If you identify with the biology, though, you would be under your own jurisdiction. Self-tyranny is a paradox.

It does not matter if it is effective or not. What matters is the ethics and politics of the situation, whether the state should determine what can and cannot be said, and so on.

So @Tom Storm indicated that “ends justifies means” reasoning. You are assuming that the collateral damage of stress and work is okay to impose for someone else to justify providing possible experiences of joy. Why is this kind of collateral damage justified, even if joy is the intention? It’s not like the person already exists to ameliorate a lesser harm for a greater harm. This would be creating the state of affairs of stress and work just because the parent wants this outcome to come about. That doesn’t seem like a good justification. An intention for good outcomes with known (and permanent/intractable) collateral damage, and for no other reason, “just because”, seems wrong. Not sure how it’s defended other than it’s currently held to be ethical by most people currently.

I was only making the point that one must first exist in order to negate stress. The argument that one will not feel stress if he doesn’t exist is a weird one. He will not feel, do, or be anything, so you could replace “not feel stress” with any aspect of existence, like joy, happiness, gravity, breathing, eating McDonalds.

I don’t believe that giving birth is tantamount to imposing stress and work. That opposite is the case, except in the case of negligence. More often than not a person is coddled, raised, and cared for during the early stages of life, so pretending parents impose work and stress is largely untrue.

Biden’s bagmen and propagandists such as the DNC are currently pressuring SMS carriers to “dispel misinformation”. We now have the ruling party inserting itself into our private messages. So long free speech.

A world with no people is still a state of affairs where no one feels stress.. So it isn't a world of fantasy. The world in fact existed billions of years before humans and presumably billions of years after.

A world with no people is one thing, a world where no one feels stress is something else entirely. But ok. You can call your state of affairs a world where no one feels stress, and I’ll call your state of affairs a world where no one feels joy or happiness.

“There is no state of affairs where no one feels stress”. Such a state of affairs exists only in fantasy, like a world made of candy.

The pronouns under discussion are mostly used in the third person, or in other words, in conversations between others. I can understand the desire for others to refer to me in a manner of my choosing, but I cannot get past the notion of demanding others conform to my linguistic preferences.

But, surely, a regular ID card will only be about identifying the basics, such as name, and date of birth and, and has little to do with identity and the philosophical aspects of identity.

Surely it all has much more to do with the philosophical aspects of identity than we care to admit. The basic facts such as name, eye-color, height etc. may not intrigue a being who is unable to see beyond his own limited periphery, but to others who must contend with this being as an object moving about in their lives, this information means a great deal. It is why we search for identification among the deceased and injured, or why such identification is stolen for nefarious purposes.

It’s pure speculation, but for my own view I think society is evolving in an encouraging direction rather than collapsing. There appears a growing schism between positions of power and their thralls on the one hand, and those who oppose it on the other. The so-called social democracies over-played their hand with their pandemic response, using an emergency as an excuse to seize power, favoring authoritarianism and statism over the free choice and association of their citizens, and I believe this will return to bite them. By now people are feeling the slow choke of authority. Such sentiment, if it is there, may prove disastrous for state power, but it can only invigorate and replenish social power.

It’s as easy as looking in the mirror, so it’s strange that such an idea is fraught with mystery. A regular old ID card will say more about the self than any philosopher.

People like things for a lot of reasons and quality or truth is rarely one of them. The popularity of an opinion isn’t a good measure of its veracity or validity anyways.

It seems to me “Reputation system” is an odious term, something like certain governments would do.

So if there could be a state of affairs where no one feels stress, and one where there was, would you pick the one where the was on someone else's behalf? Is that kind of imposition right to do for someone else?

There is no state of affairs where no one feels stress, but I suppose one could avoid it with drugs and the like. I wouldn’t impose any of that, but I would advise against it.

It’s good to gain that sort of life and work experience so that you can better operate in the future. Experience, study, and practice betters the range of skills one can have.

