I do see where you're going, I don't see any reason it necessarily has to be that way. We've already understood a great deal about how the brain works, by using our brains.

If the ethics committees and the court would only let me go ahead with my experiments I'm sure we would be a lot further forward. I'll just have to try again when I am released at the end of my sentence.

But, the more I study neuroscience, the more that amorphus concept seems to apply only to conditions of neurological disease, functional issues, trauma. I need more analysis before I can discount it as an applicable term. — Garrett Travers

It seems to be important to you to catergorise each human being as a perfect fit to a personality type.
You and neuroscience will never achieve it. I predict that such categorisations will always be 'inaccurate.'

One of those inclinations is a desire for power. — Garrett Travers

"....Some have power foisted upon them." Not every person who has political power, desired it.
I was a union shop steward for many years, I never wanted to be such but It was requested of me from my fellows at the time. It took a long time to convince me but I think I stopped a good few attempts by the employers to abuse employees.

No, I'm asking you to provide me an example of a politician, that either hasn't killed someone — Garrett Travers

I gave you three.

Attacking a tribe is political action, and what gives rise to political bodies of greater power. The first tribe should definitely not just walk up on peoples established boundaries, but nothing calls for homiced in such actions. — Garrett Travers

No, attacking a tribe is a human action. How did these boundaries become established. First to arrive? If you think so then I hope you campaign in the USA to give it back to the indigenous tribes it was stolen from. How are you going to stop those who want what you have? Appeal to their ethics?
We have been fighting each other since we left the wild. It will not stop until we unite as a single species and that will only happen through political discourse and the acceptance that the alternative is extinction.

In accordance with the principle of the Primacy of the Human Consciousness of all involved parties, the offending person is hereby ordered to avoid contact with the father's child, until, or unless he has determined that fostering an understanding relationship between the two people, over the course of however much time is required for the child to understand the full impact of interpersonal relationship and potential child rearing and the responsibilities therein contained are reasonably understood and agreed to between all parties, and once the child reaches the age of independent proficiency of productive skill needed to remain homeostatically apart from the father's purview of responsibility. Failure to comply with this recognition of the value of the conscious state of all parties involved will result first in an issued utimatum of expulsion for continued violation, and in expulsion from the tribe for an indeterminate period of time as needed for recourse to achieve understanding and correction of violation if such is conduct is continued thereafter. As the original violation is on the part of the person outside of the father's purview, the offender, he will accept primary responsibility for pursuing this path to win the father's favor, or cease interaction with the father and his child in a manner satisfactory to him. Are the terms understood? — Garrett Travers

Typed like a true politician! This is a political dictate, a political policy to control a behavior that you dont approve of. So when the girl reaches say 18, she will understand so much more than when she was 17 and 11 months? Such rules can only ever be approximations but we do have to draw lines somewhere or we will be back to the times when Islamic prophets can have sex with 9 year old girls. You even use terms like 'the offender.' Looks like you would make rules to control the behaviour of a population after all. You would also enforce consequences if they are not complied with. Sounds like politics to me!

Lions aren't conscious, they operate on instinct. They do not operate in the ethical domain of existence. — Garrett Travers

I did not ask you about the consciousness of lions. I was discussing your concept of 'source of evil.'
Evil is subjective, an evil act to some is a justified act to others. This will always be true. Evil only exists in the judgement of others it has no other existance.

You don't have an opinion, you have what other people have told you to think — Garrett Travers

This kind of comment is best responded to with RIGHT BACK AT YA!

You're political views are run-of-the-mill, tribal human violations as means to achieve whatever ends you declare are important, predicated on no ethics, and barrowed from talking heads. This is your standard for "politics," : "To me, there is just 'human behavior' and the political systems we decide to create to control it." This is exactly the mentality of every murderous dictator in history. Putin is showing you right now what exactly this philosophy of ethics produces inevitably. — Garrett Travers

This is just nonesense. I advocate for the ethical politics of socialism and I advocate for one united human species. I also advocate for real solutions and I suggest that you try to see that mere philosophical rhetoric is never going to deliver what is needed.

