosophical as being more about the 'what' question whereas something scientific would look more at the 'how' question. This is not to say these don't sometimes overlap and feed off of each other.

Decartes Error - Damasio (a look at rationality and emotions)

Also, maybe these:
- The Scientist in The Crib - Gopnik, Meltzoff & Kuhl (ref. to various studies in here that you might find useful - easy reading pop-science book)
- The Archetypes of The Collective Unconscious - Carl Jung
- The Language and Thought of the Child - Jean Piaget

One thing is for sure. We have emotions about every conscious item. We cannot experience without emotion. Emotion is 'experiencing' and often thought of as tied hard to subjectivity.

The idea of 'the rational' and 'the emotional' as separate is a dead idea that sadly still lingers in the public sphere from what I've seen.

So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else. — Bitter Crank

Replace 'rich' for 'financially stable' and I think that sums it up fairly well. Except I think the ignorance of the middling population are not intentionally 'screwing' everyone else, they're just too busy trying to be super rich or believe they deserve a little reward for floating above the rest.

I think it might be reasonable to consider that middling incomes are more likely to look down on poor people than rich people because they are one step away from them and think why can't they do what I did? Why should they get help and I not? It is petty and childish, but humanity isn't exactly paragon of its possible self just yet.

Living somewhere where there is not exactly a great deal of help handed out to people I can see your point. That said I don't think things are much different now than before. Reading articles by persons such as George Orwell from the late 40's I could easily have mistaken them for a modern piece. I think times change but some conflicts in society are necessarily eternal. I am curious to see how/if our current means of mis/communication impacts upon the common repeating trends of so-called left or right political stances.

As ever (no apologies for repeating myself) the issue seems more about mass global media and the advent of the internet age we've just started coming into. I put a lot of the current sociopolitical turmoil/upheaval down to greater awareness and exchanges between peoples/cultures than in any period in human history.

I think this account for a seemingly growing polarity between different political attributes, but the reality is more or less that we just have more contrast (and extremist views) thrown around in social media circles leading to the appearance of (and perhaps creation of due to belief in?) a greater problem than the reality of the situation has to offer.

I think there is too much emphasis on the extremes of both ends of the argument and that hyperbole doesn't help much. I would like to see free healthcare and education on a global scale. When I saw a woman on UK news interview complaining about funding to help with her children out of school I laughed! It is people like her that are the main problem and usually the most vocal too (note: She did her interview with fine bone china clearly on display in her cabinet behind her and she wasn't particularly concerned about how others were struggling and just wanted her piece of the payout).

I would prefer to see people at the LOWEST end of the spectrum receive a larger chunk and cut out people who simply feel that they 'deserve' something because they 'work so hard'.

Neither conservatism nor socialism are dirty words. They are both perfectly legitimate policies but either as a stand alone scheme to fix all problems are pretty terrible.

Have we made this social change with much thought? — Athena

No. We never will because we cannot see what happens until it happens. Conservatism will hold us back from finding a 'better' way or making a terrible make, and Liberalism will open us up to more more mistakes yet allow us to search beyond the norm for a 'better' way.

Too much thought will lead to stagnation, and too little will just lead us back to where we begun with no step forwards. We have to learn (in group thought and/or individually) through our mistakes. Sometimes the cost will be brutal but there is always tomorrow - until there isn't! :D

In terms of technical jargon regarding the cognitive neurosciences there is a difference. In fact, what is coined as 'consciousness' and 'conscious' varies depending on the context too.

Like the OP. If you parse 'economics' alongside 'work' the meaning is exactly how I framed it.

The cost of 'enjoying yourself' exists and it isn't in a matter of monetary value.

These are the basic building blocks of what economics is about. I'm not making it up. A look at any basic introduction to economics and what economics covers will reveal this.

The OP is about EMPLOYMENT/JOBS. You don't have to get a job but you'll have to work no matter what if you wish to keep breathing. The person posting this has made clear elsewhere they don't much care for breathing in the first place and that on balanced life=suffering and that that is 'bad'/'wrong'.

Recreation takes work too. ALL activity is 'work'.

To quote:

Realism (as I have defined it), requires the objective independent existence of common-sense physical entities.

- Devitt

I saw the same trick with Witty 'defining' language as X then restating the same definition (under words) to dispute the existence of a Private Language.

Of course, if you define something from the get go as X it cannot be anything other than X.

Without ‘work’ we learn nothing and do nothing. So @schopenhauer1 I’m just going to say you have a rather strange way of viewing life that I strongly oppose and move on.

The big deal is what you said here:
I think this says it all. We don't enter it, we're in it from the get go.
— I like sushi — schopenhauer1

I think we're talking cross purposes here. I don't mean just 'Work' as in 'having a job'. I'm talking about having to work to get food/water etc.,. The 'cost' may be time, money, sleep and numerous other items. Within we trade off one possible future for another. That is economics and it is basically human life.

If you're just talking about employment not interested. My mistake.

