I think we really disagree. Are you saying that the mystical experiences of billions of people are the result of psychopathology? If so, that surprises me. If not, please clarify. — T Clark

Billions of people? Are you sure about that? There are a lot of religious people who don't have mystical experiences and would likely think there is something wrong with the person experiencing it just as much as there are a lot of Catholics that do not actually believe they are drinking the blood of Christ. Stigmata never actually happened to people and if it did, it is no different to pseudocyesis or other physiological manifestations symptomatic of a pathological disorder.

So, I agree, QM is often misused in a lazy and slapdash way. Do you think I was saying that QM's supposedly odd implications justify belief in supernatural phenomena? I wasn't. I was trying to say that just because something seems inconsistent with common sense, hard to believe, that doesn't mean it's wrong. — T Clark

The point I was attempting to convey is that there is a lot of wrong in QM and those even with a hint of common sense would be able to see the difference that something like Schrödinger's cat was a clear example of how QM cannot be applied to our everyday reality and yet we have the Copenhagen Interpretation. There is the double-slit experiment followed by the claim that atoms move because they know they are being observed. >:o

I am saying that there is a lot of garbage from QM that is inconsistent with common sense and that there is no mutual exclusivity between classical and quantum interpretations of the universe, but at the same time there is a reason why these absurd suggestions are formulated because we have through QM developed some precise calculations, formed a better understanding of the behaviour of particles, and advanced our understanding of a number of others things. It is a process that is leading to something better, a kind of by-product of our epistemic evolution.

I'm sure BW can speak for herself, but I thought she was referring to the original post where TheMadFool made a comparison between children now and those in the past, saying they mature earlier now. I'll let her clarify. — T Clark

Either way, I did not agree with her discussion points.

I don't think quantum mechanics is bullshit. — T Clark

Mystical experiences emerge likely as a therapeutic attempt for those susceptible to pathological issues by enhancing a sense of self-worth, such as when experiencing depression or anxiety and where the brain also changes in order to reduce that disconnection or alienation; the acceptance of supernatural things like statues moving or weeping is a type of collective pathology that serves to normalise these individual experiences (think of things like Jerusalem syndrome). However:

"Religious experience is brain-based. This should be taken as an unexceptional claim. All human experience is brain-based, including scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, and artistic creation, as well as religious states of mind. Determining the neural substrates of any of these states does not automatically lessen or demean their spiritual significance"

QM emerged as a tool for scientific reasoning and mathematical deduction to describe and illustrate concepts as a step towards interpreting the universe and the amount of nonsense and pseudoscience that has emerged is verification that when all things are possible, nothing is impossible. But, the study of chemistry emerged from alchemy, ancient cosmology from Aristotle or Seleucus with their fantastic themes that the universe is cylindrical among others helped emerge the study of astronomy and eventually the development of astronomical tools that led to what we now know as science.

For me, religion was a tool to understand our moral and ethical dimensions, but the static nature of dogma has made it difficult for it to evolve and appreciate the original purpose, which was basically to understand how to be a good person. "Jihad" was supposed to be about fighting evil subjectively or within, but taking this literally as part of some collective pathology has led to rather devastating consequences.

More boys than not have a ceremony or apprenticeship between ten and thirteen years old. Societies use this method to teach adulthood. Rites of Passage. — Brianna Whitney

That is called child labour. When I was very young, I was taken out of school for a number of years and forced to work because children were considered an economic asset, which is why in many cultures and communities they - despite poverty - have a large number of children. I am wholeheartedly against this concept and children aged 10-13 should be getting an education and playing before making an informed choice at a suitable age as to whether or not they would like to do an apprenticeship.

I’m not sure what timeframe/culture you’re referring to as comparison to modern expectations. Will you divulge? — Brianna Whitney

Now, today, global, unless perhaps you can divulge in what your point is? We are talking about children and human rights and I understand the necessity within this discussion about cultural relativism and other relevant sociological dynamics, but what children did during the industrial revolution with the high number of mortality rates (and yes, statistics, how Western of me...) and other unbelievable levels of suffering hardly serves the discussion; human rights laws were created with the aim of protecting and enabling children to lead happier lives. If that is too 'western' or modern for you, then I don't know.

And is there no universality in these rights? Are you saying, for instance, that we should just accept that child marriage is normal for some cultures and any contestation is too 'modern' or 'western'?

As a student of law, you must see the possible difficulties implementing what you call a functional approach. Bureaucratic institutions are not good at putting together institutions and procedures that are effective in situations where sensitive judgment is required. Vulnerable people would get lost. There would be scandals.

