Perhaps until someone builds some more numbers. — Banno

You don't need a bigger bureocracy telling you that you have the liberty to defend yourself. You should already know it. — Gus Lamarch

I think there is something different between the claims of panpsychism and functionalism, though? — Graeme M

Rights are freedoms that the State allows you to have. We don't need rights, we need freedom to the individual. — Gus Lamarch

It [panpsychism] “explains” why my socks and bubblegum are conscious, even though no one thought they were, but it doesn’t explain why the human brain is conscious the way the human brain is conscious, which is what we actually want to know. — Zelebg

I think claiming duties exist only where a right exists is misguided. — Ciceronianus the White

As I said, one is obligated (has a duty) to live a particular way--i.e. virtuously--to live according to nature. That doesn't mean someone else has a right to one's virtuous conduct. — Ciceronianus the White

Having free will does indeed consist in being unaffected by certain things and one’s behavior instead determined instead by other things. Namely, in one’s behavior being determined by one’s practical or moral reasoning (what you think you should do), and other influences having negligible interference in that process. — Pfhorrest

I think the stoic aspiration is to be like that with regard to everything: to be moved entirely by reason, not completely inert, still doing stuff, but unperturbed in that action by the metaphorical winds that would try to blow you this way or that. — Pfhorrest

To many enthusiasts, panpsychism isn't so much an explanatory theory of consciousness, but an Occam's Razor style argument that non-living systems should be considered to have identical metaphysical properties as living systems, on the basis that there is no falsifiable justification for considering their metaphysical properties to be different. — sime

all the other sorts of numbers... except imaginary numbers, but presumably they could be incorporated with a bit of fiddling. A PhD for someone... — Banno

Panpsychism is trying to solve the irreducibility of conscious experience by spreading it out through everything so that it's a building block instead of just mysteriously emerging. — Marchesk

Perhaps your recent disenchantment with philosophy is that you're focused on its premises without equal concern for its practical applications. Underlying practical philosophy is the idea that there is a right way to live, and that our flourishing as human beings is possible with right thinking. — Frank Pray

We cannot empower someone just by telling them what to do, even if they are asking what to do to be empowered; for empowerment is not a set of actions but rather a mode of operation of the will. We cannot simply tell them to operate their will in that way either, for there is a bootstrapping problem there; they couldn't do that unless they were already empowered to begin with. Instead, we must somehow inspire them to exercise their will, give them (and even more importantly, show them that they have) opportunity and motive to take the initiative of their own accord.

The principle vehicle for inspiring other people to pursue goodness, to empower them, is thus to show them, not merely tell them but actually demonstrate in practice, that achieving goods is actually possible, and thus that there is hope for them if they try to do so themselves. At the same time, we must also show them that achieving goods is not a foregone conclusion that someone else will always handle for them without any action on their own part, because if they thought that was the case they would have no motive to try to act themselves. So to that end, we need to point out to them how any authorities on justice that they may be tempted to rely on are fallible, and that without their personal action such authorities may fail, not necessarily catastrophically or globally, but in any particular case, in which cases the individuals involved will need to be ready to pick up that slack and stand up to injustice themselves.

So we can empower people by doing good by them, helping them flourish, but we must be sparing in our direct help, lest they come to rely upon us, take our help for granted, and deem it unnecessary for them to try to act themselves. Instead, we need to help people to help themselves, to require that they take initiative in trying to pursue their own good, but to stand by and hold their hand while they get a bearing for it, to ensure that their early attempts are successful, and build in them the confidence and skill that they will need to continue pursuing goodness on their own. It will of course take much of such inspiration for such empowerment to stick permanently, and the challenges that we help people to overcome to build that empowerment must start out small enough for them to have a chance of success at them even with our help, but as they become increasingly empowered we can continue to help them tackle still greater and greater challenges, eventually building a momentum of achievement that can continue even without our further help.

But doing good not only for oneself, but also for others, can also help to cultivate that feeling of empowerment, the feeling that achieving justice oneself is both possible and necessary. So more than merely helping people to help themselves, we can also enlist them to help us help other people to help themselves, with the promise that doing so will in turn empower them, help them learn to help themselves... — The Codex Quarentis: On Empowerment

Maybe if I had written "the answer to this question is yes" it would have been correct. — Sir2u

There are certain types of surreal numbers that are complex: s = a+bi , where a and b are infinitesimals: — jgill

Hegelian dialectical history paradigm with phenomenology — Enrique

For example, I can say, suppose that between every pair of integers there is an integer. If I'm clever maybe I can work out a system on this "rule." But the idea itself is absurd. The "supposed" integers don't exist. So the question is if surreals have this deficient form of conjectural existence, or do they share the more substantial existence of the reals? — tim wood

What about inheritance? — Isaac

Perhaps a term might be....architectonic? — Mww

These positions put the individual second to the state, the state being the masses viewed as a single entity that functions and survives as a whole or not at all. — Brett