It seems to be important to you to catergorise each human being as a perfect fit to a personality type.
You and neuroscience will never achieve it. I predict that such categorisations will always be 'inaccurate.' — universeness

You'll notice I'm the one doing the de-categorization. Hence: amorphus concepts. People are too complex to really categorize like that. It can work a good deal of the time, but not consistently.

Not every person who has political power, desired it.
I was a union shop steward for many years, I never wanted to be such but It was requested of me from my fellows at the time. — universeness

That's not power. Power is politics and is a chosen pursuit in this kind of society, and in most others. You're talking about hierarchical leadership in the context of a non-force based organization. Unless of course you're talking about a state union, in which case there's a point to be made here.

I gave you three. — universeness

There were two clauses.

No, attacking a tribe is a human action. — universeness

No, it's political. It means one is going to handle things through threat of death, that politics.

How did these boundaries become established. — universeness

It was your hypothetical, that's on you to clarify.

If you think so then I hope you campaign in the USA to give it back to the indigenous tribes it was stolen from. — universeness

Those people don't exist anymore. Land does not belong to "tribes," it belongs to be people using it, having claimed such in an uncontested manner, or gained such via mutual interaction with a previous occupier. Noone alive today either establish, or had an establishment of land stolen from the within this context. We are all innocent. I will say this, though, I hate all states. So, don't take that as a defense of anything other than individual people.

How are you going to stop those who want what you have? — universeness

With force. It is the initiation of a violation of the human consciousness that is evil, my friend. Not its forceful, and self-righteous protection from violation. If you seek to enter my home and parlay with me by force, prepare yourself for the possibility that you will die in such a pursuit. However, I'd like better to simply have you go away and to never return.

Appeal to their ethics? — universeness

No, to mine.

We have been fighting each other since we left the wild. It will not stop until we unite as a single species and that will only happen through political discourse and the acceptance that the alternative is extinction. — universeness

I've told the only way we can do such a thing. And as long as you understand what that means, then you and I will be alright no matter our differences. But, I agree with this statement. Humans seem to possessed by whatever is in Putin's head right now.

Typed like a true politician! — universeness

You asked me to do so. There you go.

This is a political dictate, a political policy to control a behavior that you dont approve of. — universeness

No, because it is, once again, force being employed only to protect from violation, and only to remove the violating force from society. Not steal his labor, not kill him, not enslave him in a barracks or an army, and I never said anything about any sort of institutionalized body of force. And I also only used what aspects you provided, so that's on you.

So when the girl reaches say 18, she will understand so much more than when she was 17 and 11 months? Such rules can only ever be approximations but we do have to draw lines somewhere or we will be back to the times when Islamic prophets can have sex with 9 year old girls. — universeness

No, if you read my statement, if the child desires such, since desire is not a violation, it will be the father's duty to inform her of the necessary details of the subject while under his auspices. Once she is of a proficiency level to be independent of his purview, the choice will be on her to make.

You even use terms like 'the offender.' Looks like you would make rules to control the behaviour of a population after all. — universeness

No, only force that violates consciousness will ever be justified, or justified to declare as an independent group the use of by a tribes-person(s).

You would also enforce consequences if they are not complied with. Sounds like politics to me! — universeness

Yes, my tribe will enforce the non-violations of consciousness. Proudly, and with lethality if need be.

This kind of comment is best responded to with RIGHT BACK AT YA! — universeness

Except I know of nobody who shares this opinion, or very few. Most people aren't able to see past the lies to catch a glimpse of the evil that guides the world, as has been for too long.

