Comments by "" (@josephcoon5809) on "Ryan Chapman"
channel.
-
88
-
52
-
@busylivingnotdying Here’s what materialists don’t understand about reality…
A rock has ONE set of material (physical) attributes: size, weight, hardness, shape, color… However, it has MULTIPLE ideal (metaphysical) purposes: projectile, container, wall, ballistic, bludgeon, cutting-edge.
Conversely, a cup has ONE purpose: contain a fluid. However, it can be instantiated with MULTIPLE materials: rock, wood, glass, metal, plastic, and you can even cup your hands at a river (contain water) or around your mouth or ears (contain air).
Reality has a reciprocal ONE to MANY relationship between MATERIAL and PURPOSE. It is this lack of understanding that Materialism fails in resulting in a loss of value for some particular material. That value is determined by the IDEAL purpose; not its material attributes. A rock is more valuable for every purpose it is given depending on the circumstances.
What “socialism” does is it limits what people can imagine a material object CAN be used for by dictating what a material object IS used for.
A free market isn’t about the ends of wealth accumulation. It is about the innovations required to stay competitive for that wealth.
That’s not even the fundamental issue with “socialism.” The fundamental issue is that socialism WORKS IF EVERYONE IS A WILLING PARTICIPANT. The moment you make it mandatory is the moment it begins to degrade.
Freedom is always the heart of these conversations, and that’s why both sides get it wrong. Socialism is JUST the communal ownership of capital (“means of production” is the same thing; it was coined to give it a positive connotation when applied by the state). That communal ownership is completely possible, and even beneficial, within a free market.
So the actual argument is about whether individuals willingly come together and collectively manifest socialist ideals WITHOUT forcing it on unwilling participants: Actual Socialism versus NATIONALIZED Socialism.
And I hope everyone is familiar with the outcome of NATIONALIZED Socialism. Most Jews do, I am sure.
29
-
19
-
12
-
9
-
@busylivingnotdying 😂 I meant specifically how the brain is organized. 😂
Lower order neurons are represented by higher order neurons in a 10-10,000:1 relationship. That is a fractal pattern that repeats through higher orders of neurons. Using 100 as the base…
a 2nd order neuron will represent 100 1st order neurons;
a 3rd order neuron will represent 100 2nd order neurons and 10,000 1st order neurons;
a 4th order neuron will represent 100 3rd order neurons; 10,000 2nd order neurons; and 1,000,000 1st order neurons.
and so on…
All these groups of neurons are ideologically segregated but integrated with each other through higher order neurons.
If humans did the same thing…
100 adults with greater than 95% ideological agreement would create a 1st order community. They would send 5 representatives to a 2nd order community to live there 3 months of the year. This second order community is composed of 5 representatives from 20 neighboring communities of 100 adults. WITHIN each community, there is a 95% ideological agreement, but BETWEEN each community there is a 90% ideological agreement. So, this 2nd order community represents 2,000 adults. And you pest the process, like the brain…
1st order community: 100 adults
2nd order community: 2,000 adults
3rd order community: 40,000 adults
4th order community: 800,000 adults
5th order community: 16,000,000 adults
6th order community: 320,000,000 adults
This organization leads to far less law enforcement since you only need to enforce laws on people that disagree with them. Taxes all but disappear because taxes are an imposition upon those who disagree with them. If you live with the people you agree with, laws become “house rules” that visitors/immigrants must abide by or get kicked out, and taxes become voluntary contributions.
ALL decisions made by representatives DIRECTLY affect those representatives for 9 months of the year because they eat, sleep, work, play, live, and die with the people they represent. Those representatives are DIRECTLY held responsible and to account by those they represent. This is in contrast to the system of thousands and millions of citizens represented by abject strangers that pass laws that nobody is faintly aware of.
With less law enforcement, there is FAR less incarceration since anybody who breaks a house rule is exiled rather than incarcerated. The “offender” doesn’t lose 99% of their freedom; their family need not be broken up; and the “offended” community need not WASTE resources incarcerating a non-productive member of the community.
All this is possible through deliberate ideological segregation where individuals MOVE to LIVE with people they agree with instead of the antithetical paradigm of “forced inclusion” which results in the mass incarceration we see today.
7
-
6
-
6
-
@busylivingnotdying The reason there is a power dynamic in the first place is BECAUSE companies INCORPORATE and implant naturally superior hierarchies than the typical citizen that does not congregate based on similar ideological beliefs.
20 individuals reporting to a single individual creates a difference in consciousness/perspective. In a business corporation, this is a work group where 20 associates report to a SUPER-VISOR (super meaning higher; visor meaning view) the associates are conscious of their individual tasks whereas the supervisor is conscious of the summary from each associate AND the higher level view within the company.
In a community, (villages, communes, neighborhoods), the same concept applies. A supervisor isn’t one that commands. They are the ones that see further. As a community grows, the more levels of supervisors (representatives) you need to consider the summarized information from all their subordinates (not inferiors) and apply it to their broader perspective.
Otherwise, you have millions of individuals all trying to understand those broader perspectives which is absolutely impossible. That’s why the brain is designed the way it is. That’s why computer networks are designed the way they are. That’s why large companies are designed the way they are. That’s why riots and branches grow the way they do. All these systems evolve the SAME way because it is the most efficient way to organize large populations of…anything.
Democracy is tyranny, no matter how you slice it. If the answer to disagreement is to force the minority faction into compliance, that is the very definition of tyranny. These concepts are simple, and they apply at any level of magnitude you consider them at.
“Not wild “jungle freedom”…”
I’m beginning to feel like you are reading to respond, rather to understand.
It seems you are equating “wild “jungle freedom”” with anarchy.
If you feel the necessity to restrain the economy for fear of corporations ruling everything (which, ironically, is exactly what democracy is for: handing the reins of power to those who can manipulate unthinking populations), then do so IN YOUR community of like-minded individuals. Then those corrupt companies will take advantage of more free communities, and those freer communities will see the folly of their ways.
Or you will.
When you make that decision for everybody, you lose the ability to isolate what is actually leading to the corruption and inefficiency. When you allow smaller and smaller communities to try all the different ways to run a society, you’ll see exactly which ideas work and which ones don’t.
Your method is basically: when ever you don’t feel good, take an aspirin. It doesn’t matter why you feel I’ll, just resort to the same solution every time. Would you go to a doctor that has limited options? If so, then democracies are your thing. Allow everyone to have a say in what other people can and cannot do.
“People tend to cooperate when they see the benefit of it…”
When they SEE something they have no time to look at because I everybody is busy living an individualist lifestyle. What percentage of pages in the legal code have you read? You’re responsible for 100% of it no matter what your answer is.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@keithbell9348 keep in mind, depth perception requires two DIFFERENT perspectives. Each eye, optical nerve, and hemisphere of the brain only understands in two dimensions. To understand reality better, you require a third dimension, and higher dimensional understanding requires perspectives that offer different information.
Science is all about finding data that cannot be explained in the dimensionality we currently understand things. Once those discrepancies are discovered, a new dimension that encompasses multiple prior dimensions of understanding is required. You see the same thing even in theoretical physics when in String Theory, 10 spatial dimensions enabled the combination of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (the astronomical) and Quantum Mechanics (the vanishingly tiny). The conundrum was that 10 dimensions generated thousands of viable solutions. It was not until somebody proposed an 11th dimension which resulted in M-Theory, and the explanation that all the solutions in 10 dimensions were merely the same solution from different 11-dimensional perspectives.
Even at the neuronal level, the brain evolved to accumulate information and after multiple iterations of similar situations, relevant information is synaptically reinforced while irrelevant information is synaptically pruned. That is the basis of bias, conditioning, prejudice, assumptions, and worldview which all describe the same thing: an individual’s logic.
The universe is filled with so many fascinating phenomena that it is truly sad that humans allow political discourse to cast a shadow on all that glory.
I apologize for bloviating, but my own personal journey has left me more idealistic than when I was far Left in my 20s, and more pragmatic when I was far Right in my 30s. I see purpose in everything, and I want to see other planets. 😂
It’s just nice to meet other open-minded people when bumping heads with closed-minded bigots is par for the course. 😂
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
0:01 Because people grow up with safety nets that allow them to think things they wouldn’t otherwise put into practice.