Of course, the same is probably true of what you call the patriarchal approach. At least that has the benefit of being easy to understand and enforce. Of course, because this is an area where sensitive judgment is required, the laws won't be administered uniformly and fairly. — T Clark

It really pisses me off how people are espousing the Convention of the Rights of Persons with a Disability with a fluffy ignorance about the very serious and difficult domain that will actually enable them to exercise those rights. Negative perceptions that persons with a disability entering into a sexual relationship is based on a misnomer about their capacity to understand what sexual intercourse is and are therefore asexual and sometimes the extremity of their intellectual disability validates this, but certainly not all. They are human beings who like everyone else have that natural instinct, only their understanding of it is different. Where is that line drawn and how can we ascertain whether they do have the capacity to understand? The functional approach in my opinion provides more scope than simply a clinical or diagnostic threshold - i.e., they have down syndrome and an IQ of 50 and so are automatically incapable of understanding - when what we can really do is simply educate them about sexual intercourse in a way that they will understand, to work at their level so they can make an informed choice by knowing that having sex may mean becoming pregnant or if unsafe potentially risking a sexually transmitted disease etc. The paternalistic attitude toward people with a disability means that we are failing them and it is our responsibility to ensure that we do our best to advocate for them as that is our responsibility and their human right. They are sexually active, it happens all the time, let us work together to ensure safety is a priority.

However, this paternalistic approach has enabled forced steralisations, for instance, of young women with a severe intellectual disability and unbelievably this is still permitted viz., guardianship laws here in Australia because they are at high risk of being sexually assaulted by the exploitation by unscrupulous adults as @TheMadFool said. This is an important example of breaching the boundary of human rights and the body (I have been vocal about my concerns for this and have used the Muir v. Alberta case as an example of that fine line between health and safety and eugenics). We define appropriate sexual behaviour in the law and in Australia consent in the Crimes Act is a 'free agreement' and therefore if international human rights law states that each person is equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law, we need to ensure that capacity assessments are adequate and they are not (international law does not suggest any adequate method to ascertain this). Again, it really shits me at how this has been given the silent treatment like so many other serious and contentious issues so the world can pretend that everything is fantastic as capitalism enables.

We have advanced in so many ways, but yes, there are a large number of caselaw examples that can be used to solidify my point, particularly relating to consent and acquiescence that is comparable to children' law and sexual crimes. We think that rape mean actively protesting and screaming 'no' but passive acquiescence and cognitive capacity is a real problem that we need to understand for both those with an intellectual disability and children alike to ensure we protect them.

It's good to give under-18s more autonomy to allow them early access to the benefits of the adult world but we also need to avoid the obvious pitfall of exploitation by unscrupulous adults. I guess we must err on the side of caution. — TheMadFool

I am speaking more jurisprudentially in that there is a clear deficit of assessment models that provide an adequate parameter to delineate capacity or the lack thereof and so we take that paternalistic approach by claiming that a child has no capacity for choice (for instance, children of divorced parents where in some jurisdictions do not have any rights to exercise choice). It is really about defining assessments and in the case of divorcing parents to ascertain impeding choice so that the courts can advocate for and enable children to exercise their rights, albeit limited and on a case-by-case basis. This is the functional rather than the diagnostic approach and if each case examines each child based on whether they have the reasonable capacity to communicate and understand their choice as well as retain information as part of their decision-making process, then the state can improve their methods of protecting them since it is our responsibility to protect the vulnerable. Children who commit crimes is another key area and offering rehabilitation through a therapeutic framework is of more help to the child then simply throwing them into juvenile prison or punishing them. So, it is not necessarily autonomy of the child but rather an open mind that some children may have the capacity to make an informed choice. But yes, certainly in the case of sexual abuse, sometimes it is simply better to take that paternalistic approach to protect them from exploitation.

That's because you didn't direct your intelligence towards understanding it, not because you lacked the cognitive capacity to understand it. — Agustino

I did lack the capacity at that moment in time because I was dependent on others and had very little understanding of consequences. Most of us have the capacity but only when we surpass a certain age. Nevertheless, I understand you and I agree; that is why I am telling you that I support the functional approach, which can determine whether the child understands the action and the consequences of that action. There is current talks as mentioned in the international arena on children' rights and that we should stop taking that 'they are a child and therefore don't know any better' paternalism because we fail them in someway as individuals. We should learn - though ambiguous - to adopt an approach that identifies their capacity rather than simply assume them to be incapable

The first quote that you quote me as saying refers to what lawyers can demonstrate with regards to mentally disabled people. We don't know much about mentally disabled people, but we certainly know that their handle over language isn't that great. — Agustino

We know a great deal about those with intellectual disabilities, but that is the difficulty of the nature of cognitive capacity vis-a-vis the law. If the court is satisfied that the woman in that particular case has an intellectual disability - including an IQ of 36 - completed in addition to a clinical assessment that verified that she was incapable of understanding the nature of her actions and that she was dependent and relied on the direction of others, all of which was known by the defendant who - as mentioned - did a number of other atrocious acts against her, then I agree with that decision. It was rape, there was no consent because it was not freely agreed upon since she did not understand the nature of the act.

As mentioned in my original post, the clinical approach does have limitations particularly relating to parameters that determine what something like 'understanding' actually is even if this diagnostic threshold has equitable validity, but the functional approach allows us to presume that a minor or a person with an intellectual disability has capacity rather than not. I hear whispers of this at the moment in the international domain regarding the covenant of the rights of children. By assuming capacity, a person is not locked in an immovable and patriarchal process, but it would give those who may have an intellectual disability or a highly intelligent or mature minor the opportunity to verify capacity by explaining and communicating choice together with retaining information as part of their decision-making process. This may cause some foreseeable issues in the broader side of things, but when there may be a crime or a guardianship decision, taking that strict paternalistic approach is too inflexible but taking the functional is also ambiguous. The criterion to determine 'understanding' or capacity is complex that it makes it easier to encompass incapacity to a particular age and again that is dependent on where you are from, 12, 16, 18 etc.