Stress can be a valuable function insofar as it helps one stay alert, motivated, and adaptive. If you can manage stress it can be quite beneficial.

Instead of removing billionaires, which would necessarily involve tyranny and exploitation, one might serve the cause better by becoming a billionaire. This way he can abolish himself, redistribute his own wealth and property, negate the very problems and inequalities billionaires are routinely blamed for, and all without getting blood on his hands. Until his abolition he can provide employment, livable wages, health care, and all the goodies without having to beg for it from politicians. Win-win.

You could be a shining example of humanity without becoming a tyrant, murderer and thief.

They stand for the aggrandizement of their party and the federal government, like the Democrats.

I think it does. It’s a stage of life all of us must go through.

Who says emotions and body are one and the same?
Do you have any scientific proof or sources to back your claims?

Animals were never born with emotions to begin with.
We go through surgeries to remove appendix and wisdom teeth as they are vestigial.
Why can't we do the same with emotions, then?

Also, we are talking about a hypothetical here.
Which means we don't have to think how it is done before we know if it will even be a good choice or not.

How can you say its not worth it?
A bit of pain for infinite peace.
Or would you like to see war and murders happening as long as you get to live without pain?

Charles Darwin and William James said it, but I thought it was a matter of common sense. Emotions are an act of the body. It’s why our heart races when we fear something or our eyes tear up when we are sad. When we study emotion we study bodies. I can’t see what suffices as a better answer, to be honest.

I say “it’s not worth it” because the procedures to do so would cause more injury than it would eradicate. Psychological life is so intertwined that to remove one would hinder the other, as in lobotomy patients. They might not have felt emotion, or at least expressed it, but they were incontinent and unintelligent.

If you think about it, if I did not feel pain I might not be able to recognize an injury. If I did not feel anger I might not be able to recognize an injustice. If I did not feel fear I wouldn’t know which situations to avoid, or when to pay attention. Sure, our emotions can guide us astray, but they also let us know. Doing away with emotions would render us stupid, in my opinion. Maybe I just get weirded out when people seek to mess with things that took millions of years to evolve.

Doing away with emotions would be tantamount to doing away with the body since they are one and the same. All you could do is dull them with narcotics, invasive and unethical surgeries, or abuse. In short, it’s not worth it.

Law is little more than a collection of prescriptions serviceable to rulers. They function as justifications for the exploitation and enslavement of populations.

It’s far worse. Agnosticism rests itself on the possibility that god exists, which seems to me a crummy assumption.

Let it be known, friend. If it’s just, based on solid evidence, and can be expressed in a way that is a joy to read, add it to the noise. It might stand above other opinions.

Oration is speech.

If you consider oration powerful then?

The oration is speech. Speech is an act. Speech is powerful.

What are you thinking here?

Speech is a noun, which is a person, place or thing. To "give" a speech, or "speaking", is the act. I mistakenly nominalized "orate" with the suffix "tion", which only served to confuse things.

You do have to believe in the power of speech to believe there can be great orators. It's rather confused to think you can have powerful speeches but no powerful speech. The medium isn't irrelevant, but it's not the most relevant attribute of speech, which is the power of words on human minds.

I’m not sure how you get from “MLK and Winston Churchill were great orators” to “it’s rather confused to think you can have powerful speeches but no powerful speech”. Oration is an action they perform and I like the way they do it. None of that means or implies that they have powerful speech.

I don't know what you could possibly mean by 'the power of the brain' in this context. Are you the kind of person who insists that it's not the gun that kills you it's the bullet? Do you really go through life as if you don't understand the difference between proximate and non-proximate causes?

"The high demand for wheat's going to cause a rise in prices"

"No, actually I think you'll find, the high demand for wheat isn't going to actually cause anything, the key presses on the stock exchange computer is going to cause the price rise, anything else is one step removed and so irrelevant"

I bet you're a hoot at parties.

From the resting metabolic rate we can understand the rate of work of the brain and how much power it requires. We can even view its activity with brain scanning technology. We have a general idea of what it does and how it effects the rest of the body.

