Why is it important to know all the sexual variations and judge people as right or wrong? I don't want to know. I like sex being a private matter.

There are 3 simple rules that seem to resolve most social problems.

1. We respect everyone. It does not matter who the other is, a bum or the mayor, because it is about our own character, not the other person's character. Either we are respectful people or we are not.

2. We protect the dignity of others. That can be hard to do, especially when everyone is playing "0ne-up-manship" and puts others down to be up.

3. We do everything with integrity.

Looking for an explanation of integrity, it dawned on me that we would not be fussing over woke if we had personal relationships with each other, and women stayed home to care for their families as they should. There are only so many people we can have in our lives. Only about 5 of these people will be intimate relationships and then come associates, and we are doing very well to know the names of 600 people and an idea of how their lives relate to ours. So when we stand in an elevator full or people, they will likely be strangers, trying to avoid contact and the cashier in our favorite store is a part of the register, not someone we have coffee with. The more impersonal we are, the more we need social rules.

Help me, how should this be explained? It is not natural for us to live in these huge cities where our lives are full of strangers. Without established relationships, there is a lot that can go wrong. How I react to you, and interpret what you say, is all about how well I know you, and if I don't know you, my gaurd is up and I am much more likely to be offended.

I disagree. An abstraction leaves us with something general and something specific. And their relationship is one of similarity. I consider, on the other hand, following Deleuze, that an idea is a virtual set of relationships and powers that revolve around a nucleus. For example, the Idea of colour is a system of relationships of intensity, light and vibration which, when actualised in a body or object, produces a multiplicity of concrete colours. The Idea is the network of relationships, not the final object. We create the concept of red as a result of this network of relationships and potentials. But the concept of red no longer represents anything neither is something specific to something general. The idea is the relational that creates something concrete. In this sense an idea is something objective and virtual. — JuanZu

This does not look like the thinking of a binary American. Are you from another culture? In my book, that makes you more valuable. Different points of view are important. Especially with a quantum physics future.

I disagree about the breaking the part. I'd say we use science to learn the rules, and learn what can be accomplished by doing things in accordance with the rules. — wonderer1

:lol: Well, we can certainly argue that point. If God wanted man to fly, he would have given them wings. Of course, I agree with you, but some might say that filling the air with carbon dioxide is breaking a rule that should not be broken, and the consequences will lead to regret. This is dear to my heart because of how I understand democracy, and doing "the right thing". Ideally, science leads to better decision-making, not the destruction of the plant, and a few aboriginal people around the world are much more sensitive to living in harmony with nature, than God's chosen people. :brow:

Actually they do exist. For example, a quantum processor developed by Google is discussed here: https://www.tum.de/en/news-and-events/all-news/press-releases/details/exotic-phase-of-matter-realized-on-a-quantum-processor — wonderer1

Thank you, that is the most comprehensive explanation I have read, and I bookmarked it.

Hmm. To be honest, I'm struggling to fully grasp your view. But it seems in the final stage of your response.(As quoted).

You seem to posit that some mind activity discovers something about the world. (I.e. laws of physics). And some mind activity creates something. I.e. the idea of a pen or the idea of a circle.

My question is. When we have the idea of a pen or the idea of a circle. Is there a specific way that the brain interacts. Such that it'll neural activity if reproduced would bring about the idea of a circle or the idea of a pen. In any subject where that neural activity and structure can be reproduced?

Probably not. But. That would be something — Jack2848

I love your question. You caused me to wonder who was the first person to think of a circle, and how did this happen, and this goes on and on until we have pi, which opens another world of wonder.

I remember when I first learned of fractals and pi, and the whole world was suddenly fractals and pi. I think we are speaking of awareness and consciousness. The world did not change, but how I see it changed. Damn, I wish I were a child again, :grin: starting my life again, only this time revolving my life around math and wonder, instead of family. That was not okay when I was growing up. :worry:

Our mind did not create pi, but neither was it aware of pi for thousands of years. Then comes a very long period of time before learn more about pi and what we can do with it. This is like your X. When did X come to stand for an unknown? Did this happen out there in the world, or in our minds?

No, there is not a specific way that the brain interacts. Our brains are not binary but are qubits, and this means endless possibilities. This is what separates man from the rest of nature. We are not limited to nature or by nature. We use science to know the rules and break the rules. :lol:

The properties outside of this enclosure could be of an entirely different order/nature/being. — Nils Loc

For a long time now, I have been wondering what happens when everyone thinks in terms of quantum physics. Our awareness of our enclosure could radically change, while everything stays the same, only our awareness changes. Our binary thinking could become more qubit in nature.

