In A. "they" refers to the protestors, in B. it refers to the councillors. We know this because of our experience of the world. It's an example of something a computer couldn't know. — Daemon

To most people. Why do you keep refusing to accept this? In a place where the councillors are corrupt/vicious why not the opposite.

A computer cannot understand anything. It is a CODED not THINKING. Other than that what is your point? I don't actually see one but I'm assuming there is one somewhere that is why I'm persisting.

Computers don’t understand context. Or anything. Humans often confuse context.

Your example has different interpretations and are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ how you’ve framed them. If you cannot see that it’s a problem.

I guess you wrote these sentences because you seem to be offended because myself, and another above, have pointed out they are poorly written.

Computer translators are not programmed to understand slang, idioms or metaphors right? I imagine they may have some in their database yet they don’t ‘know’ when and when not to apply the rule - unless the writer has put the saying in special parenthesis?

Better to this than laugh at them ...

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

Say nothing and just post the data.

Just to add. People living in a society where the councillors have been pro violence for generations would certainly have a different interpretation. Computer translation is very limited because it generally doesn't deal with things like a double entendre or the context any given sentence is written in.

A program would certainly have to be programmed to better adjust to what is a living and changing language not one that is set in stone. The event of the internet has already dramatically changed the evolution of human languages.

The point is that it is on the writer to avoid ambiguity in sentences when needed. About the ‘rule’ I mentioned I’m not sure if it an actual prescriptive grammatical rule or not

Here’s a better example: “The chicken is ready to eat”

No, I have followed the meaning via the 'subject' - which in both cases is 'councillors'.

I believe the rule is if it isn't clear who is giving the reason we go with the subject not the object. In day-to-day speech there is no need as the sentence is usually understood within the given context. They are both open to a degree of interpretation that would be cleared up with sentences that precede or follow it.

As stand alone sentences I would assume the 'councillors' are the ones 'fearing violence' or 'advocating violence'.

A. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they advocated violence.

B. The councillors refused to allow the protestors to demonstrate, because they feared violence. — Daemon

These are different meanings. In A the councillors advocate violence and B they fear violence (which has two meanings in and of itself).

If something is poorly written then it is harder to translate. Don't blame the computer for someone's lack of clarity in their writing.

If you mean people in the East don't care as much about material wealth and such you're dead wrong. I'd say more so. There is generally a big difference between poor and rich and this is probably a big cause.

In terms of language, there is evidence that people who speak western languages are not as likely to pay attention to details when shown a picture of a fish tank. They see a fish tank, whilst if you ask someone from China/Vietnam they will list the items in the fish tank rather than view it as a just a fish tank.

Note: This study was done on adults not children. It may have something to do with education but language is probably tied in there somewhere.

If you recall I've mentioned before that motherese is different for different languages. Notably Korean, where children are taught to focus on prepositions rather than objects. The effect of this is negligible beyond the age of 4-5 yrs. Prior to that point Korean children will generally perform better at spacial tasks/puzzles where other children will perform better at category problems.

Something that I think is becoming more and more of a concern for the future is automation.

'Work' was always about humans. The first 'computer' was a job role for a human. Economics being essentially about resources and distribution shows up something interesting in regards to work and production. A work horse needs to be tended to as does a human. Petrol doesn't and nor does a machine. This leads to the ethical problem of there being no ethical problem.

Fuel will not go on strike or die of exhaustion. The fewer humans required for a workplace means that there is certainly more room for a 'profit only' concern - not that I think this is the be all and end all of all business ventures!

Human wants and needs drives the economy more than businesses. I am not denying there is a feedback though. If the concern is there is too much concern with profit then I believe we need to look towards forces that can change cultural habits in regards to consumerism and/or changing how humans live their lives in general.

Do businesses care that some employees hate their job? Perhaps. Perhaps not because caring about your workers may cut into their profits, a big no-no. Society has allowed a bunch of systems to exist, called "businesses", who may not even care about the employees they hire. Many workers are treated like dirt. It all seems so cruel and unfair. — Wheatley

I think there is a combination of things in at work in here. Some are willfully blind to their workers (and/or so disconnected from them). Others care about how productive they are and so wish to have happy workers that do better work BUT this is only a serious factor for rare/skilled labour. If there are only a handful of people able to do X or Y then they will be treated better or move to another business or set up their own.

