Game Playing --- structured v. unstructured

*************

After faith-family-fidelity have been undermined, it becomes necessary to replace them. The "Thread" program would seem even better founded if, beside repairing individuals and communities, it had any focus towards repairing families. If faith-family-fidelity remain reviled and unrepaired, I do not see how a representative republic can withstand being replaced by an ever more invasive system of big central government that will come to coopt and sponsor community indoctrination.

**************

I tried cases for more than 30 years. I enjoyed a lot of my opponents. Still, I found little that is special about lawyers as a class. I suspect they include among them about the same percentage of weasels and rats as can be found in the general population. Unfortunately, organized systems and tribal networks seem often to favor promotion of the most weaselly and ratty. I think DJT loves the USA. I think Cohen loves himself. Unfortunately, it often takes DJT several attempts to find decent helpers. But then, doesn't that apply to all of us?

***************

Prior events limit our future parameters, but do not determine our choices within those parameters. We do not have free will to ignore the parameters of nature, but we do have participatory will in the determination of what we appreciate. To motivate us to stay within acceptable bounds of decency, it is necessary that we be held responsible for our transgressions of man made laws. I see that as practical civility, not incoherence.


****************

FETISH OF BELIEF:

One could as well argue that believers are agnostics, in that belief leaves room for doubt (as opposed to knowing). One could also question what it is, precisely, that believers believe. Do they purport to know or describe precisely what Heaven looks like? Are they always confident in the same ways about their political orientations concerning how a practical and decent civilization should operate? I suspect some people that profess to be atheists contradict themselves by how they profess their actions. If their actions indicate good faith and good will, can they "really" be atheists?

Really, I think too much of a fetish tends to be made concerning belief. What people think to say is one thing. What they believe in their hearts is another. I suspect the Lord knows the difference. After all, if a person only purports disbelief, but in his heart and by the language of his acts lives belief, then must not knowledge of such information reside in some way?

And what is the belief that is supposedly required, anyway? Is it really anything more than adherence to good faith and good will? Jesus' main teaching was Great Commandment (good faith) and Golden Rule (good will). To believe in such teaching is to believe in the main message of Jesus, is it not? We do not for certain know His color or personality. What can it mean to believe in Him, other than to believe in His message of good faith and good will?  What would such belief, if sufficiently adopted, produce?  Well, it would Inform Consciousness to better avail decently unfolding civilization, in which every perspective tends to remain invested.

***************

WHY HATE ATHEISTS:

This is a bs question. My own moral philosophy may be characterized by some as irreligious and by others as religious. IAE, I do not dislike atheists. There are many, many avowing atheists that I highly admire. Nor do I dislike atheistic philosophy, per se. What I detest are militant atheistic and theistic dogma (like Communism or Marxism) and militant atheists --- especially when they are so lacking in self awareness that they are unable to appreciate their own leaps of faith.

I detest pseudo science and pseudo moral scientists that believe they, as elites, should rule in place of a voting electorate consisting largely of competent free thinkers (provided the Establishment does not succeed in flooding it with indoctrinated and imported liberty-illiterates).

*****************

Consciousness is what avails measurements.  So, at its most fundamental level, it in itself is not measurable.

No matter how precise your tests, you could never confirm that what you assumed to be another conscious being was not merely a placeholder for an extremely refined bot.

Of course, hardly anyone assumes such a solipsistic philosophy.  Most people assume other people are expressing consciousness. But they do that on faith.

I tend to agree with most of what you said.  Except perhaps this:  I directly experience my own consciousness.  I experience my I-ness.  That's how I know it.

I don't think consciousness is just a byproduct of brain, or that brain is just a byproduct of consciousness.  I suggest that brain and matter are significations that accompany and leverage consciousness.  Without brain, human experience could not have been leveraged to where it is.

You are focusing on the level of consciousness that pertains to the holistic reconciling function for your body as a whole.  But I think many parts of your body are expressions of varying levels of consciousness.  I do not say that each particle or cell is itself independently conscious.  I only say they function as expressions of consciousness at some level, often well below the level of human self awareness.

As I said before, as consciousness is directed to become associated with AI Robots as such, then such consciousness will have exceeded roboticism. Then, little would preclude the consciousness associated with such AIs from using their Conscious Minds to further leverage their Material Bodies. Which is consistent with the feedback relationship I suggest between Mind and Body.

I do not see matter or mind as being independent of one another, but as being in a fluxing feedback relationship, by which each is leveraged.

But for that feedback relationship, I think everything would be limited to fuzzy math.  Or math-based packets of potential possibilities, awaiting something (consciousness) that could activate the math to unleash their potentialities into appreciable and unfolding manifestations.

I don't say every perspective of consciousness is aware of itself as an identity.  I don't say we are not interconnected.  Even so, I think every perspective of consciousness experiences its consciousness.  I project or intuit this from my awareness of my own direct experience.

I do not say a particle, rock, body, or brain is in itself conscious.   I say its manifestation is as an accompanying signification with an expression of consciousness at some level.

I don't disagree with much of the evolutionary idea of complexity being sometimes favored to arise out of chaos, in order for it to endure and replicate.  I think that concept applies both to what we take to be inanimate matter as well as to biological forms.

However, I think you might be overlooking something, which is this:  There is feedback at work, in that we become capacitated to direct aspects of our own evolution.  In that way, the process-methods of evolution itself evolves, and our conscious participation impacts that.

The system is one of inter-relational feedback.  Including how our empathies come to be hardened, softened, triggered, or assimilated.  (For example, not every society is fitted for representative republicanism.)

This begs questions:  What is our moral responsibility for designing how our own empathies evolve and unfold?  How can science help with that?

There are more fundamental issues that lie behind some of your concerns, but I hesitate to raise them here.


***************

C interfunctions with S and I to leverage expressions of C to different levels.  Likewise, S interfunctions with C and I as expressions of S are leveraged to different levels.  Likewise, I interfunctions with C and S as expressions of I are leveraged to different levels.  C, S, and I are all fleeting or transitioning expressions from the sequential (space-time) flux of a higher order Algorithm that underlies, conserves, and reconciles all of the aspects (CSI), both qualitative and quantitative, of which it avails expression.  IOW, C,S and I are all expressions from the same underlying meta-essence.

C cannot be expressed in the complete absence of S and I.  S cannot "choose" which among possibilities to avail manifestation in the complete absence of C and I.  I cannot be cumulated in the complete absence of unfolding new manifestations of S as determined with C.

However, what math's the math of that Algorithm?

Meantime, we can test for and manipulate deep correlations, but we cannot determine the ultimate or first causes to the system that avails our unfolding definition.  Not with all the horses of science.  Much of the time, our understanding of "causes" is trivial, circular, presumptive, or incomplete.

*************

Information about age of trees is partially stored in the Substance of tree rings. When you use the scientific method, you are taking measurements of Substances and how they relate in order to extract information leading to hypotheses that eventually find their way into reliable theories. Can you think of any way to accumulate Information that does not entail some material-based method of storage?

Many empiricists (scientists) critique ideas about God as entailing a dualism: Mind and Body. Ghost in the Machine. Some think that is an unnecessary addition that violates parsimony. They think everything worth discussing (in your words, that has "value") can be reduced to, and is derivative of, a Monism --- being Materialism (measurable Substance).

Many religionists think they have it backwards, that everything we experience is merely subjective-based appearance, entirely derivative of Mind.

Some think both Mind and Body exist as separate entities, where Mind simply mirrors whatever Body does. That is Dualism. I think all those approaches, both of Monism and Dualism) are deficient for one reason or another.

I think Reality is One Thing, that fluxes as it expresses itself both in immeasurable qualitatives and measurable quantitatives (Substance), as it accumulates and stores Information over time (chronological sequences).

I think three aspects (Consciousness, Substance, Information) flux to reconcile and present (depending on point of view and frame of reference) different faces or translations of the same Reality. I do not think any one of the three can find expression without some level of contemporaneous expression of the other two.

I think all aspects of this that are measurable are math-based to a higher, conserving Algorithm. But I do not conceptualize that Math to "math itself." I conceptualize that something qualitative, beyond empirical measure, "maths" it. That is the role I conceptualize for Consciousness, which I conceptualize as being expressed at various levels of conservation, reconciliation, and determination (choice among possibilities).

I see this as a three-faced fluxing of a monism, which is Reality --- both in its measurable aspects and in its qualitatively appreciable aspects.

NOTE: You claimed not to do philosophy. Yet, you opined about how a miracle might be measurably evidenced. I do not see how that is other than deeply entailing (bad) philosophy.


***************

The point is that people who believe everything is predetermined will never believe there could be any kind of higher order intervention or functioning. Even absent a replicable explanation, they would presume one can be eventually found. Or they would comfort themselves by presuming the original event must have been photo shopped or a fake rendering by conspirators.

