Ray H.

Read it and weep. Or laugh. Or be inspired? Just kidding. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/five-economic-reforms-millennials-should-be-fighting-for-20140103 I need a nap.

HasMat, That's an interesting diagram. But once again, you haven't addressed why the illusion of self is allowable vis a vis universal law. Either self exists or the illusion exists. Of course, once you've explained how the illusion is possible as a phenomenon, then we might as well just call it self. Here's the thing. What you are calling an illusion, is what I, and others, would call a concept. Concepts exist in brains. You have expressed many in your posts. You must agree with that or else you ultimately believe that there is only chaos and randomness, and your posts and mine and this forum and this website and the internet and the Earth and the universe itself are coincidences within the chaos. So I humbly offer a cursory definition of self to you. (Keep in mind I don't think about this shit all day. I have a job.) Self is the unique conceptualization of the universe held within the brain of an individual. It must be unique, since no two individuals can possibly have the same accumulation of experience. The laws of the universe do not apply to this conceptualization. This is why we can think about flying pigs, but it is also why science changes. From no physics to Newtonian physics to Maxwellian to Einsteinian to quantum physics; this progression is the realization of new concepts. Each step was incomplete, but was still a concept which was applicable in the abstract, and so towards the next step. No one holds the completeness of universal law in their head. There are only concepts. And each human being has a different conceptual universe in their brain. And so this can be applied to your diagram. Morality is the contrast between the actual, complete (and unknown) universal law and the conceptual universal law (self). In other words, the behavior of individuals contrasted to some ideal. Since we cannot escape conceptualization, we are forever guessing at this ideal. Science gives us the best shot at approaching the oneness (sorry). Bullshit like God and astrology and spirit are all concepts that humans have embraced due to ignorance, but will, hopefully, end up as trivia. This is where you've tripped yourself up, you've conflated these types of "magic" things with illusion, and then added self to the heap. Illusion is that which is perceived, but is not actually there. A mirage in a desert is an illusion; it's not magic. The heat waves that cause the mirage are not an illusion; they are real. So the concept of water that the brain comes up with is wrong, but it did exist in the brain as a concept until it was shown to be wrong by a mouthful of sand. The heat waves exist in reality. The universe isn't lying to the brain, the brain just comes up with the wrong concept. Applying this to your theory, self is the brain coming up with the wrong concept for some phenomenon that the universe actually is producing (you haven't explained what you think this is). But my definition states that self is this conceptualization. Since perfect knowledge of anything is impossible, we can only hold a concept of this conceptualization (i.e. a concept of self). You choose to call this an illusion. Fine, but that doesn't mean magic. It means incomplete knowledge, which I call a concept. So do you deny a conceptualized universe that is unique to each individual?

That isn't what I said. You said self is an illusion. So you believe that there are, in the universe, illusions. So I asked you to explain how physical law allows for the illusion of self. Either the universe can explain self or the universe can explain the illusion of self. We're agreeing to leave out magic entirely, since it's irrational. So under your theory, that leaves us simply with the illusion of self. So my question is how do the laws of physics account for this illusion?

You think manifestations of physical laws at a local level are accurately summed up as illusions? You're biased against localized phenomena for some reason. You're saying, "If it only occurs in a corner of the universe, then it's not real." I didn't argue for "biological laws". I don't care if you trust me about self. You're concerned about explaining everything in terms of physical laws. You state that self is an illusion. Please, explain the concept of illusion in terms of physical laws.

I'm with Kevin at the kid's table on this one. Reading your posts is like looking at one of those posters made of dots that I'm supposed to cross my eyes to see the picture. I know there's probably something interesting there, but the effort it takes to make something out in the haze is just slightly more than I care to muster. Not that you should care. That being said, you say that any cohesive definition of self relies on magic. I find that quite cynical. Only lazy, religious types would be guilty of such a definition. The rest of us struggle to define self, because it's a hard thing to understand as a biological manifestation. The same can be said about life. There are some concepts that we haven't got a good grasp on yet. You're coming very close to saying that we know everything there is to know now, so if we can't define self, then we are delusional in believing that such a thing exists. That flies in the face of every human being's experience of self. I experience me, you experience you. There is a practical, tangible experience of humans called self. Maybe current science isn't providing you with a satisfactory definition, but to claim that there could never be a cohesive definition without injecting magic is tantamount to believing that human knowledge has reached it's capacity. Clearly, it has not. And so, opportunities remain (and always will) to shed light on blindspots and erase supernatural spaceholders. Since, I think, your argument regarding self being separate from the universe hinges on self requiring magic to exist, there's no reason for me to haggle over the details, since I don't agree that self requires magic. Self is a barely understood biological phenomenon that is fully part of the universe, and many rational people are interested in explaining it. You say its borders are 100% elusive. Really? I know I am not that lampshade across the room. I know I am not my dog. I know I am not you. I know I was that guy who broke his foot 2 years ago. I know other humans differentiate me from other human beings. There is at least a portion of a spectrum where I very clearly know that I am distinct from the rest of the universe. The ends of that spectrum may begin to blur, but then, much like quantum physics, they aren't likely to be relevant to my practical existence. Isn't that clear part of the spectrum evidence of some phenomenon regardless of how blurry the edges are?