Can you do the same with words? We can measure the intensity of sound and understand how that effects the body, sure, but do words come with more intensity? If they do not, then how do they affect you different than other sounds from the mouth? Do words on paper possess more mass and energy than arbitrary scribbles? If not, then in what way are they more powerful?

“Words have power.”

“How?”

“Look at these images of the brain! [insert appeal to ridicule]”.

Only someone beholden to the superstition would try pass off evidence of the power of the brain as evidence of the power of words without irony. In fact, I've been saying the brain is the cause all along, and you present the brain imagining techniques and investigations into neural mechanisms as a refutation. So thanks for providing even more evidence, not only of the power of the brain, but also of your own sociopathy.

I believe in rhetoric, I just don't believe it works how you say it does. I also believe that some language is far more appealing and beautiful, some ugly, that people enjoy some language more than others, that MLK and Winston Churchill were great orators, and so on. I'm just trying to be clear where these feelings are coming from. One doesn't need to believe speech has power to note the genius of Shakespeare's writing, simply because the feelings and ideas one gets when reading it isn't generated in the ink and pages.

There is no empirical evidence that some combinations of sounds and marks on paper have more power than others. There is no instrument that can measure it, no hypothesis to account for it, no formula to describe it.

The danger of this superstition is that it weakens people and justifies tyranny. It teaches them to treat symbols, words and the people who speak them as the cause of their pains, and the only way to protect themselves is to excise the speaker and the language from the environment. Such thinking leads the censor to pretend that an execution for the crime of blasphemy is the consequence of the blasphemer's words, and not the consequence of the superstitious and barbaric laws that bind them. Socrates wasn't executed because his words floated around the marketplace corrupting the youth, but because people like Anytus and the Athenian statesmen couldn't deal with what he was saying.

Anyways, I know we won't agree, but I appreciate the ear nonetheless.

They have meaning, which unintelligible sounds/scribbles lack.

They don't have meaning. Meaning is generated in and provided by the person who views the symbols. Meaning does not exist outside any human being. We can't understand a foreign language just by listening to it, for example. We must learn what the words mean and learn to associate them with the sounds and symbols, and forever be ready to provide meaning to them.

The argument was that speech does have power; hence the ability to suffer as a result of it, which victims of verbal abuse is an example of. Do you deny that these victims truly suffer? If not, then how do you explain their suffering?

I do not deny their suffering. All I know is neuroplacticity suggests the brain wires itself. If someone is consistently in an abusive environment the brain adjusts itself in a certain way. It is only through training—whether through cognitive therapy or meditation, perhaps medication—that it can readjust and be undone.

I’m just stating what I believe on a popular topic, and the only effect I’ve had is your weird, baffled rage. I assure you, though, I’m not some nefarious figure in your little propaganda fantasy. I don’t care enough about what people believe to even bother. I just despise the conformity and invariable statism your kind of proselytizing demands. It doesn’t seek to change minds; it seeks control, and I will dissent from it every time. That’s all.

I believe the climate is changing, as it always has, but I do not see it as inherently frightening. What is frightening to me is watching the same all-too-human hands that led us here work to send it in the opposite direction. The idea of solar geoengineering, spraying aerosols to dim sunlight or to brighten clouds, is the stuff of dystopian nightmare. The hubris in this respect is worrisome.

This is the sort of pap that comes from Ivy League schools these days, radical only in its demand for conformity and groupthink and identity politics, that is to say, not radical at all.

What theory of mind do you ascribe to? How does an intention form, and how does it then get to have physical results, and how do these then in turn again travel "into" the mind?

Feel free to give basic descriptions, I'm not expecting you to write a book here.

I believe mental states are really body states. I’m not one to say we should eliminate the concept of mind altogether, just that we should never forget the object it abstracts. Embodied cognition is somewhat appealing, but I prefer biology to philosophy when it comes to mind.

What do you believe?