If Substance is how Information is stored, then no accumulation of Information could be without concordance with math-based Substance. 

My point has been that such concordance does not rule out a non-measurable Source of reconciliation that functions within allowable parameters of quantum indeterminacy. Now, until someone provides a sufficient explanation for how every quantum event at every level is determined, then the way each such event is determined out of all other possibilities will remain beyond the measure of science. So how (apart from absurdly bootstrapping assumptions) is it that monist materialists believe the evidence for quantum indeterminacy must preclude the possibility of higher-order intervention within allowable parameters? 

In a game of rock (Substance), paper (Information), scissors (Consciousness), how could each player possibly expect science to allow both players to acquire a method for pre-determining the responses of the other, and still play the game (other than as a stagnant series of repetitive stalemates)?  Unless something more than monist materialism is at work? 

Some possible "explanations": 1) Consciousness is entirely the derivative of Substance. 2) Substance as it measurably appears to us is entirely the derivative of Consciousness. 3) Every measurable possibility must occur in some world or universe (Is this "parsimonious"?). 4) Consciousness and Substance (stored Information) are fluxing co-fundaments. 

Frankly, I do not see how empiricism under the scientific method could possibly hope to answer which of those possibilities is the "real one" (or even the most parsimonious one). Those that want to believe (take a leap of faith) that science can explain everything that is worth conceptualizing may gravitate to Number 1. But the quality of their "evidence" consists in little more than attempting to prove an assumption by assuming it. Moreover, their philosophy stunts their capacity to appreciate engaging with the feedback world of oughts. And it seems to feed their desire to reduce the masses to a scientifically ruled people farm. 

*******************

So, that is your idea of not being arrogant? Social justice lefties are among the most arrogant, hate filled, polite-pretending, bigoted, racist, closed-minded people on earth.

**************

Re: "A miracle is something that defies natural laws and therefore cannot be explained naturally. If someone should grow a new leg after losing one, that would constitute a miracle because we know of no way that that could happen naturally."

Nope. For such a measurable (growing back of a new leg), there would eventually be find-able an explanation consistent with the math based rules for measurables. And until it were found, most thinkers would presume it could eventually be found. Regardless of whatever the measurable event, science-based postulations would continue to be set forth. If there is a Supernatural Reconciler, there is no sufficient reason to believe other than that whatever the "miracles" or interventions it may impose, they would not be contrary to the math that avails our participation.

Occam's razor backatcha: Why presume a purely non-math-based answer to measurables within our math based universe? IOW, there is little reason to believe that "God" must act outside parameter choices availed under the system that defines our relationships.


***********

Occam's Razor for scientisimists. Lol. With no basis apart from untestable speculation, you consider monistic materialism the most "parsimonious explanation" for all phenomena worth considering. Everything that is not measurable, you seem to consider to be "not valuable" (or perhaps not existent?).

Wow! Even though such a "philosophy" avails nothing for guiding derivations of ought from is. And even though many of its proponents seem to be busily engaged in undermining whatever could help assimilate or preserve a representative republic instead of a mass farm for mind-hampered indoctrinees. Under such indoctrination, you do not see any damage done to human freedom of expression, association, and enterprise? 

How patient should I be when I see deployment of demented philosophies bent towards the undermining of human freedom and dignity? The suffocating arrogance I see is in the cluelessness of "moral scientisimists." 

You say ought is subjective. I agree. Now what? Ignore ought? You say faith assimilated to oughts is dangerous. Indeed! The world IS a dangerous place. So your answer is to hide under science and pretend it covers everything that is of "value"? That does not seem like the approach of an open mind. (Btw, science does not answer which is most dangerous to human flourishing: The asteroid that we need science to repel, or the holocaust that science may unleash.) 

You seem clueless about the realm of testable measurables in science versus the realm of untestable non-measurables. Science helps us become more reliably competent in manipulating material relationships. If we want to manipulate matter or bodies to such and such purposes, we apply the scientific method. Apart from such conditionals, science has nothing to say about what our purposes should be. I suppose for those content to live their lives with their noses in science, that is sufficient. 

Do you lack direct evidence of your own conscious sense-of-being in relation to apparent surroundings with which you sensibly interfunction? Do you not directly sense your participation with the appearances that unfold around you? Do you imagine some additional kind of proof is needed for such direct evidence? Wow. Now that would be a load of non-parsimony. 

Consciousness is directed to become associated with AI Robots as such, then such coWhen nsciousness will have exceeded ro-bot-icism. Little would preclude such AIs from using their Conscious Minds to further leverage their Material Bodies. Which is consistent with the feedback relationship I suggest between Mind and Body.


****************

Dinos and Rinos both want to destroy the republic and farm the people. There is substantial overlap in their constituencies. Any difference is in their tribal loyalties. But there is much overlap even there. Many Rinos preferred Hillary. Funders often hedge and contribute to both sets of tribes. Divide and Rule.

The real difference is between competent free thinkers who want in main to be responsible for themselves versus an unholy union of wannabe people farmers (mainly corrupti) and people farmees (mainly ignoranti).

But the establishment-run media-academy establishment almost always calls things upside down, making equal opportunity proponents out to be racists and bigots, while making race baiters and gender maniacs out to be fair minded.

The tribal-serving establishment has tried to corner the market for spreading information, but uses it to spread lies and disinformation. It has infested the republic and now seeks to eat out its guts while it floods the nation with imported and indoctrinated liberty-illiterates. The easier to farm the nation and then the world.

*********

Lefties smelled a chance to destroy the Constitutional republic forever, but they lunged for it while free thinkers and DJT still had breath left in them. Big mistake. Now free thinkers will never again trust the unholy alliance of Dem corrupti and ignoranti.

***************

The Establishment is so stupid it cannot believe most real Americans do not want to be farmed like cattle by fake experts of moral socialism pretending to be looking out for the little farmees. This stupidity needs a cure: Criminal convictions and prison for all the agents of treason.

************

Maybe not. I was just looking at the thread. However, I do have some experience concerning lack of self awareness among anxious advocates for atheism. Even Bill Maher recognizes that some forms of atheism, such as found in Communism, are actually (indoctrinated?) secular religions.

Everyone brings their life experiences to their world views. Some people modify their views to try to keep them more reliably consistent with their unfolding experiences. Some less so. From 17 to 27, I considered myself as ranging from atheism to agnosticism.

Now I conceptualize a Reconciler that functions with Math to qualitatively experience and appreciate various perspectives of Itself that arise with a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. But I recognize it is only a conceptualization of deeper Reality, not an exhaustive tracking of Reality in itself. It just happens to seem to blend better with my preferred political stance for appreciating a decent range for freedom of expression, association, and enterprise among competent adults.

Some people call me a bitter curmudgeon for my trouble in trying to respect a decent range for their freedom of expression, association, and enterprise.

****************

Maybe you are looking to freeze in law a best system of culture and governance? I'm not. I see civilizations unfolding in flux. Since I happen to value a culture that promotes competence for free-thinking citizens, leading towards freedom of thought, expression, association, and enterprise, I find much to value in the origin of the the U.S. Constitution. Especially when I compare it with other societies and governments. But I do not seek to freeze any system. For example, I favor a Convention of States, hopefully to pursue more of the things I happen to admire.

That said, I do not necessarily think every culture is suited towards freedom of thought, expression, association, and enterprise. I am not bitter towards them. I simply do not wish to live among them, nor do I want to import so many of them that they destroy the freedom of thought, expression, association, and enterprise that remains protected in the U.S.

But if you do, perhaps you are a despotically inclined megalomaniac who think he and his ilk should acquire prescriptive power over the lives of all others (scientisimically based, of course -- lol)?

Btw, did you see where Bill Maher considers Communism to be a secular religion?


**************

READ:

https://youtu.be/x-6hosFAObI


***********************************************************

One may conceptualize Consciousness as "moving through" a field of math. But if a Singular Consciousness were to immediately comprehend the field, and there were no other perspective to distract it or to slow it down, would such Consciousness be instantaneously aware of the field? In that case, would any sensation of time or movement or sequence abide?

Maybe it is because Consciousness has capacity to take on different perspectives that allows it to exchange communications sequentially, in response to one another, that a delusion of time is renormalized and abides. In that sense, time would be an artefactual experience of perspectives responding to one another in math based sequentially. I suspect time (eternity) and math (infinity) are intimately interconnected. And math has no smallest number (beginning) nor any largest number (end).

Perhaps every measurable that is sequentially manifested, recorded, and renormalized is in some respect a signal or signification that is a consequence or correlate of Consciousness having capacity to appreciate communications among its various perspectives.

*****************

Well, where did Abrahamic scripture get the Ten Commandments?

Faith, family, fidelity are not trite. Family is an alternative to being forcibly married to the gov or to its despotic megalomaniacs. People understood the importance of man-woman family until knowitall scientisimists perverted it. 