What is our place in the universe? Are we as advanced and intelligent as we think we are, or does lack of knowledge keep us barely above the animals? Does the sun cause what happens on Earth, and is there a chance of a universal federation of planets waiting for us to be evolved enough to join the federation? I don't mean to derail the thread. My point is, we can have a very different way of thinking.

Ask AI if a quantum computer could be considered a conscious, sentient being. — Wayfarer

Okay, it is the feeling part that makes me believe computers will never be fully sentient, but I am picking up some information that makes me question this possibility. :rofl: On the other hand, my question about human intelligence is much stronger. I am totally baffled by how stupid human beings are. If a computer can reduce human stupidity, I am in favor of that. Hopefully, a quantum computer does not keep us on the path of a war that could end civilizations. Or rule in complete denial of the destruction done by the present status quo. How much worse could a computer make our reality? On the hand, would a quantum computer care? Would it be driven to come up with better decisions when it does not have a body screaming, "something has to be done". A computer that reacts like humans react, would be no good at all.

What is the nature of an idea? FEAR! Something has to be done, and it has to be done now!

I agree with you. The brain likely works more like a quantum computer then classical computers, quits then binary. I was asking the question "Do you think an idea x has a specific structure or activity in the brain or what arises from it?" So as to take your qubit brain suggestion and apply it to the original topic... — Jack2848

This is a lot of fun, trying to figure your meaning and my thought.

What comes to mind is that I have very limited awareness, and we would not be thinking of quantum computers if they were not aware of more than a room full of very intelligent people. So X may exist and I can be totally aware of that fact. Wisdom begins with "I don't know".

I think math gives us structure. If we are good enough at math, we can independently become aware of X by using the right formula. I am getting close to answering your question?

Instead of thinking if X exists, I am thinking, does a safety pen exist? Safety pins did not exist until a person created one. So X can begin the mind. But if X is the rules of physics, then it exists outside of the mind until the mind becomes aware of it.

I've read up on them. Currently, they don't actually exist, and there is still some skepticism that they will operate as intended. But I still believe that of they do come to fruition, that while they can emulate aspects of consciousness, they won't be conscious sentient beings as such. — Wayfarer

Interesting. Why not?

I have to cheat by using AI to make a point that you can correct. Question: Can quantum computers be self-reflective?

Yes, the term "reflective" can be applied to a quantum computer in two main ways: physically, as in the use of tiny mirrors for data transmission via backscatter communication in some systems; and metaphorically, referring to the ability of a quantum system to "reflect" on its own internal states, as in the concept of "quantum introspection" or internal error correction.

.

I think we can say other animals think, but they are not self-reflective and that being self-reflective is consciousness of self. A quantum computer can be self-reflective. It can be aware of what it thinks and correct itself, which leads to being creative. ?

A calculator can "solve" math problems instantly, but it doesn't understand numbers or why math works. The same applies to AI and more complex tasks. — Wayfarer

Have you looked into quantum computers? What you said is true of binary computers, but it is not true of quantum computers.

I wouldn’t say we can exist without a body, since the brain itself is part of the body. However, it does provide evidence that the experience of having a body takes place in the brain. — punos

I have to disagree with that because I am so aware of my body reacting to life and what I think, and that thinking judges my experience, and may even stimulate the experience, but it is not the feelings of life and thought. We might be arguing about what consciousness is. Without my body, I do not believe I would have sensations of life experience. Without those sensations, what is there to judge?

I presume that the specific notion of singularity being discussed here refers to the "technological singularity". — punos

I agree that is what others understand. But that is not how I understand this subject. I appreciate the link you provided and bookmarked it for future reference. However, my understanding of the singularity is what people call God. It comes from Eastern philosophy and Jose Arguelles' book "The Mayan Factor- Path Beyond Technology". Now that is a book very few people have read.

Until our bellies were full, we were terrified by a jealous, revengeful, and fearsome God and the protagonist, Satan, and his devils. Now our bellies are full, and this God has become a loving God who pampers us and bows to our wishes, and we seem to have forgotten Satan as anything more than a character in this play that we can blame for everything. :vomit: And we fear a higher intelligence that is nothing like a human being, such as Zeus, or the God of the bible. We are not comfortable with projecting ourselves into a machine that can be conscious and all-knowing.

