Is it not relevant? If my mind is currently unreadable. No one esle can deduce what I'm thinking except me. Is it material? Is it physical? Because as far as I know the materialist view is everything is knowable from objective measurement. So if you cannot objectively measure my mind. What is my mind? Is it material? I doubt it — Benj96

So, are you declaring yourself a dualist?

We can follow the op or the line of reasoning that emerged out of it. You're not an authority to dictate what ought be discussed as it emerges. What right do you have to command other peoples thoughts? Sure we can created a new thread and maybe we will. In either case it has little to do with you. — Benj96

The guidelines confirm that the TPF moderators require posters to stay in line with the OP.
I would argue that we are, as we are discussing the validity of the concept of the immaterial which is part of what bar tricks wants us to measure as a compatible in his bizarre conflation with dualism.
His points have already evaporated as nonsense based on what members have posted so far on this thread. So, imo, he should be happy that a material/immaterial chat is still on going as his thread died on the first page. If a mod thinks we are too far off the OP, then they only have to say so. @Bartricks can PM a request to them.

But we can't can we? Because in order to exist we must be separate objects occupying individual space that creates opposing perspectives. In order to be exactly the same we have to occupy the same space simultaneously. Otherwise I'm 2 meters away from something whilst you're 1 meter away. And the two perspectives and sensations are fundamentally different. You think it's too hot 1m away from the fire but I 2m away think it's fine. — Benj96

Still no evidence for the existence of the immaterial!

They experience reality differently to those that can see. — Benj96

Just like science has many ways to detect what's going on in the universe without having to surrender to concepts like the immaterial.

The fact that I can keep information private from everyone else is by definition something that is no physical - something that it is impossible for others to ascertain with objective methods.
And if they tried I could cite invasion of privacy. An ethical Implication which would likely stand up in court even if you could scientifically extract the information from my mind by scanning. — Benj96

No it's not! It only involves a physical ability to decide to not speak and not tell me your current thoughts. Nothing immaterial is needed.
I don't think we want to get so far off topic that we start to discuss the legal situation as regarding a future neurological ability to mind read.

If you remove a hair I can't feel any fly/mosquito brushing against it. — Benj96

Even that is not true if the hair I removed had not yest broken through your skin!
You remove waste products for YOU all the time dont you? Do you still feel like YOU afterwards?

If force/energy is material Should we not be able to see it just like we can see matter - a cup of coffee on the table. — Benj96

How are the blind still able to experience a 'reality'?
You can 'feel the force/the gravity/the heat' is that not as good as seeing it?
Have you felf anything immaterial recently or ever?

But all brains are different no? Structured differently. Otherwise we would all have the same memories and think the same things simultaneously. — Benj96

We would if we experienced every life event since birth in exactly the same way.
Every electronic memory chip is identical in physical structure and functionality but they don't all hold the same software or data.

I'm saying that my mind is exactly such an example. If you have no access to the entirety of my minds content then it is by default immaterial to you. Unprovable with what's available to materialism. Without my input. — Benj96

Not at all! In what way is my inability to read your mind, evidence of the immaterial? I cant see the inside of a black hole, does that make its contents immaterial? is a black hole immaterial?

But I outlined a situation in which I don't volunteer the information verballyx but rather keep it to myself. — Benj96

Sure, one day science might be able to produce a toy which allows you to concentrate on a number and my brain scanner can tell you what the number is. It might not work every time but even once or twice would be impressive, yes? On what basis is you keeping your thought secret from another evidence that the immaterial exists. All that would be evidence for is the fact that you have the ability to not tell me what you are currently thinking!

