Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain, like you can see walking when looking at legs? — Harry Hindu

You can, just not with your naked eye. Brain scans etc with instruments of science. — DingoJones

When I look at your brain I see a grey, squishy mass. Is your mind a grey, squishy mass? Are you saying the entirety of your experience of the world is just various quiverings of a grey squishy mass?

My mind is not made up of jittering neurons and electric currents. My mind is made up of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings.
— Harry Hindu

I don't think anyone disagreed with that. — khaled

DingoJones just did.

Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain
— Harry Hindu

For the same reason you can't see a program when looking at a computer. — khaled

How do programmers write programs that they can't see? I think you're thinking about the output of the program, like the webpage you see on your screen right now. But there is code that creates this webpage and that is written by programmers and you can see if you have the right software. You can't do this with your mind. Your mind is of a different category - of which you only know of brains and bodies and their behaviors via your mind composed of colors, shapes, smells, sounds, and feelings.

So if anyone wants to assert that the mind, or qualia, is an illusion then they pull the rug of reality out from under themselves as they have just declared that their only way of knowing the world is an illusion, yet they want to cling to the idea of the existence of brains in bodies with accompanying behaviors even though they are only aware of those things by the very thing they assert is an illusion.

like you can see walking when looking at legs?
— Harry Hindu

I doubt you see all legs walking. If they belong to a sleeping person for example, it is very likely you can't see walking in those legs. — khaled

This doesn't make a difference, if you want to talk about sleeping legs then I could just point to looking at your sleeping brain and seeing a sleeping brain rather than your dream you are experiencing.

To the same extent that a program is identical to a computer. — khaled

To the extent that the wood is identical to the camp fire. — DingoJones

walking is to legs so mind is to brain. — TheMadFool

None of this helps at all. My mind is not made up of jittering neurons and electric currents. My mind is made up of colors, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and feelings. Walking legs, burning wood, and functioning computers are all composed of these components of mind. Brains are no different. Why can't you see a mind when you look at a brain, like you can see walking when looking at legs?

Everything is process. Minds, as a process, objectify other processes thereby creating objects from processes. When you observe an object engaged in a process, like legs walking, you are actually observing a relationship between processes. Walking is a relationship between legs and the ground, both of which are processes themselves. Processes all the way down.

Brains are the way minds model the process of other minds. Brains are objectified minds.

I don't think either of us disagree with whether we are speaking to one another intelligibly. The disagreement is whether there has to be a common point of reference in order to do so. — Hanover

Then you haven't determined if either one of you is speaking intelligibly if you haven't determined if a common point if reference is needed. What would a common point of reference even look like and how would you both agree that one exists?

What is a common point of reference if not a view from everywhere which both of your perceptions would be part of? So it seems that only upon agreeing on what it is that you both perceive has a common point of reference been achieved.

A common point of reference implies space-time and every point in space-time is relative to another. But by merging the information from different points do you end getting a better understanding of what it is that is perceived. But you'd have to assume that your perception of others with senses is accurate to be able to assert that there are other points of reference other than your own.

Then why don't they clarify it like that?

Moreover, it is sometimes (often) not possible to describe the level of one's injury because one simply doesn't know it. For example, you may have sharp pains in your abdomen on the right side. You don't know what is causing those pains. You could have gallstones, intestinal spasms, a number of things. That's why you went to the doctor so that they can examine you and find out what it is. — baker

Exactly. Your description of your pain indicates where the doctor should narrow his search and reasons for your pain. If it turns out you don't have an injury where you say you have pain then the problem might be more in your head.

We are almost always talking about the causes of our experiences rather than the experience itself. It is the world we share and not each others heads, so it is the shared world that our shared language is about, and not what is going on in our heads.

Why would it be that similar causes lead to similar effects in the world but that not be the case for the causal relationship of perceptions with what is perceived? Why wouldn't similar sensory organs and brains have similar perceptions and when they don't we can always point to some cause that is different (being located in a different point in space-time, different lighting, abnormal brain function, etc.)