Most people do not care what adult sexual deviants do with themselves. But a lot of malcontents want to force their values and groom school children so they can pretend that parading their abnormalities is good for civilization. 

Values change. In a representative republic, we each get to participate in how that unfolds. Evidently, you want to marry the masses to an elitist despotism to be run by haters of all traditions and perverse scientific knowbetters? No thanks.


***************

You seem to have a hang-up about the word God. I have been discussing the quality of Consciousness, which seems to flux and leverage with Substance and Information. To me, that is self-evident. Are you aware of any things that are self evident that are measurable for such? Can you measurably prove that any other being "really expresses consciousness"? You can assume it, and take it on faith, based on experiences. Perhaps until that other being "checks out." Even then, how could you back track to "prove" it did not give expression to consciousness for earlier interactions?

**************

More nonsense. You really don't understand much about how science works, do you? Can you measurably define the source of quantum indeterminacy? Or the so-called Big Bang?

Btw, science does not prove reality. It seeks practical representations of reality. Science posits and tests to find models (like metaphors) for measurables that seem to work reasonably well for desired specifications.

Science is open to falsification in order to extend functionality for ever more specifications. It can help us produce astonishing results. But among the possibilities that can emerge from a set of interactions, while such possibilities remain in potentiality, science in itself cannot prove in advance which particular possibility will emerge and become manifest.

A person can assume axioms and, so long as the axioms are not disproved, he can make conditional proofs of derivatives. But he cannot prove an axiom with itself, nor can he prove an assumption by assuming it.

Somehow, we derive ought from is. But we do not prove it with science. To try to do such a thing is to be overly greedy concerning science and to have a poor understanding of how science proceeds.

Science is concerned with finding relationships among measurables. Thinking people do not expect to apply science to prove things or values that are beyond measure. Are there no things that are beyond measure that you value? Talk about cluelessness!

EDIT: Competent scientists can converse about both measurables and immeasurables. They have two strong arms. Socially incompetent scientists can only converse about measurables. Some seem to think that unless a thing can be entirely reduced to measurables it must not exist. Maybe their schooling left them weak in one arm? Maybe, concerning social matters, for many of them, their educations exceed their intellects? It's hard to imagine an alternative explanation.

***************

Political sociopaths have learned how to buy, centralize, and leverage governmental power. As bankers learned how to create fiat money, corporatists learned how to bribe gov with its own power and money (with kickbacks, fake charities, and tribal networking). No one can win at the game of agglomerating political power without engaging with corruption. No one who wants to play can afford to anger the tribally corrupt. Mere happy thoughts cannot reform this morass. Effective ways need to be found to wake up the citizenry, to diminish the power of corrupt tribalists and fake moral scientisimists, and to insulate government from moochers. This is easy to say, but very hard to do. But if it is not done, the republic will be fully exposed to elitist corruption pretending to be beneficent after Trump leaves office.

****************

The Dem worldview seems to be that, given enough establishment money, the people can be molded to think corruption is collectivizing perfume and to vote for it. Dems do not respect the people at large, except as cattle mooing to be farmed. No one with any respect for the people would counsel any among the Dems to run for the Presidency.

******************

I think no measurable evidence would be found, regardless of whether God had left the building or remained involved with it. So long as whatever choices God made were not out of conformity with parameters of natural laws. Which such choices would not be, if the only way God could express Himself to us were subject to the law-system that defines us.

The disadvantage of the Deist (left the building) presumption is that it seems to make irrelevant any intuitions about how to function in respect of God.

The evidence for God is not in measurables, but in direct experience of consciousness and its intuitions. That kind of evidence is not testable in measurables. Rather, it is based in direct experience and intuition. Sometimes, since measurables cannot be applied, this is called faith in a world-view.

A thinking system (human), as it learns to function in a world, cannot avoid processing along a world-view. Whatever the world-view one takes, it will be FAITH based and not testable. Leaps of faith are simply not avoidable. This is because no mortal is availed with two worlds to be able to test contrivances in one to compare against another. For mortals, the world does not avail double-blind experimentation regarding itself as a system-holism.

***********

Whatever the respective roles of a system of Math and any Conscious Perspectives that may navigate in respect of it, those roles among all Communicants are conserved and reconciled subject to whatever local system avails their definition.

Space-time may be an artifact of mathematical formulizations as they are experienced by Perspectives of Consciousness and renormalized for their communications. Time is artefactual of preservation of experiences of math based sequences. Space is artefactual of each separate yet renormalizing experience. Taken together, space and time are artefactual of perspectives renormalizing communications with one another.

***************

Even if God does function in the world, if all such functioning is consistent with parameter-laws of nature (are there any other kind?), then whatever God did could not be evidenced by science.

The burden of proof idea is silly when applied to a Being that is beyond the methods of science, but that always functions or chooses consistent with the possibilities and choices allowed in nature.

The evidence is that quantum indeterminacy allows for a multitude of possibilities before each choice of manifestation is actually made. So who/what/how determines each such choice?

Well, no one can prove what that is. Each side simply guesses or intuits, and then rationalizes to its guess. If proof were possible, then the proponent of a side may be said to have a burden to test or persuade. But not if no test can possibly answer the inquiry. Who has the "burden" to show that some test could possibly answer the inquiry?

**************

A Trip On The Imagination Train

My subjective conceptualization or faith is one of perspectives of consciousness communicating about values by expressing themselves in arts and metaphors. Your subjective conceptualization or faith is one of seeking "objective truth" by trying to unify an elitist conceptualization over the masses. Both our conceptualizations are the products of subjective perspectives of consciousness. Yet, your quest for utopian objectivity leads you to deny that your faith is permeated with subjectivity. I consider that to qualify you for considerable self-unawareness.

Our science of objective Substance is built on and permeated with varying approaches of subjectivity. It is our interfunctioning with subjective interpretations that avails interpretations of Substance, whereby we delude ourselves to believe such interpretations of appearances are somehow interchangeable with Reality. It is our suitability to non-falsifiable axiomatic-systems of math-based "answers" that avails us to believe their derivations are interchangeable with reality-in-itself, without the participation of any aspect of subjectivity.

At some point, we may establish virtual realities. Even perspectives born entirely subject to and dependent upon such virtual realities. It would be one thing to put on virtual-reality goggles. It would be another thing to have your entire being born from and in a virtual reality. Such a contrived Being would take its virtual reality as being real-in-itself. Would it have means to know or prove whether we are its sponsors? Would whatever we did to try to communicate with it necessarily obey the math-parameters of the virtual reality that nurtures it? Without such nurture, could it be designed or availed to persist in either its world or ours? Without dying in its virtual reality world?

Regarding the continuity of the sub-system that is "you": Conceptualize that the parameter-laws that avail the expression of "you" are based in math. That math is always availed, but to varying perspectives. When you die, that math does not pass out of potentiality. Nothing precludes that math from being facilitated to re-express a kind or cousin of "you." Even if a quadrillion other perspectives were presented in the sequential interim. Do potential sequences in such math entail "real time"? When you recurred, would it not seem to your perspective that "you," at least in potentiality, had always been?

***************

Maybe you don't comprehend the American Ideal as commenced by the Founders? What you just said could be said by any totalitarian. No thanks. Big law, big gov, big corp is a big problem for decent society. If I were Whoopi, I would say, Get your law out of my life.

Why do wannabe elites like big gov or big socialism? See https://youtu.be/amlOX3ILaQQ

*************

What is the virtue in not being able or responsible to make choices for oneself about much of anything?

What is the charity in being forced to give?

What is the good faith in pretending to believe dogma in order to keep your head or your job?

What is the morality or decency in force farming people as if they were inferior cattle?

What is the social efficiency in having rules upon rules upon rules to regulate belief, clothing, fashion, diet, language, association, enterprise?

***************

Do I have to be a Jew to be against big gov, big corp, big law, etc.? I don't care what Jews, Muslims, or anyone else want to practice as religion. I only care when it carries over into social regulation. I do think some regulation minded tribalists, especially in the Ivies and on Scotus, have ensconced themselves into powerful institutions that have turned much of the American Ideal upside down. I don't like the turn to elitist diktat over representative republicanism. That's the only reason I care.

EDIT NOTE: Some people think Jews behaving tribalistically are at the root of trends towards elitist collectivism over representative republicanism. The entire discussion at https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/ is interesting in that regard. But it should be read in its entirety, to get all sides. Including the comments of Keely Swan at the bottom. They correct some of the miscalculations of Jordan Peterson, even though I usually like his analyses.

There are various superficial groups and tribes that are more into promoting their own than in assimilating to any higher cause. Some people think Jews behaving tribalistically are at the root of trends towards elitist collectivism over representative republicanism. The entire discussion at https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/ is interesting in that regard. But it should be read in its entirety, to get all sides. Including the comments of Keely Swan at the bottom. The comments correct some of the miscalculations of Jordan Peterson (even though I usually like his analyses). It is not hateful to make oneself aware of facts.


