this thread has strayed from the original topic. And I'm partly to blame, for defending some of my statements in terms of my own personal worlview. — Gnomon

You're partly to blame for making off-topic assertions.

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?
— praxis

A & B are both individual letters (with functions of their own), and components of the whole alphabet. — Gnomon

You claim that everything is information (A). If everything is information then whatever it is that we "conventionally" call matter (B) is A (information). That being the case, it wouldn't seem to matter if we call matter Information or matter since they are the same thing.

So to me your response is that A (information) and B (matter) are components of X (unknown but more primary than information).

So I'm not sure if I should ask the same question a third time or ask what X is.

you're all emotion and no reason — Harry Hindu

And you believe this is a reasonable claim?

If A and B are two properties (or sets of properties) of the same thing, it makes a difference. — bert1

Yes, take a computer for example, we could say that one property is hardware and another is software.

There’s another way that makes a difference that involves purpose. For example, a hammer can be both a hammer and a paperweight.

Think climate change denial on a smaller scale. Similar motives, similar backers, similar tools. — Baden

... similar moral framework.

Isn't that weird? — Gnomon

We say something is weird when we can’t explain it.

What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information?
— praxis

I'd say that quantum particles --- the "atoms" of the 20th century --- are both physical substance and metaphysical Information; both Matter and Mind, both Science and Philosophy. both Mechanics and Meaning. It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. "Vive la difference". — Gnomon

Again, if something is both A and B, what difference does it make if you call it A or B?

Rationalization



“[…] the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the ‘saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.’ But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.”
– Max Weber. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905

What difference does it make if you call quantom particles, or whatever, matter or information? We have to call them something. For the spiritualist/materialist rift that you mention, are you suggesting that because matter is really information, that spirits can exist, and that materialists can accept the existence of spirits because they no longer distinquish between matter and information?

there are more ways to make money - at least, more forms within the categories - where you don't need to make money. Some of them led to the 2008 crash. I wish I had the economic knowledge to demonstrate who pushed us in this direction and by what nefarious, negligent and careless means. — Coben

Banks - money based on debt - and various financial instruments.

Ceasing the exploitation of workers is not going to happen through any evolutionary process. (Maybe it will happen through a devolutionary process, where civilization collapses, masses die of starvation, and there is essentially no economy in which to exploit anyone. NOT something to look forward to.) — Bitter Crank

I'm currently reading a book about the end of economic growth and in it the metaphor of a 2 lb hummingbird is used to express the point that degrowth is inevitable. Increased productivity and substitution (alternatives to fossil fuel, e.g.) can only go so far, and then there's toxic buildup, climate change, overpopulation, etc.

Then the bullshit jobs that produce all the bullshit products would disappear and America would no longer be great. :sad:

As fun and interesting as this is, why don’t you just reread what I actually wrote.

are you emotionally attached to your statements that you make on this forum — Harry Hindu

I don’t think anyone else would make my statements, but to answer the question, yes. Are you not human?

Economists call it 'confidence' and measure it. It is real, it is social, it is the glue of society, and the media that betray it are more destructive than war and terrorism.

Do you trust Google? — unenlightened

Economic confidence is a belief in how the economy will grow in the future and many things can influence that prediction. I imagine it's possible, for instance, for Google to tweak its algorithm to favor search results that contain negative words or phrases in association with economic growth, possibly influencing user's economic forecasts on an unconscious level and ultimately lead to a downturn, potentially causing more destruction, in terms of human suffering, than war or terrorism.

I have trust issues.

What's weird about a form of idealism?

What philosophical views are "well established"? — Harry Hindu

I'm interpreting the thrust of your question to be something like 'what philosophies are generally accepted?' Generally speaking, established views are generally accepted.

I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. — Gnomon

You're essentially saying that you don't have more authority than scientists or philosophers. You're not saying that you have less. Nothing wrong with that of course, besides the false modesty.

You just proved my point in the sentence following the quote : "Instead, they skim it and quickly get an impression that it's a weird idea, and doesn't fit into their own view (either A or B), then quickly opt out." — Gnomon

I went to a subject that I'm currently interested in when I visited one of your websites. It did not express a desire to really understand the subject. I'll characterize it as a half-ass effort to dismiss a competing idea to your "weird idea," whatever that is. I have no idea of what your weird idea is.

I have found that few people have the interest and the patience to read it from problem statement, to hypothesis, to supporting arguments, to summary thesis. — Gnomon

The funny thing is, having googled ‘Enformationism’ and briefly skimming the results, that this appears to be your basic modus operandi. It makes me wonder why someone would construct a WorldView with only a cursory glance at well established views. The short answer, I suspect, is that you’re trying to fool people for some kind of material gain. I say material gain because clearly you couldn’t fool academics.

Not a great idea unless you don’t minds them being practically everywhere you go.

I made a hammer for the purpose of pounding a nail.

I set aside an olive so that come cocktail hour I can make a martini.

Etc...