I don't think either of us disagree with whether we are speaking to one another intelligibly. The disagreement is whether there has to be a common point of reference in order to do so. I don't see why there must be, considering we speak of pain to one another, yet there is no pain outside the phenomenal state to point to to be sure we're speaking of the same thing. — Hanover

That's because pain is the phenomenal state. The injury that triggers the pain is outside the phenomenal state and is what you're talking about when talking about your pain. What use is talking about your pain if you're not really referring to your injury?

When a doctor asks you to describe your level of pain they are asking for a description of your injury.

Do either of you disagree on the concept of space-time and the fact that you both occupy different locations RELATIVE to the thing be talked about and then account for the distinction when talking the thing your taking about?

To say that there needs to be a common point of reference is to say that you have to be the same observer to be able to understand each other, but that is nonsensical in a world of time and space where we each occupy different points. Something that humans have been able to figure out is that the same object looks different from different points in space-time. You don't need another observer to figure that out for yourself. Just move around the object, change the lighting, etc. and you can see for yourself how the your perspective changes. You know that you are the one that changed,, and not the thing being perceived,, so you deduce that the change in the perspective is a result of you changing,, not ta change in the object being perceived. We understand that it's not the object that changes, rather it is the information of the object relative to our position in space-time that changes. We then assume others have these various views given the same sensory organs observing from different points in space-time. If not, then we can usually point to causes outside the phenomenal state as reasons for the discrepancy (the person's eye-brain system is abnormal).

We both look at a cup and we may have no idea what part of the cup is descriptive of the cup and what are things we impose in order to better navigate our world. It's likely we see the cup the same way, but not necessarily so, and it's not required in order for us to speak of the cup. — Hanover

Seems like descriptions are the things we impose in order to better navigate the world. They are both the same thing. We have multiple senses. Maybe each sense provides a different description of the same property of the thing we're talking about and objects seem more complex than they are given we're using more than one different sense to describe/impose.

Think about how a cup feels in your hand vs how it sounds when it is dropped on the floor. Two very different experiences of the cup are descriptive of the just one property of the cup - the material it is made of.

What are the chances that you are both able to carry on this conversation so long without experiencing the words of this screen in similar ways? What are the chances that each post follows the arguement of the other without having a similar experience of the words on this screen? Are we always talking past each other when talking with anyone but ourselves?

When a professor gives you an exam, what are you being tested on if not whether your interpretation of the professor's lectures is accurate and that you interpret the professor's words the same way they do ?

If I were to ask you to copy and post everything that I said here, would you be able to do it? Why or why not? What are the chances you'd be able to do it if you weren't experiencing the same words on the screen? Even if you copy and paste the words you'd still need to interpret the scribbles, "copy and paste" the same way I do.

How much do you weigh? — praxis

Are you in the East or the West?

Not al all, nor is that an implication of my position — Tobias

If the rapist is killed it would be manslaughter. If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here. — I like sushi

First, how does the husband know that his wife is being raped and not a masochist cheating on her husband?

It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act.

The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring.

In the East it mean the realization of emptiness. In the West it means weight loss. — praxis

Then what enlightenment is is subjective?

Wrong — praxis

:grin:
Then enlighten me about enlightenment. Am I enlightened now when I'm "wrong", or when I change my mind and agree with you?

Well now Harry, think, think.... what could those circumstances be.... Ohh I know. Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is nota real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead! — Tobias

Then your position is that all rapists deserve to be killed by their victim's (X-)husband?

By the way, it is not my duty to tell you anything useful. You frame it as a demand, but normally I get paid to provide legal education. You could have found this information in the thread. — Tobias

Strange that you interpret a factual statement as a demand. Maybe the information in this thread is inaccurate, biased, or doesn't take into consideration all facts that have been given. There is no problem in asking questions. You didn't have to answer.