What I may be at 14 is irrelevant but honestly I had no clue at all about sex at that age, even though I was great at a number of intellectual pursuits that made me far more intelligent than people much older then me.

You say:

How is this demonstrably shown? Lawyers have lots of tips and tricks to "demonstrate" things which are actually never really demonstrated. And most people aren't very careful with their language unless they are trained philosophers, lawyers themselves, etc. — Agustino

And then:

I think that 14-year-olds really do have sufficient cognitive capacity to consent to things. — Agustino

And:

If they can pursue a sexual relationship that seems to tell us that their intellectual disabilities are not so severe that they don't understand what they're doing. — Agustino

How can you demonstrate that they can?

I think I've seen several guys in their late teens or early 20s dating 14-16 year old girls over my life. So... I don't think that should count as rape if the girl consents and is okay with it. — Agustino

It depends on the laws of your country, but one could be charged with statutory rape - such as if the parents of the girl make a case of it - and in the case of a minor, consent is not a defense for sexual crimes. Hence, why I initiated the discussion of cognitive capacity and not consent, to ascertain whether there is a free agreement there or whether it is merely acquiescence; comparatively, can those with intellectual disabilities be allowed to pursue a sexual relationship? For instance, there was a case here where a man had sexual intercourse with an intellectually disabled adult and he was charged - despite her consent - because she demonstrably lacked the capacity to understand the consequential aspects to sexual intercourse and accepted direction and dependency. He done other terrible things to her, but ultimately the judge stated that "whilst she did not resist in any way and may have even consented in some form or another, that consent was not a real or true consent because she was not mentally capable of giving her consent."

When you say that a person is considered a child as one under the age of 18, I assume this reflects the legality behind 'capacity'. Some places consider a child to be under the age of 12 or 16. I found the following definition stated by a judge here in Oz in relation to consent to perfectly describe the dilemma:

The person has to have a cognitive capacity to be able to consent. So you could have a
circumstance where a person might give free and voluntary consent but if they don't have the cognitive capacity to properly consent then it wouldn't be consent within the meaning of the law. Now a classic example of that might be someone who has an intellectual disability. A person who is intellectually impaired might very well say, "Yes, I'm prepared to engage in sexual intercourse," but lack the cognitive capacity to understand what they are doing…Under our Criminal Code, in relation to consent, the law provides that consent means consent freely and voluntarily given by a person with the cognitive capacity to give the consent. Cognitive capacity in that context means that at the time that the offence is alleged to have occurred, the complainant had sufficient understanding to know what was occurring in order to be able to give consent to it.

This is crucial in ascertaining that fine line between a minor consenting to a contract or sexual intercourse and their capacity to engage that may not essentially be a 'free agreement' especially if they do not have the cognition to be aware of what their actions, the consequences and a number of other factors would be should they agree. Active acquiescence is not consensual agreement and consent is not a defense in the case of sexual crimes. A person with an intellectual disability similarly does not have the capacity hence why there are guardianship laws and power of attorney etc.These laws that restrict decision-making rights to 18 are there to protect and I see nothing wrong with that, particularly in the case of contract law and sexual abuse or exploitation.

But, in my opinion, there can be another way of looking at it; by enabling a type of 'presumption of capacity' where instead of adopting the undermining paternalism that assumes automatically a minor is incapable of making decisions to instead see children as themselves having rights and responsibilities, to empower their capacity to exercise those rights. We afford this functional approach to adults, and so in the case of particular crimes that may involve minors, to allow a type of analysis of whether they understand the action (rather than through say a clinical approach) where an understanding of the consequences and the nature - cause and effect - of that action is assessed. This is termed as the functional approach to cognitive assessment of capacity. They are still legally a minor until they are 18, but afford a certainly flexibility so that should they consent to sexual intercourse at, say, aged 17 with a 20 year old who may possibly be convicted of statutory rape, can be assessed as having the capacity to make that decision.

I became curious when I was doing my tax return and the Australian Taxation Office offered bitcoins and I was like :-| enough to change legislation this year where people now have to pay capital gains tax on any profits. It is certainly legitimate.

It has generated some interesting discussions on the subject of international law. Why are you a sceptic?

That is a very interesting way of thinking about Hegel, however the passage is allied with early-Hegelian idealism where he suggests that ultimate reality is only attainable through a type of metaphysical theology; our thought processes historically evolve with the teleological aim of consciousness – a return to itself or the freedom of the Mind – achievable through the conception of God or observing ultimate reality through the lens of God. That is to say that the realisation of our ideal self is only possible when our mind or thoughts become conscious of the perfection of God and so perhaps more aligned with Platonic Forms.

