It might be wise to expand on that a little. What would you like to discuss? The accuracy of the alleged facts you present, or their significance, or both?

Applied ethically, I think educating the people and arming them is the best solution against tyranny and injustice. — Bob Ross

I struggle to imagine how that could work out well.

Oh, indeed, I agree

Tories are in power for the bulk of the time. Do you believe they are more interested in providing services or cutting public spending? I would argue that their overriding interest is cutting public spending, and they are biased by this. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I agree. But the state is more than the executive. There are tensions within a state, like the tension between a Tory government and its obligation to deliver services. It's parliament and the judiciary's role to prevent Tories completely screwing benefits in an excess of Tory classism. An elected Tory government has a mandate to reallocate spending away from benefits to an extent, but never to scrap them altogether. In a democracy, that's just tough luck on benefit recipients. Yes, there is a conflict of interest between benefit claimants and a Tory government, but managing that by providing an extra-state safeguard would be anti-democratic and indeed unconstitutional - parliament would not be sovereign. The solution is to win the policy argument.

Well, that the cat ought be on the mat is either true, or it is false... unless you have some alternative? — Banno

It is true from the cat's sleepy perspective, false from the perspective of the visitor to the house. Can you derive a contradiction from that?

The conflict of interest is too great to leave it to the state. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I know what you mean, but I don't think that actually makes sense. The purpose and 'interest' of that state is, in part, to deliver statutory services including benefits. So it isn't in the state's interests to not deliver those services. Of course it has to balance its commitments. The big failure of the state in the UK and elsewhere is the redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle economic classes to the already rich.

You can't have a body independent of the state deciding how a state will spend its money - that would be a disaster.

Generally my government policy is to starve it: I'd rather give the people too much control over themselves than the government too much control over the people. — Bob Ross

But then who protects the weak from the strong? What happens to the rule of law?

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. It seems to me that it's primarily private interests that take any 'excess of power and productivity'. States are not perfect of course for a range of reasons, but at least taxes get partially returned in some way in the form of services, infrastructure etc. The returns on private investment are lost forever to the wealthy.

I broadly agree but perhaps for different reasons. A moral system doesn't connect to behaviour. The agent has to go further and say "Yea, I will adopt that system and abide by it." And that's a matter of will and not reason. Even if you prove that murder is bad for a million reasons, a murderer can still respond "Yeah, I see all that. I just really like stabbing people, and that is more important to me than anything else. I'm going to keep going."

How come the state doesn't have enough money for public services then?

I guess you vote SNP up there in Scotland? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, but I'd rather vote Green. Electoral reform and a wealth tax, in that order, are my main political wishes. Then people can start taking an interest in the big issues like climate change when their vote counts and they're not in survival mode.

Even Reform abstained, and they're no friend of people on benefits. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I suppose they are very anti-state interference, even against people on benefits.

I do wonder if this is an expensive draconian solution to a non-problem. Apparently it's nearly 4% of benefit expenditure is overpaid. Is that a massive problem compared to other problems? So 4/100 people get a bit more than they are entitled to? Compare that to billionaires not paying taxes.

There is literally no greater danger in this world than the incompetence (and occasional malice) of governments. — Tzeentch

What about private companies? The state is the only thing we have to protect us against them. Good systems of public governance are essential to mitigating both threats I suppose.

If you want to know the types of damage: evictions, suicides, children being taken away, children being never found again, etc. - people and families utterly ruined at the hands of the state. — Tzeentch

I heard about that. Sounded awful

Oh, you appear to be right, I just can't quite believe it. So there's no judicial oversight? So a representative of the executive gets to review the evidence and make a binding decision?

If so that seems a bit shocking. Have I misunderstood?

OK, so the minister may (not 'must') transfer his powers under the bill to the newly created Public Sector Fraud Authority. However that authority doesn't look very independent to me. I wonder if there is an appeal process that can use the courts, or whether claimants will just have to rely on Judicial Review.

OK, so you can apply to the minister for a review, and then appeal to the first tier tribunal, so the courts can get involved. Jeez, I bet the first tier tribunal are looking forward to this (not). I'm not keen from what I've read so far.

On the other hand, if you needed a court order for every Direct Deduction Order, that might clog up the courts. Maybe it makes sense to the judiciary only to get involved at the appeal stage.

You said 'without a warrant', but they do need a court order. And warrants are still needed for entering people's premises.

I'm not too exercised about it either way. I was under the impression that benefit fraud is a relatively minor issue as compared to, say, the shocking lack of a wealth tax.

Do you have a link to the bill?

It seems increasingly difficult for men to be providers, and there is a lot of self-worth to be gained by being an effective provider. Men can be skilled in all kinds of other ways, but nothing quite does it like the ability to provide a secure and comfortable space.