The ultimate authority is the Oligarchy, which runs secular institutions. — h060tu

Do they provide answers to ultimate questions? Do we accept their rule on faith or do they need to justify their policies with reason?

Why are language, math, art, being, purpose, knowledge, justice, mind, will, education, governance, and the meaning of life all topics of one thing, “philosophy”? — Pfhorrest

I tend to think of philosophy as pre-science.

I notice that you don’t have a chapter in your book dedicated to metaphysics, incidentally.

I like seeking the truth, practicing writing and critical thinking, discovering things that I might not have otherwise found, and seeing if others agree with my understandings.

If you're an employer and you offer to bring your employee back to work and they decide not to, that's a voluntary quit," Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) said Friday. "Therefore, they would not be eligible for the unemployment money.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/495050-states-telling-workers-theyll-lose-unemployment-benefits-if-they-refuse

Actually, in an economic recession (declining GDP) income inequality typically decreases. The poor stay poor, but the rich aren't getting the profits. This happened for example in my country when we had a serious economic depression (thanks to speculative bubble and a banking crisis) in the 1990's. — ssu

Having checked the New Yorker article that I was reading this morning it appears that I misread it. :yikes: It says that in many Western countries over the past couple of decades that slower growth has been accompanied by rising political polarization.

I started to read a book about The End of [economic] Growth today. Particularly interesting now that economic growth has truly stopped, if only temporarily.

It equates to ultimate authority. There’s no ultimate authority in secular institutions.

How do you relate that to the declining labour share of GDP development and income inequality?Or the fact CEO pay has risen by 940% since 1978 but worker pay only by 12%? This while GDP grew with nearly 90% since then? — Benkei

Some economists believe that a relatively low growth rate is normal for a rich nation, because there’s less of an incentive to work, people have fewer children, and so on, and that a declining GDP will increase inequality to destabilizing levels if unmitigated by policies that include wealth redistribution. AI development could further sink the divide. Is that an expression? Anyway, some kind of redistribution policy seems inevitable.

The idea of religion in my mind is closer to the Durkheimian view that religion centers around the idea of sacredness, which literally means "something set apart for a particular purpose." — h060tu

I’m not sure how you get that sacredness “literally” means that. That, of course, is not what it means, much less literally means. I assume that’s one sense of it that you got from a dictionary.

The Durkheimian Wikipedia page defines sacred as:

the ideas that cannot be properly explained, inspire awe and are considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion

The secular institutions that you mention don’t hinge on ideas that cannot be properly explained.

Somethings are upheld by a cult as "sacred" (set apart) that are not under the same perview and general skepticism of other beliefs.

Religious social facts are necessary not open to review because they are by nature inexplicable.

If an authority figure repeats something enough times people will begin to believe it. It’s like a Jedi mind trick, only it doesn’t require any talent or skill.

I cannot be responsible for the readers comprehension if there is no honest effort to understand the spirit of my post. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You're also not responsible for the reader's comprehension of the content of your posts.

Rather than banging your head, you could try to explain how the content of your post relates to what I posted. Assigning the attribute of "hysteria" rather than "derangement syndrome" to others may be a lesser attack, but it remains an ad hom attack.

Are you condoning the use of ad hominem attacks in this forum?

Both TDS and TD accomplish the same task... what you wrote doesn't appear to address anything I've posted.

I think that most Trump supporters only require the barest of excuses to dismiss embarrassing facts. Trump's recent public musing about injecting disinfectants, for instance, is easily accepted as being "sarcasm" by his followers.

This makes me wonder if the basic mission of people like NOS and nobeer is to help provide that suspension of disbelief to any Trumpies that may read negative content about their hero on this forum.

Clearly NOS is on a mission of some sort.

Sorry, you'll have to refresh my memory, what is the argument that I don't like?

I’m probably one of the few who read many of your posts. If I read more of them, I imagine that my spineless work would be far more labor intensive.

Maybe someone who joins a philosophy forum to write thousands of posts in support of their political hero within a few months. Some of us have criticized Trump, but none of his critics here come even remotely close to that level of religious fervour.
— Badin

Could have fooled me. — NOS4A2

Rather, you’re not fooling anyone.

Different phrase and different meaning. — NOS4A2

That accomplish the same task. I could, for example, say that you have a weak character or say that you’re immoral. Both could be used as an ad hom attract in an effort to influence the weak minded (such as a trump supporter) to dismiss basically anything you say.

different phrase — NOS4A2

Should I do a search for “anti-trump hysteria”?
— praxis

I’m not sure why you would. TDS stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome. — NOS4A2

It's possible that some of the restrictions society places of the classification are acting in a similar way - constraining private variety to make public expression meaningful? — Isaac

Like all social constructs, agreement or uniformity is important to function, and the price of being out of sync with the socially constructed emotional world is an imbalanced body budget (stress).

Should I do a search for “anti-trump hysteria”?

I was pointing out how you’re misrepresenting your past behavior, and the purpose behind the behavior, and not that you’re necessarily “wrong” about anything.

What does my prolific gossiping via pm about you have anything to do with this?