In parallel with what you are attempting to convey, our subjectivity may inevitably be trapped or confined by the determined external network that allow us to use our mind independent of consciousness [thus automaton], but the Mind is a tool that is available to us despite being ignorant that we have signed the social contract. As we unthinkingly participate in all social peculiarities as though it were a part of us, consciousness of this external reality and an awareness of our separateness to this uniform network is that moment we access reality. The conception of God mediates this consciousness as God is that immeasurable perfection. From a Marxian perspective, Hegel’ idealism may be considered dogmatic and whilst I think his conception of being is actually far from the latter, religion to Marx is an illusion that traps people into the very same confined determinism that Hegel is attempting to escape. It envelops the mind with a faux consciousness, where self-reflection is a fantasy or illusion because of the dogmatic social order that feeds a false sense of self. He believed that people are capable of discovering Being or that spirit of consciousness by removing themselves from the claws of dogmatic faith and thus this consciousness is an awareness of the dialectic viz., historical materialism or to see the material world and those within it to have formed an ideological conception of reality over time.

You question the philosopher King, but perhaps a more interesting angle would be to question whether we actually need one and if so, why?

I am finding it hard to believe that any algorithm exists that would defy observability measures and I assume that you are speaking of linear time-invariants? Are you able to offer any explanation as to how mathematical inconsistencies appear because of limitations imposed observability orders as per the paper? It seems to me that no explanation is offered at all, other than removing observability entirely. That would make a dynamical system rather odd, no?

Have you watched the movie The Big Short? It is a great movie, probably not especially related, but it brings me to mind when I think about the economic 'bubble' and the possibility of an ultimate crash that raises my suspicions of cryptocurrency in parallel of the movie. For me, the effective forking mechanisms are necessary in block-chains to ensure consistent innovation, but the continuity relies on resources that will stretch to a point of eventual collapse; we can put a stop to it, but that will slow innovation to a point that value would scarcely change and what would be the point? I just think it will eventually fall short.

I am also a bit hesitant primarily because of the legal domain, or lack thereof, and while data protection regulations are in the process of being implemented vis-a-vis block-chain database security [in Australia, we are soon to legislate anti-money laundering laws], can we ensure integrity from any data manipulation particularly as it becomes privately managed? This is a serious problem relating to international organised crime.

Have you spoken to jamalrob before making this comment or have you already assumed ownership of the forum? Knowing you, I can see where this is going. Too bad almost everyone else is blind. — Agustino

I am unsure of what your intention is behind this remark, but assumptions that I consider myself an authority or better than others is false. Look, some people are haters, they go around creating discord in different ways, such as sending PMs with very negative attacks on people, trying to change opinions and generally are just not nice people. I appreciate that you speak openly here and dont resort to such behaviour because I see this place as a community. Speaking openly is important. Some people on here have posted in my blog, or shared their personal stories with me, and have even asked for help. These relationships are not seen, and if indeed you don't like my character, just as much as I may not like yours, it will never interfere in how I approach you or anyone else.

It is reasonable to expect better behavior from moderators than from the unwashed masses. Unwashed dozens. It bothers me that the moderators in general don't see that. — T Clark

I understand this, but this really boils down to the interpretation of what you consider to be better behaviour. Is it the same decorum as per the other thread on this subject? I personally find some comments from Buxte to be distasteful, for instance, but I will defend his right to say it. My attitude is very much from a Voltaire angle. Ultimately, the way I see moderation is content based; for me, what is pseudo science should be carefully explored in a respectable forum and it will certainly be interesting how I approach this. For a start, from personal experience, I would in all likelihood speak to the person in PM first with my suggestions and why. I would not blatantly delete or edit without a prior discussion.

My intended remarks were in no way meant as any belittling to you Buxte, I am just curious as to whether your concerns were with me directly or generally the overall moderation here and I merely hoped to ameliorate that my capacity should probably be questionable following the next several weeks as I give this a shot. I am actively open to your feedback but your entire post contains insults that seem targeted and defensive making it difficult to ascertain what it is you want from me.

You don't understand my frustration at all. If you did, you wouldn't suggest that I go someplace else on the account of providing constructive feedback that you don't like. But I expected nothing less from you. Deflection and strawnen are the names of your game. And now you're a mod so you'll be getting away with that even more now, yipee! — Buxtebuddha

Buxte, I am not sure where your constructive feedback is and I am happy to listen; are you saying that I would be incapable, for instance, of being able to edit the content of a post without being prejudicial or bias? Just so you know, I am currently a graduate student in astrophysics, having studied to masters level law and political science and my issue has long been the lacklustre nature of some of the philosophy of science threads bordering the pseudo-science. In the former forums, I was responsible for bringing in philosophers like Graham Priest, David Chalmers etc to have discussions with the posters. If that is your grievance with me, I hope I have clarified enough to tell you that perhaps first allowing me to fill the role and prove to you all that I will be capable would be a much more logical approach. This works in line with my character that you may or may not like, but that is the nature of forums as long as I do not impinge on your right to speak freely. You may not remember or were unaware, but I am for freedom of speech. I am not the type of person who will delete posts.

Or, is your grievance in general the overall capacity of the moderation team?

Unsubstantiated claims against someone's character isn't philosophy, it's disrespectful trash. Why are you surprised that the person insulted is insulted? It takes no great intelligence to understand why Agustino and others, including myself, are disgruntled with those who are rewarded for acting crassly and like children by being kept a moderator or being made a moderator. — Buxtebuddha

I don't think you are in any position to speak about "disrespectful trash" considering you have on numerous occasions violated what you seem to ask of everyone else; you have flagrantly iterated how much you 'hate' the mod team prior to me and while I understand your frustration, in the end a complete overhaul of the mod team to suit you is not really going to suffice. If you are so unhappy, why not start your own forum? The internet has a lot of space.