"we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills" Sounds like structural violence to me. So, I guess, the pope is a Zeitgeister.

Here's what we should do. You go look up the word arbitrary while I go hold my dog as responsible for the hair she sheds on the couch as I would hold a roommate for spilling food on it (since animals are "as responsible for their actions as we are"). Until you offer an actual argument, instead of adjectives, I'll not waste my time with this.

But you're not being honest. You're claiming that there is no moral difference between humans and non-humans. You've projected human traits onto animals, and you're unwilling to face that they are not rational, therefore not responsible for their actions, and therefore incapable of ownership of any kind. That isn't an arbitrary line. That is the opposite of an arbitrary line. It is a reasoned line. It might be wrong, but you haven't shown it to be by accusing me of murder. Furthermore, I didn't draw the line to erase guilt. You or someone else in this thread asked where the line was drawn, so I drew it and explained it. Instead of addressing the logic, you attacked me. Now, be honest.

Only because they've already been abused. They're expecting more of the same. This is in stark contrast to livestock that only go through the slaughter process once. They don't build up knowledge about it.

Repeating variations of this is not an argument. Here's my take. Humans are unique, if not in possessing certain characteristics, such as abstract reasoning and pattern recognition, then in the degree to which those traits are potentially expressed. There are several culminations of these traits: free will, language, etc. Relevant to this discussion, though, is the sense of doom that humans are capable of. To anticipate pain or sorrow is often worse than the actual experience of those things. I am unaware of any evidence that non-human animals (particularly livestock) experience foreboding. If there is such, enlighten me. If there is not, then it follows that non-human animals do not suffer in this way as they proceed to slaughter. They simply do not know what is about to happen to them. The suffering that they do experience (i.e. pain and stress due to living conditions and treatment) are serious issues that can and should be eliminated. I'm in full support of giving animals the space and care they require to be content, but, until proven otherwise, I will not project human qualities onto them. If a non-human animal has been raised without pain and stress, I see no reason to mourn it's death or demonize those who profit from it. As for children and mentally-challenged people, they are humans. Their genetic makeup allows for the potential to experience the kind of suffering I'm talking about. Healthy children will clearly develop into such beings. As for the mentally-challenged, the genetic potential is there, and many of them are able to express suffering of this kind. For those that cannot express themselves, this is no indication that they cannot experience suffering, and so we should treat them as if they do. Once again, to the extent that non-humans lack the potential to experience anticipatory suffering, they need not be treated as if they do.

"Asian culture" is a very wide net to cast. And not everything you've claimed bares out. The history of the East is no less bloody than that of the West, arguably, in large part due to the "principle" of obeying authority.

The financial origin of certain technologies is irrelevant. The issue is how technology is used. Only the state can produce ICBM's or tanks or drones or the intense internet spy network that has come to light this year. A truly free market would make all these things impossible. Would we have computer chips yet if not for the state? I don't know and neither do you. We have what we have. The good and the bad. The state has guaranteed that evil, life and freedom destroying devices have been created. The free market (i.e. unsubsidized, no government contracts) has produced nothing of the sort. It's sole aim is to satisfy human desire. I would gladly turn back the clock to a pre-World War era and run the experiment again with the condition that governments could not fund science. I would take whatever humans came up with technologically under such a condition, whether or not it turned out to be less advanced than we currently have. Because what I do know is that there would be no war machines and no surveillance state. Instead the massive potential of humans would have been directed only towards providing value to one another. And, to that end, you cannot know what technology we would have desired nor to what level we would have progressed.

omegahero09, Your argument is that scripture cannot be taken out of context and that it only applies to those it is explicitly addressed. Since you clearly believe that the Bible is relevant to your life, please, provide specific verses that form your beliefs and the verses that establish that these are explicit messages to you or a group of which you are a part.

Can humans learn one of the important lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/fear-vs-radiation-the-mismatch.html

I'll make this one point and then kindly leave you to your lack of concern over the issues raised by this article. In the sentence you are quoting by me, I said "the research is largely secretive" the word largely limits the statement to less than all. I clearly did not mean all research.