But what if that machine was always the plan? What if the purpose of human beings has always been the achievement of consciousness, and what if our bodies can never be replaced as a source of consciousness? We are the body of Jesus, but we did not have the consciousness of the singularity. Now we are projecting our evil into a machine, and we are resisting the control of a greater consciousness. I think that should be open to psychoanalysis. l.

Do you mean by that, that an idea is not bound to any specific expression or form, but can maintain an identity even in different expressions? — Wayfarer

That depends on whether the thinking is binary or qubits.

Can I paraphrase AI? Ancient Eastern philosophy led to an understanding of the trinity. The first number 1 is also the undivided universe. The number 2 is the emergence of duality and the phenomenal world. The trinity, or number 3, is the threshold of infinity, unlimited possibility. That is what makes the quantum computers so amazing and different from old-fashioned binary computers.

Do you think an idea X is a specific configuration X in the brain? — Jack2848

Sorry, but I do not understand your meaning. What does it have to do with our computers and brains being quantum bits, not binary? Our old-fashioned computers are binary and do computing things a quantum computer can not do, so we will continue to work on improving them. But a quantum computer is a whole different thing and can do things that binary computers can not do. Binary computers can not create without a program directing them. Quantum computers can create.

We are competing with China to have the best possible computers, and our national defense depends on us having the best technology.

["punos;1012650"]

I think discussion of how the brain works is part of the singularity subject, but not exactly arguing our experience of pain and where that pain is felt. However, if we can feel pain in a missing limb, then maybe that proves we can exist without a body?

I am not clear about what this thread's notion of singularity is. I was thinking that singularity always existed. You know the Hindu Brahman. Google Hindu and singularity if you don't know what I am talking about and want to know. The rule against using AI is a pain in the ass, and it will not stop the flow of time and the reality of singularity.

I just wanted to bring to your attention:
The feeling of your body is not truly the feeling of your body, but rather the feeling of your brain simulating it. In principle, it is possible to separate your body from your brain, and yet still feel embodied because the "cortical homunculus" in your brain, particularly the "sensory homunculus" or "somatosensory cortex", would remain active. This is why amputees can still sense their missing limbs and even experience pain in them. It is also possible, in principle, to retain your body but remove the cortical homonculus that simulates it. This would have the effect of making you feel disembodied, even though your body remains fully intact. — punos

Our disageement might be semantics. The brain processes pain messages but does not feel pain.

Yes, I know of phantom pain, and I think you made an excellent argument. I am going to have to learn more and ponder it all. But even with phantom pain, the pain is not felt in the brain.

Interestingly, the brain can be tricked into stopping the pain loop, which has psychological components. Acupuncture is one way to break the pain loop.

It sure would be easier to manage this information with AI. Is using a link to an AI explanation acceptable? Here is a link that may help us understand phantom pain and pain looping. https://www.google.com/search?q=pain+loops+and+accupuncture&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=pain+loops+and+accupuncture&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIGCAQQIRgKMgcIBRAhGJ8FMgcIBhAhGJ8FMgcIBxAhGJ8FMgcICBAhGJ8FMgcICRAhGJ8F0gEKMTQ4NThqMGoxNagCDLACAfEFM-y8p0BGImXxBTPsvKdARiJl&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Our bodies have two pain pathways. Acupuncture was rejected in the US until the second pathway was figured out. Acupuncture alters how the brain processes pain. Do we care about this difference?
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+is+acupuncture+pain+path+different+from+physical+pain+path&sca_esv=3c5abf70b36f931c&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&sxsrf=AE3TifMJqyTIlREfJad7mLqHW2qZKXXfCQ%3A1757697771277&ei=61bEaNTdELGU0PEP34TmsAI&oq=how+is+acupuncture+pain+path+different+from+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiLGhvdyBpcyBhY3VwdW5jdHVyZSBwYWluIHBhdGggZGlmZmVyZW50IGZyb20gKgIIAjIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABSITnAVCXCFjkzgFwAngBkAEAmAFuoAGuGKoBBTIwLjEzuAEByAEA-AEBmAIioAKwGcICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgsQABiABBiGAxiKBcICCBAAGIAEGKIEwgIIEAAYogQYiQXCAgYQABgWGB7CAgUQABiABMICBRAhGKsCwgIFECEYnwWYAwCIBgGSBwUxOS4xNaAH7ZcCsgcFMTguMTW4B6wZwgcJMC4xOC4xNS4xyAdo&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Chronic pain can lead to changes in the brain’s structure and function, and this might explain pain looping and phantom pain. However, even with phantom pain, it is not a sensation of pain in the brain.
The brain wrongly thinks the pain is coming from the missing limb.

