Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. — AmadeusD

Is anyone (with the exception of the MAGA cult) foolish enough to take what a politician says at face-value? Anyway, you have a remarkably low tolerance for human sweetness.

I think an impartial viewer would disagree that the exchange is sickly sweet, cartoonish, and ingenuine.

You think they're being plainspoken and nice so they won't be canceled? That would be a moronic strategy.

But there is no better to hide your lack of interviews and lack of transparency behind such a fake exchange. — NOS4A2

Why do you think it’s fake? I wouldn’t think that you would even watch it.

It’s all an opaque act, a virtual candidacy — NOS4A2

I watched 10 minutes of the Harris and Waltz chat just now and if it’s an act they’re good actors. They come off as warm, approachable, and down to earth. The script is on-brand too, with compelling ‘creation stories’ and showcasing their middle-class backgrounds. A masterclass in branding. Isn’t Trump supposed to be the branding expert?

It also presented a stark contrast to the cold elitist labor-hating and weird chat between Trump and Elon.

We both know its meaning. Can you perhaps rephrase the question?

What is being argued here, however, is that there really is one thing that is immune, and this is a qualified immunity: value-in-being. Value qualia, is a good term. Value qualia refers to something that is not in any way or form, language. Tout autre. Think about the qualia of the color, that is, the being-appeared-to redly. We know this is not a language perception, this red-qua-red, and no one will gainsay this. But there is nothing IN the red-qua-red that "speaks," so to speak. — Constance

Not true, the color red speaks, and says different things depending on the form of life it appears in. In an orchard red says “ripe”. In the temperature of objects red say “hot”. In the ‘language’ of color, red is experienced as generally warm compared to a cool color like blue.

Works great. Doesn't ask for email address or anything.

When I asked if you were "claiming that “the good” exists in “the world” separate from minds (words and concepts)" you said yes. To me, that is an exceptional claim. I would like to know why you believe this.

If "the good" (can we say goodness?) exists separate from minds (words and concepts) then where does it exist?

To try to clarify, I offer the example of the moon. If I ask you where the moon exists you might simply point to it, if I were in a position to see your finger. It's not quite that simple though, right? You require an internal model of the world and the moon in order to point your finger at it. If that model didn't exist then you couldn't locate the moon. You would have no concept of 'moon' to begin with. Without an internal model that included the sky, earth, moon, etc. I don't know what you would see if you were looking towards the moon. The existence of the moon is dependent on our internal model of the world that we continually develop throughout life. Is goodness also dependent on our internal model of the world, even though unlike the moon we can't point to it with our index finger? Pain and pleasure are transmitted to the central nervous system in the same manner as all our senses. Where does pleasure exist? Point to where it feels good.

Not sure I understand the question. A place? — Constance

I'm trying to understand how "the good" is fundamentally different than words and concepts. I can't see how "the good" isn't conceptual in nature.

He’s losing his fucking mind. — Mikie

Getting so looney tunes that he's starting to sound like Daffy Duck.

I feel blessed.

Yes. — Constance

Where?

Looks like Melania because she’s squinting? Trump gets weirder by the day.

The idea defended in the OP is both MOST boring and MOST fascinating. For an tried and true intellectual, hell bent on filling space with dialectic, it's the former. But if one is interested in the world and not just the way words work, then the latter. — Constance

Are you claiming that “the good” exists in “the world” separate from minds (words and concepts)?

On order to take metaethics seriously, one has to look, not to the concept, the understanding's counterpart to the living actuality, but to just this actuality. The proof for this lies in the pudding: putting one's hand of a pot of boiling water, for example: NOW you know the REAL ground for the moral prohibition against doing this to others. — Constance

There’s a host of concepts involved in “the moral prohibition against doing this [putting someone’s hand in a pot of boiling water] to others” that is far removed from the experience of that pain. I must not be following rightly.

That's no problem, though the absurd extreme was uncalled-for. — Vera Mont

Talk about blindsight, I don’t think I would have made that blunder if we had this conversation in person.

I meant no disrespect to you or your mother. I apologize if you feel I've been disrespectful or vulgar.

Needs - identification - desire: it's a transition over some period of time. — Vera Mont

I agree that we learn emotion concepts as we develop. Concepts that are triggered in part by interoception. I don't see any reason why these concepts need to be conscious for an intelligence to function. Many things we observe, if not most, are beneath our conscious awareness, and we can react to them emotionally.

Wrong order. Had needs. Learned to identify them. Received appropriate care. Developed desire. Learned to differentiate and express desires. — Vera Mont

I'm imagining baby Vera Mont in her crib expressing her needs (not desires yet?) and your mother trying to satisfy those needs. The cries are relentless. First, she tries to satisfy your needs with food. Perhaps a fat juicy steak sandwich, leftovers from the night before. Nope, that's not it. Maybe baby VM is a born vegetarian? Nope, she spits out the grilled asparagus too. Long story short, it turns out that baby VM's desires for sustenance were rather specific. How could you possibly have known what you wanted so specifically at such a young age? I'm pretty sure you had no trouble differentiating between a steak sandwich, grilled asparagus, and mama's teat.