But how do you empirically prove I'm experiencing it unless I tell you I am experiencing it? My internal thoughts are private to me are they not? Inaccesible by any study, objective measurement etc until I elucidate them verbally. — Benj96

Well, I could scan your brain and use the science we have, to see if the bits of the brain that should 'light up' or activate during dreaming or 'imagining,' do in fact 'light up' or 'activate'. I am not a neuroscientist, but I have watched various documentaries on what we currently understand is going on in the brain, and how brain activity maps to human activity/thought. We also have your confirmatory verbal input, to assist the process. I am not suggesting that such mapping of brain activity, can map perfectly on to a comment you might make such as 'I just thought of a unicorn with the feet of a lion,'
but we are progressing in neuroscience in very impressive ways.

But the hard problem of consciousness exists. To assume it doesn't means you have proof as to how my brains function gives rise to my sensations/emotions and feelings. And the imagination. — Benj96

I did not suggest that science has solved the hard problem of consciousness. I am suggesting that I dont know why you jump to woo woo words such as 'immaterial.' There is no evidence that the immaterial has an existing example. You are suggesting we can use the term credibly and confidently, in regard to phenomena such as human consciousness. I do not see where that confidence or credence comes from, but I do see where the confidence and credence come from when a word like 'material' is used in regard to human thought, as we have what is considered to be many detectable attributes of energy particles or energy field excitations.

If you had such a proof you'd be able to predict what I'm thinking now plus whatever I could possibly think of in the future.
Do you know who I am in my entirety? All my memories, experiences, beliefs and opinions, feelings? Does anyone?
Or are they strictly immaterial (non physical/not expressed/not written down) to everyone if I choose not to divulge them?
How would you, with a materialist explanation, account for the information in my mind that you cannot access? — Benj96

I don't claim to have telepathic ability, no, but again, nueroscience does know a respectable amount about the workings of the brain and what we don't yet know is a gap that does not require an immaterial plug.

If the immaterial doesn't exist then I suppose the material cannot do anything. It cannot be acted on, move etc. Because what would exist to do those things to the material? What fills in the gap between material things and allows them to move towards or away from eachother for example. — Benj96

There is no gap. The universe consists of different forms of material, nothing immaterial needs to be involved. Force/energy is material and energy does work so that material with mass can do stuff.

I doubt you can remove anything from me that isn't vital to my interpretation/sense of the world without impacting my consciousness — Benj96

How about a hair or a skin cell or a fingernail? How about a skin graft?

If you remove my vital organs I die. — Benj96

Artificial heart? Modified pig organs? heart, liver, kidney transplants?

Can light exist without darkness? Can poverty exist in isolation from wealth? Can sound exist without silence!? Can up exist without down? — Benj96

These are not alternative existents they are states of a quantity range. A dimmer switch demostrates that light and dark is part of the same range of states. As is poverty/wealth and up/down (same single dimension)

Can natural systems created artificial things? — Benj96

No but humans can. Plastic is not natural it is a human combinatorial but it's still real!
Artificial does not literally mean, 'not real.'

seeds and DNA. — Vera Mont

:lol: is that all that will be left of us in your scenario?
Now you are looking through that mirror you mentioned, too darkly!
Did you write a dystopian sci-fi book?

I wonder if it will take something like a catastrophic event such as climate change payback to unite us as a single species that currently exists on a single pale blue dot of a planet?
I hope not, I hope we can do better than that, as the cost in human lives could be very extreme indeed.
It seems I share many of your political viewpoints Vera, but I don't share your level of pessimism. I can only hope I never do. But then, I haven't walked your life path.
I am back to Rabbie Burns again.
I think I have now posted this 3 times on TPF, so my apologies but:
Wad some power the gift ti gie us.
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us.

It is easier to judge politicians on a state and local level than the national level. That's probably true in the UK, too. — Bitter Crank

I agree and I think it's such local level judgement that can best bring them down if they do prove to be nefarious. This is why I want to remove the current 'party protections' they have.

As for bitter crankery, it is just a handle, not a summation. It could be ishkabibble just as easily. Or universeness. — Bitter Crank

Now Ishkabibble would be at least comedic. Pistols at dawn if you try to steal my handle! :lol:
How about NotaBitterCrank?