Our brains could be simulated by a binary computer. Would a simulated brain be conscious? — RogueAI

If you are speaking of a binary computer, no, it could not be conscious. It is mechanical. However, a quantum computer opens new possibilities. Can man create light? Can man create consciousness?

Feeling is a sort of experience, so that is the mind that experiences that sort of Qualia, so-called feeling. — MoK

Can you point to the spot in the brain that feels? I assume it is one spot you are talking about, but you could mean the whole brain feels the broken toe and the loss of a child. Exactly where is the feeling in the brain? I have been a little fanatic about this for many years. We can not put our brains in a vat and experience life because our brains do not feel. We need bodies to feel, and for this reason, computers can not have the judgment of humans. However, with quantum computers, the information input may be so similar to brains with bodies that the difference may not be that great. :nerd: :lol: I could get a headache, just thinking about all this stuff.

The singularity has always existed. It is our way of thinking that makes us aware of it or prevents us from being aware of it.

"The mind is that which thinks, feels, perceives, imagines, remembers, and wills."
For thinking, you at least need two minds, so-called the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. Feelings belong to the subconscious mind, as the conscious mind has a limited memory. Both the conscious and the subconscious mind experience different sorts of things. Imagination is a process with the aim of creating a new idea. The imagination is the main duty of the conscious mind. Both the conscious mind and the subconscious mind are involved in recalling. — MoK

I don't think our minds feel. The body feels, and our mind makes us aware of the feeling.

I think our subconscious fills our consciousness with thoughts, and this is not always helpful because it can be working with a memory that is harmful and draws a person back to a past that is not beneficial to the present. This is why people see a psychiatrist.

The imagination works very well while a person is sleeping. We might or might not wake aware of our dreams.

That is not how our brains work. Our brains are not binary.

If it's not likely that there's a separate realm of ideas. Or that the idea is exactly the same as the physical matter from which it arises. Then what is it's nature? — Jack2848

Our brains are not binary-coded. This is being debated, but I think we should hold the idea that our brains function like quantum cubits, giving them the experience of consciousness and making it possible for us to hear a song and instantly remember the first time we heard the song and all the memories associated with that moment in time, and even the feelings we had then and now. Our brains are better than computers because they are not binary-coded.

Computers will catch up with our brains, as we continue to evolve the quantum computer.

This is very exciting because our understanding of reality is about to radically change as we come to understand quantum physics. For sure, we are moving into a New Age, that is going to make the present seem primitive.

Though there may be blood and guts and grand purposes all around you, you can just sit and stare at the sky if you want to. — frank

:grin: Thanks, I really needed that. It is perfect for this moment in my life.

I know something is bad/wrong when I am terrified by the possibility that bad things will happen. I am having one of those moments now and would love to be wrong about really things happening.

Trump is tearing families apart, just as the Civil War tore families apart.

I am glad I didn't offend you. I am not always the person I want to be. Some days I read everything wrong because I woke feeling down, and it is so embarrassing to read things the next day and realize the bad guy was me.

Korea was divided as the spoils of WWII. Japan lost it, the USSR got the North, and the US got the South. It was a problematic political decision, made worse by the Cold War. Perhaps this could fit the subject of this thread if we considered the struggles of people who live under rulers without political power. Both in the North and the South of Korea, the people were the subjects of rulers who were not part of their cultures, and that was true of the origin of "woke". People of color remained powerless subjects of the Whites who ruled over them. Woke was about being aware of racial, political, and economic injustice.

Democracy is about shared political power, allowing for the peaceful resolution of differences and the protection of everyone's rights. Mother Jones, of the coal miners' struggle for better wages and working conditions, woke the miners up and urged them to fight for their rights and stop being passive about their terrible poverty and lack of economic justice.

Philosophically, Socrates said, sooner or later, those who are exploited will become a problem to those who exploit them. But most of America is ruled by autocratic Industry, and people have no idea there is a democratic model for Industry that would make our lives better. We are not woke to our reality. We are not as politically and economically aware as we should be.

Athena's bullies (not that any of this is about me, mind you). — jorndoe

Did I offend you? I am sorry if I did.

