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?

@Banno @Wayfarer

The missing foghorn between your ships passing in the night is that Banno thinks that idealism entails solipsism, unless I have misunderstood.

There is also inertia which has nothing to do with motivation, and is more biological/neurological than psychological and requires different remedies. Routines, appointments, promises to others.

There are also executive functioning issues like difficulty prioritising and analysing tasks.

All these can result in procrastinating, or look very similar to procrastination.

Do you think there is any psychological reason for an overblown style? — Swanty

Maybe in some cases but I have no idea and less interest. Philosophy is tricky enough without taking an interest in people's motivations. It drives me up the wall on this site when someone is accused of thinking something because of some character trait, as if that is relevant to the philosophy.

Awareness is also dependent on what we are aware of. — jkop

Is it possible (conceptually) to be aware of your own awareness, and nothing else?

Speaking very roughly, just to get started, realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it; anti-realism, that it isn't. — Banno

Haven't you said the exact opposite of this in the past? Sorry to play spot-the-contradiction, I'm sure you can clear it up. I can't remember where, but haven't you said that what there is is determined by our words for them? Not our perceptions of them (that would be idealism), but our words, or perhaps the way we use language?

(For the record, you write interestingly, if ad nauseum, on this topic, and it's interesting because I am undecided)

EDIT: maybe @Michael stuff on intensional and extensional can help

About 30% of Americans are registered Republicans. There are a lot of independents. — frank

What does that mean? I don't think we have an equivalent in the UK. Presumably you can be a registered republican and still vote dem if you want? Is it like club membership, you pay an annual subscription and get a free sticker, badge and a scarf?

EDIT: Apparently in the UK only about 1.5% of the electorate were members of a political party.

Left-wing populism exists. — ssu

Thanks for explaining. I think I've only ever really heard right-wing populist rhetoric. (I'm in the UK not S. America).

Well educated people still think they can get a good job and the system works for them. — ssu

I too perceive a divide on lines of education. However I didn't see it in terms of jobs, I see it in terms of complexity. Non populist discourse tends to be complex and somewhat difficult, and recommends policies that entail change and uncertainty. Well educated people are likely to be more sympathetic to such messaging. Is that just me being a liberal elitist wanker? For the record, I'm not well off and have a low income!

But if a blue-collar worker in the rust-belt, the whole system seems to have forgotten you totally. — ssu

Are those people right? If so, how susceptible do you think they would be to more leftist populist rhetoric?

A Trump vote was anti-woke, pro police, pro immigration control, pro reduced taxes, pro reduced regulation, pro Israel, pro life, pro drilling for oil, among other things. — Hanover

Thanks, no doubt you are right. But what is the upshot of that in terms of the poll?

This poll tells us what the left believes the right believes. — Hanover

Oh you're absoutely right about that. I'm asking in the wrong place!

If the right told you the only reason you voted for Harris was because you didn't like Trump and because all you wanted was a woman, how might you respond? I think you'd say you voted Democrat because you are Democrat. — Hanover

That's really interesting, thank you. Actually I don't think I would. It really never occurs to me to vote according to party loyalty (but I am a UK citizen so that may be why - it might be more tribal in the US). If I were a US citizen, I would have voted tactically for the dems. I don't like the dems on policy grounds, and they are just as pro establishment as Trump and the Republican Party. But the Republicans are even worse. What I would like (in the UK and if I were a US citizen, in the US) is a proportional representation system that means I can vote for a green party, but neither the dems or republicans are going to propose that kind of radical voting reform.

A Trump vote was anti-woke, pro police, pro immigration control, pro reduced taxes, pro reduced regulation, pro Israel, pro life, pro drilling for oil, among other things.

But that's policy, not identity. But then you go on to say people voted because of their identity as republicans. It could be both of course, but you seem to be inconsistent as to which you consider more causal.

If the DNC would be populist, the democratic voters would fall for it just like all the Trump supporters. — ssu

Believe it or not, over 50% of the population voted Republican because they are Republican. — Hanover

These statements are very interesting, as they suggest that allegiance is to party not policy or personality. I hadn't considered party loyalty (like football team support) as a main cause of voting behaviour, which is dumb of me probably. Party loyalty is perhaps less of a thing in the UK.

@ssu As for DNC populism, what would that look like? I associate populism with right-wing politics typically, but I suppose you could have a left-wing version that encourages victimhood and dependency, blaming employers for everything, blaming ownership of capital for all ills. The trouble is that just doesn't seem like it would be popular!

Trump won on promises. — Fooloso4

Yes, that's how it seems to me. And promises are policy, even if they are not credible or detailed.

I think most Trump voters just don't take any of his faults seriously. — frank

Do you think that's because they don't believe he's as much of a scumbag as the corrupt dems and justice system make him out to be? Or is it because they they don't think his crimes and conduct are particularly relevant - they want someone who will do the right things, not be nice to everyone. Your post suggests perhaps both?

But that would be insane. Trump voters are mostly not insane. Therefore that explanation is false. It seems to me more credible that Trump won more on policy and not personality. Did the republicans simply make up democrat policies as strawmen, and then carpet bomb the media with it, resulting in a vote against the democrats (rather than for an odious criminal)? I don't know.

Yes to both questions. The GOP of Bush and the neoconservatives is largely over, with many of them now voting Democrat. I hope the Democrats can have the same evolution but voters can’t even have the same candidate everyone voted for in the primary. — NOS4A2

Thanks, that's interesting. I'm interested in your perception of Bernie Sanders. He comes across as strongly anti-establishment to me. Is that your perception?