I advocate for the ethical politics of socialism and I advocate for one united human species. — universeness

The Epicurean principles here that you are plagiarising and calling socialism, have only ever worked within voluntary communes that were distinguished by practices that would place them under the banner of the modern term "anarcho-capitalism," and from whence that term was developed by the Austrain School. If you advocate for a state administered socialism, you are an advocate for the mass murdering institutions of the past century, whose body count demands that you, as a representative, make a clear case for the kind of society you wish to see erected, and how wish to do so. Other wise, there can be no mistake of ethics being present in your "politics."

I also advocate for real solutions and I suggest that you try to see that mere philosophical rhetoric is never going to deliver what is needed. — universeness

Lol, you seem to forget that socialism IS the plagiarised and perverted philosophical rhetoric of Epicurus, who founded socialism under the pretenses of mutual respect for property and happiness, and employed such in communes that had clear ethical standards for entry that one had to voluntarily swear, and could voluntarily opt-out of, however rarely, at any time. In other words, my friend, it is the force that makes your "socialism" untenable. So, to quote a famous "capitalist," I'm on your side.. but you're not.

You know, if you just worked with me instead of against me for just a few minutes, I could show you what I'm talking about. Something to consider.

you seem to forget that socialism IS the plagiarised and perverted philosophical rhetoric of Epicurus — Garrett Travers

Socialism (no matter when it was labeled as such) existed long before Epicurus and long before Greek culture existed.

You know, if you just worked with me instead of against me for just a few minutes, I could show you what I'm talking about. Something to consider — Garrett Travers

Overall, I think some of your conclusions are an aid to improving the current state of the human race
and I am sure we have a lot of common ground but I would fight tooth and nail against your political viewpoints. Anyone who makes statements such as 'all politics is evil' should never be given any position of authority. I will leave our exchange there.

Socialism (no matter when it was labeled as such) existed long before Epicurus and long before Greek culture existed. — universeness

No, we just existed in primitive, agrarian tribes. There was nothing that was an established framework of thought on the subject, that was an Epicurean development, and he is to this day the most successful implementer of such a model. The only ones that even compare, are the Chrsitian variations of the modern world that stole their model directly from Epicurean Gardens, after the Christians turned them into monastaries placing them in the history of that aweful tradition to develop later. Please go familiarize yourself with this history, man. There's even a page up on Marxists.org about it that is mostly accurate. Marx himself did a thesis on the subject when he was a student, it's direct adaptation from Epicurus, no kidding.

your political viewpoints — universeness

What are my political view points that you think you would have to fight against? I have only one: that nobody has any justifable, ethical, logically consistent, or intellectually conceivable right to violate the consciousness of another. That's my only political view point. What would you need to "fight" against?

Anyone who makes statements such as 'all politics is evil' should never be given any position of authority. — universeness

I don't.... Want it.... And that's the most backwards conclusion one could come to. The guy who thinks politics are evil, shouldn't have power, because he may use it for non-evil......?? Huh?

I will leave our exchange there. — universeness

I'd maybe suggest that, you're not being very consistent here. But, I'll be around if you want to strengthen up your position.

If the ethics committees and the court would only let me go ahead with my experiments I'm sure we would be a lot further forward. I'll just have to try again when I am released at the end of my sentence. — Daemon

hehaha!

I'd maybe suggest that, you're not being very consistent here. But, I'll be around if you want to strengthen up your position — Garrett Travers

I suggest that you are not being very consistent here, especially when you say politics is evil and then you offer political guidelines when you are asked to play arbiter in a hypothetical. If you fear politics so much you should decline such requests.

The guy who thinks politics are evil, shouldn't have power, because he may use it for non-evil......?? Huh? — Garrett Travers

No, the guy shouldn't have power because he does not believe in politics so he is incapable of wielding power in any useful way.

It seems to me that your main political stance is that the freedom of the individual is more important than the well-being of the majority. A regressive and misguided viewpoint.

But, I'll be around if you want to strengthen up your position. — Garrett Travers

Ditto!