So, I can't see North Korea or Sudan or Venezuela going along with whatever rules the UN might set up. — Vera Mont

Maybe through a carrot and stick style politics.

Power to the people! — Vera Mont

I hear you sister! (even though I suspect you are being sarky! :smile:)
Do you think 'people power' in the future, could reform the united nations into what it really could be, the conduit to a world government? Are you attracted to the concept of a world government via uniting nations?

I'm in favour of the UN setting up an international monitoring committee for the internet, assuming no major powers have a veto... and I know that it's about as realistic an expectation as that commercial owners of communications media will fact-check every item they print or broadcast or that politicians dependent on the support of special interests and religious sects would make informed, unbiased choices of topics to promote or suppress in public education. — Vera Mont

If you dont ask you dont get Vera! If there are enough people asking, then asking can quickly become demands and then if the demands are not met. We can start to demand the UN gets an update! OR ELSE......
The unlikely, even the very very very unlikely, is only so until people make it happen :strong:

I think what he meant was that there is information out there that we haven't yet obtained. Bigger truths that contextualised our differences of opinion. — Benj96

Carl actually used the term to confirm that atheism was not attempting to disprove god posits and used the phrase to support his point but I think the 'proof' substitution I suggested makes the phrase clearer, as the absence of any evidence to support a claim, does add significant credence to the idea that the claim has no existent, especially when the evidence remains zero as time goes forward.

And in what way does one "prove" something? I think it's with evidence no? The empirical.
So proof of absence is what in this case but lacking evidence to do so. — Benj96

You need to edit your last sentence above as it makes no sense. I agree with your text in the quote, before the last sentence.

There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial
— universeness
There isnt? Are you sure? — Benj96

Yes, I am currently convinced, the immaterial has no existent.

When i invent/construct in my mind a fantasy. There is no evidence for that fantasy existing except for me (the beholder of the fantasy contained in my mind - the immaterial, inaccessible to anyone else unless I speak. My. Mind).
The minute I write it down as a novel. It becomes real. Something physical that people can read and interpret/read/appreciate. I have shared my creativity and imagination with the world in that case. Something that was once private and inaccesible to anyone else. — Benj96

A human fantasy, constructed within a human mind is not immaterial, its real, you are really experiencing it, either in sleep or awake mode. Exactly what is immaterial in your fantasies? They are made of thoughts and thoughts are not immaterial, they are the results of combinatorial brain actions.
I think dualism is nonsense (as I have typed to you before, I do raise an eybrow to the idea of an emerging panpsychism and I agree that all of the 'ingredients' of human consciousness, must exist outwith humans, but still within this universe) and human consciousness exists ONLY in the brain. I think YOU are fundamentally, a brain, in that your brain is the most significant part of YOU.
I can remove most of the rest of you and you will still be able to act as a thinking human, if not a fully functioning one.

I guess the nature of matter is a feature of which flavour of quark you prefer. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps.

That the sensor detects a photon is a common misinterpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree as what is detected satisfies the human label 'photon' and is considered 'material.'
I accept that a photon is probably not geometrically shaped like the traditional snooker ball that it is sometimes depicted as or the geometric waveform is it also sometimes shown as. This is because we now think it is a field excitation but we cannot current show its actual shape. As you suggest, that might be because it does not have one that we will ever be able to physically see or even imply via detection but there is zero evidence for your suggestion that it is immaterial. It's utter conjecture to play the bar tricks game and suggest that the immaterial can create the material. That's just a god of the gaps inference.

