What is the actual purpose and intent of these proposals, and do they achieve their desired effect? — geospiza

The purpose was, as I understand it, to make the producers of pornography go to a different county than the Los Angeles one. It might also be that the passing of the proposition would increase the perception of 'safe sex' rather than unprotected sex depicted in pornographic films without the use of condoms.

Brute facts seemingly can only exist in a monistic universe. I also don't think brute facts can exist in a relativistic universe.

Furthermore, logical positivists take a similar stance and call brute facts 'logical hinges' or 'simples'. Russell is the only recent philosopher that comes to my mind as someone who believed in brute facts (think; to deduce all axioms of arithmetic from first order logic). We all know that he failed in reducing arithmetic to logic.

Furthermore, it seems that things like the Principle of Sufficient Reason are necessary presuppositions to claim the existence of brute facts. However, I disagree with this due to quantum mechanics possibly not being causal in nature.

However, I think that if the simulated universe theory is correct, as well as the Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle, then I see no reason why certain brute facts can't exist. What are these 'brute facts'? I have no idea.

In my waking life there is a logically continuity of happenings. If I am walking down the street, in the next moment I will be continuing to walk down the street unless I decide to stop and do something else. In my dreams there is no such logical continuity. I may be walking down the street one moment, then in the next moment in a car, then in a house, etc.. The content is very random with very little logical continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, sci-fi or fantasy movies are just as 'real' by the same logic; but, we don't have a prejudice against them as not being real as you claim dreams are.

What grounds are there for assuming a differentiation between the two?

When we go to a movie we do not even consider the possibility of having control over what happens in the movie. — Metaphysician Undercover

The concept of 'control' is obviously not the same as in a dream as in waking life. The concept of control in a dream is maximized when one dreams lucidly. I have no qualms with calling a lucid dream a form of reality, just not occupied in the same space-time as in waking life.

How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because the dream IS real. There is no point in denying the beauty of a piece of music as well as the content of a dream. The content of a dream is not fundamentally different than that of waking life. It's just a state space where the set of possible configurations of 'things' (the possibilities in a sort of monastic space that is reality) is different than that of waking life.

I've heard a lucid dreamer tell me that despite having some control over what is to happen in the dream, the dream is still experienced as if it is real. How do you think this could be possible? — Metaphysician Undercover

I suppose it's the same as when we go to the movies. We don't stand up and shout, "That's not true!". Some form of suspension of disbelief is required to entertain a film as well as a dream.

How could one have some control over what is happening, and yet experience it as if it is really happening? — Metaphysician Undercover

That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience. I've had lucid dreams where I know it's a dream; but, still am in the domain of believing/entertaining what I am seeing as real as in waking life.

Here's one interesting concept.

Take the fact that some dreams are lucid enough where we are in control of our surroundings. Would this not at the very least be a sort of an informal proof for the existence of God? How else would one explain the fact that the observer in the dream can have control over everything they are experiencing?

In other words, what's the philosophy of lucid dreams and it being in relation to reality or a sort of reality in itself?

In other words, let's assume that some person has the miraculous ability to realize every night that they are dreaming. This realization would allow the person to control their dreams for whatever purpose/desire for the period of the dream. Say one is studying some material, then in the dream, they can recall material, which this person is studying (doubtfully what one would do; but, a noble purpose to devote the dream space-time to). An alternative is that one can dream about music.

Isn't it fascinating that the mind can recall pieces of music with such detail during sleep (I'm sure I'm not the only one), effortlessly? In my case, I find it extraordinary that I can dream W.A. Mozart - Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183 1'st movement without a hitch during sleep as opposed to the great difficulty one would have to recall the same piece during waking hours. If that isn't extraordinary, then I don't know what is.

No, because dreams are neither sufficient evidence nor arguments for the truth of 'idealism'. — jkop

Well, that's what we're discussing here. Mind to explain why they aren't sufficient evidence? What's your take here?

I have to admit the OP question was ill-formulated. It should read,

"Dreams, as proof of idealism?"

