That the two states are inseparable. — Benj96

Bingo!!!

How do we tie this into different philosophical schools of thought? — Benj96

Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.

Sooner or later you will have the crisis — ssu

This part I agree with.

Is your point that debt causes hyperinflation?

I dont think much of what you wrote there is directly related to the present situation.

All nations are following the same example. And that's why a dollar crisis wouldn't be a crisis of the US, it would be a crisis for the West. — ssu

China isn't in the west. China doesn't follow western policies.

It would be good actually to see what economists and commentators said earlier. Reasons like why there wouldn't be any inflation because of the COVID stimulus packages and the huge increase in spending. There was even the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that was eagerly listened to. Even if the MMT did understand that somewhere inflation would be a problem, it wouldn't be now. Especially not for the US. — ssu

I guess, but the stimulus was meant to keep the global economy from crashing, so what would you have advised instead?

And thus I keep repeating on the absolutely massive Trump era COVID stimulus packages in addition to the out of control spending that the US has. — ssu

I think you're forgetting that the US is part of a global system. The US can overspend without developing hyper-inflation as long as China doesn't have high inflation. The problem right now is that everybody's inflation is on the high side. Even Japan's inflation rate is going up (which usually never happens).

Right now we're in a self-propelling cycle. Wages are up because spending is up, and vice versa. Even though there are signs that we may already be in a recession, inflation continues along it's own trail.

:up:

I was going to try to answer you, but I fell down a rabbit hole of comparing Newton's ideas of motion to Descartes'. Apparently Newton didn't like the fact that Descartes put God outside of the world. This is reminding me of the way Aristotle's Prime Mover is outside the world.

The big shift from Descartes to Newton is inertia. Descartes still had the Aristotelian idea that a moving object has to be continuously propelled by a "mover." This meshes with the idea that creation and preservation are the same thing.

I'll have to come back to this. Too tired. :yawn:

This equation between creation and persistence is what I am trying to wrap my head around. Is this to say that, unlike Aristotle's understanding of properties that can be predicated to a specific subject (which persists for some finite period), substance is a set of conditions which a 'distinction of reason' can view in a different light? — Paine

I'm just spit-balling, but that passage you quoted has the same reasoning as one of Aristotle's proofs of God, so I'm guessing that this kind of thinking was just part of his world. Maybe @Manuel could comment?

Speaking of that, a reading of Aristotle's proofs of God would be fun, wouldn't it?

This is an interesting video. It touches on how the west can import deflation from China to offset policies that would normally cause inflation. Supposedly that happened in the last decade. Ignore the flashy title. It seems like all YouTube videos have hyperbolic titles these days.

Chalmers is not hypostatizing, he is not imputing substance to consciousness. — hypericin

True. But at the end of the day, he doesn't claim to be able to explain first person data. He wants science to do that. :smile:

It seems significant his claim is not simply that God sustains us but must do so from moment to moment. — Fooloso4

It's one of Aristotle's proofs of God that in order for a thing to move, it has to be propelled moment by moment by God. I think we would translate "God" in this case as inertia.

That adds an interesting additional factor. — wonderer1

He was a fascinating guy, cruising all over Europe doing whatever he felt like doing. Think of him when you use your GPS. He invented the math that engineers use to design them.

should have a detailed response either in this thread or a new thread. — Francis

Cool, thanks! Looking forward to it.

there are many other things in them; and I tell you, between ourselves, that these
six Meditations contain all the foundations of my physics. But that must not be
spread abroad, i

His biography says he was actively trying to get in touch with esotericists in Europe, along the lines of Freemasons. We know he actually was acquainted with a member of one of them, but that member never revealed the association.

I wonder if the Meditations are related to that, or maybe the experience he had before he invented algebraic geometry.

Panpsychism is not the conclusion of the p-zombie argument.
— frank

You are talking nonsense — apokrisis

No, I'm not:

"Chalmers (1996) set out five arguments against the view that there is an a priori entailment from physical facts to mental facts — and so for the view that zombies are conceivable. ...the point being that his opponents ‘will have to give us some idea of how the existence of consciousness might be entailed by the physical facts’, when (assuming the other arguments work) ‘any attempt to demonstrate such an entailment is doomed to failure’ (1996, p. 104)." ---SEP

The conceivability argument is an epistemic argument against materialism, starting with an epistemological premise and proceeding to a metaphysical conclusiom.