I really can't understand what you are asking. I am using "immaterial" in the common way, as non-material, such as we would say that concepts have immaterial existence. Energy is nothing more than a concept. There is absolutely nothing in the world of matter which "energy" represents. It is very similar to "time" in that respect. We use the concept freely, but there is nothing material in the world which is represented by it. So if we try to reify it, to say that there is something real which is represented by it, we end up being forced to say that there is something real which is immaterial. That's what happens when we try to reify concepts. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you do understand what I am asking. But I can be more direct if you wish. I am asking if your dalliance with the term immaterial leaves room in your psyche for god posits?

the conclusion that there is something outside the universe. In other words, that there is something outside the universe is a logical conclusion produced from our current conception of "the universe". — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I accept that's your conclusion and you are certainly not alone in that. The many worlds/multiverse/oscillating universe proposals and many many more, all have credence levels that individuals assign to them, from the novice to the expert. These are backed up by various logical, fairly coherent proposals but none of them have sufficient evidence to be as overwhelmingly convincing as theories/facts such as the evolution of species or the rules of arithmetic.

Do you label concepts, being artificial instead of natural, as supernatural? — Metaphysician Undercover

Artificial is material artificial intelligence for example is emulation and emulation is real. Artificial simply means made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural. The terms supernatural and immaterial, belongs in god posits imo.

Here is an interesting viewpoint from Victor Toth on Quora. He is a popular poster of answers to physics questions.

The question posted was:
Do you agree with this statement: "Matter can be created and destroyed but energy cannot"?

Victor's response was:
The concept of “matter” is surprisingly ill-defined. Different branches of physics would consider different things “matter”. To a cosmologist, for instance, or a relativist, everything that is not gravity is “matter”. A particle theorist might consider, e.g., fermions “matter” and bosons as particles that mediate forces. Others may have different views. In any case, “matter” is not a quantitative concept, so creating or destroying matter is also ill-defined.

So whether you view the annihilation of a particle-antiparticle pair into a pair of photons the “destruction of matter” or just a conversion from one form of matter into another is, to a large extent, a matter of taste.

Energy is a constant of the motion in systems that are described by equations that are invariant under time translation. To the best of our knowledge, all finite closed physical systems (systems that do not communicate with their environment) have this invariance, but we do not know if this property can be extended, e.g., to the universe as a whole.

An accurate response imo.

All you have to do is take a look at what energy is, and you'll see that it is not something directly measured. The quantity of energy which is said to be attributed to any object or any specific location, is always the product of a calculation — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't know what energy IS. A photon has associated quantum numbers which are attributes of a photon but are not enough to reveal the 'material' of a photon. A photoelectric sensor can 'detect' a photon, which to me, is evidence that it is not immaterial.

Would you agree that energy is material as opposed to immaterial?
— universeness

No, I would obviously not agree to that. Since energy is never sensed, it is only the product of a calculation, it must be immaterial, as a conception only. — Metaphysician Undercover

in what way are you using 'immaterial' here? as a synonym with supernatural? If not, then do you have other synonyms you would accept for 'immaterial' as you use it here?

Yes, I think there is necessarily a beyond the universe. This is because "the universe" is a materialist conception, based on all that is material, and sensible. But we can understand, through the concept of energy, that there is necessarily an immateril aspect of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you have any 'descriptions' or even 'attributes' of that which you perceive exists 'outside' of this universe. Does it have special dimensions? Is any of its 'substances' quantisable? Any structure?
Can 'stuff' from here go there and vice versa? Is every 'planck length' here connected to the 'outside' you envisage. Can you refer to 'outside' this universe without suggesting an existent which we would currently label 'supernatural'?

I suppose I can spell it out for you. Once upon a time, decades ago, I had a disagreement with someone about philosophy, politics, or religion (can't remember) and they called me a bitter crank. The irony is that I was not / am not bitter, and in my opinion, not a crank either. I thought it a novel and amusing brickbat to turn into a bouquet. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I accept, you are in fact in reality, the opposite of what your chosen handle suggests. (Hence my use of 'Ironic.') I don't think it was a wise choice for an internet discussion forum. People make assumptions based on your chosen identifier and you are then left with the choice to dispell the assumption that you are bitter and cranky (as you are choosing to do right now) or decide to 'not care' about the assumptions of others. I do care about such incorrect assumptions, so I don't invite them unnecessarily, by using an ill-chosen handle.