If the name "Janus" for me can only refer to Banno's-peception-of-Janus, but for you "Janus" refers only to Hanover's-perception-of-Janus, then when we each talk about Janus, we are talking abut different things. — Banno

That depends on what you mean by "perception". Perceptions are about the things being perceived. If not then your perception of others perceptions is one of your own making and there is no "external" world that is perceived. There would actually be no perceptions, just solipsistic imaginations.

Yes, “obviously” that has to be true. — Xtrix

If it walks, talks, and acts like a duck...

And the answer to that question as offered up so often in this thread is sometimes you have and sometimes you do not. — Tobias

This doesn't tell me anything useful. What are the circumstances in which it is OK to defend yourself vs not being OK to defend yourself?

It seems to me that if you have the right to life, liberty and happiness, then you have the right to defend yourself from others trying to take these things away from you.

Libertarianism is a cover for plutocracy. Most are just corporatists. All are capitalists through and through.

But if you want to go on believing the standard lines about “freedom,” you’re welcome. — Xtrix

You've obviously never met an Libertarian and only understand Libertarianism as it has been provided to you by others that don't understand it either. Plutocracy is plutocracy. Libertarianism is libertarianism. They are two distinct ideas.

Most people don't really know enough about what it is they are talking about when defining their political stances. Just look at the authoritarian socialists that label themselves as "liberal progressives", and are the same ones that mis-identify libertarians and their stance. Even self-proclaimed libertarians still try to dictate to others how to live their lives, so by definition they aren't libertarians.

If you are equating libertarianism with plutocracy, then what is the label you assign to those that believe individualism trumps collectivism and that everyone should be able to live their lives the way they want as long as it doesn't restrict others from doing the same?

What is it to be Enlightened?

To be enlightened is to find out that you were wrong in thinking a particular thought and instead of doubling down you change your mind.

No, neither deserved death if justice were served in a deliberate way. That is, had they not been shot, they would have faced some charges, not none deserving terribly long sentences, and certainly not death.

Saying the self defense was justified is not equivalent to saying he got his just dessert. — Hanover

Did R deserve to be chased down by a mob and assaulted?

It's not a matter of what someone deserved. It's a matter of do you have the right to defend yourself from being killed?

t's a matter of convenience. People (should) like a baseline from which to start placing burdens of proof. The baseline is Earth without people. I hear people came into being about 200k years ago. But some folks, quite reasonably I think, push the baseline up to when we started making fire. Others push it up further, quite reasonably I think, to domestication of species (plants, animals). At that point we've kind of gone off the rails; relatively speaking, of course. It's all natural, yes. But a good baseline to help us in deciding how far off the rails we can go, without ruining the gifts that we were given, is the Earth with space, clean air, clean water, clean food, and without a parasite killing the host. — James Riley

This is assuming quite a bit - like that what you have described ISN'T the way large-brained species with opposable thumbs normally evolve and manipulate their environment. You're still singling out humans as special in some way, when we still don't know the number of other species in the universe that have done the same on much larger scales.

Look into polio, small pox, etc. — James Riley

Apples and oranges.

Libertarianism is just another cover for plutocracy. — Xtrix

You obviously don't know what Libertarianism means.

Strange. No Libertarians in power yet this is the government we are faced with and can be defined as a plutocracy/oligarchy. Libertarians didn't do that. If this is what you think is the case, then voting for one of the two parties which have been in power for a hundred years or more, is voting for more of the same. How's that working out for you? Why you still vote for the same people that have been in power for 50 years and expect things to be different?

It was a very clear cut case. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to shoot black people — Kenosha Kid

Then R must be color blind because all three people he shot were white. What evidence do you have for this claim? Someone with a "D" next to their name told you?

The jurors were forbidden from considering the fact that R's second victim had more reason to suspect R -- who had a gun -- would shoot him in cold blood than that first victim -- who had no gun -- would shoot R. The armed R didn't even need to feel threatened by his unarmed victim (i.e. the jury did not need to make sense of that), he merely had to claim that he did. Since nothing but his claims could be considered, the judge ensured a prejudiced jury, and an inevitable miscarriage of justice. — Kenosha Kid

Stupid. People that think there is an active shooter typically run from the scene, not towards the active shooter. What did he expect to accomplish running at a man with a gun, if not to get shot?