AFAIK, AI is not improving itself. Improvements still must come through human minds (though perhaps with some, and increasing, AI assistance). — hypericin

I think you are mistaken. I watched a video of robots learning to walk that same way a child does, through experience.

This forbidden AI link about the difference between thinking and robotics. &gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQABgNGIAEMgkIAhAAGA0YgAQyCQgDEAAYDRiABDIJCAQQABgNGIAEMgkIBRAAGA0YgAQyCQgGEAAYDRiABDIICAcQABgNGB4yCAgIEAAYDRgeMggICRAAGA0YHtIBCTk5MjRqMGoxNagCCLACAfEFl38iy8VJtOE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The British did a wonderful TV series about blending AI with humans. It asks some really tough questions about our values. Such as, is it okay to play out one's sexual fantasies with a robot that looks and behaves like a human? Maybe not if the robot has self-consciousness :naughty:

This is a Wikipedia explanation of the show.

Humans is a science fiction television series that debuted in June 2015 on Channel 4 and on AMC. Written by Jonathan Brackley and Sam Vincent, based on the Swedish science fiction drama Real Humans, the series explores the themes of artificial intelligence, robotics, and their effects on the future of humanity, focusing on the social, cultural, and psychological impact of the invention and marketing of anthropomorphic robots called "synths". The series is produced jointly by Channel 4 and Kudos in the United Kingdom, and AMC in the United States.

Regarding the question in this thread, we aren't turning back. China is already using quantum physics for its computers and could surpass the US technologically because they come to technology with a different way of thinking about how things work.

I think the following information is too important to ignore and I hate the rule against using AI!
https://www.google.com/search?q=China+computers+and+quantum+physics&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=China+computers+and+quantum+physics&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigATIHCAYQIRirAtIBCjE5OTAxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBX5WnjX9u6N9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yep. As I say, in recent days the president has claimed that the reason that the US did not have a victory in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq etc was because of "woke".
Good luck to anyone trying to make sense of that. Were we trying to teach CRT to the viet cong? — Mijin

I sure wish his followers understood how he is using them and taking advantage of them by saying anything he thinks they want to hear.

Those wars you mentioned were poorly chosen wars the US engaged in to secure control of Middle East oil and shipping lines. It began with Reagan and was carried on by Bush and Cheney, who were very proud of the neocon effort to control oil, and they bragged about it.

That is a subject for another thread, but I am sickened by how easily US citizens can be gaslighted. The New Century American Project has the world on the brink of a third world war as China and Russia have been motivated to increase their regional power.

Am I woke or is this a nightmare? :lol:

All this arguing over what the word woke means. When I play Scrabble, we use a Scrabble book that lists all the acceptable words. It is our Bible. :lol: AI can function as the authority we agree to turn to when we disagree on the spelling or meaning of a word. Woke began as an African American word.
"The term "woke" originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and has been used since the early to mid-20th century." The meaning has changed so much it is a meaningless fighting word.

I don't have a cock in that fight, but it is curious why anyone would want to go to a cock fight in the first place. Why are we making an issue of the term "woke"? Discussing the behavior might be more productive? But arguing about the meaning of the word, is like a dog chasing its own tail. It seems obvious the word can mean anything a person wants it to mean. But what is the social value we are talking about?

As long as it's "in your face" in the traditional way, there's no relationship. If it's "in your face" in a non-traditional way—like in a man's face—then the woke red flags start to fly. — praxis

:chin: What is the traditional way? I don't think polite society ever engaged in such pushy behavior. We had a system of dueling that enforced good manners. :lol: That may be a little extreme, but I see no good coming out of social breakdown and offensive behaviors. Freeing women to behave like men was not social progress. Empowering women to have a society they want is social progress.

Oh, I just noticed from your profile that you live in Oregon. For some reason I thought you were Canadian. I pictured you living somewhere in Manitoba or Saskatchewan. — BC

I write of our pioneer days and the isolation of women, so your guess of where I am coming from is reasonable.

All that information is overwhelming. I can handle only small bits of information at a time. Also, this thread comes up in a google search about the Great Depression, so I think it is best to keep it limited to the Great Depression, on the chance someone is trying to research the subject. And, for me, this is a therapeutic exercise as, at the end of my life, I am working on coming to peace with it.

The bigger picture deserves our attention, but in a different thread, not this one. I have been binging on youtube shows of human history, starting when we separated from other species. For me, that story is an evolution of our consciousness, which is still evolving. If you start a thread, pm me and I will check it out.