In an effort to facilitate some discussion, I would hope to change the subject to something of the sort of, 'Dreams, as proof of 'idealism''

Would that be better than the rather hard to comprehend Hegelian conception of absolute idealism?

I've always had trouble pinning down precisely what absolute idealism IS so I would love to hear your thoughts on this. — Brian

It's hard to elaborate on using something so ethereal as dreams as the leading premise.

I would suggest that dreams are just simply a way in which we perceive reality. Thinking as a materialist, you have reality being generated without external input, some (supposedly) internal gibberish, which I don't believe.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. Why we don't acknowledge it as a form of reality is a deeper question about how we think about how reality works, as something external illuminating our mind as a projector displays still images in quick succession.

Too blasphemous for my Puritan'ian ears.

Gotta watch out with those BDSM master-slave relations. Wonder what Nietzsche would say about it.

The dialectics of depression,

where nothing good comes out of false premises.

Depression, as you know, is a distortion of reality.

One can't make a delicious cake out of shit.

That's my understanding of the futility (in essence) of CBT in trying to make a cake out of shit.

Never knew that. Hegel was a staunch believer in marriage though so go figure.

How is your vision of reality different from logical positivism or the early Wittgenstein?

Hegel never did go to explain why the dialectical exists as opposed to some sort of monism. Maybe I need to be educated; but, that's a topic worthy of a thesis paper.

One can hope that the whole thing falls on itself eventually.

*No signs of it happening yet.*

What do you mean? I don't understand.

So, you would say that buying cheap goods, in the end, harms the poorest by supporting and perpetuating their exploitation?

Can you at least present the main arguments here or is that too much?

Thank you for saving my virgin ears or rather eyes. O:)

But, then again wasn't Augustine a sinner before he became a saint?

Start a new thread if you'd like. Ill be the first to read through it.

If Russia colluded with Trump, then only so that Hillary couldn't get into office. I doubt cool and rational Putin would expect anything from his thin-skinned and bombastic Trumpite. Besides, it's fun to see how American's react with indignation and such anger when they get what they've been doing for years in the Middle East, South America, and Africa.

It'll be my next book to read. Thanks! :-)

I have his copy of 'How the World Works'. I should give it a re-read.

And he seems to be an anarcho-syndicalist from Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism#Noam_Chomsky

Seems not that far off from liberalism with a leftist twist.

Chomsky is an anarcho-capitalist? That's like calling Ayn Rand a socialist; unless you misspoke, I'm not sure you are familiar with Chomsky's work. — Saphsin

I could have sworn I heard Chomsky was some form of anarchist, am I wrong about this too?

I know from my superficial reading and watching of Chomsky that he admired Capitalism; but, criticizes any attempt by a right or left winger to describe the past and present, US as 'capitalist' in any manner.

My impression is that Chomsky is a big fan of Smith. Was Smith an anarcho-capitalist as Chomsky self-describes himself? I know he absolutely hates how liberalism has been perverted by the right, which he goes to great lengths on bashing the right for doing.

Thanks for the links and book.

The general gist that I understand what Adam Smith was doing was making use of the human passions in a constructive manner. Smith, Hume, and later economists thought that the markets could tame or rather temper the wild spirits of human nature and put them to good use. Hegel thought that the market could be a guiding force in rearing in emotions and forming/reinforcing a good and wholesome identity, though I think he was mistaken in that somehow the market could represent an 'institution' where human nature would be guided, which makes me doubtful that the claim that markets can temper human emotions as questionable in whole.

Anyway, that's my stab at what Adam Smith and others thought about 'the market', and how it could transform human behavior into a more civilized and organized (productive) entity that would transform man and his/her ambitions.

Ok, I understand that much. So, you have to have some alternative. What is it then?

I pointed out a number of problems a la homelessness, lack of health care, etc. — Terrapin Station

So, what's the issue here? Is it that you are just unhappy that the market doesn't employ these people or what exactly?

I brought up neo-liberalism because that is/has been the guiding economic policy of the West for a great deal of time now in which 'enlightened self-interest' plays out as I have described in my OP.