If you still don't get it, or don't like it, then... too bad. — Bitter Crank

I do get it, I still don't like it, but I have no choice but to accept your 'too bad' :smile:

Thanks for your description of the remit of the US civil service .

I do not like the conduct of politics, but it is absurd to suppose that it can be done away with. Given the reality of politics, the best policy is to stay alert to what is going on above and below the table. That's what a free press is supposed to help us do. An eviscerated press can't perform it's vital functions. — Bitter Crank

I agree that a free press is essential to any democratic governance system. I accept your opinion that getting rid of governance based on an elected political party majority or by coalition is absurd. My only response to your opinion is to accept that the burden lies with me, and those who agree with me, that it can be done, and that governance via elected independents, would benefit the human race far more than current governance based on an elected political party. I hope for a future, where example nations can be pointed to combat your current opinion. Neither of us are likely to be around at the time but, hey ho, who knows.
Btw, even in our current party-political system in the UK, you can stand as an independent.

Politics exists because people have an appetite for power and preferences for particular policies.

The way to make politics really dangerous is to deny it exists. Some people apparently suppose that people conduct election campaigns, get elected, and then sit in legislatures or congress and engage in pristine impartial procedures to produce laws for the equitable good of all. Horse shit, of course. It's also dangerous to under rate the intensity of partisan motivation. There really are very ambitious people who covet power most greedily. — Bitter Crank

I think politics exists because people see the wisdom of living and working as a collective, driven by common cause. It's ruined due to the existence of a powerful, well established dynastic history of a nefarious few and the residue of such horrors as religion and the divine right of kings/messiahs/aristocracies/plutocracies etc to rule or govern. I certainly don't advocate for denying politics exist. Your quote above, 'concentrates' on those in politics who are nefarious. It just seems that everyone in politics is nefarious. But that is actually not true, at all! Do you accept that? or do you really think every politician is nefarious?

In systems which don't use proportional representation that's how things technically work. Here in the UK you vote for an individual to represent your constituency.
It just happens to be that this individual has joined with like-minded others to pool their resources. — Michael

But that's not what happens in reality. You will be familiar with terms like 'safe tory seat.' or 'the red wall' etc, and you will have heard phrases like 'you could put a red rosette on a donkey, here, and it would get elected.' This is because many people vote blindly, for a party and not a candidate.
Many people don't scrutinise the candidate, they simply vote based on loyalty to the mission statements of a party. Often, these main party tenets, are not supported by the individual candidate wearing the correct colour of rosette for you. Tony Blair and Keir Starmer are absolute shades of tory blue (which is why Thatcher called Blair her greatest achievement) or liberal yellow. They are not socialists imo. I would not vote for either of them, if they stood in the constituency, I lived in.
People would be unable to be 'lazy minded' regarding their politics if they had to think a lot more about the individual independent candidates standing, instead of just voting for a traditional colour.
Many people/constituencies have demonstrated that they will change their traditional vote for a colour, due to being attracted to some clever sound bite-based, cult of personality that got a horror like Boris Johnstone elected in the UK, much of 'the red wall, turning blue.' Party politics is toxic in todays 'sound bite,' internet based political cult of personality, realpolitik.

