Pepin

As already stated by someone else, this is the area of emergence, meaning that properties behaviors of the whole cannot be derived from the parts. For instance, consciousness is not a property found in any cell in our body, yet consciousness is a property of being human. Another good example is pain. Though this might be a tangent, I think it might help. A hard drive is essentially a metal disk where a head changes the direction of the magnetic field to inscribe data. The data does not exist in reality in any sense, the data is not a property of the molecules nor of the magnetic field, yet the data still fundamentally is real. In the same way, the ideas in your head, the letters you read now, and so much more is not found in reality yet still are real.

I've noticed that well formed arguments that are wrong tend to get more negative ratings than pretty terrible "arguments". I really don't like this because well formed arguments that actually understand the anarchist perspective are so few, and it ought not be discouraged. Perhaps I am biased in this with having experience on another forum and in real life with people having no ability to comprehend my position, and making it painfully obvious with their arguments.

I am rather confused.

Personally, I love marijuana and can't help but talk fondly of it even though I quit. I can certainly accept that its affect on me is related to neurology generated via my childhood experience, but I don't find that changes my opinion on the experience, only my inclination to partake. I have a super-fast thought process, and marijuana slows it down to the point where I can think. A big contributor to this is the relaxation. Another thing I really love is that introspection is so much easier as I gain access parts of my psyche that weren't accessible before. The guy in the video talked about how weed exacerbates parts of yourself and reveals more of your inner psyche, which is something I can see many people not enjoying, but I really love feeling the mechanics. Though I must admit that I had a couple of odd times where it was like I experiencing all of my unconscious thought process, and that was a bit scary in the sense that it showed how the vast majority of my decisions are made with rather terrible reasons and rationalizations. I was a good bit younger during these experiences so I might actually like that now, but perhaps not. The bad habit I get in is smoking way too much in a sitting and feeling just too tempted to get high when I can. Worst of all I think is all the money spent on drug, which is one of my biggest reasons for quitting. Honestly, I can't at all call it an addiction because I have proven many times that I can take a break cold turkey without any issue. Granted I just rambled a bunch, Sasha, what part of the video do you relate to most?

The video was not working for me, and now it is.

The information on IFS. Still experimenting quite a lot with the concept and making progress.

What? I'm still not understanding the point of this argument, nor the "live in the woods" part. If I have a theory that when put in place decreases murder down from 10% to .5%, certainly there is still murder, but this doesn't mean that my theory was bad. What does interacting and trading with other people have to do with violence and exploitation? Why not argue that people ought to avoid being in the same room together because by being in the same room together it means that one of us could be raped? Why not compare the statistics of being raped with the statistics of death by riding a bike, driving car, playing scrabble with a coffee in one hand, or disease?

I'm not really understanding the argument. If it is that whatever proposed mechanism doesn't completely eliminate something, therefore there is a problem, then I don't really see the point of the argument. If we had a way to reduce rape by 95% and someone's rebuttal to it was that it isn't 100%, well then I guess that's true, but we aren't working on a binary scale. If I'm not understanding your argument, which I feel I am not, please expand on what you mean.

I loved loved the second one so much.

I had a completely miserable time in school, therefore what you say about public school is completely false.

Not a book, but here is a great video resource. Perhaps it is my personality, but critical thinking comes pretty naturally for me, though putting words to it all is the trickiest part. In a real world context, spotting fallacies and errors is much more difficult because sophists are very good creating a tangled web. Worse, they throw as many fallacies as they can at you so that responding to it is not only annoying, but a waste of time because their response will not address anything you pointed out, and will again contain as many fallacies as they can. What you'll discover is that there are many subtle variations of the same fallacy and most important: when an argument is not a fallacy. The greatest example of this is the ad homeniem where instead of attacking the argument, the personal character is attacked. So many people think that the ad homeniem is always a fallacy, yet it is often valid, particularly in cases where the argument presented can be discredited by the person's character. For instance: if a man is called onto the stand and makes an argument as to why he is not guilty, if this man's character is stained with the propensity to lie, then not responding to the argument and attacking the man's character is completely valid. An example Stefan gives a lot is that is an extremely obese person is selling a weight loss plan, you are completely in the right for disregarding the weight loss plan and pointing out that the person's weight. Many people respond to this argument saying that "you can't do that because you're not addressing the argument the person is making, they may be right regardless of their weight", to which you would respond: "if the person knows that they are overweight, claims that being at a healthy weight is better than being overweight, claims that they have a solution to being at a healthy weight, yet are still overweight, then how can they be taken seriously?". In a similar manner, all these politicians that are climate change activists while supporting war simply have no credibility.

There is a quite annoying trend for self-help gurus to use physics terms in their theories. I can understand it as a metaphor, but those who like to pretend the metaphor is anything more are dumb. I was reading a book about emotional intelligence, and the book was quite good, but the authors went way overboard to make their advice and theories internally consistent with an semi-informed knowledge of quantum physics.

There is a large section of ethics that really isn't UPB applicable and cannot be responded to with force. In the book, these are called aesthetically unpreferable-behavior. Note that the non-unversality. These are behaviors that don't have a UPB type proof to them, but can still be argued to be bad. For instance, being late for an appointment or being a free-rider can be argued to be immoral, but the argument is not at all a solid as the proof behind "thou shalt not rape" and you are unable to response with violence. You can still respond with voluntary means in response, such as cutting ties with someone who continually late, but this is something you could do anyway. Hope that answered the question. If I misunderstood what you meant, please feel free to explain.