Yes but you need to remember first and foremost, your own self preservation for without that you are of no help to anyone. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If parents would just behave like parents I think most the unhappiness in the world wouldn't exist. That's what I think. — Hanover

Wiser words have never been spoken. (Y)

Pasta Saladorians should be suppressed. — Bitter Crank

Of all the nasty little pastas in this thread, you offend me the most.

Oh hello. Getting answers in this thread has been like extracting blood from a turnip, so I'm glad you've finally made an appearance to help settle this matter. I accept and sincerely appreciate your apology. I will also begin to flag inappropriate posts. — Thorongil

Sorry, yes I am at work and only just had my lunch break. I am glad you accepted my apology because I do feel bad; I tend to make jokes in the "Shoutbox" thread that are more or less intended to provoke in some way and should recognise the differences in what some would constitute as humour. I respect you enough to acknowledge that. While my posts in many other threads probably reflect more of who I am, I will attempt to convey a bit more decorum. It is something I should learn nevertheless being a tad bit too emotional for my taste for certain subjects. If anything, my editing would probably be more or less the PhiSci stuff.

I must say, this does come as a surprise considering that I thought I was fantastic.

But, jokes aside, @Thorongil, I hear you and appreciate your feedback and I would like to publicly acknowledge why you felt it wrong to have me on the mod team particularly relating to the comment. I retract it accordingly and apologies for any offence that you have taken to it, it was rhetorically cruel and it stemmed from an anger that I felt at the time towards the judgement and accusations being made against women who protested for feminism. If there are other concerns relating to any of my posts to you, please both past and future, flag them either with me or to others and we will proceed from there.

If reconciliation is not possible and there is a clear breakdown in communication, perhaps an unbiased third-party may set aside any accumulation of resentment and focus objectively on the issues with the intention of resolving them. There are a number of various counselling services that should assist with mediation and dispute resolution, but if you think that is far-fetched and it likely that they will not communicate in a fair negotiation of property settlement (or whatever the circumstances are, your post is somewhat ambiguous), then perhaps you speak both to your mother and father individually and tell them that you would like to remain separate to the situation. Do this in a public place, like a cafe, so the discussion does not get too emotional as I assume that this may be difficult for your mother. But, let her know the honest truth and I take it that it is because you are having a hard time coping.

I think the best you can do for her is take care of yourself and be there for her if things do get serious. You are clearly struggling with it yourself and no doubt, it is your parents, your history and memories, everything during a divorce proceeding and no matter how old you are is very difficult emotionally. Focus on your own future; think about your future studies, for instance, or seek out a new creative venture.

*Bullshit detector goes off* — Agustino

Do you have one?

When a client starts telling me how easy it is to work for him, how simple his project is, how nice he is etc. I know he wants to screw me - he either wants a very cheap price, or otherwise wants to abuse my labor. I tend to refuse to work with such clients. And when a girl tells me how incredibly loving she is, but how all guys she ever dated were such pricks, I instantly know that she's looking to abuse me. Only an abuser tries to "sell" him or herself. Great clients, those I love working for, tend to be the people who say here's what I'm looking for, take it or leave it. They don't need me, they come from a position of high value. I tend to learn the most from them, and also enjoy it the most. They also pay well - that's why they never have to negotiate. — Agustino

There are nuances that you have to detect during interaction with such people and I understand where you are coming from here, perhaps because I did not articulate that with that said-person, I took a risk by allowing myself to love someone who was ultimately deceitful, the 'client who would abuse labour' and so by opening my heart I was hurt the process. I refuse, however, to cave into this hurt and believe that existential lessons are learnt enough to ascertain whether the intention is genuine. I am happy to take that risk, but I am learning to better understand whether this risk far outweighs the ultimate goal of allowing myself to love someone. Does that make sense?

Your authenticity is nothing but a dream. There is no such authenticity. The only authenticity is before God, in the world people get together and form groups, ideally, to serve God and better the world. Not abandoning each other - loyalty - is merely an expedient allowing for success. Building a network of great friends everywhere is a good thing - it really allows you to do much good in the world.

And I don't think you understand what loyalty means. Loyalty means not abandoning the other even if they are pricks once you have made that commitment. — Agustino

There is no complete authenticity because we cannot entirely transcend society (unless we completely remove ourselves), but it is really about the capacity to transcend toward an awareness or consciousness that will enable you to train your mind and take an objective approach to decision-making. This takes time, wisdom, experience and even making mistakes, but it is a process and the tool - our minds - is there for us to actually utilise. Unfortunately, most do not transcend to this state of conscious awareness and mostly it is because of fear. How you identify with loyalty, for instance, could merely work in parallel to custom and the people around you that you may identify with, but genuine loyalty is about removing oneself from that unconscious submission or automaton behaviour and overcoming the fears that kept you from thinking for yourself that will enable you to approach relationships with your heart. There is authenticity, it just isn't easy.