Yes :D

It's not just western. All around the world certain jobs have higher prestige - doctors and lawyers usually being up there.

The other question sounds to me like asking if we deserve to be alive. It's not relevant as far as I can see when it comes to intelligence, talent and opportunity.

That's how I see it.

People are different. Equality is general fine when we’re talking about equal opportunities for all. Basically, so people can make their own mistakes and figure out what path suits them better from moment to moment. Some choices taken will shut off others, so no oath is the same and some will simply luck out.

As for answering your questions directly I cannot do so honestly because I think they’re based on beliefs/views I don’t hold, fully understand and/or agree with.

For instance, I’m not quite sure why you’d equate ‘happiness’ with a ‘genius’. A better intellect, education or artistic disposition doesn’t make someone ‘happier’ even though they may very well be successful. I know this is an obvious point and probably why you didn’t address it, but it ties into the scheme of ‘equal’ and ‘individual’.

Hope there is something there you were probing for.

For the same reason I mentioned playing a game that isn't a game and looking for some winner.

I just don't see room for much discussion around this topic because the jargon involved is piled too high and it takes a long, long, long time to get anywhere with anyone ... and usually results in one or both parties involved realising they're been talking about completely different items all along.

In more simplistics terms Noumenon is a bit like Tao/Dao, in that 'speaking of it' clothes it as an entity of some sort. Noumenon is always absent from human life, and just because I say Noumenon doesn't mean I have privileged experience of it, because it literally cannot be experienced and therefore there is nothing here I am really talking about.

There is phenomenon (minus the 'there' and the 'is'). Asking about The Reality of such phenomenon is just to misunderstand the terms involved. In terms of Husserlian Phenomenology the point is not to concern ourselves with the idea of what is 'Real' but to simply explore the phenomenal experience of being a human being. To take note of what we can and cannot imagine (ie. a four cornered triangle, a sound without pitch, a box without depth or a speech without words).

In the above sense the Noumenal is instantly given thing-hood by naming it. Thing-hood is a phenomenological matter of some said item rather than some 'pointing to' an underlying nothing with no name completely outside of any possible/probably/imaginable human experience ... in that sense the Noumenon isn't anything, it is the LIMIT and we're in no position to posit that we can know something beyond our experience (direct or indirect) and such claims to do so are a pointless exercise of self-deceit.

That's the short answer off the top of my head. If it makes no sense don't worry about it :D

However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. — schopenhauer1

I think this says it all. We don't enter it, we're in it from the get go.
Life is about economics; which means management and distribution of resources (abstract and/or otherwise).

When you talk about 'work' I've no real idea what you're talking about. If you mean being paid money for doing something for someone else in exchange for your skills/knowledge/time, then I don't see what the big deal is. Money doesn't even need to come into it - 'economics' doesn't require 'money'.

One's best interest often requires cooperation. To be 'selfish' requires a degree of 'selflessness'.

Plus, people often act contrary to what they know is better for them. We are not 'logical; in our actions.

Don't laugh at people because you think you're superior to them (ie. know better). I don't find it surprising that people double-down when you think you're justified to laugh in their face. Causes more harm than good.

DO THIS: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-1000-years

People will not change their minds because you tell them that they should. People change their minds by coming to different conclusions by themselves NOT by being ridiculed and belittled by some know-it-all.

Present that facts and resist the (possibly unintended) urge to antagonise. Listen to the points made and provide information if you wish to.

@Banno My mistake. Didn’t realise this was under the category of ‘Philosophy of Language’. The whole landscape of the philosophy of language is too messy imo. I just prefer to peruse the scientific studies and not pass judgement over this or that person’s view of what ‘language’ means.

And 'he' (as per usual) would rather snark and evade than give any further explanation.

Leopards and spots OR are you too long in the tooth to care? :D

@frank He’s probably using ‘interpreted’ as ‘conscious of’. We’re even conscious of proposed objects. Looks like the Kantian dichotomy of noumenon and phenomenon (a kind of false dichotomy).

That’s kind of why I was drawn to Husserl’s ideas. Just deal with the phenomenon and if something is revealed that way then something is revealed. The phenomenon will not dissolve either way.

That said, we cannot help viewing the world through a dichotic lens. Distinctions like these seem necessary to map out experience to some degree.

I have an inkling it may actually be due to some bizarre genetic mechanism observed in other animals (locust and bacterium) where once a certain threshold in population is reached something kicks in.

The increase in longevity is a well documented phenomenon that shows no sign of slowing. I don’t for a second believe global warming will impact population growth much at all tbh. Population growth is related to poverty more than anything most likely.

Without looking it up, what percent of the population do you think live past 100? — Bitter Crank

No idea. I do know that if you were born 2000 onwards then you're more than likely going to reach 100. Very strange phenomenon humanity's exponentially increasing longevity!

We're stuck playing tennis in our heads between 'object' and 'subject' with an invisible, or non-existent, ball called 'metaphysics'. There is no clear winner and it just might be that there actually isn't even a game being played at all.