Just like the men in the Aubury case, call the police if you see something, or think something is going down. Don't try to get involved. At most, follow the man so that you can report his whereabouts to the police. Anything above and beyond that is considered vigilantism. So the guys attacking R where more of a vigilante than R was. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Again, R's arrival as a counter protestor before a volatile mob brandishing a military grade firearm in order to protect the streets was stupid as shit and it cost lives, and almost his own. The world is worse off for his presence that day.

An apt analogy would be if I choose to wander the poorest gritiest part of town drunk wearing a Rolex, money falling from my pockets and then complaining I got robbed. Sure, robbery is robbery, and I acted legally and they acted illegally, but I'm a screaming dumb ass. — Hanover

Two violent criminals are dead. I'd say the world is better off for his presence that day. Who knows what other violent crimes those two would have committed in their lives. Just look at the Wisconsin parade killer.

Actually, a more apt analogy would be more like chasing and attacking an armed individual while you are unarmed, or out-gunned.

To understand the libertarian mind, remember the mantra: the government is the problem.

Don’t bother asking what the alternative is. — Xtrix

You are only seeing things in black and white. There is a middle ground - which is Libertarianism. Libertarianism is for limited government, not no government. But as a Libertarian, I recognize that unfettered power in any form, not just government (which is a form of power and control), is a threat to individual liberty. Corporations should have their powers checked as much as the governments. Monopolies need to be broken up and competition promoted.

Libertarians are the true liberals, and promoting the idea to abolish political parties, while at the same time imposing term limits, banning polls, and creating a fair playing field for all candidates would be "progressive". As such, I am a progressive liberal. The media and most other people are using the term, "progressive liberal" in the wrong way, referring to authoritarian socialists which would is the antithesis of Progressive Liberalism.

They are,if there were any. But you don't have to get vaxxed, you don't have to stay home, you can still gather. That is why we haven't defeated Covid. DOH! — James Riley

So we will never defeat Covid unless 100% of the world's population is vaccinated? Then Covid will never be defeated because you will never reach 100% world vaccination.

Not getting the vaccine because someone told you to is just as illogical as getting the vaccine because someone told you to. You can't control what others do, so it is incumbent upon the individual to weigh the evidence and the risks to your own self when leaving your house every day. Having the vaccine protects you against even the unvaccinated, so those that are vaccinated shouldn't be concerned about anyone else's private health status. I've been vaccinated, but I'm neither pro-vaccine or anti-vax. I'm anti-mandates because it's just a matter of when, not if, a mandate is imposed that you don't like and think has gone to far, but by that time it will have gone too far to do anything about it. Give the government an inch and they take a mile.

They'd proabbly do what the Republicans did and get their panties all up in a knot. :rofl: The point here is, the Right has the thinnest skin in the game. They talk tough but they are the first to start bawling when they have to eat their own medicine. — James Riley

Really? When has AOC, or any Democrat, put themselves in a situation where they have to debate someone on the other side, or not on any side as they now exist in the U.S. (the number of independents now outnumber both Reps and Dems), like Maher, Rogan and Rubin? Will AOC accept the invitation of Maher to be on his show - doubt it. And the fact that they are unwilling to expose their ideas to criticism. Both sides have taken indefensible positions on many issues, which is why we won't ever see a real debate between them and someone isn't part of their choir. This idea that one is righteous and the other is to be demonized just exposes ones own biases.

A naive realist talks about moral issues with the same certainty as he talks about tables and chairs. Do you see any problem with that? — baker

Exactly. The naive realist is confusing properties of the mind with properties of some "external" object - in a sense projecting their mental states (good or bad) onto objects that have no inherent property of good or bad.

In the same way the naive realist projects colors onto objects, as if objects possess color independent of looking at it. The apple is not red, your view of an apple is red. Apples are ripe or rotten and their color is an indication of their ripeness and rotteness.