You must have some examples in your own life… — Mikie

Probably lots, but it's hard to see the water when you are swimming in it. I get sucked to those wretched facebook reels and youtube shorts. I hate the way FB has become an essential service for my work purposes, and then it throws shit at me at the same time. I'd like some strongly regulated online state-controlled services that must adhere to public principles. People used to be scared of state intrusion, now I feel like the only thing that can protect me from private companies is the state.

I don't doubt it. What would you like to discuss? Is there something we can do about it?

That's a possibility, but it's question begging. It sounds like we just disagree about there being a distinction between self and consciousness.

Other consciousnesses will continue after you are dead — Banno

I'm not sure they do. Other identities continue after I'm dead. I'm not sure there can be more than one consciousness. Insulation between 'consciousnesses' is a function of identity it seems to me.

If it's not my consciousness that continues, what is the point? — Banno

We're talking about what is actually true, not what we want to be true, no? There may be no point from bert1's point of view. I enjoy talking about myself in the third person.

A distinction between consciousness and identity might be helpful. Consciousness continues, but bert1 doesn't. If I (where 'I' is the conscious subject) persist, it's not as bert1.

There's a few conceptions. Sometimes faith is characterised as belief without evidence. I'm not sure how possible that is, I suspect that may just be delusion or wilful ignorance or something. More charitably, religious faith might be more bootstrappy, such that that an act of faith creates its own evidence that compels belief, perhaps. Not sure if that makes sense.

That’s not enough punishment for the anti-Trumpers, all of whom sang a different tune when entire cities were razed to the ground in 2020. — NOS4A2

What happened? Do you mean in Africa?

I don't know, but maybe this: God wants to know what it's like to be not-God, so he becomes a finite being in time and then abandons himself. Starts the car, puts it in gear and then jumps out of the car, so to speak, and watches it crash.

That's probably true, but Hinton's argument is about the times when they do. When a person says "I see pink elephants" per Hinton, they're reporting on what would be in the environment if their perceptual system was working properly. — frank

Sure, but that's a theory about what people are doing. It's not a description of what they mean. I'm being a bit pedantic, but in the philosophy of consciousness theory gets mixed with definition a lot in a way that matters.

What do people mean? — frank

In the unlikely event that @Banno says "I experience a medium sized dry good on my kitchen table" he probably means "There is a red cup". He almost certainly doesn't mean "In order for my perceptual systems to be working properly there must be a red cup on my table."

In general people don't usually say they experience things. Usually it's redundant to use 'experience'. However sometimes people want to draw attention to the fact of experience, and when they do, they are drawing attention to the fact that they are feeling something.

When we say we've experienced X, we're saying that the world would have to be in state X in order for our perceptual systems to be functioning properly. This is what language use about experience means. — frank

That's really not what people generally mean.

I think some philosophers are frustrated gobblers. Perhaps we only start to think when we stop getting what we want.

Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outer circumference of Energy. — Blake

God has neither a face nor feet. If he did, we could see him, and sell him pumice stone and moisturiser. He can't leave footprints.

That's a metaphor but I don't know what it's a metaphor for. What's the non-metaphorical version?

You'll probably need to elaborate on that so people can understand what you mean.

Your question, taken literally, is asking about the meaning of the word 'good'. It has various definitions which are already set by customary usage. You can't change those. For example, one meaning of good is 'yummy', as in "This cream cake is very good". So you might start with a dictionary and run through the various usages we already have.

Another usage of 'good', which you may or may not find in a dictionary, but which I suggest is a definition which describes usage is 'that which is valued'. For example "Democracy is good" means "democracy is valuable"

There comes a point where theory takes over from definition. People disgaree, for example, about whether what is good is always relative to a point of view. Some would argue, "Democracy is good" has no meaning without an explicit or implicit point of view, whereas "I value democracy, democracy is good for me" does have meaning because it specifies a point of view.

You may be right. In which case the OP is confused, as doing what is good then exactly entails obligation.

Why should one do that which is good? — Hyper

Correctly analysed, I don't think anyone should do what is good.

The use of the word "ought" implies guidelines externally put on us. So, okay, what guides us? I would say that belonging to the group is our biggest social motivator. — Questioner

That's how it seems to me too.

What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good. — Banno

This seems wrong to me. I don't think I see the equivalence in usage.

What is good seems relative to a person's will - self-centred. What is good for one may not be good for another. Murdering is great for the murderer, shitty for the murdered's family.

What we ought to do seems relative to the will of others - other centred. We ought not murder because other people don't want us to.

Then there would still be gold in Boorara. It would be true that there was gold in Boorara. — Banno

Berkeley would agree with you - God perceives the gold. Bradley would agree with you. Panpsychist idealists like Sprigge would agree with you. Not that I am an idealist, consciousness alone is insufficient for a universe it seems to me.

Or by 'life' do you mean consciousness?