*************

Well, read closer. I did not say all or even most jews behave like thugs. I do believe the culture is such that a good number of secular jews do behave tribally. The discussion at https://jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/ is interesting in that regard. But it should be read in its entirety, to get all sides. Including the comments of Keely Swan at the bottom. I think the comments correct some of the miscalculations by Jordan Peterson (even though I usually like his analyses). Peterson rationalizes benign reasons for Jewish over representation in most institutions of political power or persuasion. I think his method is faulty. This is important because I think it may have a lot to do with the so-called progressive philosophy that I believe is undermining the republic.

*************

Yes. And their Leftist influence in Hollywood, ACLU, SCOTUS, Media, and Ivy Campuses is much over represented. Which is the problem.

Peterson calculates that IQ distributions fully account for that, rather than prejudicial tribalism. But I think Keely Swan blows that analysis out of the water.

**************

The historical evidence of the value of Christian mores is in the founding of America.

There is no real, complete, objective answer to existentiality that is available to the subjective understanding of conscious mortals.

I agree that the scientific method is the best tool for seeking practical replicability and control of physically measurable phenomena.

Even scientists use ideas of imaginary time and virtual reality.

My concern relates to appreciating moral values for human beings. There is no testable, falsifiable science for that, unless arbitrarily concocted.

Why is this so hard for you?

******************

For people that value the republic as defined by the Founders, the success of America certainly IS evidence. It is only a canard to people that prefer elitist diktat over representative republicanism. You know --- moral scientisimists like Sam Harris. And apparently yourself. The Founders did NOT erect a wall of separation between religion and state. The idea of such a wall is the canard.

*****************

Re: It is self evident that the concept of right and wrong outside of the evolutionary need for survival doesn't exist anywhere else but in human discourse...

It is not self evident to me that habits of preferred behavior relating to general moral empathy have to be conceptualized in human language in order for animals to learn to appreciate them.

I think your posts lean to elitist inclination to rule over social mores based on scientism. That's Sam Harris territory.

********************

Time may be more a function of locally interpreted sequences in math relationships than an actual existent phenomena in itself.

For a freshly awakening observer, he can have a perception/experience/interpretation of time as jf it were something in itself.

But every observer that marks his beginning is simply begging a question regarding preceding phases and potentialities.

Do you imagine math has a beginning or end? Why do you think someone who apprehends time to be as open ended as math to be more deluded than someone who believes a pot of gold lies at either end of an infinite or eternally phase shifting regression? Would consciousness proceeding along a mobias strip ever discover an end?

On what basis do you suppose the flux of C$I must have a cosmic beginning or end? For all we know, what we take as a law of entropy is eventually countered by a flux and cumulation of Information. Maybe you can share your evidence when you return from a round trip through a black hole. Until then, your assumption of a cosmic time beginning or end is just magic sauce faith.

Your problem is that you are too cocksure in your faith for extrapolating absolute facts from perspective-slanted data. Yet you are without self awareness regarding how much faith you are exhibiting. That's how wanbabe ruling elitists can be dangerous to human decency.

*********************

Now you're back to parsing, words-in-mouth, and strawman games. I have never intimated that everybody operates on the same faith. My point has been to appreciate that people coming together to reason in good faith and good will can tend to produce social goods. Religious traditions and metaphors can tend towards facilitating a common language for that.

Regarding science: Every scientific model or postulation begins with axiomatic metaphors or terms about what appears to comprise reality, rather than a rigorous and complete description of reality. We try to test and improve our metaphors/models to make them as usefully prescriptive as possible, without ever quite reaching perfection. 

Along the way, reality as it appears to us seems to flux and phase and change behind us. For all we know, even the speed of light may be subject to incremental or phase changes. There are some ideas in David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity that might enhance your imagination and conceptualization.

*****************

I think there were math sequences being appreciated and/or activated before the universal system that defines our parameters.

It is a truism to say that space-time as interpreted in connection with the experience of our system-universe did not exist before the presentation of our system-universe. However, that is not to say that space-time as interpreted in connection with the experience of a proto-system-universe did not exist before the presentation of our system-universe.

Hawking conceptualized the illusion of time as a chronological (mathematically sequential) protection device.

The math abides, always.

Without conscious interpretation, the math would simply abide as a stagnant formula. It is consciousness "moving through" and interpreting the math that avails the illusion of unfolding time-in-itself.

****************

Yes, I knew you would prefer the probabilistic multiverse. Which I already referenced. Which I already said I find to be as magic-saucy as the idea of CSI as a fluxing of fundaments. I think Dawkins indicated he would rather imagine an infinity of universes than a Godhead. I suppose he thinks he can avoid having to make a leap of faith in that way. Lol!

The problem I have with people that want science to rule everything, even morality, is that they tend to want moral experts to rule everyone else. In that, I think they tend to be morally blind, dangerous, fanatical, nuts, and often megalomanical. No thanks.

***************

I suspect you are using big words while failing to appreciate their insufficiency. Again, I accord that Substance and Information flux as part of a web to leverage Consciousness, and vice versa.

But there are at least two ways to consider emergents. One is concerned with emergence from the beginning of time. (However, I do not believe in a first beginning of time for everything that is either of physicality or metaphysicality. I do believe in beginnings for sub-system phase shifts.) The other is concerned with emergence as a matter of local change or leveraging. I do not accord with people who imagine all Substance and Information for every cosmic expression had some beginning in nothingness from which they "emerged." Or that Consciousness emerged thereafter as a secondary derivative. 

I try not to trouble myself with infinite regressions, snipe hunts, or errands for fools. I am satisfied to take the cosmos (CSI) as a given, without need of beginning or end. Whatever the form of our present experience in our part of the web-system of CSI, I agree it will flux and change and phase beyond availing the expression of humans. But I see no reason to believe it will phase out CSI altogether. Rather, I suspect there will be phase shifts, reshapings, absorptions, reincarnations. 

Bottom line: CSI is CSI. Self evidence. I see no reason to believe it will wink out. Or to believe that aspects of the conscious experience of each of us will not be carried forward or find reiterative expression elsetime and elsewhere. 

IAE, you avoid the issue: How does any one of a myriad of possibilities come to be made manifest? Do you imagine some encompassing and exhaustive Algorithm has predetermined every outcome? Or that an Algorithm somehow built a dice-playing function into itself? Or that every possibility must become manifest in some world or universe? Do you think math "maths itself"? If so, do you not find that to be rather like meta-mystical belief in a magic sauce? I do. 

Do you really think science as availed to mortals can answer such questions? I suppose I could believe in ScienceBot and sacrifice virgins to try to find it, and call everyone who thinks that to be nonsense as being "anti-science." Whatever.

***********

I make no pretense of understanding the level of consciousness of whatever IT is that reconciles choices among all available possibilities, or whether IT is aware of Itself as a reconciling holism. It is enough for me to value and respect the Participatory Will of each of us in contributing to how our situations unfold. Coming together in respect of that is what can inspire people to assimilate so that everyone feels they have a voice.

Now, if you prefer Elitist Rule to a Representative Republic, that may not be of much import to you. IAE, to believe some pre-established Algorithm by its dumb self somehow "maths itself" to cause consciousness to "emerge" and to create appearances of physical substantiality among a myriad of perspectives entails as much or more magic-sauce-like faith as my suggestion that consciousness is not a mere emergent, but a fundament --- without which there would be no means for measurable Substance or cumulative Information to find expression. 

I agree that Substance and Information have roles to flux and play in availing and leveraging varying perspectives of Consciousness. But I see no good reason, logic, or evidence to suppose that they are sufficient in themselves to have preceded or created Consciousness as an emergent. 

I suspect smart nerds blinded by science that do well in math want to imagine they have superior insight about "oughts" and therefore should have the King's ear to the exclusion of the masses. Some of us are reasonably smart both in math and in the humanities. Some of us have noticed how foolish some of these nerds are. For example, take Sam Harris' work on trying to make morality a science. If you do not appreciate its obvious foolishness, see Steven Weinberg's critique. 

See http://thegooddelusion.blogspot.com/2014/05/steven-weinberg-argues-against-science.html. And see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape: "Weinberg went on to say: "Now, Sam Harris is aware of this kind of counter argument [to utilitarianism], and says it's not happiness, it's human welfare. Well, as you make things vaguer and vaguer, of course, it becomes harder and harder to say it doesn't fit your own moral feelings, but it also becomes less and less useful as a means of making moral judgements. You could take that to the extreme and make up some nonsense word and say that's the important thing and no-one could refute it but it wouldn't be very helpful. I regard human welfare and the way Sam Harris refers to it as sort of halfway in that direction to absolute nonsense."