I suggest that you are not being very consistent here, especially when you say politics is evil and then you offer political guidelines when you are asked to play arbiter in a hypothetical. If you fear politics so much you should decline such requests. — universeness

Nothing I said was political. There's nothing about having rules for co-existence within a given domain of space that implies an institutional monopoly on the use of force. You asked me from the perspective of making a decree, that's my decree. Politics is statecraft, not rules.

No, the guy shouldn't have power because he does not believe in politics so he is incapable of wielding power in any useful way. — universeness

There's no such thing, and when you realize that you'll realize why you openly swear allegiance to a mass murdering group of psychopathic ideologues. Also something you haven't addressed, and you won't either. Because you've been completely fooled into thinking that somehow they don't apply to you, they do. And it's as appalling as swearing fealty to the Khmer Rouge, or Ba'ath party. It's worse than swearing fealty to Nazi's, they haven't butchered half as many people, and hell they called themselves socialist too, imagine that. But, don't worry, I know you mean well. There are many many of you who will not address any of this for the same damn reasons.

And I will gladly take on any number of challengers who want to debate this topic, you, or anyone on this site. However many of you want to do the body count with me, and count the statist-socialist variants who have done the butchering. It's a gleeful challenge.

It seems to me that your main political stance is that the freedom of the individual is more important than the well-being of the majority. A regressive and misguided viewpoint. — universeness

The first is required for the second. My consciousness, nor any other's, belongs to you to implement the "well-being" (dictatorship) of any other person with. It is a task that is impossible, because there are too many people in the world, and well-being isn't even something you can define between individuals. I don't want your well-being, keep your well-being to your self. I didn't want it when I was homeless and hungry with my wife, and I don't want it now, and you couldn't give it if you tried. The same is true for everyone else. Collectivism is the misguided view that's been being implemented for thousands of years. There have never existed individualist societies, other Epicurean ones, which the Christian collectivists, from whom your pagan leaders adapted their collectivist plagiarisms of his ideas from, murdered and oppressed. Yet another point you won't address. Next.

Ditto! — universeness

Oh, I'm still waiting on you to actually address anything I've said.

Nothing I said was political. There's nothing about having rules for co-existence within a given domain of space that implies an institutional monopoly on the use of force — Garrett Travers

This is an example of your naive understanding of politics. Politics exist at all levels of society, from family politics to the politics of relationships to state politics. Force is a tool we all possess. It only becomes a monopoly when a combined force is the strongest in the playground but such forces are normally always, eventually overthrown.

There's no such thing, and when you realize that you'll realize why you openly swear allegiance to a mass murdering group of psychopathic ideologues. Also something you haven't addressed, and you won't either. Because you've been completely fooled into thinking that somehow they don't apply to you, they do. And it's as appalling as swearing fealty to the Khmer Rouge, or Ba'ath party. It's worse than swearing fealty to Nazi's, they haven't butchered half as many people, and hell they called themselves socialist too, imagine that — Garrett Travers

This is just the ramblings of unfettered emotion. Bitter and twisted, I have no idea which traumas in your life have brought you to such bizarre conflations.
If you apply a label such as socialist to yourself then you must be able to demonstrate its tenets. No member of the khmer Rouge, Ba'ath party, Nazi's etc have demonstrated socialism. The labels of socialism and communism(a label you like to associate with Epicurus, try calling yourself a commie in America) has been abused in America since Castro terrified them and even before then. Do you think McCarthyism was justified? Was that an example of your 'rules of co-existence?

You have made inane and ridiculous comments on this thread such as:

Those people don't exist anymore. Land does not belong to "tribes," it belongs to be people using it — Garrett Travers

Do you not see Americans or Russians or Brits or French as just big tribes?
Go tell the communities listed below that their 'tribes' don't exist anymore.
This is only a very small part of the list of existing communities of the indigenous peoples in that particular landmass, named by those who had no right to seize it, through the murder of its then inhabitants, named after a map maker!

