You might think you've got all the authority since you're the boss but they've got authority too. They've got the authority to get money from you, however much you've agreed to pay them. — HardWorker

Employees or labor has collective power if they can coordinate. That's why socialism is such a dirty word.

I’ve tried to explain to you that the information or pattern is independent of the medium. For instance, I’m conveying this message through written language but I could also convey it by voice. Two “disparate” mediums, same information or pattern that your brain recognizes. Comprende, senor?

My point is that neurons cause particular neural activity. The body performs the actions, therefor it causes them. — NOS4A2

You're simply limiting a causal sequence, so what? It would make sense to do that if the events in question were too far removed from each other to find a reasonable causal connection, but that is not the case.

A belief is a propositional attitude.
That is, it can be placed in a general form as a relation between someone and a proposition. So "John believes that the sky is blue" can be rendered as

Believes (John, "The sky is blue")

B(a,p)

There's ill will in some circles towards this sort of analysis. Think of this as setting up a basic structure or grammar for belief. A belief is a relation between an individual and a proposition. That there is much more to be said about belief is not in contention; this is just a place to start. This is set as a falsifiable proposition. If there are any examples of beliefs that cannot be stated as relations between individuals and propositions, this proposal would have to be revisited.

It has been suggested that animal and other non-linguistic beliefs are a falsification of this suggestion. The argument is that non-linguistic creatures can have beliefs and yet cannot express these beliefs as propositions, and that hence beliefs cannot be propositional attitudes. But that is a misreading of what is going on here. Any belief, including that of creatures that cannot speak, can be placed in the form of a propositional attitude by those who can speak. A cat, for example, can believe that its bowl is empty, but cannot put that belief in the form B(a,p). — Banno

I think what we call belief is really a relation between different propositions, whether or not they agree, and actual beliefs are our internal models of the world. Our models of the world are not entirely conscious, and that being the case, it can't be said that we always know what we believe.

Agrees (proposition a, proposition p)

If I offer a cat an empty bowl it will not mistakenly try to eat from it. I can't lie to the cat and tell it there is food when there is not, but I can trick the cat nevertheless. I can offer a cat an empty bowl, listen to its MEOWS of protest, and wait for the timer to go off in the electronic cat bowl that opens a compartment in the bottom which reveals a delicious feline feast. The cat's internal model of the world, perhaps just that specific bowl, is revised in some way. With enough experience with the electric bowl, the cat could reliably predict mealtime or 'believe' the bowl has food even though it's not immediately apparent.

Critters compete, cooperate, and freeload just like people do, they just don't do it with conceptual propositions as we do.

We should probably use agree instead of believe because it is more honest.

What has happened in Western religious discourse, according to Karen Armstrong, is that the emphasis on belief and believing have distorted this meaning, by making religion a propositional matter, not a way-of-being. 'Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed to a transformative way of life that takes you beyond the prism of selfishness. All good religious teaching – including such Christian doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation – is basically a summons to action. Yet instead of being taught to act creatively upon them, many modern Christians feel it is more important to "believe" them.' And you see that reflected a lot in the debates about religion on this forum. — Wayfarer

This belies the common trait in religions that a practitioners can fail miserably, commit a wide range of transgressions, and still be held firmly in the fold, but should they merely question doctrine or those higher in the hierarchy they’ll promptly be stamped a heretic and considered an outsider. This has always been the case.

I can only hope this is all a joke on your part.

WTF? Funny how those willing to reduce the population never want to start with themselves. — stoicHoneyBadger

Lol, are you suggesting that I fall on a knife? I haven’t had children, by choice, if that pleases your sense of consistency.

Seriously though, social engineering is an extremely complex topic and, as history shows us, those who reduce it to oversimplified concepts always do way more harm than good. — stoicHoneyBadger

The point was really to express unconventional ideas to see how you would respond to them. It seems you dislike the maverick and prefer the herd.

Whether those are his concepts or he is enslaved by someone's else concepts. Meaning whether he is just a pawn in someone else's game or is he at least trying to be his genuine self and develop a world view that help him live a more fulfilled life. — stoicHoneyBadger

A pawn can be fulfilled. I don't think you mean fulfilled. You seem to be talking about control or power. Nothing is more base than that.

understanding that you still need oil — stoicHoneyBadger

Do we need oil? Renewable energy is still more expensive than fossil fuel so if we tried to transition on a large scale now it would shrink the economy. However, we could devise a plan to scale back consumption and learn how to be content with less material wealth, perhaps by focusing on more meaningful pursuits, and also distribute resources so that those most negatively impacted by degrowth would have their basic needs met. We could also agree on population reduction.

All of the above is possible and could lead to a happier and sustainable society. The problem is that people are not rational and DO NOT critically evaluate their beliefs, actions, and their consequences.

You are claiming that people cannot care about the environment or social inequality and that they can only care about being perceived as a good person?

Yes, I’ve also noticed that white often swings first. I can remember games where white played unusual or bold openings moves with their pawns and my being a bit stupefied and eventually losing the game.

In the arts, however, women are giving men a run for their money. They stand toe-to-toe with the best of men writers/poets/painters, sometimes outshining them in these domains. — Agent Smith

Without trying to check with an internet search, I doubt that is true in terms of recognition.

This is false, for the simple fact that authorities rely on those without authority. Short of physical force, no one actually has power over others. A president is only a president because enough people agree that they are a president. It is an illusion, or rather a social construct. Societies are constructed on a series of ideas and agreements, nothing more.

Wow, if I’m ever in that neighborhood I definitely will.

I’ve visited that one. Now I wish we visited Sainte-Chapelle, the one pictured in my post above.

Give me an example. — frank

This one’s magnificent.

Worldviews just sort of arise. Maybe there's some natural selection involved, I don't know. But it's never just a top-down sort of thing. — frank

There are all sorts of worldviews. I’m claiming that religions always make metaphysical claims (ultimate truths) that require uncommon access. Those with uncommon access have authority, assuming there’s no higher authority, so it is always a top-down sort of thing.

Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.' — Wayfarer

'Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed… — Wayfarer

The claim seems to be that if you practice righty you’ll eventually get it and that only poor practitioners lose faith or never get it. If you hold that these Truths cannot be false there is no other way to look at it, and they necessarily hold that they cannot be false.

People sometimes like to quote the Kalama Sutta where the Buddha says something to the effect of ‘try it out and if it works for ya, well, welcome aboard, mate :heart: ’. Nowhere does he grant the possibility of falsehood.

Without specifics I’ll simply say that practice or a “way-of-being” doesn’t require religion.

Was it about faith? — frank

Faith in religious authority, yes. You are paying attention. :razz:

Because the rest made no sense. — frank

I don’t know how to make a piña colada either, if I’m honest.

Hence the merit of religion is not found in conceptualisation. — Banno

On the contrary, its only merit is found in conceptualization because it is religious ideas (fictions) that serve to bind groups with common values, a meta-narrative, norms, goals, and so on. Ritual is part of that, but then ritual is also part of secular life. Ritual can also be part of non-religious spiritual life.

I meant the patterns in the electrical signals that you mentioned. Specific patterns that correspond to a sequence of sounds, such as spoken words. Neurons in the cerebral cortex recognize these patterns due to their conditioning or as you say “ learning, trial and error, practice, and so on.” Spoken words cause particular neural activity, in other words.

Isn't physicalism a metaphysical claim? — Tom Storm

I believe it is, yes.

It looks to me like you ditched my question. Excellent.

Allow me to rephrase the question, if you will. Do you believe that religious folk make metaphysical claims or simply describe the true nature of reality? The latter case would require no faith. It would be like someone describing something unremarkable and ordinary, like how to mix a piña colada.

I think describing the nature of reality is metaphysical — frank

Even if God was describing it?

What do you mean by ultimate? — frank

In a word, metaphysics.

It seems rather obvious to me that both esoteric Christianity and Shamanic religions make metaphysical claims, or do believe that they merely describe the nature of reality?

What's wrong with the examples I gave? — frank

Let’s see, the Christ in Christianity refers to, well, Christ, and not the average Joe, no? AverageJoeianity would be funny religion though, and I thank you for inspiring the amusing thought.

Shamanism is about accessing what?

There are a lot of other examples. — frank

Maybe one of these others would be a good example. Please…

Can you name one that isn’t like that?

Anyone who can somehow convince others that they have experienced or speak for the ultimate.

Whose authority? — frank

Those with special access.

That activity is always happening, silly goose. What you neglect to take into account is the intentional pattern that is transmitted, and that is caused by the spoken words of another’s voice.

You really should watch the video, it’s super cute.

It refers to an ideology that relies on ultimate authority.

I believe that some intentionally obfuscate for one reason or another and that is their purgative, annoying as it may be.

spoken words can effect human beings insofar as they vibrate another’s ear drums, like all sounds, but beyond that the words have no effect. After that all subsequent effects are caused by the biology. — NOS4A2

If words only affected eardrums then it would not be possible to communicate verbally. Sounds cause patterns of auditory sense data to be transmitted to the brain which in turn causes particular neural effects.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a causal chain? Perhaps the following video can help. Pay special attention to the cats. They are biological and an inextricable part of the causal chain.

I don’t understand. — NOS4A2

I don't either, actually. I've been playing the devil's advocate, your advocate, in order to try to understand your reasoning. Standing in another person's shoes, as they say, in order to at least engender some empathy for your position on the matter. This approach has failed, I'm sorry to say, so if we are to bridge this gap in understanding you will have to do the heavy lifting.

Earlier you wrote:

The other person causes his own actions. The act of hearing my words, processing what I said, and recoiling in horror are the effects of which he is the cause. — NOS4A2

Yet subsequent to this claim you agreed that pricking a person with a needle would cause them to feel pain. If you pricked a person with a needle it is far more likely that they would recoil (reacting to the pain) than if you were to merely say something to them. There is no fundamental difference between words and needles in this context. Both can physically connect two people in a causal chain.

Incidentally, no one thing causes another thing to happen. We merely identify the most efficient 'causes' that are in line with fulfilling our goals.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Our desires and goals largely shape our reality.

Such as a cause of needle, and please pardon my racy language, penetration.

omg can we not engage the 15 year old internet fascist — StreetlightX

@frank isn’t that bad.

Its misleading. A ploy. And is being replaced by 'empowerment', a strategy disguised as a compensatory mechanism. — Gregory A

Progressive liberals openly propose both empowerment and restitutions. Anyway, what is the ultimate goal of this supposedly clandestine strategy? Orwellian totalitarianism?