They are insecure because of the large amount of splitting that occurs. Most understand quite well that they are wrong but are unable to accept it due to the implications it would have on their life and relationships, which creates a fragile persona in this realm. The effect is quite similar Statists. Christianity has the largest challenge with this because of its "rational" bias because of its philosophical history. So much influence comes in from Greek and Roman philosophy, and many famous philosophers such as Saint Augustine succeeded in bringing the religion into the intellectual sphere. There is more evidence that can be provided, such as the vast wealth of Christians attempting to use science and argumentation to convince others, but I'll leave it at that.

Why are you Christian?

A great lecture series I'd recommend on the topic is here. The math may more sense of the theory than a description of it. Then I'd recommend watching this, which is less complex, but really gratifying if you understand the first series.

The biggest obstacle I have in conversing with others online is not sounding like I'm talking down to people. I've spent a decent amount of thought on this and talked about it with a friend, and we've concluded that I'm not talking down to people, it is just my semi-ocd and simplistic way of explaining things. Rebuttals on the other hand I am likely too harsh with. I get a strong amount of satisfaction in ripping apart someone's argument. On another forum that I used to argue quite a lot on, though the forum was quite liberal, I got a bit of reputation for destroying arguments. I think I am much better than I used to be in my presentation, but to another degree I don't really converse much on youtube on other places anymore.

The state is a collection of people who initiate force. A woman who hires a hit-man is guilty of murder just as the hit-man is. The idea of the level of accountability to those within is difficult to wrap the head around because of all the functions a monopolistic power has. I'd argue that any department head such as judges, military commanders, and the politicians would be most accountable as they have the most influence. I don't think this is something that can really be answered at the present time, especially in most western powers because the state is so large and has its claws in just about everything. It is as if there is a large grey cloud off in the distance, with black peaked mountains poking out from the top.

Thanks for sharing.

I feel strange and left out of right field because I didn't have much of a reaction to the podcast. There really isn't anything I disagree with in the video, but I don't feel anything different. I wonder why.

It isn't aggression because the exchange is voluntary in that when you choose to drive on the road you also choose to be subject to the rules. It is like any contract. What throws me off in the question is the whole part about them having guns. What would they need guns for? In a way, it is like asking if a bouncer at a bar would be justified in carrying a gun when they work. Certainly they are, but any customer is going to be like "why in the hell do they need a gun?". To go on, I really doubt the system of handling the enforcement of road rules is going to involve anything like traffic cops. It just seems far too inefficient. Something to think about is the impact that various insurers have in safety and liability. For instance, there would be an incentive for you to install some sort of safety monitoring hardware and a camera or two to see how good of a driver you were. Very unsafe drivers would not be able to get credible coverage and likely would not be allowed on any roads, bad drivers would be literally paying for their recklessness, and great drivers would get great rates and access to roads with other safe drivers. Maybe this in combination with a rational upbringing where people understand risks is all that is needed to create safe roads? Also, who knows how prevalent cars and roads are going to be in the future anyway? Perhaps communities will be close together and most travel will be done via plane, train, or bike. Perhaps there will be automation in driving with the addition of the cars being able communicate with each other to coordinate complex paths and intersections to a high degree with essentially takes out the user component and ups the safety. Perhaps we all link our minds up to a simulation and loose the drive to drive. I don't know.

Have you considered going to therapy? Has she?

I really don't know much about Rand, but based off the tone of the clip, it seems like she feels "betrayed" by his position of ethics and the rest of her criticism is vacuum of spite. Perhaps she could back up her other points well enough, but I feel like she'd like Milton quite a lot despite some large disagreements if he agreed with the ethics. In case what I am saying is not coming across, I'm detecting the over-reaction to someone who is more similar to you as opposed to someone who is far worse. I think we all experience this, and it is pretty common in the liberty movement. To make a metaphor, if there are sheep, wolves, and Shepherds, we don't feel much rage against the wolves for wanting to attack the sheep, or the sheep for being unable to guide themselves in any sort of non-random manner. Yet, if there is a shepherd that knowingly leads the sheep toward the wolves, another shepherd is likely to have a visceral reaction. They are not a wolf in sheep's clothing, which makes them far more dangerous. Again, I'd say Rand is over-reacting. This kind of reaction to people who actually aren't that bad is pretty common. I see it happen with Hayek quite a lot.

Nice, I always like hearing about rational "conversions" to atheism. I find the "heard words from God" part very interesting, perhaps because in a sense, I don't think it is that crazy. In the model of internal family systems, what Stefan M. calls the mecosystem, the personality is made up of an ecosystem of parts with their own personalities and it is possible for these parts to take the seat of consciousness and to also communicate with you. I hypothesize that when people talk to "God", they are legitimately talking to an entity that is fundamentally separate from themselves, but this entity is simply a part that has taken on the role of "God". Personally, I had one experience in college during a stressful time in my life where "God" began to communicate with me, though not through words. I am not sure what my religious status was at the time, perhaps semi-Christian, but my overly rational brain came to the conclusion that I was over-stressed and tired and that this was a psychological manifestation that is trying to help, and I ignored it and went to bed. I say all this to ask for your opinion on this idea, and to also perhaps get any further explanation or description of your experience with those sorts of events. I find it extremely fascinating.

Be aware of your environment and your goals. There are people to have these conversations with, and people you ought not to have any conversation with. There are times where voicing your thoughts and beliefs can have a long term negative impact on your life, and other times where it might be painful, but needed.