List of U.S. communities with Native American majority populations:
Alaska. Utqiagvik (57.2%) Bethel (61.8%) Dillingham (52.6%) Hooper Bay (93.7%) Kotzebue (71.2%) ...
Arizona. Canyon Day (98.5%) Chinle (91.3%) Cibecue (96.0%) Dilkon (97.0%) First Mesa (96.1%) ...
California.
Colorado. Towaoc (94.4%).
Idaho. Fort Hall (65.4%) Lapwai (81.4%)

You just swipe their history and their human consciousness that should never be violated away.
As a politician, you would cause wars all over the place because you seem to have no skill at diplomacy at all.

And I will gladly take on any number of challengers who want to debate this topic, you, or anyone on this site. — Garrett Travers

Do you see debate always as a 'challenge'? Can it not be a dialogue? You can offer measured dialogue, I have read you doing so. I am not suggesting every word of mine is non-inflammatory but I try not to throw down gauntlets like you have done above. If you keep pushing such buttons then I for one will simply conclude that you are no longer worth the effort of debate. Only of course on the topic of politics.

The first is required for the second. My consciousness, nor any other's, belongs to you to implement the "well-being" (dictatorship) of any other person with. It is a task that is impossible, because there are too many people in the world, and well-being isn't even something you can define between individuals. I don't want your well-being, keep your well-being to yourself. I didn't want it when I was homeless and hungry with my wife, and I don't want it now, and you couldn't give it if you tried. — Garrett Travers

The importance of individual freedom is not lost on socialists. I do accept and have stated so many times that finding the correct balance between individual freedom and the well-being of the majority is very hard to achieve but socialists will achieve it. That's why amongst socialists, socialism is often called 'inevitable.' All poor people on the planet have experienced what you and your wife experienced to some degree or another. Did that experience contribute to your current view of politics? My own experiences of being poor afforded me a different view. I am glad of that at least.
I would rather be homeless and hungry on the streets of the UK than on the streets of any so-called 3rd world country. I would rather neither possibility existed and therefore as a socialist, I demand global UBI. Do You?

Oh, I'm still waiting on you to actually address anything I've said — Garrett Travers

In my opinion, On the issue of politics and socialism, I do so and have done so. I dont seek or require your conformation that this is so as I consider your political views and your understanding of socialism, skewed and misguided. So I apply the old adage of 'well, you would say that wouldn't you'. Feel free to apply the same to me. Panto exchange is very common on this and most other discussion websites.

I didn't want it when I was homeless and hungry with my wife — Garrett Travers

A sad epilogue to this comment is that in my opinion, if socialism was the controlling politics of your country at the time this happened, it would not have happened. True socialism has yet to be employed anywhere.

Where do you see this mind? Any evidence of this mind that 1. cannot be attributed to natural processes, and 2. can be attributed to mental processes? — Garrett Travers

Just look at a chemical process, or things being repelled from each other or moving towards each other. They possess an inherent longing to or aversion for each other.

Just look at a chemical process, or things being repelled from each other or moving towards each other. They possess an inherent longing to or aversion for each other — EugeneW

I note you are asking this of Garrett and I am sure he will give you a good answer, but can I ask you if you project the concept of attraction and repulsion such as we see in natural magnetism with say, the human tendency to be attracted to those who agree with us and repulsive towards those who disagree with us? Can any human action which could be labeled an 'act of attraction' or an 'act of repulsion' be associated with attraction/repulsion as viewed in the natural world. Is this, in your opinion, at best, anecdotal evidence for the panpsychist or is it at worse, just a result of anthropocentric conflation?

Good question! It seems a magnet excerts the same force on me (when I hold another magnet) as my dog pulling on the leash longing to run between the trees. The force of the magnet is constant and simple, without a sophisticated emotion, memory, seeing, barking, jumping, etc. But they both pull. :wink: