I can google it and see how much of your "explanation" is copy and pasted.

1. Maybe Marx has. But you haven't.
2. Factories have changed a lot since the 1860s.

None. That's why I'm interested in this stuff as I know very little about it.

As I said: I would listen to you if you can provide a good summary.

Also: I'm not the one making big broad generalizations about the philosophy of factories and manufacturing, so the onus is on the "Marxists."

I'll listen to you if you can provide a detailed synopsis of the logistics of how computers are made. Where do they get the raw materials, what machines are used, which factories make what, etc. etc. Basically, describe to me their supply chain.

Marxists talk a lot about factories, but they seem to have very little knowledge of how factories (or supply chains) work in the first place. Like, for all of your knowledge of Marxism, how often have you actually visited the factories that make stuff?

No, I've read enough to know he's wrong. Private property is not some socially conditioned aberration. It's an extension of basic human neurobiology found even in babies.

I.e. Even 2-year-old children understand the concepts of fairness and ownership.

I.e. Marx is shi-. ALL of his basic axioms behind his arguments are wrong.

If you want a better critique, Marx is wrong because there is no essence to human nature. Concepts like "Essence" and "Spirit" are just shitty words people make up to explain a neurobiological phenomenon that we don't understand yet.

My problem isn't just with Marx. If you really want to get into it, I don't like Plato. His philosophy is crap.

Huh?

There is no mind without a body. Nor is there any spirit without flesh.

Money is a liquid form of exchange and used primarily because it's more convenient than bartering. Without money, your economy would be like Venezuela.

Actually, I'm in support of universal basic income (and higher taxes on the top 5% to pay for it). But I'm against any blatant wealth redistribution schemes and I do NOT like Warren's idea of a wealth tax.

The larger problem is the government is just going to redistribute to money to whoever is connected to the government. The problem with wealth redistributement schemes is that in order to redistribute wealth, someone has to be in control of the process. What's to stop them from taking all the money for themselves (and using it to bribe everyone else?).

limitation of language than a limitation of the brain.

Our experiences and thoughts can be full of details, but words refer to something specific, and using language forces us to focus on what the words refer to.

Even though we can think in parallel, language forces us to think linearly, one sentence at a time, one idea at a time. — leo

But why is sentence formation linear? Also, what would the effects on philosophy and society be if sentence formation was NOT linear?

It would, for example, kill the idea that you have a "single" soul or "single" free will. Ideas of morality would be drastically different. For example, what if one part of you believes in religion and the other part doesn't? How would theology deal with that?

The law talks about people as if they were single individuals. You committed a crime. Now you must be punished. Oh ho ho ho ho. But if people could express multiple sentences simultaneously, any defendant can argue that it was one part of him that committed the crime and the other part didn't.

It's possible the brain "creates" many thoughts, but the number of thoughts we can think in words is limited by the parts of the parts that regulate speech.

I mean, I can write a critique of capitalism, too, if I didn't have to provide a working alternative. He's just some ancient irrelevant dude who has nothing constructive to offer.

Look, I came from China. Marxism is shi-.

No. His points apparently lead to economic disaster like Russia and Venezuela. The US, German, and British economy has done fine ignoring pretty much ignoring everything Marx has to say.

When China switched from Marxism to Capitalism, that's when China's economic boom began. If China still believed in Marxism, their economy would be like Russia's.

Then it's just a waste of time. It's just some random ancient dude spouting nonsense about why he hates capitalism. But if he has no alternative, why bother with his nonsense?

Given how badly Marxism as a governing ideology has played out (even Zizek accepts that) you can't blame him for not reading it.

By the way, Zizek is totally wrong about ecological change. Oh yes, it's happening, but his disaster scenarios are utter rubbish.

So long as the floor gets mopped (preferably by someone else), I care not. I like clean floors, but I don't like putting work into it. Get what I mean?

Also, China is a lot happier now than 80 years ago. Granted that modern China has issues, lots of issues, but at least they're not starving.

Zizek's actually missing a lot of nuances about China. From the outside, it looks like a "strong authoritarian state." But the national government has less control over local government than in the US.

When the national government in the US can decide on something [rare I know], it has the mechanisms to force state governments to comply. In China, that's not the case. Instead, the local governments in China pretend to comply, and then through a combination of bribes and relationship building continues to do whatever it was that they were doing.

Russia has a similar problem.