What was the question?

Why neo-liberalism? — Terrapin Station

Liberalism and neo-liberalism have been the guiding philosophy of the right and left in the US and Europe for a good number of years. You can see the impact of fathers of Liberalism (Adam Smith, John Locke) in the foundation of the United States. So, it's quite important that we address neo-liberalism because of its profound impact on political thought since a good number of years, here, in the US, and in Europe.

I'd even say that China has embraced neo-liberalism to a great extent in economic thought.

Perkins specifically mentioned that it is our foreign policy that is the cause for the arguable actions of these economic hit men. That's distinct from liberalism or neoliberalism mentioned here in this topic, and I have yet to understand how fascism factors in here.

I meant to say that neo-liberalism isn't the answer to the things you demand from it, e.g eliminating poverty or homelessness.

Take food — unenlightened

I don't want to nitpick; but, it seems to me that in general there is nothing wrong with some regulation. Is there some golden mean that we can agree on regulation being a net positive instead of stifling growth?

For the matter, it seems quite obvious to me, that Europe despite having stricter regulations than the US, is still quite competitive.

That's a very easy question, Question. An ungoverned market will deal mainly in pigs in pokes. To prevent people being poisoned by the food they buy, burned by the shoddy housing they rent, electrocuted by unsafe products, run down by faulty cars and so on we like to have trading standards. When the market controls the government, these standards are called 'red tape' and gotten rid of or relaxed or ignored to free up enterprise. People die. — unenlightened

Maybe if we're talking about monopolies; but, the market isn't controlled by one corporation or one business, as we all know, and we still buy toys and goods produced in China, so moot point.

You might well disagree with this or at least find it exaggerated to the point of vacuity. Nevertheless, that it makes sense to say it illustrates that a government can become a mafia. And if and when it does, obviously a man of principle and virtue will oppose the government. It is a sign of my left wing bias of course, that this appears in my newsfeed rather than fulminations against Communism. Exactly how one opposes depends on how much of a self-serving racket it is and one's resources, and one's character. Hopefully, many people will oppose such tendencies on an ongoing basis such that the government is obliged to serve the citizens as a whole rather than any clique. That is what approximates to 'good government' in my book, and it depends entirely on the vigilance of citizens in defending their own and each other's rights to fair treatment and a pleasant environment. To take the position that one doesn't mind ill-treatment of people as long as it is not oneself being ill-treated is woefully short-sighted. — unenlightened

Are you presenting the government as an entity greater than the market? Because nowadays, and I don't think this is an exaggerated claim, governments are responsible for the well-being of a market.

What's not to love about having the government in check by the participants of the market? I see it as an enhancement to democracy to have a market that helps tame the desires and pursuits of a government, nowadays.

What is the most interesting question on the top of my mind nowadays is how can certain economies (like China) have such a close relationship (not centrally planned economy; but, partially) with its own market and facilitate so much growth. It kind of flies in the face of the truism that markets are best left self-regulating and free.

The point is that if all of the costs of "goods produced in China or India" that you specifically refer to were included in their price either demand for them would be so low that they would not be produced in the first place or the price would be so high that people in "rich countries" would instead buy local products. Either way you wouldn't be coming here saying that it helps workers with breathtakingly low pay more to buy the products that their breathtakingly cheap labor produces rather than altruistically directly address their plight--either way we would not be having this conversation. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So, I don't understand the issue. Either the price is subsidized or not, or tariffs are imposed on the goods or not. What costs are you talking about here?

It seems to me your post could have been more or less copied verbatim from a text-book on neoliberalism. Self-interest, I can see, but by what's 'enlightened' about it? 'The greatest good for the greatest number', or 'concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% who can then game the system in such a way as to increase and maintain their privilege? — Wayfarer

What's enlightened about it is that investment goes to the neediest group typically due to the economics of their cost of labor being so low. Again, China and India being examples.

Also, there are estimates that worldwide, obesity, is an issue for 40% of the population. Any Malthusian scenario is out of the water with such high numbers of 'poverty'.