One that hasn't been mentioned and I'd include, though, is the original Conan: The Barbarian. The visuals, in particular, are what I like about this movie, as well as how the mood is established by the score, pacing, and visual storytelling -- it coheres so well with the character Conan.

Many of my favorites have already been said :D

The Last Starfighter — T Clark

I wanted to special mention this one, though, because I grew up with that movie (and later read it was the first movie to use CGI effects in it). So it's definitely one of those movies I'll watch but would never recommend unless someone wants to watch a cheesy 80's sci-fi film with me.

EDIT: Over time, this category has grown. There's a lot of movies I grew up with that I enjoy for what they are, but when I think about them now in some aesthetic sense I'm like "ehhhh"

Isn't it a kind of pleasure which deepens desire rather than satisfying desire?

I think philosophy is like that for me.

It's an intrinsically satisfying activity which always leads to something more, unfinished.

But this simply isn’t true. I may have failed to emphasize this, but while this transfer of profits to shareholders — which has increased these last 40 years — hasn’t been good for workers, it hasn’t been good for businesses either. — Mikie

Fair point.

Maybe not good for the business as an organization, but if there's a class which controls said organization and they don't particularly care about the health of the business, but rather how much they can extract from it, then that'd explain why those in charge make decisions which are bad for business, even in the Back to the Basics Economics sense.

But this is just a thought at this point, not an argument. It's just where my mind went.

Sure. But a particular kind of capitalism— one that is currently choosing to distribute 90% of profits to shareholders. This is the background on which people in states and, more relevant to this thread, corporations operate. It’s a system of beliefs and values.

Shareholder primacy theory is a major justification for these actions in my view.

I share your thought about capitalism, but I don’t think it’s sufficient to answer the OP questions. — Mikie

What?! My very generic Marxist view didn't provide enough details?! :D

Cool. I don't think I have another answer, though.

That's not actually what I said. I'll acknowledge the US has done things it shouldn't have. My point is that there is a way to compare the two, and it does boil in part down to the murder of citizens, but it's also things like gulags, purges of people from the party as a form of ostracism, starvation, and a whole host of other horrible events. These things are not ancient history. It's like saying we can't condemn Nazi Germany (which is closely wrapped up in all of this) as Americans because Americans are also bad. Of course we can. — Hanover

There's a similar list for the United States. Right? Genocide and chattel slavery aren't ancient history, either.

Something about an afternoon comparing gulags to genocides seems like a sad game, at least. And then -- do you really feel like you know more about which system is better or worse?

I don't.

I'm aware of the evils of socialism. I don't think of these things lightly, for that matter. I'd rather not have gulags or the Khmer Rouge.

I don't think those evils are necessary features of socialism, though, as much as necessary features of nation-states. And I've heard the numbers crunched before and seen the United States come out on top.

Didn't do much for me, though, other than leave me thinking -- this whole thing is fucked up, really. (EDIT: I'll also note I've seen the numbers tabulated the other way -- hence my thought that it just depends on what side you want to win. You'll choose a theory of counting based upon which side gets to win)

A few reasons we care. The first is that it does serve as an example of what Marxist thought can cause, and that should offer pause when using Marxism as a philosophical basis for social change. The fact that it's not just a theoretical danger but an actually realized one matters. The other is that it's hardly a defunct state, with an actual war taking place right now between a former Soviet state and Russia in an effort to re-establish its former perceived greatness. — Hanover

The USSR can serve as an example of what Marxist thought can cause, sure.

But you're going to have to draw the connections between a Marxist analysis of the workplace and, say, Stalinism.

Stalin, while a very famous Marxist -- and I'm not interested in trying to get the hard cases out of the category, as I hope is apparent by now -- is not the only Marxist. There are many Marxists, and not all of them are Stalin. For instance, Salvadore Allende was a Marxist (which the United States helped to overthrow in a coup of his country -- something the United States has a habit of helping and doing in South and Latin America).

And for me, at least, I'm fairly heterodox on the question of history. I don't think it's necessary at all -- rather, it's open. So one of the things I tend to say is "Well, what if we just didn't do that?" -- i.e., just because we're organized militantly for power doesn't mean we'll use that power to create gulags.

So I agree with you that it's important to know history. I think we can learn from it.

But I disagree with the inference that Marxism is a failure. I think history is far more open on that question, and it really depends on who you are within your particular social system. It's a lot easier to sing the praises of capitalism when it's treating you well, just as it's easier to sing the praises of socialism when it's treating you well.