For non-skilled labour there is a problem. With an almost endless supply of people to fill positions z and x there value of their labour is decreased and so concerns for the workers welfare will not really impact profits at all - in fact it will likely increase them if businesses act together to decrease wages. Or act in opposition to each other by undercutting labour costs to increase profits by way of cheap production. This double-edged sword is certainly an issue that governing bodies have a headache with not being able to find a constant balanced between these two problems.

If you haven't noticed the various fields within the social sciences and political philosophy constant conflate each others ideas and and talk past each other. I am looking at the heart of 'power' and how it is used along with possible problems of conception.

I think I'm well justified because the go to response is generally power = bad and little more thought is put into it, what it means or how we could come to understand human action and intent by investigating this.

Can you provide an example so we can see this in action? I'm still unclear. — Tom Storm

If that isn't clear an example would only compound the problem because you'd seek out a hole in any particular example I would pose that has nothing to do with the thrust of the point.

Let me put it like this. When we act in a certain way and the outcome is deemed 'bad' we steer away from or deny agency, whereas when the outcome is deemed 'good' we lean hard into claiming agency for the action. This is a basic psychology example of how humans (ALL humans) react to perceived outcomes of perceived actions. We shield ourselves from the reality of the situation and claim responsibility for an action depending on the outcome compared to our predicted outcome.

This happens to everyone everyday to some degree or another. It is simply the way we are. The 'personal gain' is more often about how people feel about their status around others, or it is just a means to avoid shame or something like that (gain and/or avoidance of negativity).

Contestable claims here. Can you demonstrate that absolute power doesn't exist? I think the idea here is that there is 'maximal power' which surely does exist. I would say Stalin had this and so too do the Taliban right now. Power over who gets to live and die and what people can do and wear is as close to absolute power as humans can get. Perhaps North Korean leadership has more power than this - they even control people's thoughts. — Tom Storm

I think I mentioned before about the extension of power through time? Immediate power in the now is a physical thing (I need x amount of power to run my computer). In the human sphere, the power of individuals, it is not parceled up in moments.

Either way Stalin didn't really have the power to kill more than a handful of people here and there. I could pick up a knife and kill anyone quite easily. I have the power to take away a lot of lives if I so wished. Do you think Stalin set out to kill people? Is killing someone the same as gaining more control over your life. In some circumstances killing someone could lead to a better set of choices for the future, I won't deny that. I would deny that having the ability to kill is anything like having power.

Again, I see this habit of equating power with negativity (authoritarian rule and dictatorships). I know this is a common perception today and I'm flat out saying it is quite myopic and a very sad thing to see.

Then you're not doing it right. If choice and freedom are your primary concern, you should've steered clear of power. It complicates the issue because power and freedom haven't always been the best of buddies if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

Maybe I am assuming too much about how people are reading what I've said (not the first time!). The thing is they are the best of buddies as far as I can tell. Or rather 'choice' above 'freedom' (the later being something people pine for in an absolute sense even though they REALLY don't want it). It is perhaps the desire for 'freedom' that is more bound up in corruption than power itself. Power, as I'm looking at it, is more about choice (hence the OP title).

I should probably distinguish between 'freedom' and 'choice' again. Choice is more or less recognition of opportunity to make changes (the ability to do so is tied into this too as 'ability' in this case means having a fuller recognition of the choices rather than a superficial wishful thinking kind of 'choice'). Freedom is something we wouldn't really want in an unlimited capacity as it would mean ALL consequences of our actions would lie at our feet, we'd be to blame for what happens to ourselves and to a large degree what happens to those around us too. Freedom necessitates taking Responsibility, and our capacity for such Freedom is ideally limited by our 'power' (ie. understanding and appreciation of choices therein).

This is the thought I've been mulling over since yesterday regarding having a different look at 'corruption'. Corruption, in this thought, being the attainment of Freedom at all costs and shirking the Responsibility that necessarily comes with it. That makes more sense than viewing 'corruption' as simply wishing/wanting to attain more and more 'power'.

The issue is more of a cultural one. Manmade versus natural. Humans set themselves apart from the natural world because our temporal appreciation allows it. We know what will exist and what had existed beyond our lifespan. There is no hard evidence that any other creature does this or can do this.