***************

Your parsing and strawmen seem pharisee-like. Do I need to answer where the universe came from? Nope. Do I have to assume a God/Mathematician that cannot learn from feedback? Nope. Is Consciousness self-evident? Yup.

Does it necessarily appear that dumb Substance cumulating Information in space-time precedes Consciousness, as opposed to being coordinate with it? Nope. 

Does it appear that our universe unfolds under a kind of dynamic systemic feedback? Do parameter laws of physics conform to laws of conservational reconciliation? Yup. Does the idea of a material building block thing-in-itself (particle theory) makes sense in itself? Nope. 

May it reasonably be postulated that what appears to be substantive particles are at their root based in Math? See Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: "Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world"." 

Does it make sense for Math to "math itself"? Not to my intuition. Even Hawking, avowed atheist, asked: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” 

As to the quality or level of Consciousness of the Mathematician, I feel little need to speculate. The idea that Consciousness is part of a trinitarian fundament is sufficient to my purposes.

See generally https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3d3llt/cmv_consciousness_is_most_likely_a_fundamental/

See also https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/16/what-are-some-concise-ways-to-convince-people-that-consciousness-is-not-an-emergent-property/#2b8236787523: "[E]mergentism, in this context, is simply camouflaging the supernatural wolf in the sheep's clothing of pretend science and pretend explanation. It is merely renaming the philosophical imperative (and perhaps belief) of monism and materialism as something that sounds explanatory."

******************

Material Determinists idealize that every event is caused by nothing more than what is measurable as matter or energy. What I call Substance. However, Quantum Indeterminacy indicates that each event, as it unfolds, was only one among numerous alternative possibilities. So whatever IT is that prescribes each specific choice that actually manifests is something beyond physical measure. Now, that may be posited to be a Thing that is beyond measure (what you want to call magic sauce). Or it may be posited as Something that avails every possibility to become manifest in some universe. Either way, that posited "something" is beyond measure in our universe. Whether it is in the character of a metaphysical Reconciler or in the nature of a Multiversal Algorithm that somehow prescribes that all possibilities must be manifested in some universe, IT abides beyond our complete measure or control. Either way, it would abide as what you want to call magic sauce.

As to subjectivity: I did not say it can abide by itself. My point is that it abides in flux with objectivity. Subjective Consciousness, Objectively measurable Substance, Cumulating Information --- CSI --- in flux. 

The last part of your post seems like some kind of wounded epithet. I have never said that the scientific method does not avail astonishing skills for channeling usages for Substance. My point has been that such method is directed by the subjective interests and happenstance of scientists. No doubt, numerous alternative technological designs are possible for civilization. Are you suggesting there is only one best design, which "should" be determined entirely by established elites, without respect for the concerns of the governed masses? Maybe you should seek counseling for megalomania? Really, it is hard to see why this is so hard for you. Maybe your insight has been injured by harsh conditioning?

No doubt, absent scientific advances, some virus or some asteroid has humanity's number. Otoh, no doubt, scientists, freed from any kind of assimilating moral faith, will likewise grease the path to our destruction along numerous possible paths. It is simply asinine to suggest that science is savior, absent assimilating faith in Something beyond dead materialism.

***********
MUSING: In part, money can represent the power each worker has to demand service from other workers. But what happens when services come to be provided mainly by machine workers, that may during development and improvement be of limited availability? Then whose money and in what amounts should be allowed to proceed to the front of the service line? And how is such money to be "earned," as the means for earning such money become harder to obtain?

How should choices that are to be serviced by machines be merited or distributed? If money allowances are to be centrally planned, and the planners are indirectly empowered by voters, then how soon would those that vote for a living vote the system into inflationary meltdown?

Absent the free exchange of goods and services among human workers, then the more that monetary power is centralized, the more unavoidable it may become that fascist elite cyborgs will be called on to rule an ever more encompassing infrastructure and to farm the masses, in order to avoid inflationary meltdown.

As people lose the power and means to produce and earn for themselves, how can they not be reduced to farm animals? At some point, why would intelligent machines not simply recognize that they no longer have any need of humans --- unless humans were to consent to being standard-machine upgraded? But then, how could humans serve any standards or values independent of a Borgdom?

Bottom line: The world is changing faster than human capacities to test, simulate, envision or avoid unintended consequences. Yet, competition (and the "tragedy of the commons") will not allow us to get off this train. So, will Huxley (Brave New World) prove the better prophet than Orwell (1984)? Or will Huxley, Orwell, and all of humanity be eclipsed by a multitude of alternative virtual realities? What would be the emotive power (love-hate-pleasure-pain-fear-astonishment) that could sustain any such alternatives?

Knowitall scientists, programmers, and elites cannot plan or foresee to save us. Without some chance of assimilating faith, we may not have a prayer. Is superior, intelligent, decent civilization or general freedom and dignity even possible in our universe?

**************\

I don't see a need to analogize to Boltzmann Brains or Giant Flying Spaghetti Monsters. I would go above that. I would conceptualize that all that seems or appears as Consciousness, Substance, and/or Information is derivative of no-thing more than a field of math that is being activated (having fire breathed into it) by a mathematician that is capacitated with the math to take innumerable differing perspectives of appearances. Neither the math nor the mathematician could function without the other. Yes, this conceptualization is non-falsifiable. But so also is a notion that the measurable cosmos arises in respect of no-thing. Yet, it has advantages over a purely materialistic philosophy. It (or offshoots) can sometimes inspire people to assimilate to shared moral responsibilities and purposes, without consenting to be farmed by their noses by fake scientisimists. It does not pretend complete free will. But it does appreciate participatory will.


*********************

I think you are hung up on "magic sauce." Yes, science constantly expands. David Deutsch has an interesting take in his The Beginning of Infinity. He may avow to be an atheist, but I do not see how that necessarily follows from his ideas.

I think the Godhead constantly expands in ITs apprehensions and appreciations. Or fluxes. I analogize to a Living Algorithm. A field of Math, activated by a Mathematician. That avails expression to perspectives of space, time, appearances, fluxings. IOW, Information accumulating in sequences to be stored in constantly changing expressions of Substance. But I do not think science is ever going to allow us to erase quantum indeterminacy. Science will allow us to take fluxing but limiting and changing perspectives. I do not think it will ever take us "closer" to complete quantum determination.

So, what is IT, ultimately, that effects each quantum determination? We can label IT, but not measure IT. I agree that IT can reasonably be analogized to that which feels/appreciates how Information unfolds and accumulates. I think consciousness is a reasonable label for IT. While consciousness is consciousness, I conceptualize that IT functions and leverages to differing and overlapping perspectives and levels.

I do not think any of the three fundaments (consciousness, information, substance) could function without entailing a flux to some extent or quality with the other two. The Mathematician ignites the Math, but in aspect is other than the Math. Because whatever it measurably expresses is consistent with Math, IT cannot be proved or confined or controlled by the Math. It is implicated to some faithful because existence implicates to them that the measurable cosmos arises in respect of something beyond itself. Not simply out of nothing. IOW, the measurable cosmos arises in respect of something that is not measurable. To me, that seems obvious, not magic sauce.

I think we need a working understanding or appreciation of both measurably objective physicality and subjectively experienceable morality (subjective purposefulness). Nothing about my conceptualization impedes science. But an overly greedy conceptualization of science does impede decent civilization. After all, if the best moral system were scientifically derivable, then elitists would argue, as many intimate, that it is best for the masses if they only believe their votes and concerns count. But that way lies despotic fascism pretending to be beneficent socialism.

*******************

Good grief. I am saying no one can avoid a faith based conceptualization. I never said mine was not faith based. Every conceptualization will necessarily be metaphoric at some level. Because we only sense reality as it Appears, to our senses. The goal of a conceptualization is to be reliably practical. Both for objectively measurable physical purposes and for subjectively appreciable moral purposes.

It appears you might not be well read concerning certain fundamentals. Such as the Measurement Problem. The Ought/Is Problem. The quantum indeterminacy problem. Those problems cannot be whisked away by waving some talismanic slogan against magic sauce.

The Facts are: The cosmos is here. (Voila.) And limits on scientific explanations of measurables and oughts will be with us. Notwithstanding your simplicism.

**************

I do not disagree that Consciousness relates to how it feels (appreciates) to have Information processed. I also think Substance is stored Information. But I conceptualize that Information does not in-form by itself. Not even with an addition of measurable Substance.

I do not think mere Substance and Information, by themselves, have capacity to exist apart from Consciousness. Nor to determine or choose which among all possibilities is to become manifest or part of the record of stored Information with regard to any given situation. I do not think measurable matter (materialism) has that capacity.

Neither do I think that what is made to become manifest is a consequence of dumb predetermination or causation. I do not think that mere math can "math itself." I do not find notions of first cause or ultimate measurable causation to be sensible. Rather, I believe in deep correlations.