The best way to prove to someone whether their ideas are true or not is to let them realize their own ideas. In other words, restrict their ability to force their unproven ideas on people they’ll never meet. This will force people to find like-minded individuals who will work towards the same vision, and it will deprive them of the excuse of “well, government didn’t do it right.”
1:30 What Dawkins failed to realize was that genes merely encode ideas which are passed on through replication. An idea is just meaning applied to a physical pattern. As such, ideas can be represented by DNA, neuronal groups, magnetic particles, transistors, or even grooves on a vinyl disk.
DNA is a very stable bit slow form of idea storage and execution. Neurons are a more chaotic form of idea storage and execution. Genetic evolution occurs over centuries, while ideological innovation can happen in the blink of an eye. Most psychological disorders are the consequence of slow genetic evolution engaging in rapid technological innovation.
Our bodies and brains do not keep pace with the technologically rapid evolution of the environment. We have a sweet tooth because high calorie foods were “good” when food was scarce. Now that food is plentiful and life is less active, high calorie foods are “bad”. Our sweet tooth is a consequence of our genetically programmed biology coding for a food scarce environment we no longer exist in.
2:00 Genes code for ideas. The idea of a larger claw, or stronger legs, or faster wings, or longer beak all existed before we had brains to virtualize those ideas for rapid simulation and adaptation.
2:45 The Free Market has replaced the Natural Wild. Genetic patterns evolve in the latter, and neuronal patterns evolve in the former.
GOVERNment is the antithesis of evolution because evolution requires natural SELECTION and the freedom to make a selection as those selections compete with one another. GOVERNment removes selection and the competition that drives evolution.
5:50 Mass mailing ballots to people who normally wouldn’t vote was the actual fraud. The idea that America is supposed to be a democracy was the justification. Not only should ballots NOT have been mailed, but people should not be resorting to voting their ideas into each other as a FIRST resort. Voting should be the LAST resort.
6:30 When somebody signs an affidavit, they are under threat of punishment for lying.
So, when you have one group of people believing hundreds of signed affidavits, and another group of people believing “unnamed sources” that say President Trump called veterans “suckers and losers,” I think I’ll stick with the affidavits.
We can also toss in the fact that Soros installed DAs are responsible for handling voter fraud cases… so, there’s that on top of the same DAs playing catch-and-release with violent criminals.
So, yeah. There’s a bit more to the “memes” than you are presenting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clem.3894 No. What I describe is NOT democratic at all.
Neurons in one cortex do not impose their existence upon the neurons in other cortices through the prefrontal cortex. Each cortex is a distinct, ideologically segregated entity that is highly integrated with all other cortices.
What I described is a confederation of distinct local communities that cooperate on issues they agree upon while going their separate ways on issues they do not agree upon. There is VERY little democracy, if any, involved as democracy is predicated on the tyranny of forcing ideas from the majority on to the minority.
The fundamental issue with human society is the lack of communal coherence. BECAUSE people do NOT live with the people they MOST agree with, they rely on forcing their ideals upon each other through government.
A human society that more resembles a neuronal society would be ideologically segregated and organized in the same way. For example, everybody who believes in 90% income taxes should live together. This would eradicate that tax. Taxes are an imposition upon those that disagree with them, so if people made the RATIONAL choice of living with the people they agree with, those “taxes” become VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS.
Refusing to live with the people you are with the most = tyranny.
Living with the people you agree with the most = liberty
Marxist-Leninist theory is predicated on the ideal that INDIVIDUAL PERSON collectivism be forced upon everyone through the state (federal government).
The rational and NATURAL option is ideological segregation such that all the Marxist-Leninists live together, the libertarians live together, the conservatives live together, the Christians live together, the Muslims live together, the White supremacists live together, the Black supremacists live together, etcetera, etcetera.
You don’t force laws and taxes upon those who AGREE with you.
Ultimately, it does NOT matter how well I understand Marxist-Leninist ideals, or any other ideal you can think of. The WHOLE POINT of SELF-governance is that everybody who agrees with any particular ideal LIVES together and manifests their shared ideal collectively.
Furthermore, building your ideal society with the people you agree with will accelerate the manifestation of your ideal which will serve as the example that proves or disproves your ideals. Very few are convinced with words these days, leaving tangible examples as the only means by which convincing anybody is possible.
If you have to force your ideas on others, they probably aren’t that good to begin with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rugbyguy59 It’s interesting that you fail to give a single example of the Socialism you speak of while claiming Marx and his followers sought voluntary collectivism. Especially since The American Constitution was designed to allow it.
If there were so many voluntary socialists, they would have built cities by now.
Alas, we are left with involuntary socialism at every level of government all the way up to the Federal level which resulted in things like Biden’s Crime Bill that incarcerated so many non-violent black criminals, and the argument from Kamala’s office to deny a federally mandated early release program for those same criminals so California wouldn’t lose its $2/hr fire brigade.
I firmly believe in voluntary socialism, communism, and individualism. I just do not see many instances of it, but I do see more and more ideas, like CRT, popping up to help keep us divided.
If there is an actual disparity in the SYSTEMATICALLY racist application of enforcement (not SYSTEMICALLY racist application of laws; see, I called it), then everybody who believes so is free to construct a town, city, or state that is free of it.
There certainly seem to be plenty who believes in the myth of contemporary systemic/systematic racism to build more than a few cities designed to be free of it. The ironic thing is that these people seem to live in the large blue cities that are the biggest offenders of these claims.
Why is it that the Democrats are always calling for a reformation of cities they have controlled for decades by suggesting their ideas be implemented at the Federal level?
It’s because ideas like CRT trick then into believing that more government is how you solve corrupted government.
You seem to understand that larger government is a problem, but you fail to understand that they are merely tools for those who push ideas that keep The People divided and fighting with each other over which perspective is “right” instead of looking forward and capitalizing on their different perspectives and the understanding that can be garnered from the reconciliation of those differences.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rugbyguy59 First off, my world view has changed drastically since my teens. I was far left; far right; raised Catholic; became militant atheist, did a year as a Pentecostal; been agnostic for almost two decades; heavily into math and physics while hating arts and social studies; shifted into philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and sociology; did five years of Facebook politics thinking it meant something; and currently engage people to collect ideas and perspectives.
There is almost NOTHING you can do to phase my world view because your myopia has no way of fathoming my world view. Do you realize that Nature had developed “electric” motors over four billion years ago and perfected virtual reality before humans even uttered their first word? Did you know that a single average neuron is far more complex than a single average person? Did you know that decentralized government coupled with ideological segregation has been successful for a community of nearly 100 billion, and humans can’t get past 100 million without starving and/or oppressing large portions of society?
As for President Trump:
I got out of politics after Comey presented a litany of codes that Hillary broke just before he suggested not pursuing prosecution. The. They did not. So, I did not even pay attention to politics for the first three years of President Trump’s term in office.
When I did start paying attention, I noticed a pattern of propaganda only possible after society had been conditioned to have an attention span sufficient for a one week news cycle.
I saw news reports go on for weeks and months before the rest of the story had come out, and when the rest of the story did come out, it was in articles instead of visceral videos. I saw a teenager get smeared for weeks, with barely an apology after the truth came out. I saw another teenager presented as a victim putting his hands up asking not to be shot for months before it silently came out that that narrative was a lie. I saw a man with a knee in the back of his neck for months, but almost nobody saw the 10 minutes of severe hysteria before hand. I saw people claiming mass mail-in voting was fine despite Democrats as far back as Carter and as recent as Obama saying it was a horrible idea. I saw people blaming President Trump for five DEMOCRAT governors exposing senior homes to COVID for a month; when told about it people called it fake news; when the news reported on Cuomo for a week in February people acted surprised; then the story shifted to his indiscretions with female staff…for another week, now nobody is talking about at all. I saw President Trump speak out against the Lockdowns which led directly to the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich ever in history as Amazon nearly doubled in value and Bezos almost tripled in worth. I saw people grab their torches and pitchforks in 2018 over Bezos and hear nothing g bit crickets after his huge pay day. I saw all the other billionaires who are responsible for our information that constantly painted the ONE billionaire anti-Establishment President as “racist” while those same oligarchs amplify horrible ideas like BLM, the manufactured problem with police brutality, “systemic” racism, CRT, white fragility, Intersectionality; Antifa not an actual organization; Proud Boys are terrorists, “1/6 insurrection, “mostly peaceful protests.” Nobody talking about the legalization of industrial hemp when President Trump signed the 2018 Farm Bill. People freaking out about literal WWIII with the NorKs one month then in the very next month chastising President Trump for “kissing up” to Un. People talking about a “living wage” without establishing what that even is, or how it would affect the economy.
Yeah. President Trump was mostly a distraction despite his best efforts to put America first. He was a distraction to keep the Left and Right fighting each other instead of coming together and ideologically segregating as the Constitution intended; as the brain exemplifies ill ions of times over.
So, feel free to “rock my worldview.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheCommonS3Nse You COULD argue that, but the fact still remains that unregulated economies are, by far, the most efficient.
What “governments, shady business owner and taxes” exist within your brain?
“That’s why I’m confident saying they will always be there in the future.”
You have not even explained how they exist in your brain to even extrapolate their existence into the future.
“If we are all autonomous systems operating independently in a social setting as we are, then we need some structure to organize those social interactions.”
What structures would those be in your brain?
“For example, your organs operate independently, but in order for your body to survive, they must operate together. The system that regulates their interactions with each other is the central nervous system.”
You were ALMOST there, with that analogy. Where your analogy breaks down is that the CNS is a hierarchical system with multiple layers of direct representation found nowhere in human governments. The CNS has a, relatively, small portion acting as the executive branch for the entire body: the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex provides no direct commands to all those organs. Instead, the PFC handles EXTERNAL considerations, not INTERNAL considerations are handled by DECENTRALIZED subcortical regions.
The PFC does not handle welfare for individual cells as YOUR design would entail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheCommonS3Nse Neurons are attracted to neurotransmitters like humans are attracted to commodities. As such, neurons will build connections to gather more neurotransmitters. Those connections are what manifests as ideas. The more “valuable” an idea is, the more those neurons activate creating more neurotransmitters. The more neurotransmitters they create, the more neurons are attracted to that idea.
JUST LIKE the more useful an idea a business has, the more employees and customers it attracts because the ideas generate as value in the form of neurotransmitters.
The reason they are related is because when you ABSTRACT both situations, you end up with the SAME MATHEMATICAL MODEL.
The reason we have math is so that we can apply models to different things. It is the foundation for synthesizing new ideas which we call “innovations.”
Considering the efficiency the brain exhibits, the ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS it utilizes make for a great model for HUMAN transactions.
Now, that same model is replicated in root systems, roads, utility transmission/transport, computer networks, object oriented programming, an every other large and complex system with thousands of elements.
The ONLY system that does not follow that decentralization is human government which explains why human governments are so unsayable, inefficient, and immoral.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2:00 Laws do not grant rights. They grant negative rights to government preventing them from infringing on the natural rights conferred from existing.
A law can grant privileges and entitlements which in locked infringing on the rights of others, but you cannot grant that which already exists within an individual.
The Bill of Rights are negative rights applied to the FEDERAL Government prevents if it from infringing on individual and State’s rights. Some people think it rational to apply “incorporation” from the 14th A to claim that the Bill of Rights apply to the States, but that is incorrect both in the context of which it was drafted and signed and in the morality and rationale.
2:15 “Property rights backed by law…” meaning laws restricting government from infringing on already existing rights.
2:30 Incorrect. Socialists only speak about those things. Nothing, in a free society, is stopping them from actually doing something about them. Government is just a tool to feel moral in doing nothing for their neighbor while acting as a scapegoat when that nothing is made evident by government corruption and/or ineptitude.
2:45 EXACTLY. Socialists want power consolidated because it’s easier to usurp it that way. If you were a nefarious billionaire, would you rather buy one sent of national politicians OR thousands of politicians across thousands of local governments?
3:15 Another good point. Socialists can’t even agree on or articulate exactly what it is they want. IF they could, they would just build it themselves by pooling resources with those who think like they do. Unfortunately, they do NOT know exactly what it is they want, so they rely on their vaguely states demands to be correctly interpreted by politicians they’ll never meet who sign bills they’ll never read drafted by corporate lobbyists they’ll never see.
Ask a socialist how many pages of the thousands we are all obligated to honor as we empower absolute strangers to sign those contracts in OUR names.
Imagine authorizing a complete stranger to sign a million dollar mortgage in your name, but you never see that stranger, the contract, or who drafted the contract in the first place. The only thing you know is the name of the signer and the title of the contract.
Western civilization averages about 1,000 sqft of residential space PER CAPITA. An individual needs less than 40. That means those who “champion” the disenfranchised have plenty of resources to take them in and provide for them themselves. However, they would never consider the idea of sharing what they have with absolute strangers. What they will fight for is sharing OTHER strangers’ wealth to do what they could do themselves.
They think they can except size charity by outsourcing it from other citizens through government. It’s extremely infantile: whine about a problem until an adult solves it.
5:30 It’s a shame he shares a surname with Joseph Fourier…
The reason you don’t want a SINGLE anything is because you have no competing example to judge it against. Evolution in nature is driven by natural SELECTION, and without a choice, no selection can be made.
These ideas are from people who study nothing but their own bellybutton lint and the ramblings of others they do not fully understand.
Competition drives industry and evolution/innovation. It always has. It always will.
Remove competition, and you all but halt progress.
6:00 😂 😂 😂 First he wants to remove competition in the free market but instill it within a single business?
Either the man cannot reconcile two different ideas because he doesn’t understand the fractal nature of reality, or he’s an outright shill for oppression. It is more difficult to oppress people directly through monarchy, imperialism, oligarchy, corporatism, or any other centralized government structure than it is to convince them to oppress themselves through democracy.
20:00 I think you should mention that what each class would answer is irrelevant within the context of which class is in surplus and which is in scarcity. A surplus of workers moves wages toward the boss’s answer while a surplus of bosses moves wages toward the workers’ answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keithbell9348 I had an “argument” with my five year (at the time) old niece one day. After a round of “Sorry” (the board game), she asked if we could watch some YouTube. I said sure. She requested “Ryan’s Toys.” After a quizzical look at my sister-in-law, she explained that it was a kid that just played with new toys and millions of other children watched him.
That didn’t sit well with me at all.
Instead of saying “No” outright, I urged her to explain to me why she wanted to watch “Ryan’s Toys” instead of “Sesame St.” To make it kind of like a game, I slowly pulled up her requested episode for each explanation that was more thoughtful than “because.”
When we reached the point where she said that she liked Ryan (whom she’s never met) because he had toys and she liked toys, I explained a few things to her with some thought experiments.
I held up one of her toys and asked her to imagine that it was her cousin. Then I picked up another one and asked her to imagine it was her other cousin. Then, I said that she and her first cousin had toys so they played with each other, but her second cousin had no toys, so they didn’t play with him. I asked her how she thought he would feel?
She looked at me blankly, which was expected since children usually aren’t capable of projecting themselves into somebody else’s situation. So I rearranged the scenario a bit and made it so that her cousins had the toys and she didn’t. I asked her how she would feel. She pushed out her lower lip and gave me a thumbs down. I said, “Yeah. So what is more important: having toys or who plays with you?”
Then I went on to explain that you won’t always get the toys that you want, and even if you do, it can be stolen, lost, destroyed in a fire, or even taken away from you as punishment. To tie your happiness to something that you may need get or lose if you do only makes you feel miserable, BUT the things that you learn are always in your head. You can collect as much as you want for free, and nobody can ever take them from you.
Just as I was about to hit play on an episode of “Ryan’s Toys,” she dolefully acquiesced and said she would watch “Sesame St.” Fifteen minutes later she was sound asleep on my lap. My sister-in-law was amazed that she was asleep at that time of day when she would normally fuss about going to sleep.
I said, “Have you met me? Who do you know can argue with me without getting exasperated.” 😂
A week later I apologized to my brother for over-stepping my bounds as an uncle, and imposing my will on his daughter. He asked, “What? Are you taking about Ryan’s toys? No. That was perfect. She hasn’t asked to watch that show since that day.”
While I have strong convictions about my beliefs, I would rather somebody willingly accept the ideas on the idea’s merit and not because of who I am. I do not want my nieces trusting what I say because I am their uncle. I want them to question everything and trust in their own ability to critically think.