The article doesn't criticize statistical significance. Instead, it accepts 95% as the standard, then spells out how positive results are actually much less than 95% accurate due to other factors. It spells out the problem of negative results being under-reported. It points out the lack of enthusiasm for replicating research for career reasons and for funding reasons. It spells out the problems of peer review. It spells out the issue of tacit knowledge and the less-than-forthcoming methodology used to obtain results which prohibits them from being replicated. The bottomline: 1. Published studies focus on positive results which are far less accurate than negative results. 2. Studies are not being accurately judged in the peer review process. 3. Studies are not being replicated sufficiently, because A) there is little incentive to do so and B) methodology is not divulged. 4. Therefore, the research available is largely secretive, poorly analyzed, and unreplicated rendering it less than trustworthy.

You don't seem to have read the article beyond the first few paragraphs, since your points are all addressed. Also, the author isn't claiming that priming hinders replicability. It's simply an example of research that has become controversial. Which it has: http://www.nature.com/news/replication-studies-bad-copy-1.10634 .

Here's an interesting article on the not-so-perfect, current state of scientific research. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble This links to a brief video touching on the same issues. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/10/science-wrong

Since you agree that the market is not the source of human suffering, we can dispose of Peter's theory that eliminating the market is the way to ending suffering. You think it's evolutionary game theory. So what's the solution? You keep saying to address the system as a whole. How do we address evolutionary game theory at any level? I'm not saying we can't, but spell it out for me. What can an indivudual do towards this end? What policy can the government enact? How do we get at evolutionary game theory in practice? These examples are not necessary products of evolutionary game theory (EGT). In fact, EGT has been used to explain altrusim. The system (the market or EGT) is not deciding the results. Individuals are the only true actors in any system. Yes, humans over time act in ways that can be described as systems (religion, government, agriculture, etc) and the resulting environment created then feeds back into the system, certainly affecting behavior in ways seen and unseen. But this is just a way of saying "shit happens." Some of it's good shit, some of it's bad shit. But shit HAS TO HAPPEN. I'm saying, "Choose to do good shit." You CAN do that. You seem to be saying, "EGT causes people to do bad shit and they are both unaware of it, and unable to control it themselves." Now what?

Maybe he should, in your opinion, but he doesn't. The one thing that Peter made clear was that he sees the market, specifically, as the source of human suffering. He does a better job in his newest commentary on Stefan's commentary of explaining and expanding his position, but it's only less cloudy, still not much sun shining through. When I said, "immediate desires" I was strictly addressing the desire by parents to control their childrens' behavior, and the "convenient and unwise" decision to abuse them to accomplish this control. I was not talking about the desire for food and shelter. There are no social systems that make child abuse necessary. I can blame parents for abusing their children (a shortcut) instead of either negotiating with them or preventing the unwanted behavior to begin with in one way or another. The only sacrifice involved is convenience. Do you believe that providing every human with the necessities of life (under any system) ends child abuse?

Redefining market doesn't make this theory work. Evolutionary pressures may favor violence in some instances, but violence isn't the only conduit to reproductive success. Cooperation comes to mind. Evolution assumes that different strategies have the possibility of success in different environments. As Stefan points out in his latest video, the market doesn't prevent anyone from pursuing Zeitgeistiness. Interestingly though, Peter would like to prevent free trade in his pursuit of Zetgeistiness. A significant contradiction. I'm not aware of anyone who expects removal of the State to happen through anything other than a slow generational change involving individuals changing their behavior, thus taking the teeth out of the State. If no one wants to join the military, because they are repulsed by aggression, then the military will cease to exist. If no one supports taxation, because they view it as theft, then they will elect representatives that will eliminate taxes. These things are far off. You and I will not see their full realization, but we may see progress, if we change our own behavior, and raise our children peacefully. We can choose to do that. Right now. I said parents mistreat children, because they are making a convenient and unwise choice based on their immediate desires. The free market has no influence on this as it only involves non-aggression and property rights. The State, as Stefan points out in his latest, has influenced family life through various policies such as welfare and the drug war. But this isn't to say that the State is now responsible for the problem of child abuse. It cannot be. Only individuals can be responsible for anything. The truth will set you free. Pursue self-knowledge; reject appeals to authority as a basis for personal behavior; seek happiness without hurting others. These things are possible now, regardless of the conditions the State has set up. That doesn't mean they are easy. Someone in a war or famine-stricken country will have different challenges than someone in a more prosperous country, but they can still choose non-aggression towards their children.

Humans use violence, in whatever context, for the same reason that any animal might use violence. It's an easy way to control the behavior of others. It's not "human nature", it's just nature. Easy doesn't mean best, though. It's also shortsighted. Violence often leads to unintended consequences, such as psychological issues in the victim or retaliatory violence. Negotiation takes more effort, but results in little, if any, damage. This is as true of family matters as it is of trade in a market. There is no systemic answer to this. A social structure (the market OR the state) cannot be eliminated with the expectation that human violence will end. Those structures are not the source of violence. The source is the choice that individuals have to use violence or not, and their judgment as to whether to exercise that option. This choice will always and forever be present whether or not any particular social structure exists. Blaming a social structure is a collectivist cop-out. It's determinism at its worst. This view sees individuals as helpless in the face of an overwhelming system of corruption and violence. Only an organized group of intellectuals can engineer the ordered, equitable, peaceful future that humans deserve. Well, that hasn't worked yet via the State. I'm not sure how eliminating a system that humans use to freely associate with one another (the market) can lead to anything other than disaster.

Neither Stefan nor Peter make the argument you are: family violence leads to market violence leads to state violence. This is the last time I'll sum this up. Peter tried to argue that structural violence includes the events that take place in, and must take place in, the market system due to its inherent characteristics, such as competition. These events, such as lay-offs in the name of cost-cutting, lead to some humans not being able to acquire their basic needs. This, in turn, causes stress and psychosis which lead to behavioral violence, such as spousal abuse. So Peter says the market causes both state violence and family violence. Stefan argued that the market is voluntary and peaceful when not corrupted by the State which is an outgrowth of child abuse in its various forms. So Stefan says the mistreatment of children leads to an acceptance of the State which taints the market. In addition to putting the cart before the horse, you also attribute structural violence to the famliy, because (from one of your previous posts) you think it is a distinction from random violence. Where did you get that idea? What is random violence? Outside of TV and film, is there any violent act that is truly random? There might be random victims, but the violence itself is not without cause. But even if there were random violence, structural violence would not be its opposite. Structural violence is meant to denote the human suffering caused by social structures. This suffering is largely indirect and unavoidable while the structure exists. The structure Peter harps on is the market. Others might harp on patriarchy, while others on communism. They all claim that the institution they are opposed to is, at its root, violent. When you talk about the "structural violence of the family", you are essentially claiming that the structure we call "family" is, at its root, violent. Please, tell me this is not what you meant. A family can clearly exist without violence.

So your conclusion is violence is bad. No one disagrees. The goal is no violence. You've stated several times that most people accept the legitimacy of violence. So why do they accept it? Is it their upbringing? Is it the market? This is where the disagreement is. Stef argues the State (the monopoly of violence) is a result of humans being abused and neglected as children. Peter argues human suffering (structural violence) is a result of inherent characteristics of the market of which one manifestation is the State. They agree that there is violence and that it is bad. They don't agree on the source or the solution as I pointed out in the unaddressed parts of my previous post. Regarding structural violence, you've stated that you were unfamiliar with the concept earlier in this thread. Based on your different uses of the term to suit your line of reasoning, it would seem you haven't made an effort to become familiar with the term to this point in the thread. I, likewise, was unfamiliar with the concept before watching the debate. The first thing I did after watching was to google the term and read several articles about it. It's important to be precise about language in these kinds of discussions. I have been. I fear you have not.

No, Peter sees violence inherent in the free market, and no way to address it other than eliminating the entire system. This is the doctor seeing the flaw in your vision and seeing no way to address it other than removing your eyes. Peter sees no value in the market at its root. Pricing, competition, trade, the whole enchilada are in no way salvageable. There is no corrective lens, no bringing things closer to your eyeballs. They don't work, inherently. They must be removed and replaced with robotic eyes that he promises will work perfectly. And what the heck is "better descriptive power"? The adjective "structural" is unnecessary to make that point. Simply saying "violence" would be sufficient. Stefan, I believe, holds individuals responsible for their behavior towards their children. If children are treated well, society will be less violent. He believes that any human being can take action to foster a less violent world. Peter, on the other hand, believes that societal behavior (sexism, racism, classism, etc.) is determined by inherent characteristics (competition, game theory, forced scarcity) of whatever social structure they happen to live under (the free market). Further, his solution (mechanized resource allocation) isn't possible for just any individual to work towards. It, ironically, requires knowledge and resources to which not every human has access. So your choices are A.) don't abuse your children, so that they will be peaceful to others, or B.) wait for the development of a system that will provide for your needs, so that you will behave peacefully due to that systems inherent qualities of abundance, fairness, and equality.