Haha, yeah...

For starters, treating psychiatric conditions isn't an engineering problem. — Marchesk

Yes, it's a medical one. So, what about it?

While I'm admittedly impressed by all of the things he's pulling off, I don't know the guy. Not saying you're doing this here, but people do like to idolize him. Doing great things like this should be considered normal instead of god-like. — TogetherTurtle

Haha, yeah. I guess I do like the guy. I mean, if you value a better future, then he's doing his best to ensure one for the human species.

To be fair, I don't think chemical-based psychiatry was that effective in the first place. From outrageous prices for medication to the unpredictable results, I think it's probably best we have an alternative. — TogetherTurtle

Well, depends on the condition. For some psychiatry can't even address, such as autism. Others like schizophrenia are difficult to treat residual symptoms, such as negative one's.

If I were to align with any ideology exclusively it would probably be transhumanism. It just makes sense that if given the tools to enhance ourselves that we should. I had to look up what nootropic meant, and from the two sentences I read on it I'm not really convinced. It sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure the stuff works, that's all I mean. — TogetherTurtle

Yeah, it's definitely transhumanism... What do you think more about transhumanism?

Voter turnout should tell us whether the moral debauched land of Murica is complete or not...

Well, that's kind of really a general statement, where does one begin with such a statement?

In what way?

I take it’s too early to know how effective Neuralink will be in treating psychiatric conditions or transmitting thoughts to other minds. — Marchesk

At this point, it's an engineering problem as far as I know. Something which Musk is great at optimizing or delivering on.

Not me. Self-important windbag. — Wayfarer

Kinda sad to see the guy go. But, his posts were not subject to change, or at least I didn't see much change when he first started posting up until his ban.

I do miss seeing his insecurities and highly stereotypical posts though. :D

It occurs to me that democracy requires a general level of sanity. But I must avoid jumping on my favourite hobby-horse in your thread. — unenlightened

Hobby-horse away, given no other interest in the topic as far as I see.

Did you recently become more intelligent? Did you start a new medication or something? — Noah Te Stroete

After ten years and a small fortune in experimentation with medications, I think I'm on fairly safe and sustainable meds now:

-Zyprexa and Strattera.

Also, a lot of crap in my life is coming to an end (an almost 15-year divorce that started overseas and is now being finally ended in a joint division of assets here in the States). Also being on SSI, helps in allowing me to devote most of my attention to philosophy. So, I'm pretty happy. Also starting a new business from home, which will help me and my mother if it all works out.

Other than that, I'd like to hear what you guys think about this. — TogetherTurtle

I was going to post about this here; but, wasn't sure if the audience was the right fit.

First, one has to applaud Elon Musk for making this possible. It takes a genius to be able to manage The Boring Company, Tesla, SpaceX, and now Neuralink, along with SolarCity lumped into Tesla as of recent. There's also his OpenAI which he no longer manages (There's gotta be some limit to this guy).

I watched the entire presentation online and was stunned at the professionalism and results that they managed to achieve (an order of magnitude better over existing cutting edge technology).

Now, what nobody realizes about Neuralink is that it stands to make the ENTIRE chemical-based psychiatry movement as redundant. Musk specifically outlined the potential for Neuralink to treat psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia, autism, depression, and other maladies of the mind through these neural implants that would stochastically be able to measure aberrant brain activity and modify it by either inhibiting specific areas of the brain or stimulating underactive areas of the brain.

After, the grand potential to treat these conditions, Musk then is setting his eyes on enhancing existing brain activity, which is uncharted territory in the medical field.

All in all, there are some ethical issues to this latter task, that I think will be looked over, eventually in my opinion.

It's hard to fathom just what kind of discoveries will be attained from being able to record neural activity with such a high resolution, along with how one might be able to normalize the aberrant activity of the mind for each individual; but, nevertheless, someone is making an effort to address these issues.

For the matter, I do plan to become one of a number of early adopters of this technology given my own issues with dealing with psychosis, depression, and anxiety. I might perhaps wait until v.3.0 or such to avoid any kinks or some such, as I am highly involved in the nootropic and transhumanist movement.

That's about all I can think about at the moment.

Oh yeah, did I mention that this opens up an entirely new field into human communication and the language of thought between two people with said implants?? Pretty insane stuff going on here.

For someone to have a chance against Trump, among other things, they need to be different enough from him to be appealing--they have to depart from the crazier aspects of Trump, but they need to not be so fringe that they'll only get a very niche vote. — Terrapin Station

Well, part of what my OP is/was trying to impart was the idea that hotelling is tantamount to making concessions to your rival. And, given that your rival is debasing everything you stand for, then comes the need to inspire and differentiate from the current political climate--something Biden really struggles within my view, which would only be exacerbated by the current anti-establishment sentiment amongst independents and conservatives.

So, instead of making concessions towards your opponent, who is not cooperating in trying to ensure that any of your efforts to appear centrist (which de facto has been reified as being part of the establishment), as the same schtick that people are pretty tired of, especially after Obama's "change" campaign promise reified by Trump, that an appeal to values (something Trump has nothing in iota to do with) is necessary.

I just don't think Biden has the courage to appeal to these values, given that Democrats have pretty much-been hotelling since Reagan left the Oval office.

I'm not sure I can, very much. But let's say that at the extremes of left and right there are views that cannot be espoused without penalty. So on one side, McCarthyism seeks to delegitimise and penalise the 'far left', and on the other, Trumpism seeks to rehabilitate the 'far right'. Both if successful have the effect of moving the centre to the right. — unenlightened

Well, this sounds more like shifting the Overton window than Hotelling; but, I suppose they go hand in hand, yes?