So the problem of naive realism is determining which properties are actual properties of the object in your view that exist independent of being viewed vs the properties of your mind in viewing the object, as well as the properties of the light when seeing and the properties of the air when hearing. Changing the amount of light and the amount of air can influence the way we see and hear things.

But we disagree with each other! How could we disagree if we all can access the "external world"? — Ciceronianus

Because we often confuse what it is that we are talking about - properties of the world vs properties of ourselves when observing the world.

But I suppose it is the fact that we cannot exist without that portion of the rest of the universe with which we interact which makes me wonder why we're inclined to separate ourselves from the rest of the universe in this fashion and in other respects. — Ciceronianus

Well, using terms like "external" vs "internal" and "direct" vs "indirect" aren't helpful in reuniting humans with the world that they have a firm causal relationship with. Your mind is "external" to other minds and there is no view that is more fundamental than another so deeming one as "internal" vs "external" is just another projection of one's own view and not representative of the world independent of views. We all have "direct" access to our "internal" minds and "indirect" access to the rest of the world, yet we still know about the world. Which do we know more about? Can you really say that you know more about your mind than you do the rest of the world? Some would say that we know less about or own minds than we do the world (the problem of other minds, solipsism vs realism, etc.).

I think that we need to focus our efforts on explaining the mind and it's relationship with the world before we can really make sense of QM and it's implications.

What is an issue? Can I have a party that says "People should have unfettered access to abortion" and "People should have unfettered access to abortion and the government should pay for it" as a single issue party? What about a party that says "People should have unfettered access to abortion" and "People should have access to any reproductive technology/treatment of their choice"? And then if I couple that with broader benefits for low income families?

I just don't see how an artificial limit on what I can advocate for with like minded individuals strikes anyone as progressive. Progressivism, at least to me, seems most effective when people are organized. Limiting political organizations (and thereby prohibiting the pooling of money for common expression) of necessity favors wealthy individuals. Unless of course you think that in addition to eliminating parties you want to otherwise limit people's political speech/behaviors — Ennui Elucidator

How is abolishing political parties imposing limits on peoples' ideas? If anything, it removes those limits.

You seem to be forgetting that you vote for candidates which have stances on multiple issues, not just one. So by focusing on one you may end up voting against your position on other issues.

And if abortion is the one issue that a person cares about, then I feel sorry for that person. But sure, if we can encourage people that don't want to be parents to not be parents then that would be a good thing. I'd just have to ask why you think abortion is the best method of birth control. Abortion should be the last resort and as a last resort I would support it.

Anyway, I agree with you on a fundamental level. It's just a matter of convenience to distinguish between us and everything else. But maybe that is part of the problem. — James Riley

Sure, it's convenient to still use the terms in this way when most people still believe that humans are special and separate from nature. You use the words that you know people will understand if you intend to communicate. Think of how you might change your use of language when speaking to a child.

On the one hand, if we view ourselves as natural, then really, we can do no wrong. We just point and say "Nature made me do it!" And even if we agree that we can still be natural *and* do wrong, we are still inclined to let ourselves off the hook in an open conspiracy. On the other hand, if we deem ourselves separate, we tend to deem ourselves as better, or special, instead of merely different. That gives excuse to devalue and marginalize everything else in nature. — James Riley

At any moment, we can only behave and think as we are designed to do given our form, memories and sensory organs - all of which are natural things. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Nature does not dictate what is right or wrong. Humans with goals do that. Nature has no goals.

What ‘belief’? Historically the idea of ‘nation,’ today, is a relatively new idea. National identity was basically framed on the language you spoke rather than the piece of land you lived on. Passports never used to exist either. These are facts not beliefs? — I like sushi

Different languages developed because people segregated themselves from other groups. Languages didn't invade other languages. Groups of people invaded the land where other groups of people lived. Sure, 1000s of years ago, national borders weren't as clearly defined as they are now, there were still nations whose limits existed as far as a king's army could reach. History also shows that when a group of people lose the cohesion that defines their group (like a nation) others move in and take control. The plight of the Native Americans is a great example. When the various tribes united, they were a force to be respected, but individually they pretty much died out.