I'm not really sure how you could take parties out of the political process. Perhaps by not having the party mentioned on the voting slip, just the candidate's name? I think in practical terms that will just reduce voter turnout as most people probably wouldn't know who the actual individuals are or what they plan to vote for, whereas they do understand parties. — Michael

It would require a countrywide political movement. I think an independent Scotland is a good candidate for such a change as the ruling party (SNP) would have to reinvent itself anyway, after independence.
Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow! I live in hope (not a forlorn hope imo.) that if enough people share my view that we need to get rid of party politics (It's a view held by a significant number of people.)
and if they say so and write so, whenever they/we can. Then I hope we can convince others and turn the idea into a movement for such change. Groups for progressive politics such as 'COMPASS' in the UK, may be a conduit. These are groups, interested in progressive politics rather that party politics and they could be a way forward. Getting the balance correct is crucial. I don't want a future government made up of independents that are all members (or a majority are members) of a group such as COMPASS.
So, I would suggest some 'cap' on how many members of 'particular groups' can stand as independent candidates for governance.
If a person agrees that party politics, produces too many governments, which run a country based on the interests of the party, much more than the interests of the people, then they should consider alternative systems which removes party politics from governance. I don't agree we can simply remove the rosettes and party ID from the ballot papers. I would replace political parties with a national political structure.
Everyone interested in politics can join this single group. Every area would have local branches. This is where all independent candidates would come from. I can go into the details of how I think this national institution would function at a local level, if you want me to.

The population of Scotland is less than the population of the state of Massachusetts, where I live. Given that, it makes a better test case for your reforms than a much larger country would. — T Clark

I agree. If Scotland does achieve independence, then the main goal of the political party (SNP, Scottish National Party) would have been achieved, so they would have to reconstruct themselves anyway. Perhaps that would offer a chance of major change.

It relates in the way that even if you have parties, it's actually difficult to know just what a candidate stands for even if there belong to parties. — ssu

Does that not support my position that we should get rid of political parties?

How would you know what kind of asshole in the end you are voting? Political candidates will likely talk only about issues that everybody is against and likely just say that they will solve the problem. — ssu

Not everyone is nefarious. People are well known by many locally. "I went to school with him/her etc"
I trust local scrutineer's more than I trust voting for whichever suit the part rosette is pinned to, don't you feel the same way? I can go meet the independent candidates and ask them my questions. They don't know what my questions are, and they have no national political party horror to stand behind.
I think people would be able to make much more informed decisions about independent candidates compared to those with million-pound dodgy party-based advertising campaigns behind them with well-formed disingenuous pre-prepared sound bites, they can use to speak in tandem with all over the nation.

They will likely shut up about really problematic issues. And how will they pass legislation? With whom? It takes a majority to pass legislation. That's team work, not individuals doing their own thing. — ssu

If they do so, then I wouldn't vote for that candidate! Individuals who find common cause on an issue will vote the same way and the common cause must be based on the viewpoints of those who voted them in. That's what I think a government of independents would produce.

I wasn't saying you are bitter or a crank. I was saying your politics is nearer his than mine. — T Clark

I know you weren't, I was just responding to your comparison of us both. I would agree that I probably have more political common ground with Mr Crank than Mr Clark!

It doesn't matter whether or not I'm convinced. It matters what will work and what won't. — T Clark

It does matter because I, and those who agree with me, need to convince you, to support us enough to gain the numbers we need to democratically demonstrate that there is majority support in the country to get rid of the current party political system and employ the system we advocate for. If the movement for such change was here in the UK or where I think it could really happen, an Independent Scotland, then convincing you, would only matter, if you lived in that independent Scotland.
The fact remains, convincing others is essential if you want change. That's the chance to demonstrate that your system will work!

But if new group are formed after each election, that could be detrimental also: you simply wouldn't know what de facto your candidate will choose. It's the basic "problem" with coalition governments: you might pick a President in direct elections, but you never know who will be the prime minister as usually it's the one who finally gets the administration together, which might not be the leader of the largest party. — ssu

Let's say you have 700 constituencies in your country. So, 700 independents are elected based on a local single transferable vote system. They become the government. The old government remains in place until the new government is 'brought up to speed,' got to know each other via debate topics etc.
Probably a 2-to-three-month job. In that time they will elect amongst themselves all necessary ministerial positions and who will serve as prime minister.
Prime minister and ministers would be held in high esteem and would be the main spokespersons for the departments they would head but individually, they would have no more political power than any other member of the government. The members could vote to replace the prime minister or any other minister anytime they decided to. The civil servants would do all the admin.
The government would govern on an issue by issue basis. Common cause would be the driver of what actions the government takes. A majority vote of the 700 will decide, issue by issue. Each representative would be moderated by their own local constituency group and the government as a whole, would be further moderated by the second chamber of citizens.