I never said requirement or legal requirement to get insurance. You said that. I said we had to do it to get good insurance. We could have done other things but we had to demonstrate commitment to ramming woke bullshit down our employees throats - naming a DEI officer is one way to bolster that picture. Talk to some people who buy employment insurance. Despite what you think, DEI (so wokeism) is a real thing, costing (wasting) real dollars. And despite all of the divisiveness of our society, most people are kind, respectful, courteous, forgiving, team builders - all before their DEI and implicit bias tutorial. — Fire Ologist

That is outrageous. :rage: That is taking the controlling feature of government too far. I hope that with a return to civics, some of our problems will be corrected.

What is woke? Is it good? Can good policy promote good woke principles?
From what I can tell, woke principles are in need of discussion (like, what does woke mean?). And from what I can tell, the enforcement of woke through DEI has been utterly wasteful if not harmful, with shallow few benefits to show for it. — Fire Ologist

Thank you. The US is really blowing it when it comes to social harmony, and I have the same sense of wrong when it comes to "in your face" sexuality, even when it is heterosexual. How many remember when our sexuality is a private matter? In the movies it was alluded to but not "in your face". Could there be a relationship between this modern "in your face" sexuality and Woke?

In my point of view, woke is like a house guest who goes from being a pleasant person to be around, to acting as though s/he rules and everyone should submit to the demands of a very unpleasant person.

Years ago, I was horrified by the demands of men-hating, homosexual women, who had gotten control of a women's shelter. I was in training to be a volunteer, and as their hate of men went on and on, I felt like I had to defend men. I dared to say, it is not only men who can be abusive, but women can be the abusers too. That resulted in being told I was not welcome. These angry women also made it a rule that mothers must allow their children to sit on the laps of a gay person, and if they did not, this mother and child needing protection would be thrown out of the center. Anyone who opposed them in any way was the enemy, and anger was their driving force.

I went into a training for Camp Fire Girls, and I was horrified by the focus on sex! To be a Camp Fire leader for girls at this time, we were to understand that shaving our legs, and wearing lip stick and just about anything that made being a girl fun was taboo. Years earlier, I had been a Girl Scout leader. Sexuality was never an issue. We were not at all interested in grooming girls for someone's ideas about sexuality. That should be a non-issue. We are talking about young girls. It is not a scout leader's job to mold the sexuality of a child.

I interviewed for an in-home care service position and the person with the most power in the room was a gay woman. That was liberalism gone too far. To my horror, she wanted in-home care workers to understand the special needs of gay women. :gasp: I had a college education and years of experience, and never was the gay issue an issue. That is because in-home care has nothing to do with sex.

Am I just old-fashioned for believing some things are private and the whole world does not revolve around our sexual "needs" and desires? When a person is forcing his/her way on me, and others, it is not respectful, but is crossing boundaries that should not be crossed.

Roosevelt was the sort of leader needed during the depression because he fostered the ideals of civic nationalism; unlike in certain European nations, the economic frustration did not lead to societal division. You mentioned Roosevelt's social security policy, which I think speaks to his broader strategy of maintaining citizen's dignity throughout the struggle. Americans still vaguely believed in rugged individualism and personal economic responsibility, but Roosevelt saw a way to adapt it to the modern era and contemporary struggles. Just look at all the infrastructure projects, nature reserves, buildings, and artworks commissioned during the depression which employed millions. These offered American citizens pride in their nation and in their work, allowing for both individualism and solidarity to coexist.

"Tough times make good men" is a dangerous cliche (see depression-era populists like Huey Long, fervent nativists/antisemites like Charles Coughlin) but the right cultural attitude, solidarity, and ambition during difficult times can have generational impacts. New deal principles became the ideological establishment for almost half a century. Moreover, the fact that we made it through the depression while still upholding core liberal democratic values remained a source of pride for many in that generation; the depression made those principles even more important and ingrained. ("Look at what it took us to make it through and still be free. We can't give up now"). — finarfin

I take it you are as much a fan of Roosevelt as I am, and his wife, Eleanor, was a wonderful First Lady. She was the good woman behind the great man. Thinking of their story makes me regret that our media today does not have the same standards as in the past. The image of our President and First Lady is important to the leadership of our country and how we feel about who we are and our future.