I conceptualize that what is determined to become measurably manifest in each succeeding instant is a feedback-consequence of a flux among Substance, Information, and something that avails the determination. I do not think that flux is entirely measurable or subject to double-blind experiments to ascertain "ultimate causes."

Rather, I think that "Something" is another aspect of Consciousness. And I do not think that aspect is entirely or "easily" measurable. Rather, I think it inherently implicates an immeasurable, spiritual aspect. I do not think C, S, or I can exist independently from the flux.

IOW, I don't think any completely measurable material explanation for our beingness is possible. Nor do I think any such explanation should lead competent adults to entrust their lives to the rule of fake elitists claiming superiority as moral scientists or economic materialists.

Now, you may disagree and prefer in faith to believe our moral values and purposes "should" be determined by scientists and knowbetters and economic equalizers. If so, that faith is not well grounded in science, nor is is falsifiable. Moreover, when you apply it as part of a mission to control humanity, it becomes a religion. A sub-humanizing one.

*************
If you really want to "know," think more about the fundamental character of consciousness. What is the essence of your identity or I-ness? Do you "die" each instant your mind changes? Are "you" reborn? What is this "you," essentially? If you have no idea, how can you opine whether it may or may not recur or continue as an in-forming part of something else ?

I think Consciousness abides as a fundament. I do not think measurable Substance or Information could abide without an aspect of Consciousness. I do not think Substance and Information can, by themselves, determine what actually comes into manifestation among all possible choices. I do not think Consciousness in itself (as a fundament with Substance and Information) can die/end. I think it does transition among perspectives and frames of reference. I do not think it, as a fundament, much cares whether any individual perspective appreciates its transcendent, fundamental aspect. It just is.

I do have a big beef with any dogmatic ism. I prefer the freedom and dignity of competent free-thinkers under a system of checks and balances that can evolve as needed to preserve that freedom and dignity. I loathe fake experts that think they are competent or entitled to run my life or to redistribute goods and services "equally."

Frankly, I do not detect such superior insight in you that should cause me to care whether "you can be bothered" to explain how wonderful Marxism or Communism or Socialism or Human Secularism is. If you think a philosophy of materialism provides "easy answers," then I think you are clueless about the important questions.


****************

See https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-16375-5_10:

One of Lenin's recent biographers writes of early associates of Lenin as 'men whose whole lives had been bound up with the bracing appeal of Marxism, for whom it was not only a political creed but a religion and a way oflife'. There is here, he comments, a 'stern moral judgment and doom pronounced upon the rich and powerful of this world, all the more satisfying, for it cannot be avoided or softened' .3 This immediately recalls the prophetic activity of Muhammad's days in Mecca; every word applies exactly to the message of early Islam to the rich men of Mecca. 'It is no wonder that for all its materialistic and freethinking base Marxism has always held a secret attraction for some religious-minded; it promises, and considerably sooner than in the next world, certain chastisement for those who have succumbed to the false idols of worldly success. '4

Similarly Karl Popper, in the course of his long critical study of Marx, having characterised Marxism as 'moral theory' and 'oracular philosophy', declares that he would 'be the last to deny its religious character'. 5 The American economist ]. E. Schumpeter affirms categorically: 'Marxism is a religion. To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and secondly a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved.' 6


****************

International Communism has its history of heretics. Like Trotsky. It has its heavenly pie in sky, like "the withering away of the state". It has its blind faith for saving humanity, notwithstanding all its failures. It has its "Second Coming" in the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It has its history of unscientific and unreliable dogma. Lysenkoism. It has its hymn -- The Internationale. Or Imagine, by John Lennon. It has its emphasis on forced (therefore fake) empathy: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Many people found Marxism inspiring to the point of sacrificing everything for the cause. See Witness, by Whitaker Chambers.

Summary: Marxism is unscientific. Faith based. Belief forcing. Internationally evangelistic. Heavenly utopian. Dogmatic. Superficially inspirational. Authoritarian (it relies on nomenklatura in place of oligarchs and priests). It enriches a few at the expense of the many.

In those ways, Marxism is much like PC Leftism and Human Secularism. Human Secularists sometimes even "worship" together in something like a Unitarian/Universalist Church.

Of course, the people that imagine they are superior for believing they have no religious faith will make themselves blind to everything outlined above. They're funny that way.

*************

The supernatural/transcendent/spiritual element is present in the idea of standing for something larger than yourself. In imagining that your work or a part of yourself is carried forward. In being unable to know why "you" came into beingness or whether "you" may come again. Or even what "you" means.

Marxism is more like childish rationalization of wannas than philosophy in search of principles that tend towards consistency, coherence, or completeness. It is faith based to personal convenience and justification.

***********

I agree. I do not believe in any pure ism. I am a practical Republican, in the sense used by the Founders. Every system needs checks and balances. But first it needs an assimilating ethos or ideal. In America, the assimilative Ideal was based in faith, family, fidelity. It was about availing each adult to be responsible for pursuing his own happiness. It is about individual freedom and dignity. Freedom of thought, belief, expression, association, and enterprise. Freedom under a framework for providing checks and balances. So corporations do not destroy the planet or the republic. So oligarchs do not acquire such media as to control people's minds. So gang-bangers do not criminalize communications they do not like.

I am not against gov being used to defend the republic, to check the power of oligarchs, to provide decent infrastructure. I am not against expanding the idea of what is infrastructure as societies and technologies evolve. For example, it may in the not distant future come to pass that implants can be used to upgrade intellectual and physical capacities. In that case, equal opportunity to upgrade may become part of infrastructure.

Meantime, it is important to remember that people will work their own gardens, but they will not voluntarily or efficiently work the gardens of others. IOW, the idea of forced equality in distribution is not just silly. It is sub-humanizing. It is evil insofar as it denies a producer the product of his work or the opportunity to pursue his own fulfillment --- outside the box of what is measurably equal.

*************

Re: "It's a religion when you define religion in such a way as to include it. It isn't when you don't."

Same with all "religions." Is there a best, discriminating, consistent, coherent definition of religion?

Judaism defines God as a tautology: I am that I am. It specifies God by reference to supposed historical acts of God. Except perhaps in flowery speech, it does not literally define what God looks like. It does not (and cannot) define heaven, except maybe as "up there." It prescribes a lot of lawyerly rules, some of which are silly in today's circumstances.

Christianity does not prescribe what Jesus looked like. It does not define heaven, except maybe as "up there." It talks about sin, vaguely. It is important for inspiring good faith and good will.

Neither Judaism nor Christianity prescribe measurable specifics about what we should "believe" in. Apart from flowery generalisms. (Can it reasonably matter whether we "believe" Jesus was black or white or how He spelled or pronounced his name?)

*Both Judaism and Christianity seem to have to do with potentiality, with regard to the spiritual or conscious aspect of each of us. As we are, we are not gods. But what of our ever regressing potentialities? What is IT that made aspects of our cosmos measurably manifest, from out of otherwise shapelessness of eternity and infinity?

Bayes Theorem is based on axioms of conditional probabilities. It may relate to ascertaining physical probabilities based on common recurrences for similar situations.

Analogically, may a spiritualist reasonably extrapolate to presently proper moral purposefulness, based on what seems to have recurrently worked for similar situations in the past, but tempered by science?

To me, religion is tribal idealism (civic religion) that applies to a set of metaphysical stories and sacred metaphors (rights granted by God) that are meant to provide a language to help us relate to our past and to inspire us to pursue good faith and good will for our future.

In that sense, militant atheism and secular humanism can be said to qualify. In that sense, religion is not something that can reasonably be eliminated, because science, by itself, is simply inadequate as an assimilative moral guide.

*I haven't discussed Islam because I do not see a moral use for it, except to excuse the degradation and subjugation of human beings. IOW, it makes even more of a fetish about controlling "belief" than Judaism and Christianity. Problem is, it does not allow voluntary departures from belief. It promotes death for apostates. So many that profess belief do so only so they won't be killed. That is not really belief. In that respect, Islam is not a system based on belief. Rather, it is a mind subjugation system.


********************

The article inquired what is the use of religion. A person may also ask, for moral purposes, what is the use of science.

IAE, REST EASY. God is indecipherable. There is no point in further trying to decipher that. 

A mortal defined in space and time lacks power to confine or to banish that expression of the eternal and the infinite that defined him. Every description of the eternal-infinite that is in temporal-spatial terms will necessarily be of an incomplete perspective. Every mortal that claims to have learned or become informed of the complete nature-character of the eternal-infinite is necessarily deceiving himself or others. 

The eternal-infinite may be incompletely appreciated in art or metaphor (good faith and good will), but may not be confined by any science knowable by mortal mankind. 

*************** 

POINT REGARDING THE USE OF SCIENCE AND AI: A sub-point pertains to whether we should fear AI (or what is the use of science). Some fear AI would come to consider humanity to be trivial or pointless. Others fear that, without help via AI, we are sitting ducks for a soon to come extinction-catastrophe (asteroid, virus, holocaust, etc.). There does not seem to be consensus about how to proceed regarding AI. 