This cosmological view is further driven by various religious impressions passed down through history.

Note: if something can be tested it is isn’t ‘supernatural’. We’ve no idea what gravity is we just take note of a phenomenon and go about trying to find a pattern to explain what we observe.

Mathematics is undoubtedly tied into physical phenomenon because we test, measure and observe mathematical patterns everywhere (eg. golden ratio).

The question is not 'Is this natural', but 'What is this thing's true nature' or 'What is this things essential nature, if it has one?' — Yohan

That.

I actually think the various uses of the term power are dishonest. I think the term has been corrupted to the point that anyone seeking out power is deemed ‘evil’. I think that is a very sad thing for society at large because people are giving away future choices to appeal to others and their regard towards power as something negative.

Can you explain this with an example? I can't make out the point. — Tom Storm

People are dishonest with themselves all the time. This dishonesty is for personal gain - in the form of avoidance. Long term, not short term, this is often detrimental. This is corruption as you’ve framed it and I’m saying this is due to a lack of power.

So having too much or too little power causes poor judgement to the detriment of self/others.

The question isn't defining power, it is trying to determine where the line is between stewardship and authoritarianism and how to prevent the former from becoming the latter.

Power can be described as having control, a mandate, influence, authority and autonomy. It can come in absolute forms or it can be tempered by checks and balances. — Tom Storm

So power can prevent corruption. Which basically leads straight to the point that ‘power’ isn’t defined by corruption, yet it is a perpetual habit for people to relate power to corruption.

How power is used may or may not cause corruption. Absolute power doesn’t exist, and higher degrees of power don’t necessitate corruption. Status is a better contender for corruption because those overly concerned with the opinion of the masses will reduce themselves to gain favour/appeal/attention.

What do you think of the will to power and the different ways in which Schopenhauer and Nietzsche put this forward? Or is that not of any immediate interest to you?

But I wasn't talking about that.

The 'problem' as I've posed it is wrapped in its meaning and usage rather than having anything to do with good or bad. I was arguing that to define 'power' based mostly (if not purely in some cases) on 'evil' or whatever is a little myopic and prevents us from understanding what power is beyond a mere item for declaring something as possessing differing levels of corruption.

Correct me if you think I'm wrong but I do see the term 'power' as meaning a whole lot more than this and it has drawn the attention of philosophers like Schopenhauer and Neitzsche.

The will to power isn't really about how to be evil or bad is it. I was trying to relate power to choice and freedom and what, underneath all the 'politicking,' 'power' is build on.

I find the term 'power corrupts' to be a little trite. It sounds dismissive. Tom Storm's post showed me that this wasn't just in my imagination as I've seen such remarks before put forward as the be all and end all of any discussion about 'power'.

If you have something to add please feel free to join in :)

Fair enough. It is easier to break something than build something short term. What about the short versus long term? Is power better spent toward better aims than worse?

Note: I don't see any reason to agree with your view of power to do harm being easier as the use of power, by degree, the same amount of power. As I said above I don't see power as either bad or good, nor would I be in any position to dictate what is good or bad for any individual without a better overarching understanding of their given situation.

Okay. Do you mean that you view power as a something more related to problems than 'good'/'bad'?

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

What? You pretty much said it yourself right? Power is power, it isn't necessarily 'good' or 'bad'. If you think otherwise I didn't see that at all, sorry.

I don't know what that means. I haven't criticised any approach there though?

I was just making absolutely clear (so I thought) that the lines between items like 'manipulation,' 'persuasion' or 'influence' have a good degree of overlap and therefore people do have differing views as to what constitutes one and no the other.

As above from my view. It is about intention and outcome (and I agree good/bad is irrelevant).

I would still point out that generally 'power' is something that has more modern negative connotations that not due to various political views today and Critical Theory at large. That is why I'm asking what people mean by the term and whether or not they've looked at it in any great depth.

I have started to form a different way of viewing corruption now ... will share once I've mulled it over a bit more.

Which would lead to my personal take on what 'power' is. Intended action resulting in intended outcomes. I think power in this sense is both rare and almost impossible to recognise given that we have very little in the way of measuring such things.