Now you wouldn't know which faction you would be voting for. If your an American, perhaps this idea is strange because you have just two parties, but in reality specific candidates would be hard to notice just what they represent. — ssu

But I am not typing about how the current American system works I am advocating for replacing it.

I assume that you also have these "election surveys" where you can answer a question set from a broad variety of political issues and then get the candidates that are closest to you (and the most against your ideas). Usually in multiparty system you'll easily get the parties that are most against you, but many candidates that have answered the questions most according to you are from different parties. Some that you would never vote. — ssu

How does this relate to my suggestion of removing party politics altogether?

The only viewpoint under consideration when it comes to voting is deciding which person you want to decide matters for you. — NOS4A2

But voting is also a way to change that. I would vote for someone who believes in getting rid of party-political systems.

We're both pretty liberal. I think you're a bit more on the Bitter Crank branch of the party though. — T Clark

Well, you probably know my preferred labels by now, humanist/socialist/democrat/atheist/optimist etc.
I could not use an ID such as Bitter Crank. I don't find it ironic, and I have told him that I don't understand his choice of 'handle' based on his postings. A liberal in the UK is a 'soft tory,' so I would never call myself a UK liberal. A US liberal, I would find more acceptable but still not left-wing enough for me.

It only matters what is possible and sustainable. I don't believe the system you describe is either. — T Clark

Fair enough, I can only hope you will be convinced differently in the future, if those who agree with me and those who I agree with, ever number enough to democratically create such a system.

Your viewpoint seems a very large distance away from where I am.
I think we would struggle to find any common ground.
I agree with those who think that those who don't vote, stand on shakey ground, when they still want to be heard or have their viewpoints considered.

You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties. — NOS4A2

Is that not a reason for getting rid of both of them and every other political party and you voting for the local independent who best matches your viewpoints? PR and the single transferable vote are essential imo. Universal suffrage has to be the foundation of any democratic voting system.

I agree that many would find common cause, in fact I am relying on it. You and I disagree on many issues, but we do find some common ground on occasion. I doubt we would ever be members of the same political party, but we might vote the same way on certain issues. That's what we need. Issue by issue politics. Political independents, fighting for the interests of their own voters, who will negotiate and find common cause with other independents, who make up the government. It would be up to the second chamber and the civil servants to identify any unacceptable stealth tactics in use or any backroom deals in play when individual representatives vote.
Each representative would also have to answer every month, to their local constituency group. These groups would be made up of local volunteer, qualified and experienced stakeholders that reflect/mimic the elected second chamber of citizens. This constituency group would be there to ensure that the government representative was representing the will of the people who voted for them. The constituency would have the power to call for a local re-election, if it was strongly felt that the elected representative was not voting in the way they expected.

The whole set of immaterial can also be made discrete as it is a (whole set of things). And thus my Duality proposal is set on that basis. — Benj96

Car Sagan has always been a very important influence in my life. He used the phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' It's one of the very very few statements he has ever uttered that I don't fully agree with. I would agree that 'absence of evidence is not proof of absence.'
There is zero evidence of the existence of the immaterial (especially when used as a synonym of supernatural) there is no evidence of such a set. Concepts such as dark energy or dark matter are materials/energies we can't yet detect but they are not immaterial.