So rather than move my shop to the middle, I might do better to demolish some houses at your end of town and build some new ones at my end, and then the middle will move to my shop. That way you become the extremist and I become the moderate and also have the consistent and stable position through all these changes... — unenlightened

What if I said, that the politics of the right will always have an advantage due to unwritten laws like Zionism or some divine rationale? Is this sensible? How can it be addressed when you have a worryingly high percentage of a population of a nation that still believes that the world was created in seven days?

What do you think? Does the possibility of psychosis prove that there is an objective reality? — Purple Pond

As a direct realist or indirect realist?

I don't think antirealism meshes here in any way.

There's a lot of insight here. Hope I can address it all and if I don't, feel free to point out any omissions.

Taking the beach analogy, the beach has a fixed length and thus a fixed centre; not so the political spectrum — unenlightened

This is what is very unique about the US. In that it's political structure is very homogenous for such a diverse culture. I have in mind that given Hotelling's law, you effectively have a one-party system governed by the super-elite with their economic dominance over the workings of the economy. Trump is no idiot and has been observing all this from the sidelines.

The limits of the political spectrum are set by something like 'what custom finds acceptable'. — unenlightened

You will find that Trump and his buddies have pretty much disregarded any concept of cultural-sanity in regards to what people find acceptable; but, they (Trump and his gang) thrive off of this traumatization or radicalization of 'acceptable' politics. This coincides with the deep individualism or rugged individualism that America is so well known for.

Politics is also about moving the centre, not just occupying it. — unenlightened

Before I build a straw-man, please do elaborate on this. I feel as though Hotelling's law self-reinforces this concept devoid of any kind of regard for what the people want. If my memory serves me right and the connotations are accurate just think about types like Leo Strauss or Kissenger. America has always been about managing expectations/dreams/aspirations of the populace.

We can continue this conversation here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6273/hotellings-law-in-us-politics

Yeah, but my main point is that hotelling's law doesn't apply to Trump, and hence you need something like a progressive or democratic socialist candidate to stir interest in the (predominantly) college educated electorate that have been sitting at home watching from the sidelines.

Whatever floats your boat.

Keep in mind, @Wayfarer that I'm talking not about hotelling, but rather voter turnout...

It would literally be a repeat of 2016 just Clinton with a penis.

If you mean that Biden is only more popular given his exposure to the media, then yeah he is more of a household name. But, Trump wouldn't have to think up much given the festering hatered for anything 'Obama' that has possessed the GOP.

Hey I agree with you. I'm not an American (although I have near relatives in the US) but from where I sit, this internecine squabbling between the Democrats is a complete distraction. They need to pick a centrist candidate and all get behind him/her, and pronto. — Wayfarer

This is basically Biden's strategy. And, it didn't work in 2016, so why would it now?

I think Kamila Harris is the dark horse in this race. Out of all the potential candidates, she and Warren have the highest chance of toppling Trump.

Yeah, Bernie probably will lose out to Warren; but, I'm fine with that and I suspect he is too.

Antinatalism doesn't create this fictional identity called an unborn child. — Charles

It does create a straw-baby though, which can't consent/agree/vouch with or for their own life, though.

People who are surprised of all this just haven't spent enough time in the US...

What an impoverished life it must be to only desire happiness...

And, at the end of the day it's still the same old crap with this guy. But, you know... Things could always be worse...

Life is a mixed bag of suffering and pleasure and it's wrong to give people these mixed bags without their consent. — khaled

The illogicality is really showing here. How can you ask for consent from a fictitious straw-baby?

I was being sarcastic. — Maw

Oops, sorry. Hah. My internet autism is showing.

At best, they are in the business of making or saving their customers money. Not "happy". — Maw

And, what about that makes you so fond of them?

I hear this so often but it's really not that hard to get. Antinatalism doesn't want to protect magic ghost babies from harm. It wants to protect real people from harm. Course of action A: have birth, results in harming someone therefore it is immoral. Course of action B: don't have birth doesn't harm anyone therefore it is better. That's all. Or to be more specific, course of action A guarantees harm that is not asked for while course of action B only denies potential people pleasure which isn't a bad thing because you don't owe anyone pleasure, refer to my last comment. — khaled

You haven't yet demonstrated (for the above in any way to be a sound argument) that existence is necessarily suffering.

Well, the professions you mention are in the business of trying to make people happy. The heterodoxy of philosophy doesn't coincide with trying to make people 'happy'.

Yes, socialism along with communism are the only two forms of government that concern itself with what is ethical on an individual level. I suppose this is why we see the huge difference between the economist and the Phil major.

I didn't say they WILL have a miserable life. I said they might despite my best efforts — khaled

Yeah, so I think this is the difference between you and the majority of other antinatalists that I have seen hereabouts. In that in your case you aren't overgeneralizing for the sum total of all people in the world, whereas others think that the structural suffering and constant strife is proof of making a choice as to not perpetuate it.

But, one has to realize the inherent illogicality of this whole rationale, being that how can one ad hoc provide reasons for not wanting to continue suffering in the world for an entity that has never experienced anything at all?

From the paper:
---
They were explicitly told that the questionnaire was not an exam and that there were no right answers.
---
And therein is the difference between an economist and a philosophy major.

Not bad! Though I do feel for educators landing last place on that chart...

Well, I hope others can see past this hyperbole and gross overgeneralization.

Marxism is one form of socialism. — Janus

What other forms are there, asks the uneducated pig...

I don't understand the question, Wallows. — Janus

Well, how do you go from surmising that concern for one's self isn't always the ideal path towards the good life to favoring or advocating socialism?

And, how do you reconcile this with an interest in socialism on behalf of the philosophy major?