I'm not trying to salvage Marx, and I thought it obvious that this was so when I said I'm not trying to defend Marx on idealist grounds, or when I said socialists have done evil shit.

The part you're not liking is when I say the United States has done enough evil shit that it's a sad and stupid game to pick a side on. The only way you'll make the point is to add up the numbers, and how you add the numbers is how you choose which side you're on. That's why there are historians which are both pro and anti. But it has more to do with the historian than the events, when they tabulate, and it's a dry affair that doesn't really capture human suffering. And at the end of the day I suspect you'd disagree with the things which the United States does, so why is it we're talking about a now defunct state?

Marxism is a living, breathing philosophy and tradition of both thought and action. Marx doesn't need to be salvaged -- the concrete conditions of our life are what makes Marx relevant. His critique of political economy fits even if Stalin is a worse leader than any US leader.

You can't say "just like us" unless you're willing to engage in the analysis you just said you wouldn't do. You can't refuse to consider the evidence and then answer the question. — Hanover

I'm saying I've considered the evidence, and my conclusion is that both nations are prone to doing all kinds of evil things to the extent that, after looking at it, it's not really a worthy goal to say which somehow eeks out a slightly better score.

Historians been at this game for awhile. There's books by historians that are pro- and anti- Marxist. I've read a handful of them, and there's more I could read. There's even more that could be written, too.

From what I hear, it sounds like you'd get along with Robert Service's description of communism.

The past has to matter to you if you're trying to come to a solution for the future to at least know what you're fighting for and to be sure you're not recreating something we know doesn't work.

To the extent you want to organize labor to fight for more rights, that seems appropriate, but that is a far way from communism. That's just being an advocate of labor unions. — Hanover

I agree that Marxism and labor unionism are not the same. If anything, my critique of labor unions is that they aren't militant enough.

I wouldn't say I'm fighting here, though, either. Just to note. I'm still doing philosophy -- this is just a conversation between thems of us who like to think about this stuff, rather than some political activity.

And, duh, the past matters. If anything I'm over-historical in my approach to things. I'm just noting how the Soviet Union's various failures don't have much to do with American workers who should organize militantly if they want the good things in life.

Eh, it's a sad line of conversation I've already had the displeasure of going down. Wracking up the sins of each nation is a good way to feel sad the rest of the day, and at the end of it you really wonder why you're obsessing over such macabre things. In my estimation, when you go through the list of sins, it's something of a wash. Nations will behave like nations, in the end, and whether that benefits you has a lot to do with what your social position within that nation is.

For the purposes of historical tabulation, though, I include Stalin. Like I said, no idealist defenses. As a USian with a passing interest in Marxism I've been bombarded with the litany of socialist sins most of my life, so it's unlikely you'll find a shocking fact that will move me. Socialists done some evil shit.

Just like us.

And at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter to me -- the analysis makes sense of the patterns between the classes in the United States, and my advice to become organized remains the same. After all, the owners are organized.

Heh. I may just be too democracy-poisoned ;) I've heard "democracy" as a palliative to concrete wrongs far too often, putting justice in a place far beyond what a body will experience. I think the term elicits notions of propriety and correctness, which is the sort of thing that -- if one's political actions are going to be successful at all -- needs to be pushed to the side. Political action isn't about propriety, respect, correctness, or any of that.

I remember during Occupy well-meaning (and well to do) liberals lecturing us about how they agreed with our goals, but not our methods. And if we were only more proper then we'd have more support from the likes of them.

For me "democratic participation" just sounds a lot like that, when successful political action, in the sense of obtaining concrete goals for a group, is the exact opposite of these recommendations, and where they come from has less to do about what is efficacious and more to do with what well to do people feel comfortable with.

I'm not going to claim that this is universal or something, but it's that hesitancy to act which I think I'm pushing against. A lot of the time people believe "democratic participation" amounts to nothing more than reading the news, thinking about issues, and going to the voting booth. That's the civic religion, after all. And I think that does fit the term. I'm trying to point out -- it takes more, if you happen to fall into a particular class of people at least.

Yes! But, most importantly, this picture centers the worker as a political actor -- rather than being a part of the electorate, the worker can organize outside of the state due to the dependency relationship between workers and the rest of the world.

So, not democratic participation in the sense of being a part of a liberal party within a capitalist state -- but rather as being a member of an organization dedicated to worker's power.

And so it converts what looked like a moral question into a political question.

You'll hear no idealist defenses of Marx from me.

But you won't hear idealist condemnations either.

Yes, millions died under socialism due to socialist policies. Millions more will die tomorrow.