Individuals who truly care for others will not seek to control them, will not pressure or persuade. To help someone is to bring someone to insight voluntarily, and allow them to subject your advice to all scrutiny and critical thought, and not to be satisfied with anything less. — Tzeentch

Perspective. What you may deem a kind of gentle exposure to critical thought I may view as domineering. “The road to hell …”. I think forcing someone to do something for their own good is something people will, and even should, do in their lives. We will sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong.

From what you say above I could give it the slight twist of saying people who truly care do nothing. Therein lies the problem if ‘power’ - be this knowledge, knowhow or lived experience offered in the form of advice (its persuasion is a subjective/judgement matter).

Acton was referring to government power, but it's an observation others have made. I don't need to explain to anyone here the uses and abuses of power in government. — Tom Storm

I think you need to explain what this power is though. Adding ‘government’ before the term doesn’t explain what it you’re talking about - this is the thrust of what interests me because I believe (and am observing here) something of a reluctance to explicate what power is and why it leads to said ‘corruption’.

Not sure this makes sense. Corruption is choosing to behave dishonestly in return for personal gain. So no. — Tom Storm

Dishonesty doesn’t necessarily have be external. I’m pretty sure the dishonesty towards oneself is a greater problem than dishonesty towards other (as it appears to be the seed of the later). Fair enough you said ‘choosing’ which is basically where I am seeing a commonality in what we mean when referring to ‘power’.

Furthermore there is often more to gain from cooperation than from dishonesty. Then there is being dishonest towards what one believes to be a ‘corrupt’ individual in order to do any with perceived ‘corruption’. See my point? I don’t think we can discuss much if you cannot tell me with more depth what ‘corruption’ or ‘power’ is, or you can just state clearly that you believe they are one and the same thing. I wouldn’t agree but at least I could then say something more about that and we could perhaps have an interesting discussion.

Some people might think they are the same but I don't. I'm not much interested in explorations of 'power over others' in limited roles like a doctor or teacher or cab driver. I am more interested in power in connection with leadership (organisations or governments). But my interest is fairly limited. — Tom Storm

I don’t think they are the same nor would I expect anyone else to either. My point was perspective dictates the delineation between one and the other.

What is the ‘power’ governments/leaders have then? Are all leaders/governments ‘corrupt’? Not trying ti put words into your mouth, just trying to understand the what and where of the corruption you see in leadership/governments beyond siphoning off some funds here and there and helping out their buddies. I think it is fair to say some leaders/governments do a better job than others, so what are the better ones doing with their power if they are?

I’m happy to go down that route if you want.

I have no doubt that Lord Acton's quote is mostly accurate - the actual quote is 'power tends to corrupt' (the tends is important and makes the quote). From personal experience of working in diverse areas - media, the arts and health, I think Acton was on the money. The rest of the quote is, of course, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Absolutely right, which is why democracies have a separation of powers and often a bill of rights to protect people from the abuse of power. Not that this works entirely well. — Tom Storm

What is this power you’re talking about? Is it the ability to influence others or something entirely different.

People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. Here ‘control’/‘influence’/‘manipulate’/‘help’ are hard to distinguish from each other once we strip away the subjective perspectives and goals.

Would a lack of power also be considered ‘corrupt’? Meaning lacking any ability to control or make choices for oneself or others?

Do you see my point of interest now? Also, you’ve brought corruption to the table. Is it reasonable to say you believe power and corruption are inextricably bound. I’m not sure I could agree to this but I wouldn’t dispute that they are all to often parcelled up together (which is part of what I am questioning the validity of).

If we talk about corruption without using the term power what would we say about it. Is what we’d say anything much to do with our ability to control, assess and manage our choices, and does this have a stronger relation to our sense of freedom and responsibility (or sense of authorship) rather than power.

Note: I feel the need to talk about this because I’ve seen various uses of ‘power’ in various different guises of Critical Theory.

What is this 'power' and 'corruption' then? Are they the only points to consider here?

The main thrust behind my interest is how power has different meanings yet in political circles (interpersonal or individual) it's usually viewed in a negative sense.

Well, no. The literal dictionary definition is the ability to influence others. I was framing it as 'control' because if the individual has more control it will affect others - we don't live in isolation after all right?

I can't work out what this means. Sorry. — Tom Storm

Power as in physics (physical sense and quantified). In reality the kind of power we talk about in terms of personal control and agency is often misplaced as being a quantity in the same said sense because that is just how language functions.