He doesn't argue against materialism in this paper. He explains that the conceivability argument is a potential threat to a materialist view. In this paper, he's examining a Hegelian fusion of materialism and dualism. And please note the spirit in which you were supposed to examine the argument presented:

"In this article I will present an argument for panpsychism. Like most philosophical
arguments, this argument is not entirely conclusive, but I think it gives reason to take the view
seriously. Speaking for myself, I am by no means confident that panpsychism is true, but I am
also not confident that it is not true. This article presents what I take to be perhaps the best
reason for believing panpsychism. A companion article, “The Combination Problem for
Panpsychism”, presents what I take to be the best reason for disbelieving panpsychism."

No ontological conclusions are being drawn from it.
— frank

Panpsychism is an ontological claim. — apokrisis

Panpsychism is not the conclusion of the p-zombie argument. The conclusion is that a functionalist will have to explain how an explanation of functional consciousness also explains phenomenal consciousness.

The “evidence” is that standard physicalism or functionalism fail to explain consciousness - which is an epistemic claim. — apokrisis

I don't know what "standard physicalism" has to do with this topic. The stance of a functionalist is that explaining function also explains phenomenal. Chalmer's p-zombie argument shows that the functionalist will have to explain how that works.

I think functionalism is mostly defunct at this point, so it's not a major bone of contention.

But couldn't the same questions be asked about traditional medicine? If we successfully treat various types of cancer (which we do), could we be interfering with a larger beneficial process? We'll know when we know, right?

The point of the argument is that if there were a creature that looked and acted like a human being, there would be no empirical way of telling whether they were subjects of experience or not.
— Wayfarer

But why spin this epistemological argument as if it were a ontological one? — apokrisis

It's not ontological. It's about whether an explanation of functional consciousness also explains phenomenal consciousness. No ontological conclusions are being drawn from it. It's about whether the job of science ends at explaining function.

Drones strike Moscow.

:grimace:

We happily accept the idea of a physical quantity – a measure of "stuff" or substantial being, such as charge. — apokrisis

:confused:

If Chalmers doesn't think consciousness is an object...then why does he speak about it like it is? — NOS4A2

Oh, you're right. He does think it's an object. The Hard Problem is about how to locate that little Soul Bean in the human head. :up:

Are you coming to a point here, frank? — NOS4A2

The point was that abstractions are all over the place. Science is full of them. Charge is an example of an abstraction that is often misunderstood. We could pursue that if you're interested.

Otherwise, just know that Chalmers did not think consciousness is an object like an apple. He knew it's an abstraction.

Thanks for the lesson, but I'm pretty sure I wrote "electrometer". — NOS4A2

An electrometer is just a high precision voltmeter.

I'm pretty sure you can directly measure electrical charge with an electrometer. — NOS4A2

See how strongly we hold onto these reifications? No, an analog voltmeter allows a little bit of current to go through a wire that's in a magnetic field. That moves the needle. If there's a lot of current, we deduce that there's a lot of voltage. Voltage itself is potential. With the same voltage (from a dynamic source like a generator), all sorts of events are possible, the determining factor being the load.

But if you conclude from this that voltage doesn't exist, you're likely to become a member of the 110 Club.

Can we measure charge? — NOS4A2

Not directly. The idea of charge is closely related that of force. They're both calculations based on things we can directly measure.

According to David Chalmers* it is undeniable that “some organisms are subjects of experience”. He says it is “widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis”. In order to develop a proper theory of experience, it might be better to “take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time”.

The problem is: when we look around for what it is Chalmers is talking about we come up empty-handed. The language isn’t helpful when it comes to pointing to what it is in the world the word “experience” signifies. Despite the claims, nothing “arises”, nothing “emerges”, nothing “gives rise” to anything else. Rather than “something it is like”, there appears nothing it is like. — NOS4A2

If you looked around for a charge, you'd also come up empty handed. A charge is potential energy. It's an analysis of what's possible. It's not an object. Events arise from a charge in pretty much the same way I picked out black paint because I like how it looks.

A massive dumpster fire then that election. Something that I'm not keenly looking forward to. — ssu

Yes. It's going to suck. If the number of people running in the Republican primaries is high, that helps Trump. His base is solid, so the others just split the 70% that's left. If Republicans really don't want Trump representing them, they'd have to get their shit together and stand united behind an alternative. I don't expect that to happen.