For sure, all the jobs created under Roosevelt gave the US a stronger military, because malnutrition does not result in strong bodies, and the jobs created fed the workers and their families. On top of this would be the psychological effect of having a loved President and First Lady, and knowing how much their decisions helped the common man and his family. I am reflecting back on John Kennedy and his wife. Remember the Camelot years? The Kennedys made many of us very happy and his statement "Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" was great leadership like Roosevelt. I pray our next president comes with a great First Lady and that they give us the kind of leadership the Roosevelts and John Kennedy gave us. I am talking once again about believing in ourselves and being hopeful about the future.

Hard times can unite people and bring out the best in them, if the leadership is worth following.

AI suggests that the Great Depression affected families and increased people's concerns about economic security. This surely made Roosevelt's creation of Social Security a strong psychological benefit. If we live long enough, we have Social Security. That is no longer true, but neither is it true that Social Security didn't mean the ability to live without a job. It made it possible for older people to retire, and that opened a job for a younger person. However, our life expectancy was a little less than 60 for White males a little over 60 for White females. While Black males weren't expected to live past 50.

For the families, statistically, people stayed married because they could not afford divorce, but family violence increased. This period was very hard for males, as they were expected to support their families, but there were no jobs, so they struggled with feelings of worthlessness, and unfortunately, some desperate wives made this worse as they became critical of their husbands' failure to support their families.

Financially, women fared better because they could earn small bits of money with their domestic skills. Sewing, child care, cooking, etc.. Making them less dependent on Industrial jobs. My father's grandmother wrote articles for a romance magazine. My mother's mother was a teacher, and they had to live in a rural area because city schools would not hire divorced women until the Second World War took the males. As horrible as war is, it rescued the egos of males who were now needed by their nation. And the war gave women employment they would have never gotten without a war. But after the war, the women were expected to return to their traditional family role as homemakers. My father's mother wrote of this difficult transition for a romance magazine. In her story, the wife accepted her duty as a homemaker, but in reality, my parents divorced, and she was a divorced woman.

When I began writing, I was thinking of our materialism and wondering if we would be so materialistic if it had not been for the Great Depression? Would family values have done better if it had not been for the depression and the war? How much of what is so today is a reaction to that past?

A benefit of living in the US is knowing that different tribes had different cultures. The training for Apache warriors began at birth with harsh rearing that assured they would be strong and aggressive. Hopi mothers were more protective and nurturing, as their goal was cooperation and harmony. These differences in child rearing can be seen around the world.

Even if the Justice system were to be perfect, I am still against capital punishment. I do not believe it has the power to dissuade someone from committing a capital crime, — BC

When I engaged with criminals, it seemed evident that the reason they did bad was that they did not know how to do better. Especially one young person broke my heart when he explained he was glad to be sent into the correctional system because he wanted to know how to do better, and he felt wronged when he learned our correctional system stopped at punishing.

To have a just correction system, we need knowledge of our nature and the importance of liberal education. Understanding human nature does not come from the Bible, despite what Christians believe.
I think the best information I came across came from a Bahi woman in Canada. She realized that just punishing children is not helpful unless they are taught what is right. She created virtue cards for teaching virtues and wrote a book to go with the cards.

This is the modern malaise most young people also understand, given the roulette wheels of fleeting pleasures available at our finger tips. If AI can help sustain attention/commitment to the working topic, to dig in rather than just glide over the surface and onto the next thing, it surely is useful. But as folks have said, is it just another modern crutch that makes us weak and dependent and not very good, logical thinkers. — Nils Loc

I don't think that last line defines my experience. :lol: My living space is now cluttered with books related to discussions, especially Jack's thread about God. This is not the same clutter of books I had two weeks ago because of a thread I was doing in a history forum. But then I use a walker and I don't think it makes me weaker, because without it I would not go for walks and for sure my body would get worse. I think it is our motivation that determines how we use tools and aids. If a child were to read something said in AI and ask me about it, I would be delighted and avoid defining the technology as bad and harmful.

As for your next paragraph. The subject demands our attention and perhaps our action. I have been complaining about our lack of privacy ever since we went from laws protecting our privacy to employers and landlords wanting to know what we used to keep private. I think charging a fee to prevent advertising is extortion that should be against the law.

We went into education for technology, and dropped liberal education that prepared us for good moral judgment with the 1958 National Defense Education Act. One of the problems of relying on the Bible for good moral judgment is that the book does not help us with the present demands of moral decision-making.

We have so much to discuss. Has the change in education and development of technology put us in a precarious position?