I had no allusions that she would understand many of the concepts I shared with her that day, but I knew planting seeds is only the first step of a very long process. I only hope to be around long enough to tend to those seeds which is why I quit smoking cold-turkey on her first birthday. She will be eight this Christmas, and I have not smoked a cigarette since that day.
In the long run, our brains developed to be able to hold conflicting ideas in order to weigh them against each other and choose the best of the two. In that sense, evolution has left the natural world and entered the conceptual world. It is no longer survival of the fittest genetic code, but of the best ideological construct. DNA takes centuries to progress toward a beneficial change. Synaptic connections can change at the speed of thought. The freedom to choose IS the new natural selection, and removing that choice through government mandate hinders, halts, or even reverse progress.
I would not go as far as “materialism was the height of stupidity,” though. The material is the sandbox that our minds play within. Without it, we would lack the experience required to learn. Unless he meant submitting to the material at the cost of losing your ability to impose your immaterial will upon the material, then I would agree. I do not know the context within which he made that statement, but even the most intelligent in one area of expertise can be quite ignorant in others. I can respect his ability to imagine concepts science was not able to demonstrate during his time, but I will not just give him a pass on EVERYTHING he says. 😂
Existence requires distinction. Without it, it is impossible to assign meaning. Materialism is meaningless without Idealism, and Idealism is meaningless without Materialism. We need both, but in equal measures. The problem that I have with Marxism is that they completely forgo half of existence by disregarding Idealism for a purely Materialistic mind-set. Quite ironic considering that their ideology exists within the ideological realm. 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fractured_Unity “I’d say a direct or representative democracy would work better than what the US has, a Republic.”
First, what, exactly do you mean by “direct” and “representative”?
How many constituents are you imagining have a direct connection to their representative? A dozen? 100? 10,000? 1,000,000? How direct can that repression be without a meaningful relationship with their “representative”?
As for “representative”… how do you represent 1,000,000 people with thousands of conflicting ideas about how society should be? Do you take turns with each ideology so each group gets a taste of their ideal society, if only for 8 hours a year (assuming am extremely low ball estimate of a 1,000 distinct ideologies split over 355 days)? Or, perhaps, you take a little from each ideology and create a mishmash that no ideology is really ever realized?
The most likely outcome is exactly what America has today: everybody arguing ever four years over people they’ll never meet who sign thousand page bills they’ll never read drafted by corporate lobbyists they’ll never see.
The system is simple to understand when you take yourself out of it and observe everything. People are placated with words like “representative” when that word is applied to a person that doesn’t deserve it.
If you wanna see how a society should be run, spend a couple years studying the brain and how neurons interact with each other. It helps to remember that neurons are living organisms because their motivations and actions are fundamentally the same as a human being in the abstract. So, if Nature, through billions of years of trial and error, can develop a society of 100 billion individuals with anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 meaningful and DIRECT connections providing ACTUAL representation, then humans should probably take heed of the blueprints for the best society humans have ever seen locked in their skull.
The answer is, quite literally, within each one of us, but we are too arrogant to believe that Nature can design such things as moral societies that do not rely on tyranny to operate.
I mean…Nature even beat humans to rotary motors by a couple billion years, and almost everybody I’ve mentioned that to is completely oblivious to that fact even though scientists have known it since the 1970s.
Humans are always trying to reinvent something Nature already invented, but they do their damnedest to do it the worst and least efficient way possible. 😂
1
-
@Captain1nsaneo I agree with some of what you said, but I feel like I should inform you that you have the best form of government in your skull.
Thousands of 1st order neurons report to a single 2nd order neuron.
Thousands of 2nd order neurons report to a 3rd order neuron.
That pattern repeats going INTO the prefrontal cortex from the afferent nervous system (sensory) and OUT of the prefrontal cortex to the efferent nervous system (motor). Every neuron is ideologically segregated from one another and act as a cohesive unit to accomplish such tasks as repressing ideas of various complexities. Ideologically different neurons don’t just go floating around trying to convince other neurons to be like them or pleading to the prefrontal cortex (federal government) to force the entire brain to be more like them. They stick with “like-minded” neurons and get shit done.
Instantiating that concept for human societies would go a little like this:
1) Use an ideological sieve to establish who should live together. Everybody lists their top ten ideological tenets from most important to least important. Everybody who has the same top tenet creates a “state.” Within that “state”, people are again segregated based on their second most important ideological tenet. Then the third for the “county”; fourth for the “district”; fifth for the “city”; sixth for the “town”; seventh for the “community”; eighth for the “neighborhood”; ninth for the “block”; tenth for the “house.”
This leaves people living with those they have the highest degree of agreement and next to groups with a slightly less degree of agreement. That is the basis for building a system from the bottom-up as any functional system is designed, as opposed to the top-down process of a centralized government which no functional system uses. So if you wanna know why large centralized governments are so dysfunctional, that’s why: they are the antithesis of a naturally growing and evolving system.
Now for ACTUAL direct representation.
To make the number easy to manage, let’s say the highest level of agreement results in 1st order communities of 100 adults. They elect five members of their community to live part time in a 2nd order community. This 2nd ores community is composed of five representatives from 19 of the neighboring communities of 100 adults each. This 2nd order community represents a total of 2,000 adults.
Repaying this is an exponential fractal process. Each higher order community represents another factor of 20 such that:
1st: 100 adults
2nd: 2,000 adults
3rd: 40,000 adults
4th: 800,000 adults
5th: 16,000,000 adults
6th: 320,000,000 adults (about twice the size of the US)
7th: 6,400,000,000 adults (about twice the population of the world)
If this system seems familiar, it is. It is exactly how the brain is organized.
Now EVERY representative has a direct and meaningful connection with the people they represent which means they are subject to any decisions made during their tenure in the higher order community when they cycle back to their home community. They eat, sleep, work, play, cry, laugh, live, breath, and die with the people they represent which allows for the highest form of vetting and accountability. It puts our current systems of “representation” to absolute shame.
Where individual agree, they pool an agreed upon amount of resources for that shared endeavor. Where they disagree, they go their separate ways. Where individual communities agree, they pool an agreed upon amount of resources for their shared endeavors, and where they disagree, they go their separate ways.
Laws and taxes are ONLY for those that disagree with them. When people disagree with a law but reluctantly abide by them, they need time to renormalize to the new state of society. Too many new laws too fast will push individuals past their threshold for tyrannical abuse faster than renormalization can compensate.
That’s why when you examine the evolution of the legal code in a compressed time scale, it’s almost inconceivable how we got from the Founding to our current state. But an individual’s consciousness seldom travels more than a year or two forward and backwards in time let alone the thousands backwards necessary to learn from mistakes so you don’t repeat them as you look thousands of years forward in time to plan accordingly: with today’s corporate information systems, peoples’ attention span has shrunk to the length of one, maybe two news cycles resulting is such hilariously tragic inconsistent arguments that one begins thinking of we are just avatars in a computer game. 😂
Anyways. I learned about the brain because I had anger issues, and I’m a sucker for understanding how things work because I’m a troubleshooter at heart. What’s more important than your own brain, right?
And we don’t even have the time to spend an hour or two studying the most important things in our lives. I studying how to fix my thought processes, I learned how people can use that knowledge to control others. Then I realized why there is absolutely no push for individuals to really understand their own brains. That knowledge leads to a mastery which allows an individual to control their own minds which precludes control from others.
I know that’s a lot to chew on, but that’s about as concisely as I can summarize about five years of personal studies in neuroscience and psychology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Captain1nsaneo It’s a process that can be initiated now without government involvement save for your house rules.
Let’s say you have a room for rent, and you rent it out for 10% of the current market value, BUT to take advantage of this sweet deal, the renter has to agree to some very specific rules. If you are pro-2nd Amendment, they have to go with you to the gun range and practice gun operation and safety with you two hours a week. For every ideological tenet important to you, you create a house rule that manifests it. Then you add a couple chores that need to be taken care of to offset the lower rent. If they get a job, then they can pay a higher rent to be excused from the chores.
A single 10’x10’ bedroom can accommodate two bunks, and people only need 8 hours to sleep so you can rent out to 12 people who have a high degree of agreement about society with you. Where once there was 1 of guy, there are now 13. Because of the high level of agreement, social cohesion will the the greatest which allows more effort to go toward resource gathering rather than arguing. 13 people can gather enough resources to purchase the house next door and repeat the process by renting out to another 12 tenets to live under the same house rules. Then another 24. Then another 48. And so on. The more everybody agrees on the direction society should go, the more efficient their resource gathering becomes if that is part of their ideology. If it is not, this society will not grow as fast as the one that does.