Computers don't understand and humans do. Translation programs don't 'think'.
— I like sushi

I Googled the phrase "Can computers think". I got 21,000 hits, including this, from Oxford University's Faculty of Philosophy (my italics):

Can Computers Think?

The Turing Test, famously introduced in Alan Turing's paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (Mind, 1950), was intended to show that there was no reason in principle why a computer could not think. Thirty years later, in "Minds, Brains, and Programs" (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1980), John Searle published a related thought-experiment, but aiming at almost exactly the opposite conclusion: that even a computer which passed the Turing Test could not genuinely be said to think. Since then both thought-experiments have been endlessly discussed in the philosophical literature, without any very decisive result.
— Oxford University's Faculty of Philosophy

It seems it's still very much a live question. — Daemon

I can only suggest that you reread and ask yourself what you're referring to above^^

If you can read into what I write something that explicitly isn't there then you probably don't get paid much for your work (or shouldn't) :D

Jibing aside; have fun I'm exiting :)

Some would say human language is a matter of rule following, but making sense of the above sentences seems to require experience with a point of view. — frank

Well, there is no 'seems to' about it. There is no manual for language. Anyone 'arguing' against is just plain wrong! I think maybe that some people confuse Chomsky's view of language as saying that there are strict rules. That isn't at all what he is saying though. Undoubtedly there are certain elements that constitute what we commonly refer to as 'language,' but there is still a lot of work to do in terms of the cognitive neurosciences. Sadly a large section of the 'Philosophy of Language' group were a bit slow catching up with the science and were still occupied with problems that had be solved by neuroscience ... it takes time for things like that to bed down. Ironically habituation is a huge element of our experience and understanding about-the-world.

The only space where confusion arises is within what we're framing as 'language'. I have big issues with that. Also, some people view 'thinking' as purely about the spoken/written word where within actual studies of language this divide is not always applied (context dependent given what is actually being considered for study).

It might help us @Daemon if you told me if you'd loosely say that these here words are 'translations' of my 'cognitive capacities' expressed with the purpose of elucidating some common meaning/understanding?

I think we might be slipping into semiotics here.

@frank Any chance you could look at thread about 'Choice: The problem with power' and see if you can disagree with me or highlight something?

To think beyond wokeness requires that one think beyond epistemic realism, to take a thoroughgoing social constructivist perspective that sidelines blameful finger-pointing based on what is correct vs incorrect, true vs false. Instead, social constructionism is a means of bracketing or suspending any pronouncement of the real, the reasonable, or the right. In its generative moment, constructionism offers an orientation toward creating new futures, an impetus to societal transformation. — Joshs

Ideally yes yes yes! In reality people don't understand what this means all too often and think they can literally dismiss the basic fundamentals of scientific investigation.

As Ken Gergen argues , “ Constructionist thought militates against the claims to ethical foundations implicit in much identity politics - that higher ground from which others can so confidently be condemned as inhumane, self-serving, prejudiced, and unjust. Constructionist thought painfully reminds us that we have no transcendent rationale upon which to rest such accusations, and that our sense of moral indignation is itself a product of historically and culturally situated traditions. And the constructionist intones, is it not possible that those we excoriate are but living also within traditions that are, for them, suffused with a sense of ethical primacy? As we find, then, social constructionism is a two edged sword in the political arena, potentially as damaging to the wielding hand as to the opposition. — Joshs

Nice.

The final paragraph I'll dig into later. You certainly touch on something that will hopefully make for a good discussion here :) Hope we can disagree the right amount and both get something out of it :)

@frank Perhaps you can point out more clearly what this thread is about?

All I can see at the moment is someone stating the obvious (nothing wrong with that!) and trying to look beyond the obviousness ... it is the later part I'm having trouble with seeing.

Computers don't understand and humans do. Translation programs don't 'think'. Our experience of language within a given context helps us choose the better/correct meaning behind statements made - computers are limited to what they're programmed to do.

We are self correcting and constantly learning and relearning the world about us.

Where in here is the OP's idea/point/question?

The point is that we are able to make a judgement about the meaning of the sentences which a computer can't possibly make. — Daemon

And?

I should add. Don't forget that 'myths' are essentially how humans live their lives. Most people are happy to accept the existence of 'nations' and 'groups,' which are just our way of mapping the world more readily so we can attend to matter of more radical interest to us.

It's mostly useless in the public sphere. Myth in the sense you've framed it ... not entirely, but probably mostly. It's just tribalism on a different level.

I think it is ridiculous to say you are anywhere in a multidimensional and highly complex abstract representation of 'political standing'. People will fall all over the map of of the political landscape depending on the subject matter.

The problem is that the individual is a different beast when put into a group of people. Depending on the group of people they will alter their stance one way or another.

In terms of psychological traits I'd say openness is something we should be looking to nurture in political discourse.

A world of Quakers?

In a perfect world an editor marks them for rewrite. — tim wood

Precisely