Love is not economical. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Interesting post, and seems to provide some good evidence of the unhappiness of romantic love. In tribal societies, perhaps this area is a bit less complicated, but we have made it an overwrought and over-complicated subject in the "modern" world of the individualized marketplace. — schopenhauer1

This is actually a good a point from an anthropological perspective; indeed, if your original statement about loneliness and attachment is about bargaining - capitalistic - then romance or relationships can be considered economical in nature. For those in tribal or agrarian environments, marital decisions and even the number of children are essential as part of their economic subsistence, and because they identify with kinship and custom that our 'individualistic' society does not, the decision to do this is fiercely protected. The fact is that our society influences how we perceive and identify with the external world and there is no compatibility between the principles underlying social-economics with the principles that underlie love, because the latter is not an economy and one cannot 'conform' to a model. That makes the experience - authentically - a marginal phenomenon by non-conformists and only sweeping changes to social-economics can the phenomenon be more than this individualistic experience.

It does not, however, mean that our modern adaptation of relationships is completely mistaken and negotiation is an essential part of the longevity of any union. There are elements in both that are advantageous and reprehensible; I don't like the idea of bargaining or 'selling' myself neither do I like the unequivocal submission to custom.

Thus we fill this need by seeking out partners to connect with physically and on an emotional level. It is just part of the human animal, and like I said.. is a special case of fleeing boredom and is only relevant to social creatures such as the human being. — schopenhauer1

I think any emotional connection is last for many people, the initial prompt being physical and that in itself - the concept of 'beauty' or what is attractive - can also be influenced by society (what one considers attractive could merely be an unconscious submission). Whilst we are social creatures, we need to transcend this 'blindness' so to speak to our social environment and reverse the chain of events through a consciousness of our decisions vis-a-vis relationships. So, as an example, there are men who are in relationships with women that they have no connection with at all, but socially the women are accepted and even loved, they are attractive, they are thus satisfactory because since other people love them then so should the men, all the while behind the scenes they are silently deteriorating and cheating etc. There is bargaining there, but how much of yourself do you bargain?

I think that if non-conformists - who genuinely epitomise 'individuality' and so have an independent mind - needn't actually be anti-social, but rather they have merely transcended the unconscious submission to societal expectations. Only when they meet someone of the same calibre can any 'genuine' connection be made.

All social relations related to friendship or romantic partners are about bargaining for loneliness. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps 'all' is much too all-encompassing and while I agree insofar as we are separate from the external world and thus isolated from others, it is about how that loneliness is overcome and the authenticity of the bond between two people. Erich Fromm states this perfectly:

“If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism”

A majority of relationships are attachments that one becomes dependent on for a number of reasons and I think the word 'bargaining' is perfect in describing this. The financial rewards, the social standing, people are not authentically 'falling in love' (where they admire the person, the things that they think and feel) but rather they 'like' what that person offers to them and so it is egotistical rather than empathic; as though on auto-pilot, to make sure that the security of this relation remains static regularly state 'I love you' and yet in secret do a number of other things to survive the very same loneliness.

The authenticity behind genuine love is to form an actual bond with someone who genuinely understands you, that you overcome this loneliness because the person is able to actually identify with something deeper (hence the empathic) and sometimes you can fall in love with someone who is not what you thought you wanted, who is completely different but yet there you are connecting with them.

I once thought I loved a young man, but I actually later realised he was all in my imagination and the reality left was this vicious and perhaps even insane person that I thought was beautiful. I wanted to give my love - and I can be incredibly loving - to a crazy man. I was torn between trying to work with him to get him to grow up and become man enough to speak from his heart and my desire to have him go away and leave me alone, because as he refused and was stuck in that world where the opinions of others mattered more to him than his own existence while at the same time frightened me too by playing numerous games that made me think that he ultimately wanted to hurt me. I guess I just believed in him, but he turned out to be disappointing.

I learnt a great lesson from that; loneliness can effect how you identify with others that you can even imagine things that do not exist and while most often it is a bargaining process, the two opposites of this central theme are either genuine love or insanity.

We're basically a series of loops, some only residing 'inside' us, some extending far beyond our skin. — StreetlightX

I didn't get a chance to read everything, but in the case of thermodynamic systems, the evolution of any given system is determined toward a state of equilibrium, and ergodicity attempts to ascertain the averages of behaviour within a system (transformations, arbitrary convergence, irreducibility etc) and political systems are an attempt to order the nature of Hobbesian chaos. I really like this:

A baby girl is mysteriously dropped off at an orphanage in Cleveland in 1945. “Jane” grows up lonely and dejected, not knowing who her parents are, until one day in 1963 she is strangely attracted to a drifter. She falls in love with him. But just when things are finally looking up for Jane, a series of disasters strike. First, she becomes pregnant by the drifter, who then disappears. Second, during the complicated delivery, doctors find that Jane has both sets of sex organs, and to save her life, they are forced to surgically convert “her” to a “him.” Finally, a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby from the delivery room.

Reeling from these disasters, rejected by society, scorned by fate, “he” becomes a drunkard and drifter. Not only has Jane lost her parents and her lover, but he has lost his only child as well. Years later, in 1970, he stumbles into a lonely bar, called Pop’s Place, and spills out his pathetic story to an elderly bartender. The sympathetic bartender offers the drifter the chance to avenge the stranger who left her pregnant and abandoned, on the condition that he join the “time travelers corps.” Both of them enter a time machine, and the bartender drops off the drifter in 1963. The drifter is strangely attracted to a young orphan woman, who subsequently becomes pregnant.