I think Christopher Stone likened it to an ontological problem where, at the end of the day, we are but play things made of straw. (Old Chinese thing?) — James Riley

For me, it comes down to causality. Are humans the effects of natural processes, and in turn, do they not cause changes in natural processes? If the answer is "yes" to both, then humans are as natural as anything else. In this sense, God (if one were to exist) would be natural as it would be the creator of the natural world, and has an effect on the natural world. Supernatural and artificial only make sense in the light of the natural which makes the natural fundamental.

What is truly progressive about it? That you think political parties are somehow inherently anathema to the common person such that abolishing political parties is necessary?

So far as I can tell, political parties arise as a socializing of interests amongst people. Sure, old political parties have the features of the people already invested in them, but new political parties can be single issue, multi-issue, any issue you want. How is making a law that says me and 5,000 sympathists can't work together to establish broad social policy, governmental systems, property rights, etc. good for the common man? — Ennui Elucidator

I think I could be fine with single-issue political parties. I don't think there would be much difference between that and no political parties. My main issue is with the group-think that multi-issue parties create where you join a party for one issue that you care about, don't bother educating yourself on the other issues that the party takes, and end up letting the party think for you on those issues.

There's also the issue where you may join a party because they share your goal on one issue, but then you eventually care less about the issue and more about the party itself - as if it's some sort of religion.

Just watch. I’ve abandoned it and many others have too. It is only a recent idea and hasn’t been around for long anyway. You just assume it is normal because it is all you know. The population just hit a certain critical mass that made ‘nationhood’ a more wearable premise. It’s falling quickly out of fashion now and the old language barriers are falling fast too (they were the main dictates of ‘nation’ prior to borders. — I like sushi

Sounds more to me that you simply surround yourself with like-minded individuals that reinforce this belief.

I agree. Every animal and natural process is "special" in their own way. But "special" has a higher/better/superior ring to it. At least in my mind. Thus, I find use of the term "different" to be more equalizing and accurate. — James Riley

My only gripe is of your square peg notion of humans, as if they are so different from everything else as to require a special term or meaning for a term when used in reference to humans only.

Say we discover a new species that have small primitive brains that has eradicated all other life and transformed it's entire planet's ecosystem? What about an alien species that has reshaped it's own galaxy? It is possible that there are other species or natural processes that have a larger impact on their environment than humans have on scales that dwarf the distance between humans and their Earthly counterparts. Would humans be so "different/special" then?

We might be scientists, but we aren't science. You and I never experience neutral collections of data because there's something that it's like to be Harry, or to be Uriah that shapes our view of collections of data into a personal experience of said collections. There are no generic human individuals. It is this personal POV that shapes data ingestion into a self perceiving it. The personal, perceiving self, so far, has been left out of scientific descriptions of sentience. When you get personal, which is the condition of every iteration of real-world sentience, you're now talking about the POV on the POV. — ucarr

Well sure, we each have access to a unique set of sensory data and memories that makes us individuals. That is the what it is like to be me - my unique data set and memories compared to yours.

The duality of particles vs wave is the result of two different views being made of the same thing. A view is a structure of information as well as a measurement. Minds digitize an analog world to create the meat of thought. Objects of the mind are the result. I believe that the world is process, relationships, or information, not physical. The idea that physical objects exist is the result of this digitization of the world into discrete forms in space-time. Turning your thoughts back on themselves in like the camera looking back at the monitor it is connected to. It creates a feedback loop - an infinite corridor - one akin to the void one peers into when running away with the thought of thinking about one's thoughts.

Just sounds cynical and angry mixed with a bit of misplaced optimism about how politics is some sort of vestige of power structures of yore. Political coalitions are a function of human relationships.