So, connected with what I wrote above, when does "she" begin? Does her mind rest somewhere fully formed for all eternity, or is it temporal, and if it's temporal, what causes it to change?

She probably begins at conception.

I rest on the sensible fact that, until she is struck by something like a billiard ball or kinetic energy, every move she makes begins and ends with her. So unless something forcers her to move against her will there could be only one cause to her actions. There are probably a vast array of external and environmental factors she may be considering, of course, but the choice and the action itself comes from only one being.

Even if I did believe in the computational theory of mind (I don't), we've avoided entirely how a subsection of sounds from the mouth or scribbles on paper possess more power than others. Now they have "influence", which according to the dictionary is "the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something". It's magical thinking all the way down.

"It's what's encoded and how it's processed that is important". If I try to translate this back to biological terms, I find only one type of object that encodes and processes speech: the human body. When I search around for a reason you might keep bringing up Trump, I see only one culprit.

The reason you can't get Trump out of your mouth is because you've developed through conditioning the requisite neural connections surrounding that man and his name. I could just as easily blame Trump for the state you find yourself in, but that's too superficial, and doesn't explain how others have come to vastly different conclusions under the same conditions. I cannot blame propaganda for an act of belief that you yourself commit, any more than I can blame it for my disbelief. The reason you orientate yourself around Trump in such a fashion is you, yourself, your body, achieved via the methods, principles and means of understanding that you've spent a lifetime developing. So it's almost a tragedy that the output rarely rises above mediocrity.

It is physical. Spoken words are heard via physical vibrations. Written words are obviously written on something physical. BTW, are you intentionally leaving my post regarding emotional abuse unanswered?

So are all other sounds from the mouth. Unintelligible scribbles are also written on something physical. What I want to know is what makes speech and words more powerful. I explicitly stated this: "Speech possesses no actual, physical power, insofar it lacks the capacity to transfer more energy than any other sound from the mouth."

I did intentionally leave your post unanswered. That some people beg to differ with my view is not compelling enough to change my mind, and I could not follow the argument much further.

I don't fear equivocation. It says more about you than it does about me.

I'm afraid you're equivocating between my ability to speak and the power of speech.

Philosophers have not shown, but surely some have said, that speech has power. But if it is not physical in nature, how can this “power” have physical consequences? This is action at a distance, or worse, magic and sorcery, and without a viable theory to explain how speech can manipulate matter that’s the kind of superstition it shall remain. It’s clear to me, though, that the only physical energy powerful enough to set those events into action began and ended within the individuals who acted them out.

At least Bloom was reasonable enough to say that Rousseau and Nietzsche did not cause the horrors that followed them.

What does it matter? We’re of the same species. In fact, we are the last extant species of human being, and it is quite possible we mixed with our extinct cousins once we left the mother continent, long before any modern technologies.

So now could you show some evidence of it?

I can try. What would you like me to argue or defend?

I only mentioned Trump once and that was to say I never mentioned Trump once. There are only a few reasons why you’d spread such a falsity and all of them suggest a perversion of some sort. What is bizarre is that you approached a minor side point I was making, accused me of not making an argument while you yourself made no argument, and then continue to invite me to engage with it as if you did, and implying I’m a bullshitter while doing so. This is bullshit of the highest order.

I assure you I have focussed on those topics, and long before you “invited” me to do it. So now what?

It appears that Canadian soldiers participating in the military world games in Wuhan were getting sick with covid-like symptoms back in October of 2019. They said Wuhan was a ghost town, almost as if it was on lockdown. The communist party lied, of course, and told them it was like a ghost town just to make it easier for the athletes to get around. Commies lied; people died.

https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-canadian-forces-have-right-to-know-if-they-got-covid-at-the-2019-military-world-games-in-wuhan

That enumerating instances where people thought that speech was rousing is not an argument that speeches aren't rousing.

I wasn’t making that argument. I was only drawing a parallel between sophists, sophistry, and the belief that words and incantations can manipulate matter.