The bartender then goes forward 9 months, kidnaps the baby girl from the hospital, and drops off the baby in an orphanage back in 1945. Then the bartender drops off the thoroughly confused drifter in 1985, to enlist in the time travelers corps. The drifter eventually gets his life together, becomes a respected and elderly member of the time travelers corps, and then disguises himself as a bartender and has his most difficult mission: a date with destiny, meeting a certain drifter at Pop’s Place in 1970.

The question is: Who is Jane’s mother, father, grandfather, grand mother, son, daughter, granddaughter, and grandson? The girl, the drifter, and the bartender, of course, are all the same person. These paradoxes can made your head spin, especially if you try to untangle Jane’s twisted parentage. If we draw Jane’s family tree, we find that all the branches are curled inward back on themselves, as in a circle. We come to the astonishing conclusion that she is her own mother and father! She is an entire family tree unto herself.

If the universe is infinite, so are the possibilities and thus if we were to arrange - again in a statistically thermodynamic manner - the atoms and neurons that make you (your brain) we could easily replicate 'you' as in, the very you and not just merely the body (memories, feelings) and why open systems are intriguing to me. I guess we need to draw the line somewhere as is the case with Boltzmann' Brain.

I completely - and I mean that - identify with the lyrics, especially today. I love this song as though I were the one who wrote it.

There's a pretty balanced podcast on Slate where they talk about whether what we're seeing is a moral panic ("sex panic"). Generally they see it as a very good thing that sexual coercion and assault are being exposed, but they do have concerns that it is indeed becoming a moral panic--and personally I would go much further than they do in those concerns. — jamalrob

It is a balancing act that takes time to form socially just as much as post-colonial political regimes in formerly tribal communities need to find that balance between liberal democracy and compartmentalising pluralism that challenges the cultural identification to sovereignty. So, from the initial state of infantilisation where women' place is in the kitchen, that they belong to their husband and had no mind, no ambition or opinion but their sole purpose was to bear children came the sexual revolution, but that tipped the scale to yet another extreme where the continuity of this idea that they are sexual objects remained, but different. The "panic" so to speak lies in this assumption.

I had a conversation once with a UN representative to Afghanistan and she said that once when she was in Sri Lanka, she was responsible for organising a program that supports young women from a particular community to understand their rights and the importance of education and it was a great success but also a great failure. The success was that the women certainly did identify with program and wanted to reach out for more in life, but the failure was that the men in the community found that to be deplorable and it backlashed in a very extreme way. The moral point is that education about women and their rights requires both men and women to be involved in union.

In saying all that, the only thing we need is to appreciate respect. We need to respect one another and if one woman is more flirtatious or welcoming to sexual advances than another woman, it does not make the latter a frigid or the former a slut. It is their decision and we need to respect that. It is balancing liberty without the compartmentalisation or our cultural identification to moral behaviour.

I have learnt that in my community men seem to wait for women to respond (whereas I am more the type of 'traditional' person that waits for men to show interest) and I think that the reason the former is the case is because men are starting to respect women. Both have their risks; if I show interest, would I be disrespected? If I don't, would they think I have no interest? That is why friendship enables respect and a gradual bond would form from that. It is just respecting other people.

As a hiker and (very amateur) philosopher, this question is one that has resonated with me a great deal. As well as hoping to spark discussion on the topic, I'm really hoping for guidance on existing literature and suggestions as to other debates in philosophy that may overlap with some of the themes. — TJO

It is conscious experience of 'beauty' that in contrast can only occur when you experience genuine love where there is no social influences that change how you perceive the world around you. It just is and it is beautiful.

These 'moments' or experiences that the landscape offers I find to be an enabling force that assists with you becoming conscious of something as it is. When you become conscious that you love someone, you suddenly experience genuine happiness, the hurt becomes immeasurable, the memories all come flooding back that when you look at them you see a completely different person, a raw reality. It can happen in the reverse too, when you become conscious that you never loved the person at all and there you are in a relationship suffering each day trying to make it work and holding onto memories or moments from other people just to justify the fact that you are with them, that in the end you are in a relationship with other people and not the actual person. It contrasts with what you actually are subjectively to the external world; love does this, but so does the landscape in a different way.

The daily drudge in the concrete jungle creates a sort of blind wall between yourself and reality, perhaps an unconscious survival mechanism. When I go shopping, for instance, I like to put on my headphones and shut off, but I am still present, I still move around and do what is necessary, but I am not consciously present.

Why is it that I feel whole, at peace and incredibly happy when I am in a rain forest with the smell of ferns and the sound of my boots pressing against the wet mud? In Italy, I did the Dolomite mountains and felt belonging as though I was able to escape the hurt I experienced back at home at the time and so began to actually heal from that hurt while there. The Napali Coast, the Negev desert, all these landscapes offered me some contrast that exposed the truth and this consciousness is beautiful..