The only thing I'm noting is -- it's not that different under capitalism. And rather than look to the famines of the past as a reason to dismiss Marxist analysis, I'm just applying Marxist analysis to the question at hand.

So last Great Depression it didn't happen here, but it did happen in Russian and millions died. So, sure, this time it will happen in the right way, or whatever Marxist thought says. — Hanover

This is just an imaginary of an imaginary.

We done killed our millions. Racking up bodies won't decide what's the better way to live, though it makes for good propaganda.

Either way -- the free market ain't real.

And you, too, just like the people that employ you, can manipulate it.

So, as I said, it comes down to how organized your class is. How much power you have, in your given class. Who butters your bread.

There is no free market. At this point in development it's simply stupid to think that there is. There is an environment set up some degrees away from what economic actors do through the relationships between states and other economic actors.

As notes -- them chicken owners are plenty organized with how much state funding they get.

All the same, if the chicken killers organize, and the farmer and the engineer and the veterinarian and the marketer aren't going to kill the chickens then there's a dependency relationship which can be utilized to drive the price of labor up.

Heh, I do not share this view of the world. I think it's naive.

What has changed governments -- and especially so-called democratic governments -- has been the power of the masses to organize and force it to change because of the dependency relationship I mentioned earlier. The uppers depend upon the lowers. So the lowers, if they are able to organize themselves, can demand what they want up to and including the bakery.

Rather than the liberal lie that democratic participation and dialogue and changing hearts or minds are the paths to change, the Marxist way is militant, organized action which forces concessions.

Unions, for instance, were most powerful when they had more members and acted militantly. It's only as they became bureaucratized, making them a rational apparatus of the state, that they slowly lost power -- because a worker's power is not in treatises and laws and legislatures. It's at the point of production.

So, rather than the importance of democratic participation, I'd say I'd emphasize the importance of class power and organization.

Maybe, with the above picture in mind, the way I'd put it is -- I don't want a slice of pie, I want the bakery. Once I have a say in how the bakery operates, then the size of slice we all get becomes pertinent. As it is, since ought implies can and we cannot, there's no moral imperitive. People's hands really are tied, no matter which position they sit within the social dance that's capitalism.

It's really more like no one is in charge, and the beast just lives a life of its own, and we're along for the ride: strapped to a bull or a bear, ready to be thrown off and eaten at any moment.

Well choose a better word then. If the blame cannot be placed on the board of directors of multinational corporations, because our governments structure how business is conducted, then the state is ultimately the culprit.

I don’t completely agree with this picture, but if this isn’t what you’re saying I really don’t see what your point is. — Mikie

I think I'd prefer something like a causal nexus to highlight that there's more than one entity contributing to the overall pattern that we observe, and that the patterns of history aren't dependent upon something singular. To ignore the state would be silly, given how central it is to politics, but the patterns of capitalism aren't singularly dependent upon a state, either, because the state just sets up an environment.

So it's not a board of directors or stakeholders which are making decisions as much as there are a multitude of businesses which make many decisions, a lot of them fail, and through a simplified notion of natural selection we can see what kinds of patterns tend to survive the environmental set up. The organisms which survive and thrive in capitalism are the organisms which put profits first (which, due to the labor market being what it is, will mean sometimes having to pay more for labor than you want to, but labor is always a necessary expense in this set up).

But notice how it's not a fault of the board, then. It's just what it takes to have a business win the game.

And which ones happen to win at a given time is largely dependent upon things no one has any control over, so "winning" isn't even an attribute of acumen or skill. Rather, there are things one must do to survive, and then dependent upon what happens some of the organisms survive and some don't, and whatever does survive are the results of both making the right decisions and chance.

The causal nexus for this, now though, is an international economic organization. It's not just one state. It's a large international order.

So can you see why I might be hesitant to want to say "yes, it's the state for certain" ?

“We’re all responsible” isn’t saying much, however true that may be. Can’t we say that about any problem whatsoever? The war in Iraq…we all share blame. The Challenger explosion? We all share some responsibility. Etc. Fine — but let’s narrow it down a bit. — Mikie

I don't think we all share responsibility for any event, so no. I mean, I suppose one could say that but that's not the sort of culpability I was meaning-- I'm trying to highlight how there's a difference between capitalism and these particulars. Capitalism is the more general structure and environment within which actors -- be they corporations, states, individuals, or groups -- act. In the case of capitalism we're talking about something so giant it's not quite right to say that the state is the cause of capitalism. After all, there are states which are not capitalist, and there are lands without states which behave in accord with the giant world system that is capitalism, and socialist states do interact with capitalist states too.