So, without FORCING a single law upon anybody, you created an imaginary border with house rules that attract like-minded individuals and REPEL unlike-minded individuals. Like colonizers, you have begun growing a society based on your shared ideological beliefs without resorting to tyranny.
The MOST important thing is that you know have a concrete example of your theories which words are powerless against. Once you build your beliefs, they will come.
The whole idea of codifying your belief system BEFORE dissidents move in and undo your social fabric is why Oregon turned do Blue to the point eastern counties wanted to secede to Idaho. Had they codified their Red ideals, Blue voters would never have considered moving there. A small group of Blue voters can’t do much, but once they establish a beach head, then more will follow; all because Red voters didn’t make their society repellent to Blue voters.
There’s a lot to be said about viruses spreading infections the same way ideas spread. It only takes a single person with an idea to attract others with the same idea…if they are wise enough to collectively defend their ideals TOGETHER.
1
-
@Captain1nsaneo The way a baby learns to see color proves they are tabula rasa. Learning to see color REQUIRES exposure to light of different wavelengths. Without those lights, a baby WILL NOT learn to see color.
So, even something as fundamental and physical as seeing color being a learning process based on your environment, then something as abstract as ideology and beliefs are also laid out on a blank slate as determined by the ideological environment they are in.
The brain is so plastic that large portions can be retrained to handle information for other sources when their primary source is cut off like when a person loses their eyes. As long as it is a physics logical dysfunction, the neurology behind it will adapt… or die. Neurons literally have to migrate and learn to code within another network if their current networks fail, like when an arm is severed and the neurons responsible for touch in the primary somatosensory cortex responsible for sensations in the hand no longer receive signaled from neurons that no longer exist. Without an input, they cannot generate an output. If they do not generate an output, they receive no resources and die.
In most cases, the neurons in the PSC that handle information from the hand are mapped right next to the ones that handle information from the face (see: sensory homunculi). So, when the hand neurons lose their jobs, they will begin searching for new jobs. At least in one case, the nearest active network they found was the cheek neurons in the network next door. When the hand neurons attached to and learn to code for the information coming from the cheek, both the hand and cheek handlers in the PSC would activate. However, the out put for the hand handlers were still attached to the same port in the prefrontal cortex. This means that when a water drop rolled down the patient’s cheek, the patient felt the water roll down their cheek…AND their hand that no longer existed. Moreover, the exact mapping was the top of the cheek to the wrist neurons and the bottom of the cheek to the back of the hand, so that when the phantom hand was “down” theater rolled down from the wrist to the back of the hand. However, when the patient was told to raise their “hand”, that water rolling down the cheek felt like water rolling UP from the wrist to the back of the hand.
Now, imagine if you had to consciously rewire all your neurons to make sure they survived the loss of so many jobs all at once. You can’t because your brain is decentralized, and it’s a good thing otherwise you’d have to consciously process millions of bits of data three times a second (P300 wave) while also sending commands to every muscle fiber in your legs and jaw so you could walk and chew gum at the same time.
Your brain isn’t designed like that because centralization is highly inefficient and severely prone to error.
That’s why society should not be designed like that either.
1
-
@Captain1nsaneo You’ve got the right idea about pioneering and colonization.
As for “freedom for people to choose where they wanted to live and see where they chose to go…”
That’s a problem I’ve been mulling over and began designing an actual social networking platform that handles that and a few other things. I call it “Theta Wave” after the brain waves that do the same thing for ideas in the brain. My hypothesis is that neuronal groups that represent ideas produce specific brain wave patterns that when activated, that pattern is sent back through the brain in the theta wave range. Much like AM Radio waves, theta waves are long range. So when that pattern activates another group of neurons with similar patterns, a feedback loop is created such that the neurons along the path between those two groups build a trace. That’s when an epiphany or a stroke of brilliance occurs.
“Theta Wave” does much the same thing by compiling user inputted self-descriptions that allow deeper connections to be made across all conceivable dimensions. The problem with current social networking platforms is that they create a virtual village where people feel like part of something yet they never take the next steps of coming together and building what they collectively envision. “Theta Wave” would provide the tools to create visualizations of their ideas and motivate actual congregation. It would provide planning resources to help with choosing locations, resource contributions and allocations, time management, and so on.
America wasn’t designed to be turned into other countries, like many believe based on their voting habits of focusing more on national rather than local elections. I’m fairly certain that was planned after the initial design. What people were supposed to do was turn their localities into the nations they felt were best. If 10 million people thing Scandinavian governments were best, they were supposed to come together and build a Scandinavian government IN America, not slowly turn America INTO a Scandinavian country. Unfortunately, modern society is designed to make people disregard their ideological beliefs for most of the time between national elections so that they would disperse and find it more difficult to build their idea of a perfect society because they don’t live with the people who share that ideal.
If you are familiar with tensor mathematics or Einstein’s Field Equations specifically (I’m just familiar with its applications, mostly), it seems like you could define a set of field equations based on a person’s personal value matrix such that plotting each person on a map of the US, and applying vectors to them based on similar ideals acting as attractors and opposing ideals acting as repellers, you could visualize how people would migrate based on ideology rather than consumerism.
My goal isn’t to convince people how America is supposed to be. My goal is to motivate people to prove their ideas by building them. Nobody knows what that best society is, but I can tell what it isn’t: a chaotic mishmash of ideas codified at the national level to obscure the ulterior plans from corporations. It’s always boggles my mind how people on all sides can agree on one thing: the federal government is corrupt. Yet, they feel like more of it will fix everything.
It’s like treating cancer with more cancer.
I mean, look at the housing situation. It’s kind of obvious that housing supply is heavily manipulated by Blackstone and Blackrock as they bought up chunks of single family homes in areas they need people would be rushing to after all the rioting, economic shutdowns, catch and release of violent criminals, calls for defunding the police, decriminalizing shop lifting, and exposing the elderly to a contagious upper respiratory disease that would have wracked the elderly population regardless of what contagious upper respiratory disease they used. All of these things happened shortly after rent control laws expired in the same type of places: Democrat controlled cities.
Democrats have always complained about two things every four years: voter turnout and the Electoral College. The two things standing in the way of turning America into a democracy.
So they implemented mass mail-in voting because people who normally wouldn’t bother going to the polls to vote wouldn’t thing twice about checking some boxes and mailing it in. Which is exactly why you don’t want a democracy because most people don’t even think once.
And for the Electoral Vote… all the situations I mentioned earlier all happened in 2020 which resulted in multiple Blue states losing one or two House Seats while Red states gained them. That shows the heavy migration of Blue voters into Red areas. The EXACT OPPOSITE of coming together based on ideology. They basically took the California infecting Oregon situation and applied it to the whole country.
All of this was possible because Blue localities create policies that repel citizens after societal disintegration while Red areas pass policies that attract anybody regardless of their ideals. DeSantis is moving in the right direction by passing laws that are repellent to Blue voters, but it won’t be enough, and not enough Red States are following suit.
So, that’s how unthinking Americans are so easily manipulated into rushing to areas that don’t agree with their politics and that corporations have bought up single family homes for Section 8 rentals effectively taking those homes off the market and artificially reducing supply in key locations.
Imagine if everybody doubled up for a while drastically increasing the housing supply. That would crash the housing market that Blackstone and Blackrock artificially manipulated to force people into perpetual government-funded rental situations.
Unfortunately, people don’t know how to build meaningful and lasting relationships leading to ideologically coherent communities so those manipulations will continue happening.
I mean, if Nathan Rothschild could convince an entire nation that Napoleon won at Waterloo and cause a mass sellout of war bonds almost a day before official news of Napoleon’s loss reached Britain allowing him to buy those bonds up at a drastically cheaper cost, its really not surprising what billionaires can do when they own all the information systems society uses to form their perceptions.
It all sounds like a work of fiction which is why people have a hard time believing it, but proof is everywhere and people don’t like connecting dots. 😂
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cherrysmith2809 First, neither statistics or consensus is science no matter how much a scientifically illiterate zealot wishes them to be.