:up:

Smaller reforms in the way politics operates are a better bet. Maintaining open access to the polls, for instance, is one such approach. Conservatives (in the US) have tended to erect barriers to voter access. Or, recently, they have tried to eliminate voting by mail. Public financing of campaigns is another smaller idea. — Bitter Crank

I would accept trying all of the above and see if any of them improve on the status quo.
We must be at or very near the bottom by now so any improvements would be welcome I'm sure.

We could, for instance, select people at random to fill seats in Congress or Parliament. — Bitter Crank

That would be madcap, which is why I don't and didn't suggest it.

even IF some scheme were devised that would eliminate the emergence of political parties, it would require some sort of heavy handed administrative body to enforce it. The anti-political administration would end up being worse than the political parties. — Bitter Crank

Well, I dont know the name of the current body of such political facilitators in the USA, but in the UK the body you describe is called the civil service. They often have interesting relationships with individual politicians and some people, see them as the one who hold the 'real' levers of power.
This has been dramatised seriously and comedically many times on British TV with programs such as Yes Minister etc. So, such admin bodies exist already in party political systems. I don't see how a government of independents, locally elected, would make that situation any worse. I think the job of civil servants would be made much easier without party politics and I think the civil servants would be kept in check by the second 'citizens chamber' I described earlier.

It's fair play to fire some arrows back in the direction they are coming from towards yourself or towards others unjustly.

(as you see I have up on the formal language we once argued about with some weeks ago) lol — Benj96

:lol: Yeah, nothing wrong with a little use of the words that are italicised(BS) and those that required a few *'s. The mods will tell you/me when we have used up our ration for the thread.

I have always typed about the perfect system being unattainable but that we should still strive towards it.
I remain interested in actual suggestions people have on how people on the internet could be better protected and how such protections could be enacted without too undue impact on personal freedom of speech or expression.

I would say your concern regarding the size of the populous being represented and the doubt you express regarding an alternative to party political systems, is probably the majority viewpoint at the moment. However think about the advantages of removing the 'party loyalty,' aspect of politics. In UK politics you have this ridiculous idea of 'whipping' party members. You even have a ridiculous job called the chief whip. The labels used betray how undemocratic party politics can be. Then there is the issue of internal party factions. You get stupid labelling such as 'the left of a right-wing party' and the right of a left-wing party and even occasions when they may join each other and become a new centralist party.
All such nonsense detracts from the much more important actual issues that face the country and the people these party donkeys represent. You also have the awful situation that people will vote for the party and not the candidate. So, if a complete fruit loop stands as a republican in a gerrymandered republican area then it will get elected and everyone the fruit loop represents, suffers for it.
Do you not agree that these are some of the reasons why politics are so toxic at the moment?

It seems to me that coalitions are in general less harmful when compared to any significant party majority. Surely a government of independents who were actually voted in because they have convinced people at a local level that they have their best interests at heart is got to be better that voting for a party label, and not a person.

I think there have to be established and enduring institutions that provide vision and continuity. — T Clark

Why do we need this in politics? We need it in many other aspects of life, I agree, from the Army to the Rotary clubs but why do we need opposing political armies? Party politics has not not shown itself to be a good system, surely, we can do better.
Why did America bring in mid-term elections, was it not as a check, a balnce to ensure that things could not get too bad and go to far before the people had another input of consent?
I think midterms became a good idea in America based on what can happen, if you allow a government based on a party majority, to go full term, before any such checks and balances in place.

Not neccesarily.
One and two equals three. Two pieces of eight of pie and six pieces of the same eight equals a whole pie. — Benj96

1+2 = 3, 1 and 2 is 12. If you want to apply the concept of 'and' arithmetically then to me that mean to place them contiguously. Words are created by 'anding' letters. I know that + and 'and' are conflated together in many ways. Some of them may even be useful and convenient but to me + means to add together. I come from a computing background and if 1,2 are inputs and the operator is + then the output will be 3 and YOU CANNOT get the original inputs back again. You cannot reassemble the cake once it is smashed on the floor. If you use 1 and 2 then you do maintain the original inputs in the result (output).