I think I'm resistant to the notion of responsibility really applying.

In a particular case sometimes we can figure out, through political analysis, who is the most likely person to be able to influence a particular decision.

Responsibility is with all of us, in the sense that this is how we live with one another.

I don't recall Marx claiming that shareholders care solely about profit at the expense of everything else?
...
To be clear: in my view, a shareholder cares more than simply profit above all else. — Mikie

I think so too: Namely, the “class” of owners. The capitalists, really. Today that’s mostly owners of particular property, like stocks. — Mikie

I disagree.

It's not the owners who decide, in this more general sense. It's the property relationships themselves which form an environment that motivates the collective to behave in a particular pattern. So, seeing as there's an over and an under class -- as Marx said, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" -- the "decision" is made between two competing factions which, depending on how well they are organized, will set the price-point in a labor market.

Whether a particular shareholder cares more about profit is irrelevant to the effects that the state-enforced property relation which creates an environment which we creatures operate within with enough predictability to say "yeah, that company pretty much just wants to make money, and the laborers they employ pretty much just want as many benefits for as little as possible".

And why wouldn't you want more for less, after all? Doesn't that sound like a rational, self-interested desire?

Basically, I'd say that the structure of property over-rides any commitment a shareholder may have. They may look like they have power, but I'd say it's ephemeral.

We have a dog. What is the first member of its ancestor that is just like it such that our perception recognizes it as a dog.?Now that dog came from non-dog parents? That's not possible my friend. Who did it mate with? If you know how this works then explain it. This is all about philosophy and has nothing to do with how scientists see the world. — Gregory

So if this is all about philosophy and nothing about scientists, why are you arguing that species cannot be related to one another through mating?

The way this works -- that's what the scientists have laid out. And, if you don't feel like buying a book, there is a free version ;). I just like the Coyne book because it's easier to read.


Yeah.

Fair point.

I'll address the actual argument later. To treat it fairly, I'd have to do a bit more work -- and I'm not feeling like doing that now ;).

I agree.

I didn't, for instance, say that it's a true book. I just said I like it, and it'd be useful for you to read because it'd develop your philosophy better -- you'd be better able to appeal to people who disagree with you.

Now, to be honest, I believe evolution is true. But that shouldn't matter for all the points I'm making.

I like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True

It's an easy introduction to the theory that covers the physical evidence.

Now, probability or God -- that you will not find in the book. But evolution -- yes.

And I think, even if you disagree with evolution, it'd be useful for you to know what those who do believe in it believe and why they believe.

I pulled out the old Pluhar to look and see what I was talking about -- and I think you're right. I'll just post the quote that was in my head upon finding it to offer clarification on what you quoted:

In this treatise I deliberately refrain from offering definitions of these categories, even though I may possess them. I shall hereafter dissect these concepts only to a degree adequate for the doctrine of method that I here produce. Whereas definitions of the categories could rightly be demanded of me in a system of pure reason, here they would only make us lose sight of the main point of the inquiry. For they would give rise to doubts and charges that we may readily relegate to another activity without in any way detracting from our essential aim. Still, from what little I have mentioned about this, we can see distinctly that a complete lexicon with all the requisite explications not only is possible but could easily be brought about. The compartments are now at hand. They only need to be filled in; and a systematic [transcendental] topic, such as the present one, will make it difficult to miss the place where each concept properly belongs, and at the same time will make it easy to notice any place that is still empty. — CPR Pluhar translation, A83/B109

Maybe; dunno. Specific in what way? — Mww

Just in the way that multiple people can work with it, understand it, communicate about it, and even -- sometimes -- use it. Speaking about Kant we don't really use his categories as much as argue whether or not they are necessary for all the other stuff we do. It's a confusing logic, even if it is ultimately correct. With Kant's categories he is so certain that we know what he's talking about that he says we already know what he's saying.

Yet, here we are -- reading a transcript of a talk about different interpretations of modalities.

Not that one couldn't work this into Kant's project, necessarily... that's why I posited the as-such/transcendental distinction between different notions of logic. Especially because @Banno was emphasizing how this is just a way of talking, rather than a metaphysics. I think transcendental logic gets close to metaphysics in the wider sense of the philosophical tradition, while demarcating what is and isn't metaphysics by Kant's philosophy.

(3) Who decides (1) and (2)? — Mikie

(1) and (2) are decided by class, I think. It's not an individual which makes a labor market. Markets and profits and money are made possible by the modern nation state. And nations are ruled by class interests, first and foremost. Once those are satisfied then other projects can be taken on, and are taken on (usually as a way to demonstrate how one's nation is superior to another), but the ruling class will get theirs first (or the nation will collapse).