Second, I don’t know how many times somebody declared something as “settled science” only to provide me an academic paper they obviously didn’t read because the summary is full of words like “suggests” or “leads me/us to believe.”
The “bias” of a source is irrelevant if the CONTENT is true.
Credentials do not matter because people are fallible, biased, and corruptible, not to mention the accreditation process is just as fallible, biased, and corruptible. Anybody can be an expert in a subject regardless of a piece of paper stating whether they are or not. Matter of fact, the higher educational system people place so much faith in has a major flaw by integrating the educational process WITH the accrediting process. If somebody spent 4 years and $100,000 to achieve the same mastery as somebody who spent 12 years and $20,000, then a third party testing system will easily reflect this while scrubbing any bias a particular institutions certificate would provide.
All you are doing is listing excuses to not think for yourself.
2+2=4 no matter who says it, what their bias is, what credentials they have, what methodology they used, or any of your myriad ad hominem based logical fallacies that you use to circumvent rational discourse.
If you are going though all this trouble to decide whether something is true or not, you definitely shouldn’t be voting your unthought out ideas into other people. If you wish to employ heuristics to make decisions, make those decisions for YOURSELF; not for society.
1
-
1
-
@acctsys I trust nobody.
I trust critical thinking.
“Basic knowledge may be the territory of academics…”
Which, again, isn’t true or relevant. What is true is that people who do deal with policy, problem solving, and action appeal to the academics’ “authority on knowledge” to justify those policies, solutions, and actions. The problem is the mindless zealotry of the scientifically illiterate who just parrot the titles of academic papers because they don’t understand the paper itself.
“I for one trust people in business more than academics, looking at what they do, not what they say, because they are incentivized to keep customers and clients happy.”
Who do you think drafts our laws? What do you think “citizens” are to “government”? Customers and clients. When private business does it, it’s called profit. When government does it, it’s called surplus. When a business fails, it goes bankrupt… or should. When a government fails, they just raise taxes to “fix it.”
Do you wanna see the result of a society that judges SOURCES before it judges IDEAS? Look up “chart of the century” and see what government regulations and subsidies (Red lines) do to industry versus what a free market (Blue lines) does for industry.
What do you think about welfare? Because THAT is a prime example of useful idiots being fed statistics to make decisions which enrich the wealthy, erode the middle class, and creates more poverty. Tax revenue doesn’t come FROM the rich and go TO poor people. Tax revenue comes FROM the rich THROUGH the poor TO the rich. However, because The People relinquish their responsibility to build society from the bottom-up to a government that builds it from the top-down, they don’t pay attention to people they’ll never meet whom they vote for every four years to sign thousand page bills they’ll never read drafted by corporate lobbyists they’ll never see. The thousands of business and economics experts out there, and NONE of the more vocal ones explain any of this? It’s almost like the people who don’t want that basic knowledge own the information networks we use… oh wait. They DO!!!
Over $700 BILLION in collective wealth by 10 people who own/run corporate social media convinced a majority of voters that President Trump was “racist.” THEN, they convinced those same people that mass voting by mail was secure even though it had NEVER been conducted in America before…but we got it right the first time. Right?
If the state of politics is outside your realm of experience, we can discuss the obvious design obsolescence in solar panels, if you wish? Wanna discuss vapor deposition, band gaps, and perovskites instead? Or how about just the basic facts of efficiency regarding IR (heat) being 40% of the 1,000 watts per square meter bouncing right off the panels and back into the atmosphere; or how MOST of the spectrum produces excess heat because band gaps are defined by quantum mechanics meaning only ONE specific wavelength will be converted 100% to an electrical current while the rest of the spectrum either passes through to be absorbed by other materials and converted to heat or absorbed by the semiconductor and the excess energy converted to heat?
Or, perhaps you would like to discuss just how little humans understand ALL the systems that contribute to the state of the climate? Wanna discuss how the CO2 from carbon emissions is doing nothing more than replacing the CO2 that was once in the carbon cycle in the first place? How about stomatal density versus CO2 concentration? Wanna discuss the effects of the Sun’s magnetic field on the Earth’s magnetic field which directly affects the ions in Earth’s mantle and outer core?
Or how’s about something really basic like vaccines are therapeutic, NOT prophylactic even though part of the population was lead to believe that vaccines, somehow, prevented spread and contraction?
1
-
@acctsys Incorrect.
A government, just like a business, serves their clients. Politicians are SUPPOSED to be public servants. The problem is almost NONE of the public has an intimate relationship with their servants.
The better path is to build communities of about 100 adults with a high degree of agreement on ideological concerns such that the five representatives they send to a higher order community of 100 adults composed of the representatives of the neighboring 19 communities actually represent their home communities. This higher order community is composed of 2,000 adults. 20 of those communities send 5 representatives to a third order community which constitutes 40,000 adults;
4th order for 800,000;
5th order for 16,000,000;
6th order for 320,000,000.
In this more NATURAL organization, EVERY person (which includes an individual and all INCORPORATIONS of individuals; people make the mistake that corporations only involve private businesses) have a direct and intimate relationship with their representatives such that those representatives who spend 3 months of the year in congress with the representatives of neighboring communities spend 9 months living in their communities subject to the EXACT same policies agreed to in the congress. Those representatives are held in direct account because they eat, sleep, play, cry, bleed, sweat, live, and die with those they represent.
Those representatives actually serve their communities rather than themselves. This is the best form of protection against corruption and:or ineptitude; far, far better than what we currently have, at least.
1
-
@acctsys Let’s analyze the “live with the people you agree with” paradigm (the exact same one neurons utilize) from a different perspective: mass incarceration.
An inmate is incarcerated because they broke a law. They broke that law because they disagreed with it. Had they lived with the people they agreed with, there would have been no law to break.
In the paradigm I describe, you will have two towns that are differentiated by their belief about drugs (about 50% of all inmates are convicted on drug related charges). One town has no problem with drug use, and the other deems it bad.
In today’s system, somebody caught using drugs in the second town loses 99% of their freedom; their families are broken up; they become non-productive; and worse they become a drain on the society incarcerating them.
In the natural paradigm, somebody caught using drugs in the second town is exiled. This results in the “convict” losing 1% of the tie freedom; their family need NOT be broken up; they may become a productive member of a different society; and they definitely do NOT become a drain on the original society.
More disagreements results in more laws results in more criminals results in more prisons where the ONLY winners are those running and participating in a system that thrives on unnecessary enslavement.
Not only is ideological segregation more efficient (no loss of productivity AND no wasted resources for law enforcement, prosecution, conviction, and incarceration) it is far more moral (far less loss of freedom) than the forced inclusion being forced on society now.
Laws should be more like house rules: you can come in, if you abide. If you break them, take a ride. Besides, living with the people you agree with also means taxes disappear. They become voluntary contributions. 😃
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Johnson Li Jesus…I can tell you haven’t thought about what you are talking about.
You are literally calling for more government to solve a corrupted government.
That’s like asking for more cancer to cure cancer.
Name ONE other system that centralizes as it grows larger and more complex.
I’ll name plenty that don’t: roots, tree limbs, roadways, waterways, electrical grids, telecommunications networks, the internet, companies, militaries, taxonomy, object oriented programming, the human body, the brain.
All this systems are far more functional and stable than a centralized human government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NothingSerious...2 Your problem is my use of the term “village” where I merely mean a group of people that adhere to a common ideology.
A modern “village” would still be free to be invest in modern tools and equipment.
I’m sure you’re picturing a group of people living in mud huts. 😂
Your arguments are directed at a centralized governing structure which I ALSO argue against, which is why I went with the village format for n which villagers answer directly to their chief, and their chief a directly answerable to their villagers. The chief acts as the village’s consciousness, much like the prefrontal cortex acts as the entire brain’s consciousness. THAT is what I mean by INCORPORATING…or coming together to act as a single consciousness.
Once a group of people INCORPORATE, their “heads,” acting as the consciousness, can then come together with other “heads” of other villages incorporating into a “super” village. This process is fractal able to continue in perpetuity.
This is how EVERY large complex system evolves, from the cells in your body, to the neurons in your brain to the limbs on a tree to a military to a large corporation.
You understand some of the concepts which leads you to prove my case and n certain points while failing on others.