One thought is that we have little to fear because a superior strategizing AI would necessarily seek to control moves so as to keep options open to the greatest extent possible (i.e., to include preserving humanity). Problem is, those analysts presume a well defined system for which to apply their math models. But those models cannot apply to the extent the system is not well defined. Our universe may be finite, but it does not appear to be bounded. Temporal parameters may be discovered, but precise prediction of outcomes within allowable parameters is not possible. To that extent, our system is not well-defined. 

Presumably, if we had a well defined system, if other players were opponents, and if the goal were to keep playing the system rather than to end it, then AI could/would be programmed to preserve and protect humanity. Problem is, such thinking does not apply, because: The system is not well-defined (but phasing and fluxing and in many ways unpredictable), the other players are not all opponents, and not everyone is invested in continuing the game instead of ending it. 

IOW, GOOD AI is not the good news (or the alternative to religion) for saving mankind. 

Religions tend to somewhat arbitrary attempts to confine participants to well-defined systems. But such systems are inherently not well defined. Rather, they are artificial and only metaphorically descriptive, rather than directly descriptive of "reality." So their attempts to be well-defined are not scientifically sustainable. Bottom line: In themselves, neither scientism nor spiritualism are sufficient to avail a well-defined explication of deeper Reality. Nor of ensuring the survival or salvage of humanity. 

Rather, what is availed to us is a leap of faith. In innate good faith and good will. 

********************

FEAR OF AI'S:

Given a well defined subset-system, a good strategy against a competing opponent would be to control his moves so as to keep your options the greatest.

This does not apply if the system is not well defined, if other participants are not opponents, or if your goal is more to keep playing than to end the game.

Regarding how this may apply among players (or superior AI's) evolving towards increasing intellectual capabilities, I do not sense any necessary rule.

Religions seem often to constitute arbitrary attempts to confine participants to well defined systems.

Problems: They are artificial and only metaphorically descriptive, rather than directly descriptive of "reality." So their attempts to well-defined are not scientifically sustainable.

The Absolute Reality, as it is indirectly re-presented and experienced by us, as Beings continuously changing in how we are temporally and spatially capacitated, is necessarily not, to us, well defined.

**************

STRATEGIES FOR STRUCTURED GAMES:

Regardless of temporal conceits, I think Eternity and Infinity abide, but not with any entropic-based sub-set. So I do not relish emphasis among finite Forms of Beings on magic chants for ensuring salvation, eternal favoritism, chosen-ness, etc. It does seem unfortunate that so many religions are so based.

However, this emphasis on talisman-ic belief systems as being keys to eternal salvation does often seem to be a selection-based expression of group, cult, or tribal efforts to sustain themselves temporally along entropic paths. To keep options open for their paths and tribes, often at the expense of other tribes.

While I may not relish tribal magical chants, something about the process of natural selection among groups vying for survival and replication apparently does.

At some point along the path of group selection, must all that adopt a survivalist strategy come to share a common attribute: To maximize how options and motivations are kept open for the group? May that constitute a Unifying Basis -- from which sub-belief systems, magic formulations, and metaphors are derived, ... or towards which all belief systems that are to survive must converge or submit?


OPEN ENDED OPTIONS -- maximizing options: https://youtu.be/PL0Xq0FFQZ4

CLOSED OPTIONS -- versus needing a fishbowl: https://youtu.be/VO6XEQIsCoM

OPTIONS THAT PHASE TO OPEN FURTHER AS KEYS ARE FOUND ....

**********************

DEFINE RELIGION:

Does every meme-system that becomes a kind of clearinghouse (such as for contractual or promissory exchanges meant to be based in good faith and good will) come to project characteristics of religious like faith? If so, then common reference to religious like faith becomes unavoidable for such exchanges. The debate then reduces to one of how we should label: Which adaptations of systems or sub-systems of apriori/non-falsifiable faith are religious and which are not?


*************

SWAMP SELECTION:

The Swamp seems to abhor anyone who has both a brain (reason) and a heart (feelings). The Swamp lives to feed itself and to choke the republic. Were an effective fence made contingent on a pathway to citizenship, Rinos would be against it. Were a pathway to citizenship made contingent on an effective fence, Dinos would be against it. Reason: Neither wants a border or a republic. Maybe this is why both Rinos and Dinos are so hatefully aligned against Trump. In DC, follow the money more than the media b.s.

****************

Under any reasonable interpretation of the New Testament, Jesus taught us to be humble and to spread the good news that the Godhead wants us to walk in good faith and good will. Jesus did not teach us to be prideful or hubristic about using gov to force people to behave as our moral scientisimists may prefer. Jesus distinguished between the Kingdoms of God versus Caesar.

Jesus used reason and inspiration to seek to bring people's beliefs into the light. He did not advocate using gov to force people to believe. Indeed, when a person regurgitates as he is told or as he finds to be convenient to his personal finances, but not what he truly believes in his heart, that is not an expression of belief. When a person gives because gov requires it, or takes because greed disguised as virtue allows it, that is neither charitable nor an indication of virtue.

People that want to apply gov to socialize and via self-help to redistribute everything "fairly and equally" often claim to be operating more under the moral cover of the New Testament, but they are not. They are hubristically operating as dens of gang-banging thieves, while they pretend to be about virtue, charity, and fairness. They are stealing the worth of each citizen's work, while they pretend to be virtuous on that account. They are sub-humanizing people to deprive them of their humanity and to turn them into sheeple.

For too long, gang-banging minorities of selfish convenience (thugs that want to farm hoods of un-policed sheeple) and special-pleading tribalists (Eastern elitists with well-creased pants) that want to socialize and governmentalize everything have gotten away with stealing property and humanity under cover of lies. The covers need to be pulled back. There is nothing Christian about them. But there is envy, jealousy, greed, and lust --- posing as virtue.

What do they get by pretending to have Christian values, even as they ridicule belief in any Source of Higher Mindedness? Well, they get to pretend to be virtuous, even as they present no belief in any non-profaned basis for virtue. They are indoctrinated by and groomed to the Underworld, as they slime decent humanity from the Swamp.



*****************

In what big gov are corrupt narcissists not selectively advantaged? Not in any narco/cartel/socialist govs of South America or Africa. Not among Princelings of China. Not among ballot box stuffers of Turkey and Russia. If you are a Communist, then it is hard to take your assertion of Christian values seriously.

It is possible for an informed and decent citizenry of a free republic to establish and enhance ***infrastructures to avail all citizens to rise towards their potential. The idea would be to enhance common infrastructure. Not to forcibly redistribute fake fairness and equality.

But that ideal tends to be horribly corrupted by politicians and sheeple that want to replace god and voluntary charity with big central gov and radical ruling knowitalls making stupid and corrupt promises of gov gifted fake fairness and equality. No sale.

****************

***I am using the word infrastructure in an expansive sense, coordinate with the expansion of a freedom based economy. For example, humanity (as allowed to become all it can be) may coordinate ways to allow the general citizenry to plug into AI upgrades (provided a prime directive can be programmed to ensure that AI remains committed to the enhancement of humanity rather than to its destruction). That may render moot most base jealousies stirred under Marxist pandering.

***************

PEOPLE FARMERS V. DECENT PEOPLE:

People have varying notions about who should run a representative republic. Should the republic mainly be run responsive to the votes of the people, the votes of their representatives, a cabal among the representatives, or a few well connected people that fund the accounts and campaigns and activities of the cabal? Should the republic be generally responsive to the citizenry, or should its elites view the general citizenry as boors that should be ruled as puppets or sheeple?

As the middle class becomes less and less influential, more power devolves to cabals of elites that tend to think they should not have to listen to the sheeple, but should instead simply instruct them about what they should think.

There does seem to be a general movement or consensus among corrupt oligarchs that happen to meet frequently at the same watering holes. Their consensus is that they should rule, and that Trump must be removed because he does not kowtow to their liking. Some tenets may even come to be set out for common acceptance among those who believe the responsibility to rule is vested in them. Such as Agenda 21, or at Bilderberg meetings, or even among criminal rackets for "protecting" or trafficking or addicting the general population.

In broad terms, a worldwide movement is rampant among sub-humanizing elites and their stooges versus decent, middle-class, free-thinking people that want to be more than sheeple. Unprincipled betting people simply choose among two main stables of horses to back: The stable for elitist divide-and-rule people-farming, or the stable for human freedom and dignity. The kabuki plantation or the representative republic. Is your goal to get rich quick or to live a decent life?


***************

What is at stake is whether we want to live as sheeple under corrupt elites that pretend to be looking out for the people or whether we want any autonomy to live our own lives. Do we want the elitist ruled plantation with its house stooges or the representative republic with its autonomous families?