"Theirs", from my vantage, is however much they are able to get away with taking. So, in a backwards way, it's also up to the under-class as well as the over-class, because the under-class can push back and demand more (since the over-class depends on the under-class). But here "decision" and "fair" and "should" stop being efficacious, or at least honest if they are efficacious words. Seeing the labor market as a balance of power between classes changes it from a moral problem to a political one.

Logic has changed. Whether it has advanced, is questionable. All the basic conceptions of modern modal logic are already contained in Kantian metaphysics, and have been classified as such since Aristotle. — Mww

Hrmm... I think I'd say logic has changed considerably since Kant, and I'd say that it's for the better too. While Kant has the modalities as categories I'd say that's a problem with his logic -- Camus even makes a joke about that in The Myth of Sisyphus, so I always presumed it was understood that the modal categories are kind of funny in that they don't really spell out either a relation between objects (causality) or properties of objects (quality and quantity), but rather pick out judgments of a certain kind.

Modal logic is more specific than Kant's.

Furthermore, the categories are part of a transcendental logic, right? So we can easily see Kripke as contributing to logic, as such, to use Kant's distinctions. This is a pure logic rather than a transcendental logic. At least, this is how I'd put things. (The difference between logic as such and transcendental logic is... not easy to spell out. If this doesn't click, then this is probably as clear as I can be without more work.)

I paged through The Conscious Mind and found what you're saying about re-arranging neural circuits (while asleep or something) so when you wake up you experience the inverted spectrum.

I guess I don't think whether you phrase it with one or two people it matters too much. But that probably goes some way to explain why I don't believe experience is private, ala the private language argument.

I guess I'd say the inverted spectrum argument fits with your rendition here, from the way I think of things.

What you're saying is experience causes neural activity.

The inverted spectrum argument is meant to show how experience can be different between persons, and so it's a legitimate reference. When talking about "my blue", I am making a public distinction. "blue" after all, and "my" for that matter, are public meanings. And I'm noting how our experience of the world could be somewhat different, from a functional perspective. Would it really matter that my orgasm is the same as your orgasm, from the Darwinian perspective? No, it'd just have to be good enough to keep the species alive. And some people's orgasms might be somewhat sub-par, and hence that might be why they aren't as motivated by them.

Ach, sorry. Didn't hit the Reply, but the above is what I meant to reply to you.

I have an understanding of the hard problem.

I just didn't know how to answer your question.

I thought I set out my best understanding of the hard problem in my opening post. But you're saying you're not convinced I understand. And your rephrasing of my position was just confusing to me -- that's what I meant.

I think? I'm fine with being quizzed, but I don't have a firm answer to your first question.

There's a series of icons above the top of a reply screen. The one on the furthest left is a "B" for Bold. Then "I" for italics. As you go along one of them is an " @ " . If you click it a window will pop up with a field to enter a person's name. When I typed "180" @180 Proof immediately populated as an option.

This is also the case with @Banno or anyone -- just start typing the person's name in the field, and eventually you'll have an option to click on them.

So, would you believe me? I'm certain @Banno understands.

Free-for-all anarchy is my philosophy, so why not?

Where's the metaphysics of humor angle. :D

Heh, yeah fair.

Might as well note that Marxism can lazily take care of this problem through the dialectic. But the solution might be considered worse than the original problem. (still makes me giggle though, even though I shouldn't)

Would you believe me in saying @Banno and @180 Proof understand the problem?

At least, such is my belief. I think their contentions come from another philosophical perspective, is all. Both worth considering in thinking about consciousness philosophically.

I think that this is an odd tactic.

You can state what the hard problem is. And others find it unsatisfying. What are you hoping to get out of these repeated questions?

Yes, there is! I mean, the P-zombie argument has an obvious modal angle too, right? And for Chalmer's, again in memory and all that, the very conceivability of P-zombies demonstrates his point. (Actually, this gets to why I'm somewhat suspicious now... notice how close that looks to ye olde ontological argument?)

But, in terms of being more specific than "yes, there's a modal angle" -- I'd have to actually commit to something. :D

I just noticed the conversation kinda got into a lull and was still thinking about the hard problem so I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

Public/Private, though, are distinctions from a way of doing philosophy that is not the target of the hard problem -- the functionalist account of the mind.

They are public distinctions, of course. But I'm not sure that the inverted spectrum argument attempts to argue they are private.

Different between people, perhaps. But we both understand this, so it's not private.