As for your farmers…
Are you saying EACH farmer should cobble his own shoes, build his own house, care for his own horses, defend his own land against all invaders?
You’re saying that that paradigm is superior to ONE individual cobbling everybody’s shoes, another studying veterinary, and a small group training for defense,l?
You obviously don’t understand how we evolved from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to modern society.
****
As for your factory example, are you saying that each worker is doing the exact same task, or are they differentiated doing different tasks in a single process?
Individualism would dictate that each person builds one product from scratch which is patently far less efficient than specializing in a particular task.
Yes, failure of one individual in that setup would crash the entire system JUST LIKE any number of your Ryan’s would cause you to die if they failed at their task. You seem to be conflating efficiency with redundancy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@clem.3894 “There is no version of capitalism that respects competition.”
Well, at least it’s safe to say you don’t have a firm understanding of evolution or neuroscience.
“Capitalism will always devolve into corporatism…”
Agreed…WHEN citizens foolishly vote for abject strangers to “represent” them in government.
You should seriously diagram any large complex system with millions of individuals constituents: the internet, an army, a large corporation, the brain. There’s a reason why those incorporations are efficient, stable, and resistant to corruption while human societies are not: a fractally growing hierarchy of organized constituencies into larger and larger groups.
A quick breakdown of the organization of the 100 billion neurons in your brain…
1,000-10,000 lower order neurons report to single higher order neuron. This pattern repeats multiple times such that
1,000 1st order neurons report to a 2nd order neuron.
1,000 2nd order neurons report to a 3rd order neuron.
1,000 3rd order neurons report to a 4th order neuron.
And so on.
This results in:
A 2nd order neuron representing 1,000 1st order neurons.
A 3rd order neuron representing 1,000,000 1st order neurons.
A 4th order neuron representing 1,000,000,000 1st order neurons.
And this exponential pattern continues all the way up to the prefrontal cortex which acts as the executive center of the brain which would be synonymous to the federal government of a republic.
In this arrangement, EVERY constituent has a direct and meaningful connection to its representative as opposed to the million+ to one ratio found in modern republics where it is impossible for a single “representative” to adequately represent a million+ constituents.
Your mention of local groups forming still leaves out all the necessary levels of representation required for a true republic to form. Individuals should form families; families into blocks; blocks into neighborhoods; neighborhoods into towns; towns into cities; cities into counties; counties into states, and states into a single nation. EACH scale of entity uses a direct and meaningful representation no greater than a 20:1 ratio between a lower order group to a higher order group.
The reason why corporations derive so much power in a free market is because citizens don’t incorporate the same way corporations do. Incorporating manifests greater power through the specialization through delegation as well as the efficiency derived through collective ownership of resources.
People don’t live collectively while demanding that the country be treated as a collective only to foolishly relinquish government power to a centralized entity that non of the hundreds of millions of individuals have the time or resources to oversee.
Summary: the sociologists that you rely on to do your thinking for you, ironically have absolutely no understanding of how the most complete society is organized which allows them to think their silly thoughts in the first place.
Billions of people on this planet have the blueprints for the most efficient, stable, and corruption-resistant society ever known to humans, and most of them are convinced that a completely different organization is better. Nature has proven these large complexity societies work the best billions of times over millions of years while humans constantly fail at centralized systems century after century.
The answers are LITERALLY within you, and you allow “intellectuals” to flood your mind with flawed ideas.
The irony would be readily apparent to you if you studied just ONE type of large complex system that has proven which organization works the best, but you’d rather remain willfully ignorant just to be “right” in your own mind.
1
-
1
-
@clem.3894 “You’re not better than anyone else…”
CORRECT!! Which is why I don’t believe in FORCING my ideas on anybody else through a farcical democratic process.
“You’re not more inventive…”
CORRECT again!! I didn’t invent the social structure that neurons organize into.
Wow. You’re doing great!!!
“The theories you’re posing? All of them have roots in the musings of some socio-economic theorist…”
SUPPOSE that that is true, then that would mean that they inadvertently described the social structure of neurons because, as far as I know, NONE of them studied neuroscience.
“Everything that your posting now has some strain of “intellectual”…”
Maybe, but only if, as I stated previously, some prior “intellectual” inadvertently stumbled upon the social organization found in the neurons in your brain.
I’m gonna skip a bit of your enraged rantings…
“Also, on the topic of homogeny, when communities are separated based on ideology in general, it’s going to lead to a state where people aren’t as exposed to the diversity of ideas…”
Source? Examples?
Because I can easily provide examples of the opposite: the BRAIN.
Seriously. You are speaking completely out of your ass at this point because you are basing your responses upon the musings of socio-economic “intellectuals” who have NOT studied large complex systems. Do you truly believe that the ideologically segregated communities of neurons in your brain lack the INTEGRATION of which you speak? You obviously don’t understand what the theta waves are for and how trance-like states of mind accomplishes EXACTLY the process you erroneously believe the NATURAL organization of a large complex system is unable to achieve.
Besides, ASIDE from the fact that SEGREGATION does NOT mean ISOLATION (you should brush up on your vocabulary), what makes you think that people segregated from one another in houses achieve absolutely NO INTERACTIONS? What are you smoking?
Not only can ideas be shared face to face…we have the damn internet. We obviously don’t have the same level of understanding about existence as each other resulting in vastly different opinions on how human society should be, but, SOMEHOW, we are able to exchange ideas. There’s this neat new invention that came out a couple decades ago. It’s called “the internet.” It’s an Al Gore invention that you should check out sometime.
“It will literally divide us as a species…”
<face desk> we are ALREADY divided, genius.
I know I’m going to regret this, but…what is easier to treat: a SINGLE large cancerous tumor, or the same number of cells dispersed throughout your body? What do you think PRISONS are for? 😂 When LAWS are established to DICTATE what ideologies are “acceptable” or not, what happens when you have individuals…MINORITIES…who disagree with those laws?
YOU IDEOLOGICALLY SEGREGATE the dissidents from the rest of society who IDEOLOGICALLY agreed with or tolerated those laws. YOUR perspective is what caused the mass incarceration of Blacks in America, so when you mention FASCISM, you better damn well acknowledge the FASCISM that you support that leads to the mass incarceration of NON-VIOLENT Black “offenders.” Nearly 50% of the prison population has had their freedoms stripped because of drug offenses that NOT EVERYONE believes should be illegal….
So, imagine, if you will, two towns: one that believes smoking weed is bad, and one that does not…IDEOLOGICALLY SEGREGATED on the issue of smoking weed…
In YOUR system, the system that WE have, somebody caught smoking in either town is incarcerated which strips the “offender” of most of their liberties; that society loses a productive member of society;breaks up his family; puts a drain on society’s resources to fund the legal system and the Prison Industrial Complex; and enriches those who run society from the top-down.
NOW…in the RATIONAL and more NATURAL society, the “offender” in the first town is EXILED FROM THAT TOWN. The result: the “offender” loses FAR FAR less of his liberties; one community loses a productive member as another gains one; his family need not be broken up; the first community doesn’t waste resources though repeated criminal processing and constant incarceration; and (the ONLY downside) the Prison Industrial Complex does not constantly enrich those who fool the public into believing forced ideological inclusion is the best way to organize society.
Hell, if the cells in your body followed your ideas on how to organize society, not only would your gut micro biome infect every system in your body wreaking havoc everywhere; you wouldn’t even have SYSTEMS to have havoc wrought upon them. All your cells would be in one big jumbled and chaotic mass which wouldn’t last for more than a few seconds. Your BRAIN wouldn’t even function if your neurons followed your ideals for a disheveled population of nearly no order save for the imposed order of a centralized system if government which heavily restricts the diversity of ideas that you think you are championing.
YOUR idea actually results in LESS diversity as you force MORE AND MORE citizens to be LESS and LESS diverse in thought as you FORCE them to CONFORM to a LARGER AND LARGER set of ideological restrictions.
You seemingly decry fascism while, simultaneously, defending the process by which it manifests, takes roots, and flourishes.
So, I suggest you study ANY OTHER large complex system before making such erroneous and unsubstantiated claims based on the musings of flawed “intellectuals” who have ignored billions of years of natural evolution and thousands of years of human innovation.
“Like at this point you just sound like one of those extremely racist separatists I encountered years back.”