Yes. The breathing came automatically, as did theneed for nourishment; part of the organic package in which my DNA finds expression. But the desire for I needed as an infant was expressed as crying and physical distress. As a (relatively) autonomous organic entity, I feel the need for nourishment, then conceive a desire for food (sweet? savoury? crisp? soft?) and devise a strategy for obtaining what I desire. — Vera Mont

So you didn't conceive desires as an infant, yet you still had them. :chin:

I'm saying it's impossible for an unconscious entity, however intelligent and powerful, to wish, want, crave, desire, yearn for or in other way conceive a motivation of its own. — Vera Mont

Can you conceive a motivation yourself? Did you conceive the desire to eat, drink, and breathe yourself?

I hate to judge a book by its cover but that one is very nice.

You’re basically saying that it’s impossible for an unconscious intelligence, no matter how powerful, to analyze and replicate a conscious intelligence.

Does this have something to do with the existence of a soul?

How can you say that so definitively, aren’t we all still foggy about what consciousness is?

Blindsight, yes, I didn’t recall the name until you mentioned it. It had some interesting parts though I don’t remember it being very engaging, and in fact I think I remember skipping parts. I usually remember books that I like pretty well and I don’t remember much about this one. And I got some of it mixed up with other stories I’ve read recently. I’ve been binging on sci-fi short story collections. I just reviewed the wiki page about Blindsight and the unconscious aliens (or alien) didn’t acquire consciousness at first contact. That must have been from a similar short story.

The operative word is "seem". — Vera Mont

AI’s can seem to be conscious. Chatbots have fooled people into thinking they’re people, for example. I can imagine that AI’s could get very powerful before reaching consciousness, if they ever do develop consciousness.

Is it even possible to have desires without consciousness? — Sir2u

Plants seem to desire sunlight when they move towards it.

Not directly, no.

But imagine, if you’re willing, a non-conscious intelligence whose most underlying motive is procreation. No, I don’t mean Homo sapiens. Imagine that eventually this motive drives them to the stars because they’ve exhausted the resources of their home world. While decimating planetary systems for their own use they happen upon some humanoids and are corrupted by their consciousness. Things quickly go to pot. The end.

Ask her about the paperclip maximizer scenario.

I just asked ChatGPT about it and, sparing you the details, in summary she said:

In essence, current AI demonstrates that you can have sophisticated intelligence without consciousness.

She’s probably a bit bias though so take that with a grain of salt. Btw, in the book the intelligence was organic in nature.

there is no reason why meaningful connections are discarded when a failed institution is discarded. — ENOAH

Disillusionment with a religious institution is often experienced as nihilism, for instance. That may not always be the case and it’s probably only a temporary condition. We are all saturated in meaning, after all.

It is about putting conceptual considerations aside. — Constance

Like putting aside the concepts of good and bad, right?

F the institutions when they fail. Don't discard the essence. — ENOAH

To discard the essence of religion (meaningful connection with a community) would lead to a very lonely and unhappy life, in my opinion.

I read a sci-fi book recently where the invincible invaders from outer space turned out to lack consciousness and wanted to acquire it from Earthlings, even though it was like smoking crack for them. Intergalactic brain-hungry zombies, basically.

There is the pain now free of contextual presumption. What IS this? — Constance

Neither good nor bad, or both good and bad. I don't think it matters which way it's conceptually considered.

One thing Tim Walz immediately brings to the campaign is JOY! He just looks so darned happy to be there. He radiates joy. — Wayfarer

I saw an attack ad about him yesterday, the words painting him out to be a Stalinesque monster, but the photo they used was an adorable snapshot of him holding a piglet at a country fair with a big smile on his face. Hilarious.

Franco and Pinochet are regarded as heroes.

The article quotes from the book:

“Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans,” — Fooloso4

From what I’ve read, democracy is the best form of government for the people. Not that they’re trying to be honest, of course.

I wish I could say that it’s shocking for a US VP nominee to endorse a book like that.

One has to make the move from the way contingencies create multiple contexts of engagement. — Constance

But it’s not in the least bit a contingency. Pain is good. Pain, like pleasure, moves life to homeostasis.

So now we can add unhuman to unmarried female cat-lovers….. — Wayfarer

Idiotically leaning into the ‘weirdo’ branding.

A five star review of the book on goodreads.com:

Past Marxist revolutions are reviewed to provide a better understanding of the cultural Marxism of the Left in America today. While the history lesson is important, the real value of this volume is a discussion of why the radical Left needs to be defeated and effective measures to take to end their scourge.

From what I gather the book glorifies Franco. Not sure if the suggestion is that his way is the way to end the scourge. In any case, I don't think MAGA is big on reading books.

kind of crazy when you compare VP choices. Kamala’s choice is smart and strategic. Trump picked a phony sycophant, presumably only because he intends to surround himself with weak yes-men.

It [awakening] can only be accessed by a turning away from mind and awakening to being. — ENOAH

Religion is a human construction, or as Constance described it, an institution. It’s squarely of mind, in other words. Mind is what you say must be turned away from. This suggests that religion may actually be anti-awakening. This tracks because religions, even the ones that are supposedly all about awakening, are so bad at fostering awakening.

Chiropractic care comes to mind. It’s against a chiropractor’s interests to cure a patient because they’d lose a returning customer and that would compromise their livelihood.