I was reading this autobiography just a few days ago while on the plane and this just perfectly explains it:

"I reached the hill in the mid-afternoon. For the first time in my life I was really alive to beauty, receiving a kind of shock from it. I had absorbed my father's attitude to the countryside, especially to its scraggy trees, because he talked so often of the beautiful trees in Europe. But now, for me, the key to the beauty of the native trees lay in the light which so sharply delineated them against a dark blue sky. Possessed of that key, my perception of the landscape changed radically as when one sees the second image in an ambiguous drawing. The scraggy shapes and sparse foliage actually became the foci for my sense of its beauty and everything else fell into place - the primitive hills, the unsealed roads with their surfaces ranging from white through yellow to brown, looking as though they had been especially dusted to match the high, summer-coloured grasses. The landscape seemed to have a special beauty, disguised until I was ready for it; not a low and primitive form for which I had to make allowances, but subtly and refined. It was as though God has taken me to the back of his workshop and shown me something really special."

Lesson number 6: You pale in comparison to me in every respect. — YourLeaderSapientia

I'm rather tanned, actually.

Why is he purple? I thought he was orange. — Agustino

If you wear too much fake tan, up close they almost look purple.

I am just as sleepy after arriving back home from interstate travel for work, but you know what, let's do this! Trump is purple-people eater? Borat is not funny? Lathering melted swiss cheese all over your body is not the secret to youthful looking skin?

You sleepy head, you.

I wanted to create a thread that folks who are new to The Philosophy Forum could stop in on and introduce themselves to the forum. And for all The Philosophy Forum members who would like to share a bit about who you are, please feel free to do so~ — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I studied human rights law focusing on children. I have lived in Denmark, Turkey and Israel and travelled the Middle East and Europe, but I really fell in love with Israel. I love my job as a specialist working with disadvantaged children.

My primary goal and what drives and motivates me is helping children and women. I am a foster carer and I hope to adopt sometime soon. But, as a youth worker, I experienced some pretty terrible young men that about a year ago made me realise that I was subjectively too sensitive and I would never be able to affect change until I got stronger.

I wholeheartedly appreciate fearless and deeply honest and honourable people rather than measure them based on any intellectual or professional strengths. I also think that humour is the key to happiness.

And I apologise in advance if I offend you. Unless you are @Agustino in which case you can sod off.

Can work even said to be rewarding if taken place in harmful environments of hierarchies? — schopenhauer1

It can work in the opposite direction of this hierarchy too. I was recently employed by this really large NGO and I got promoted only six months into starting with the organisation that really, I mean really peeved off a lot of staff members who have been working there for many years. They regularly undermine and gossip about me but luckily I do not have to see them often and simply brush my shoulders off each time something gets flung into my direction, a strength I learnt after making the fatal mistake several years ago for caring about what people thought.

Indeed an organisation structure must rank staff based on the output of their activities in order to ensure a vertical chain of command, but the issue is often cultural and that relies on the cultural attitude towards the concept of power as well as whether there are adequate regulations and policies within the organisation to promote clearly defined models of behaviour. A person who is higher up the chain of command should not consider him/herself as 'superior' and those lower as 'subordinate' as the former is adequately compensated for their capacity to undertake the activities required, but rather the arrangement should be viewed as a responsibility they have to protect the welfare and influence productivity of those down the chain.

The biggest problem is that there are many many many many people who are employed in positions that they are not competent in fulfilling. Harm or violence needn't actually be physical such as repeatedly and intentionally experiencing verbal abuse or threats that causes distress and places a person' well being at risk, and this is often achieved by those who attempt to exert power over someone else (by making them feel powerless). They lack leadership qualities and because of the hierarchical arrangement vis-a-vis capacity to influence, they enable a bad or negative culture to form. The problem is thus power and responsibility.

A "dimension" is a conceptual construct, as is "force". I do not think that the concept of "force" relies on the concept of "dimension", because human beings had an understanding of force before they created dimensions. Also, I would say without hesitation, that human beings had an understanding of force before they had an understanding of time.

But if you want to talk about some natural, real thing which these concepts refer to, we need some definitions, because I think that the consensus in physics is that "time" doesn't refer to any real thing, just like "dimension" doesn't refer to any real thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I clearly missed this, one of the perks of using my phone most of the time.

In the Newtonian sense, indeed net force is conceptual, but we are speaking on a much larger scale and the "power" here - the energy - despite the potential that existence is void of any acceleration and that time enables the (mass?) of the universe to expand, needn't require two masses unless time is, well, a mass. That's just awkward. That is why I said that time is a dimension, a fourth dimension to be precise, and I say that because there is in some sense a capacity - perhaps ontologically - to locate a what or that we are capable of describing it. We are within it, our frame of reference.

I agree though that if time is a physical entity fundamental to the fabric of our existence it would require something more, something we cannot really give. Hence why McTaggart is pretty cool.

Why not explain that? Explain Muller' theories on universal simultaneity and the arrow of time through entropy and why you have found it to be a philosophical mistake. It is your responsibility to adequately guide us through proper questioning of themes that is not so broad as 'what is time'. Muller among many other scientists sold themselves by marketing a sophomoric book that explains the physics behind time for a mass audience, otherwise it would have been published as a scientific journal article.

Anyway, if time exists in a potentially arbitrary or dimensionless state that couples with various forces ('activated by space' so to speak) than I still find it interesting that time itself does not actually contain any properties but is rather a non-physical component that traffics movement.