Less power now may mean more in the future and therefore less power is better if we're looking to increase our power - which I argue against as a dead certainty given that with power comes freedom and responsibility.

If power tends to corrupt then how much of it? My point being there isn't much meaning in the manner people throw the sentiment around (irrespective of the actual original source). People believe power is just what instigates corruption and nothing more. That is why I say it is a superficial view.

Basic survival through cooperation.

This is basically the root of the difference …

Having a comparatively large forebrain that enables counterfactual thinking, planning and predicting, human animals learn to prevent behavioral conflicts which we humans foresee and attribute blame to those who cause or exacerbate such conflicts. Nonhuman animals that are not endowed with human-level foresight, however, cannot prevent behavioral conflicts and instead, IME, by instinct, react with fear or disgust, aggression or play, immediately to corresponding behavioral cues from one another. — 180 Proof

Might help to think about cold water having a certain solid state and asking why it is solid when other water is liquid. At base it’s still ‘water’.

Empathy is a feature of more social animals and ‘morals’ require forward thinking and planning (not instinctual habit for survival - burying nuts etc.,.).

I’d also say that I think stating we ‘need’ ethics/morals is like saying we need ‘arms’. We don’t, but they are pretty useful don’t you agree?

How are morals/ethics useful? How can ethics/morals cause problems and be a burden? Generally I believe this boils down the same thing quoted above. Humans have a more expansive cosmological outlook so interactions with fellow humans and interacting with the future makes morals/ethics a useful ‘tool’.

Ah, but now did you not just do the same? — Outlander

Whatever you wish. Not interested thanks.

You just did it yourself. It is silly to define what you mean then ask for a definition of what you mean.

ALL terms are context dependent. There is no ‘universal’ meaning that isn’t subject to differing interpretations due to differing subjective and contextual items.

I recommend putting a bit more thought into your OP’s or just reply to other threads instead for the time being.

Surely you can come up with something better than that?

Humans are both good and evil. How would we know either if we weren't both?

SO superficially ... YES. But that isn't all humans are anymore than a human amount to just being a creature with four limbs.

Reminds me of 'Behold a human!' Nah, plucking a chicken doesn't make it human and defining a human as either evil or not is just as silly.

What Banno said.

I'd also add that it makes sense for people to attempt to understand what someone else means rather than categorically say they are 'wrong' when it comes to judgements like this - which are often personal.

I've had an issue with people telling me that I was using the term 'belief' in the wrong way and that there was one common meaning. They fell silent after I quoted several different definitions used by philosophers over the ages.

Another loaded term is 'faith'. All I ask is that people try and ne generous in their interpretations and perhaps ask for clarity rather if they believe something sounds stupid/wrong/insane.

Fair enough. We have no written records to go off so archeological evidence is pretty much all the hard evidence we have. Various artifacts and sites cannot really divulge much about how people lived, but they can suggest many different things.

One common occurance throughout the history of interpreting artifacts is that we constantly make biased assumptions - usually because we assume certain things we do now as 'the norm'.

This seems to be more supportive of your view:

https://sites.dartmouth.edu/aegean-prehistory/lessons/lesson-11-narrative/#l11d

For myself, anyone questioning Renfrew is putting themselves on the line as Renfrew is a very steady hand.

Also, even though this points more toward the 'elites' having more selfish goals it doesn't then make humanity worse only bring out into the open a natural tendency. I don't agree one way or the other but I do know that in the modern world many people assume wealth is a result of selfish ends rather than reciprical cooperation. Again I would not hold to such a simplistic view in a stand alone sense as such reciprocity would have to insular in some fashion rather than universal - intent aside!

You may find this interesting: https://blog.degruyter.com/ancient-ukrainian-megasites-might-have-been-the-worlds-first-cities/

I was talking about how ‘civilisation’ can and is defined within the fields of anthropology. I do know. There is not an absolute consensus.

It’s a bit like the ‘all swans are white’ point. We cannot state something with such certainty when there is scant evidence/history. Added to this we carry around numerous modern assumptions about ‘how humans live’ based purely on how we live now. We cannot really do much about this other than try and guard against and highlight what possible assumptions we may be making and such assumptions influences our perception of said matter.