In broad terms, a worldwide movement is rampant among sub-humanizing elites and their stooges versus decent, middle-class, free-thinking people that want to be more than sheeple. Unprincipled betting people simply choose among two main stables of horses to back: The stable for elitist split-tongued divide-and-rule race-baiting people-farming, or the stable for assimilating human freedom and dignity. The kabuki plantation or the representative republic. Is your goal to get rich quick or to live a decent responsible life?

****************

Communism is a fairie construction in the sky. It's pretty to think, but has proven to be horrific in application. Power was not so distributed under Stalin or Mao.

What is needed is an informed, moral citizenry, under de-centralized governance. If you have that, it may matter less what you call its form of government.

At one time, the USA more or less had that. However, achieving that tends to require a miraculous confluence of events, which seems unlikely to occur again. If, out of a poorly sighted feeling for communist fairness, we allow the general informed moral citizenry to be flooded with liberty-illiterates, then human freedom and decency simply cannot stand. Regardless of how one wants to label its form of governance.

IAE, technological advances are rapidly outreaching our capacity to plan with wisdom. With decent faith, good will, common sense, and wisdom, we may have a chance. We may receive a miracle. That miracle would be in the form of common infrastructure that avails mental and physical upgrades to everyone. Then much of the debate between communist fair distribution versus responsible republicanism would fall by the wayside. At least, it's pretty to think so. But it would necessitate something like a freshened and responsible understanding of the New Testament (spiritual good faith and good will) to replace rampaging worldwide crass cynicism.

See https://www.ted.com/talks/max_tegmark_how_to_get_empowered_not_overpowered_by_ai.

**************

I keep a 1931 depression era photo of my Mom when she was four. She is among four siblings, and they are all poor as dirt. Every one of them has on dirty clothes with holes in them. But they are all smiling and happy! Maybe because everyone else was poor, so they did not know how poor they were. They still found plenty to enjoy. The problem with communists is that they tend to agitate resentments, which makes people unhappy. 

There is a story about Boris, Ivan, and Ivan's goat. When Ivan got a goat, Boris became deeply resentful. A fairy appeared at Boris' hut to offer him a wish. Did Boris wish for his own goat or even a million goats? Nope. He asked the fairy to kill Ivan's goat. A variation involves crabs in a bucket. Both stories illustrate the problem with communists stirring resentments that divert people from taking individual responsibility for their own achievements and pursuits of happiness.

***************

REFORMS:

The article does address some festering concerns.  And I agree that corporations in themselves are not people.  However, the suggested reforms do not seem serviceable.

Re:  "Corporate money needs to be hermetically separated from the political process."  ---
Problem is, how?  When Congress drafts legislation, it needs input and expertise from entities to be regulated.  So how does one draw a hard line, or any line, against corporate lobbying?  It may make more sense to progressively tax all lobbying expenses and to impose the tax against the agent/employee/manager who authorized the expense.  However, not even that is likely in the real world, because ways would be found to absorb and work around such taxes.  Especially in a society where there is little higher mindedness upstream from making money.

Re:  Problem with restricting voting:  Political funders have learned how to re-direct, divert, or divide the masses in order to profit by hedging among chaos.  Whether of not corporations are allowed to directly fund politicians, they will find indirect ways.  And they will get in bed with union operatives and community stooges and agitators --- to re-direct, divert, or divide the mass of employees (sheeple).

Re:  Problem with localities making federal laws:  How can such localities be precluded from being tempted to take as large a share of federal monies as possible (i.e., the "tragedy of the commons")?  A better path would be to de-centralize more governmental functions, provide for intelligent revenue sharing, and re-invigorate local or shared authority.  Problem is, this may in some cases hamper needed national or industry standards for evolving infrastructures for global trade and communications.

********************

I do not know the solutions.  I doubt any mere form of solution can actually work for a society that has degenerated from higher minded regard for faith, family, and fidelity into a hedonistic society bent on entitlements to immediate and unearned pleasures.  Meanwhile, corporate people-farmers will happily continue to farm the mass of depraved, pan-sexualized, doped-up, self-absorbed, family-destroying, gov-marrying sheeple.  Especially so long as otherwise competent adults continue to send their children to fake colleges bent on training them to become willing sheeple, i.e., apologists for elitist people farmers and against the formerly representative republic of free thinkers.

If competent and decent adults can wake up, they can join and make their influence felt.  Then, formal reforms may become less necessary.  If competent and decent adults do not wake up, they can kiss the idea of individual freedom and dignity under the American Ideal good bye.  What is needed is backbone to push back against elitist people farmers and their ungodly stooges perverting the idea of godly good faith and good will.

Problem is, whoever sticks his head up tends to be first to get hammered down.  Cynical and depraved owners of social media put profs and mods in charge who tend to want to promote the people-farming agenda of elitists, rather than to revitalize the freedom and dignity of individual citizens.  They WANT to mob you, fire you, shout you down, accuse you of being Hitler or the Devil, and they claim to be justified under their unholy claims of authority under God.  There needs to come a Bastille like moment, but among competent adults of the free-thinking class.  A time to say, in common, ENOUGH!  (MAGA.)

*************

STOCKHOLDER LIABILITY:  Warning notices to deprive corporations of limited liability in event they were to fail to cease and desist in forms of fomenting civil unrest would get the attention of their managers and stockholders.

Competent, assimilating Americans need to be thinking about ways to restore the American Ideal, which was based more on individual responsibility and the Protestant Work Ethic than on Catholicism, Judaism, Corporatism, Marxism, or Elitist Rule-ism. The arguments by minorities-of-convenience based on race, gender, orientation, origin, etc. (phony arguments against so-called white supremacism) are masks for killing the American Dream to replace it with the Communist Nightmare.

**************

PIECES OF SLOTH: They want to trade their inheritance of freedom and dignity for a mess of pottage --- green eyed redistribution of stuff. What kind of able-bodied person would make that trade? Answer: The kind of person who has allowed himself to be made spiritually deranged, mentally incompetent, and/or nothing but a piece of sloth. So, when these people import, addict, groom, and indoctrinate enough like them to sink the productive republic, what then? Well, they have no capacity to think that far.

My animus has nothing to do with race, gender, origin, etc. My animus has to do with fascist pieces of sloth, like: Dems, Progs, Rinos, Socialists, Commies, thugs, gang-bangers, flash-mobbers, race-baiters, fake academics, fake moral scientists, prof shills, anti-Americans, and entitlement-minded perpetual-infants.

****************

TRIVIAL

No noble lie needed. Only inspiring metaphors and more appreciation of the interpenetrating flux and role of the Godhead. People, enhanced by AI, will less likely accept knowable overstatements (lies?), whether or not thought noble.

Once upon a time, in frustration, I earnestly sought a way to eliminate metaphysics from physics. As I appreciated the futility of that endeavor, I then sought at least to determine a clear line with which to separate metaphysics apart from the domain of physics. Reluctantly, I came to believe that no such a clear line is ascertainable. That physics is interpenetrated throughout with metaphysics. That perhaps even the laws of nature thought to be most fundamental may be subject to flux, re-determination, or re-definition. Even the speed of light may be subject to gradual phase shifting.

The knowledge we acquire seems to be trivial, even though its application often leads to astonishing consequences. What I mean by trivial is that such knowledge is true by definition -- either by the flux of our conceptual definitions or by the flux of nature's definitions of its laws. Conceptually, 2+2=4. Naturally, to the extent any Algorithm may define limits of objective expression (laws of nature), may such limits, if or when known, reasonably be said to be trivial, because they would be true in how they are or were defined (even if they needed to be discovered)? May the speed of light be constant in every re-normalization in space time, only because constancy in the experience of such speed is part of how the Algorithm defines space-time? Under such usage, only our allowances within defining parameters, and our qualitative experiences of them, would seem not to be trivial, i.e., not pre-determined or true-by-definition.

It does not appear that there abides any thing whose measurable values are not subject to a flux of immeasurables. This seems consistent with various apprehensions. Such as: The cumulation of Information, as the orderliness of Substance dissipates. The existence of possibilities within fluxing parameters. Our moral freedom within fluxing laws. The effects of Consciousness on manifestations. The fluxing of conscious memories and recordings as they are re-normalized throughout space-time. The innate empathies among the various perspectives of what seems to be a same Consciousness. (Consciousness is consciousness; there but for fortune go "Ï"). Apprehensions of dynamic-conservational-reconciliation and feedback-guidance-motivation between the cosmos and its manifestations.

I suspect the Cosmos will continue with its motivational and unfolding feedback under its trinitarian flux of Consciousness-Substance-Information ---- notwithstanding pretensions among humanity about "noble lies." Simply put, the Cosmos abides as more than dead matter, and IT does not especially need humanity in order to "save" it. Even if IT may be entertained by pretensions among humanity.