Fancy that…we are discussing IDEOLOGICAL segregation, and you attempt to devolve the discussion into one of BIOLOGICAL segregation. Besides…I AM NOT the one championing the mass incarceration of racial minorities predicated on forced ideological inclusion within society leading to forced ideological segregation via the Prison Industrial Complex.
How often does your race baiting back-fire on you like that, son?
1
-
@clem.3894 As for your misconceptions about being able to cooperate on certain issues while going separate directions on others…
Suppose you have ten communities that agree on most things, such as public transportation within their shared areas so that they all contribute toward paving roadways. HOWEVER, they have a 50/50 disagreement on how resources should be spent regarding security and defense. Let’s say half believe in putting up a fence around the entire community and the other half believe in acquiring firearms and training with them. INSTEAD of them FORCING (it takes more resources to force others into compliance) they go their separate ways on THAT issue. Half of the communities invest in a semi-permeable membrane around the entire community, while the other half get to work in acquiring/manufacturing weapons and training with them…
Coincidentally, THESE communities accept the rationale behind the Second Amendment which would place them in a State that is friendly to such ideals, while those who are irrational about the Second Amendment live in ANOTHER state…IDEOLOGICAL segregation. You see, I can actually agree to disagree with irrational people WITHOUT FORCING them to agree through democracy.
…so, not only will less resources be used on forcing people in disagreement into compliance, natural delegation into specializations will occur. Those who believe in the semi-permeable membrane approach will work diligently to ensure that their idea proves to be as valuable as they argue it is just as those who disagreed with them do so for their ideas. HOWEVER, if you allow people into those communities who disagree with semi-permeable membranes for the collective communities and/or utilizing the Second Amendment as intended, then those people will be forced to participate through taxes imposed upon them for ideas they do not agree with OR they infect those communities with enough of their irrational ideas that neither ideal is realized.
1
-
@clem.3894 As a side note: IF you chose neuroscience as your large complex system to study, you may also learn how to manage your emotions so you don’t feel inferior about your lack of knowledge. Knowing and understanding more than you doesn’t make me more superior to you, but you being upset about it will prevent you from rectifying that disparity. Being wrong is ok as long as you can acknowledge it; accept it; and do something about it, but you’ll never evolve as a person by holding onto fallacious ideas with no basis in reality. If I thought you were inferior, I wouldn’t be wasting my time sharing what I’ve learned. Unfortunately, your more concerned with being “right” than solving actual problems, that you, ironically, zealously advocate for the very same fascism you thought you were decrying which leads to all the problems that we see in society.
I understand the flaws in your arguments because I THOUGHT like you did when I was younger. I also appealed to authority, as you do now. I’ve just grown out of that and learned to think for myself by studying other subjects and drawing conclusions from a broader perspective than you or your “intellectuals” do.
Learn to manage your emotions. Learn some Stoicism to understand the importance of mastering your emotions, and learn some neuroscience to understand how to master those emotions.
1
-
@clem.3894 Checked out your video regarding “capitalism versus corporatism.”
What a SHIT SHOW. 😂
Here’s my comments on the first quarter of the video that I watched…
“1:15 Now look up “Chart of the Century” and see if you can figure out the difference between the economic sectors in RED versus those in BLUE.
Hint: one is heavily regulated/subsidized by the central government and the other operates within a more free market.
1:50 You think “capitalism” is a messed up idea at its core while, ironically, not understanding that the neurons in your brain operate within a free market capitalist framework.
2:00 Then you move on to a pure straw man to describe what YOUR understanding of capitalism is which does not take into account the multitude of definitions for “capital” strewn throughout college textbooks.
Good job…
2:20 “Profit.”
Let me clue you in on your use of emotionally charged words that taint your rational processing of extremely simple concepts.
“Capital” (individualist connotation) and “means of production” (collectivist connotation) are the EXACT SAME THING. Connotation is just added to give the impression that individuals are less virtuous than the state.
“Profit” (individualist connotation) and “surplus”(collectivist connotation) are the exact same thing. Again, excess resources when an individual achieves it (“profit”) is less virtuous than when the state does it (“surplus”).
You should refrain from engaging in emotional rhetoric if you truly want to have a rational discussion. Using emotions to convince people is childish and dangerous when you also give people power over others though a democracy. Ask Socrates, tyrant.
2:30 You aren’t keen on starving, so you trust the state to grow your food for you because enterprising free citizens are “evil” in your eyes?
Ask the Russians how well that works out…
Leadership isn’t about lording power over others. It’s about understanding the broader picture and being able to make rational decisions about the future based upon that understanding. Private citizens that generate an EXCESS of resources (profit/surplus depending on the connection you wish to use) is good for EVERYONE. It is far better than a state that runs at a SCARCITY of resources.
2:45 Elon’s decisions matter more because it is HIS wealth that HE is risking. If you feel you can do better, feel free. Some “intellectual” who has built nothing is far from qualified to explain what does or does not work. Your words will never prove the veracity of your claims. Only the examples that YOU BUILD will do that.
2:50 “I think democracy should apply to the economy.”
You are more than welcome to build a company based on that precept. Once you have successfully build one such company, build some more. Once you’ve amassed the requisite wealth to do so, build an entire community that uses your ideas about democracy within your community’s internal economy. Should you prove to be successful in THAT endeavor, keep growing and expanding.
This process requires absolutely no STATE interference whatsoever.
ALL that it requires is the strength of your convictions; the power of your imagination; and the tenacity of your physical effort to manifest your ideas.
Failing to build it yourself, you lack any valid argument for your ideals.
3:00 “Natural consequence…”
You probably shouldn’t use words like “natural” when you have failed to provide ONE actual example produced in the past couple billions of years that NATURE actually evolved through.
I can provide more examples of successful outcomes of a free market capitalist system in Nature than you can of a tyrannical system in the past couple thousand years of humans constantly failing at them.
3:15 “When competition is ruined, not bet something that the state necessarily did…”
Then you proceed to show Amazon which more than doubled in size during a SINGLE YEAR when government forced economic shutdowns which killed THOUSANDS of competing small businesses.
Good job killing your own case.
3:20 “Whether they got that monopoly on their own or through the state, it doesn’t matter.”
WHAT?!?
You’re arguing for a state run economy while arguing that a state derived monopoly doesn’t matter regarding your arguments against “capitalism” derived monopolies?
Christ…I haven’t made it 25% of the way through your video yet…”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mackmckinney5206 As opposed to your ideas about DE-evolving.
Look, boy. America was founded on natural evolutionary principles even if the Founders didn’t explicitly state it or even realizing what they had done. Evolution is driven by a decentralized process of allowing ideas to remain segregated and allowing each individual idea to compete with others.
GOVERNment precludes an idea’s ability to remain intact which removes the ability for intact ideas to compete. By resorting to a vanishingly smaller proportion of a population to dictate for an ever increasing number of people to DICTATE what the “best” ideas are, you directly subvert natural evolutionary processes.
For example, subsidizing colleges makes it impossible for better ideas to replace an obsolete educational system. This is the direct cause for inflating tuition costs AND steady decline in the value of each individual diploma. The problem is that your, and everybody else’s, pride in their “education” precludes your ability to address the flaws in that “educational” system. The “flaws” you do address only compound when you apply your “solution”: more government.
If people, like you, actually cared about the problems “tools”, like CRT, expose, then you wouldn’t spend more time pretending to understand the problem than actually solving it.
Government is NOT a solution. Government is merely a sanitizing process by which people can absolve themselves of actually working on a problem while patting themselves on the back for outsourcing the solution. It also allows people to feel charitable with OTHER peoples’ wealth. It’s not charity when you take other peoples’ wealth at gunpoint, and it isn’t charity to contribute wealth to a solution you have no direct involvement with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fredwelf8650 “The main issue that you seem unaware of is that in a democratic, at all levels, the individual may vote, and say ‘no’ to the decisions arrived.”
Ok. I appreciate you answering something that I did not ask. So I’ll ask again.
In a democracy, AFTER A VOTE HAS BEEN CAST, what is an individual’s resource for disagreement with the vote?
I’ll answer it for you, this time.
In a nation: punishment. Outside of punishment, there’s escape from the nation: emigration.
In a company run by a board, the individual is fired or quits.
So, when a majority votes to have you killed or your possessions taken or for your silence, what is your recourse for refusing to comply?
1
-
1
-
1