I actually know party members and power brokers - the sorts of people that engage in perpetuating their own power and institutional power. Even if you said that all parties ceased to exist tomorrow, they would still have the same alliances, loyalties, and social debt and assets that they had before you made your proclamation on high. — Ennui Elucidator

I don't see where I even implied, much less said, that this would or could happen overnight. Any emotional aspect that you thought that I used was simply your own projection. Sometimes stating facts to those that don't like to hear them can come across as sounding angry and cynical.

I just doesn't make any logical sense to say that something that no longer exists would still have the same alliances, loyalties, and social debt and assets that they had before. The people that made up these fundamentalist groups might still have these things in the short term, they wouldn't necessarily be useful to maintain in the short term especially if term limits were implemented as well. I never said that abolishing political parties was the only thing that needed to be done, but is a necessary thing to be done.

Do you mind providing some examples of societies where there are no political loyalties or other sorts of social capital used to organize 10,000 people dependent on cooperative trade/coexistence? — Ennui Elucidator

Truly progressive ideas don't usually have a precedence in history. That's why their progressive.

The population has/is outgrowing the need for the idea of 'country'. I'm not making prediction about what will/might happen but I cannot see a way past the dissolution of the 'nation state' this century (and see it happening already).

To unite across the globe religious doctrine was used. This spread out from one place to another. Then the religious attitude declined and we're seeing a clinging to nationhood instead (as has been happening for the last century or two). Whatever remains of the nation idea after the public loses interested will basically form the next social epoch I'd say and I think we're living through the transition right now. — I like sushi

I doubt it. It's kind of difficult for a nation to abandon nationhood when other nations aren't, and I doubt that all nations would abandon it at the same time. What do you think North Korea would do if South Korea abandoned it's nationhood? What would China do if the U.S. abandoned its nationhood and what would Iran do if Israel abandoned its nationhood?

Just like "saving the Earth", "abandoning nationhood" is only doable if EVERYONE does it.

I would like them to stop using the word "special." I think "different" would be less value-loaded. — James Riley

But every animal and natural process is "different" in their own way. So again, you could only be assuming that humans are special in some way.

There have been instances for governmental reform but generally they are sidelined as much as possible by those in power because it doesn't suit them. — I like sushi

The U.S. govt. is an elitist oligarchy after all.

In this instance the US when in splits (assuming it is still a powerhouse when it does) may open up a door to change. Either way I think the 'nation' is on its way out and I've little idea what will come next but technology will undoubtedly play a major role. — I like sushi

I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. One party has no one else to blame when things go south, so the only way one party stays in power is by becoming more authoritarian - by taking away your right to complain and be angry at them.

Sometimes I use "natural" to distinguish between us and everything but us. At the end of the day, however, it's all natural. Maybe someday nature will pound this square peg that is us into the round hole that is everything else. But it's still all Her pegs and holes. — James Riley

I think that most people use the terms "natural" and "artificial" in this way, but this is just a hold-over from the obsolete view that humans are separate from nature, or special in some way. Why would humans be the only square peg? Seems that one can only make that assertion if they assume that humans are special in some way, but then what would you expect a human to initially believe about their relationship with the universe?

There is nothing that humans have done that already hasn't happened in the universe to some degree, nor is there any reason to assume that what humans do isn't determined given the type of universe we find ourselves in. Humans could be the one's that create the environment for AI to evolve and flourish, and possibly even outlasting their human designers, and this would simply all be the natural way that this universe operates. So maybe environmentalists are the one's trying to hold back the universe from evolving towards it becoming what it is destined to be given its properties. Maybe carbon-based life is the antiquated form of life and silicon-based is the "better" version. We may never know considering the limited view of space and time that we currently possess.

What is considered unnatural, is when humanity creates an element to add to the periodic table which does not occur naturally. In contradiction to this, one could say, that anything that is, is natural. — boagie

In the beginning there was only hydrogen and a trace amount of helium. Heavier elements were forged inside the cores of stars and then spewed across the galaxy when they exploded. Stars are natural forces that created new elements. Humans are no different.