So really, if a Republican doesn't want Trump, it would be best to become a swing voter.

St. Augustine also prayed to God to make him chaste -- but not yet. A similar statement was made by Martin Luther -- "sin boldly, but let your trust in Christ be stronger" (edited for brevity) — BC

:grin: It just occurred to me that both of those statements sound like Kierkegaard. According to him, the greatest faith is to believe that God accepts you as you are, in this moment, with all your screw-ups.

Trying that out changes the way I see other people. Instead of being offended, I see how they're just like me. I think the true Knight of Faith would be the one who accepts people like Hitler, though. To accept that all that bloodshed is accepted by God just changes what God is supposed to be.

I read about the ethics of love in a book on situational ethics (by Fletcher?). Yes, if one decides to get out of the box, to drop the 10 commandments, the list of laws in the Pentateuch, or Hammurabi's code, and let love be one's guide, one pretty much has to think out of the box, at least to get one bearings. — BC

I'm just not emotionally mature enough to live that way. It hinges on self-love, which isn't exactly nurtured in my society. You know what I mean? Or maybe that's just me.

The people like Dorothy Day whose life I find admirable and inspiring, may have been guided by simple Christian love, but they also dug deep into Christian tradition for more specific guidance, and found it. — BC

Right. We all reach outward for moral guidance. That's just normal. One of the best ways to stay moral is to only hang out with people who have a strong moral outlook. If you hang out with gang members all the time, you'll end up just like them: no morals.

The first 4 sentences are coherent. The last, 5th sentence, doesn't follow. — BC

I was asking you to think outside the box for a second. Morality is a code of conduct. You can't codify the dictates of love, so the golden rule is nihilistic. "Love and do what you will.". That was Augustine's interpretation.

It's meaningful to me to see it as nihilism. If it's not meaningful to you, that's fine with me.

I don't either. — BC

Morality is typically defined as a collection of rules. Moral realism says these rules have their source in something that transcends the human psyche.

The golden rule requires a person to look within, to their own love for themselves to find the right path. Love replaces rules. The golden rule is moral nihilism.

What you find hateful [harmful], do not do to anyone.

That actually is moral nihilism. It's saying that the higher law is love. So the answer would be that the only alternative to moral realism is nihilism, but a nihilist isn't necessarily a monster. It could be a very loving, self sacrificing individual.

Probably a direct result of growing up so poor... much easier to satisfy! — creativesoul

I think you're just not greedy, so your vision isn't clouded by that.

You're ahead of your time. :grin:

Inflation IS an increase in retail price/consumer cost. — creativesoul

The CPI, yes.

The cause of inflation is the desire to maximize/increase profit. I personally like for the demand to be higher than I can meet. I do not raise my prices. I have people waiting in line. I could raise the prices. I don't. Does that make me a bad business owner? Some may say so. I'm content and satisfied with what I can make at the prices I have. — creativesoul

A social overhaul would be necessary for that to be meaningful to anyone. In other words, you're stepping out of your time in history to make that observation. It gets lonely analyzing the earth from a vantage point on the moon, so it's a rare insight.

You're touching on one of the reasons I'm so interested in the present situation (other that I'm trading forex and I use fundamentals to pick entries). One of the threats hanging over us now is stagflation. The last episode of severe stagflation ushered in the present neoliberal age. So I wonder if a second episode of it would change our priorities again, and if so, about when would that happen, and what would it look like?

Mark Blyth suggested that any economic crisis will be explained in terms of its solution. There could be multiple solutions, and so potentially different economic theories depending on which path the society takes.

I'm denying that printing money causes inflation. — creativesoul

It would cause inflation all other things being equal. It would increase demand.

Supply shocks also cause inflation, obviously.

What are you identifying as the cause of inflation?

Printing money to provide stimulus in 2009 did not result in inflation(that's not the only counterexample either). Printing money in 2020 to provide stimulus purportedly did. — creativesoul

The money that was delivered to banks to prop up the banking system in 2009 was all paid back, so liquidity rose, but then dropped again.

The 2020 stimulus eclipsed TARP by a large margin and there is no clear path to reducing that liquidity. I mean, it's not the only reason inflation high, but it's definitely a significant factor.

Don't forget the retirees on fixed income. — jgill

But social security got a bump up recently didn't it?

They think they're "owed" pussy. Having to buy it is humiliating — RogueAI

It's the entitlement thing, yes.