Peterson: Marxism is like this! Stalin! Russia! Evil! Bad!
Zizek: Well, my brand of Marxism is different from what you think it is. In fact when I think about Marxism I think about climate change and how Donald Trump sucks.
Peterson: Oh. I guess we don't disagree as much as I thought we did.
Zizek: Communist liberals in universities suck!
Peterson: Yes!

[A summary of their debate].

It depends on how you personally define them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ1gpqr0kkA

Like this woman.

Alright, for all those that claim they can do it your next challenge is:

Record it and post it on Youtube. Try to write two different paragraphs simultaneously, one with your right hand and one with your left hand.

Wait. Can you?

I was thinking more dystopian. It can go the other way, too. The desire to argue is problematic for tyrants. So why not remove it entirely?

Agreed. But you're providing reasons why we shouldn't change it. And, as you pointed out, scientifically, we don't have the means or the knowledge to change it, even if we could.

But that may not be the case in the future. If we look forward ten thousand years, it's entirely possible neuroscientists then will have the means to remodel consciousness on an anatomical level.

When that happens, to what extent will any of the "eternal" philosophies of today survive?

EDIT: People like to think their questions are "eternal." We will "always" search for meaning. We will "always" have concepts of God, or zero. Is that accurate? Thoughts are physical processes. If the underlying physics and anatomy behind the brain changes, the very nature of thought will change, too. I can easily imagine a future where many of the "eternal" concepts people argue about today will simply be incomprehensible to our descendants.

EDIT: Also, more specifically, what are the mechanical limitations of human thought? I've mentioned one. What are the others?

Again, do others have something useful to add?

EDIT: For example, if we could "bring to consciousness" 4 sentences simultaneously, how specifically would that change the way we do philosophy?

Also, people like to think of philosophy as "observing the universal." I.e. I exist as a neutral observer and from my aloof standpoint, I observe the universe with my brain. That's a pretty common attitude here and elsewhere.

Is that accurate? I mean, in order to make philosophical statements a person must first have a brain and brains have very real mechanical limitations. To what extent are our philosophies "observations of reality" and to what extent is it just a byproduct of specific neurobiology [that may be modified in the future]?

Look, you're right. Ok? If you're happy with your response, I don't want to argue with you about it anymore.

Ugh. Nothing in the article explains or your responses provide an answer to my question. Sure, if it makes you feel better, you're right. Happy? Congratulations, you've provided an answer. If that satisfies you, so be it.

Does anyone else have anything useful to add?

The article doesn't address the question at hand. Also, it was published in the Daily Mail.

That's a good way of expressing it. So I guess that narrows down my question:

Why do we only have ONE elevator to bring our thoughts into "consciousness?" Also, where is that elevator in the brain? Can we, for example, create more through genetic engineering or surgery?

@ NKBJ

Right. Which is why I consider most of the things that people type here little more than self-serving rationalizations. Do you have more to contribute? Your point about "fruit" was relevant, but since then we've just been arguing in circles.

People created all sorts of plausible sounding explanations back then on why the Sun circled the Earth. We moved beyond this stinky stage only when people realized explanations have value only if they can predict or modify outcomes.

The goal of science is not to provide plausible sounding rationalizations. Any philosopher can do that. The goal of science is to provide tools, so we can modify the world around us to our advantage.

Those are just words, not explanations. An explanation has to be able to:

1. Explain why the structure of the human brain prevents us from thinking multiple sentences simultaneously.
2. Explain how to modify it so that we can create people who can think multiple sentences simultaneously.
3. Accurately predict, by removing or adding components to a brain, the outcome (like if I add this thing to your brain, can I change your brain so that you can parallel process multiple sentences simultaneously?)

An explanation has value only if it can modify and accurately predict outcomes. Otherwise, it's worthless. Little more than a rationalization to explain to yourself why you shouldn't question it.

Why is it that we cannot write or read two sentences simultaneously? Why is it that when we read we have to scan it one sentence at a time to understand it? Why can't we read from the top and the bottom of a page simultaneously?

So what's the neurobiological reason for it?

Ok, try it. Let me know when you've managed it.

Fine, fine. But on a physical level why is it that we can only "think" one sentence at a time? You're explaining the causes, not the actual issue here. On a broader philosophical level, if our brains were a bit different and we could, for example, think 4 sentences simultaneously, wouldn't that mean all of our philosophy today be different?