Victor

In a stateless society all institutions are stateless. Stateless bank, supermarket, swimming team... The Zionists give us an example of how to build a competitive country. It's a lausy example, but without all the fundamentalist crap I believe we can do much better.

Societies vary in average height too, but they can all have world class basketball players.

The availability of military technology works actually in favor of a stateless society. There's a world of difference between state coercion and self defense.

In response to FDR-3555 People of low IQ don’t rely as often on Philosophy to determine what political positions they should adhere to. They tend more to look for clues and indicators of prosperity and agreeableness on the proponents, and for the opinion of other people of high status. Societies are inevitably a mix of different IQ individuals. I believe that to achieve a stateless society anywhere anytime with any mix of IQ individuals, we need a concentration or a high degree of Libertarians with prosperity, agreeableness and high status in said society, plus a set of stateless institutions. I believe that the path to political freedom is to first achieve wealth and prosperity, achieve great personal relationships, then set up a virtual society of like minds and wallets, build a legal refuge somewhere, bring business and production over there and then sell citizenships. It can be done in our lifetimes, and we don’t have to get dirty with politics.

it happened again. I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case. Those premises and the conclusion are irritatingly wrong, misguided and offensive to me, who has worked so hard to get out of the religious mindset thanks to Stef. Religious people have worthless conversations since they are not about reality. Religious people act by inflicting their values, not defending them with arguments and reason. Religious people are cowards for not having the courage to face reality. It's not better to live in fantasyland since the first value is honesty. If he really believes religious communities are all that great and he has been promoting young single people to stay out of them means that he owes a lot of people some big apologies; but also begs the question of why would he have a different rhetoric had this guy been single? Are some people spendable to achieve social change, and ok for them to miss out on the great things Christians have to offer? About the man on the call giving up his family... I don't know what he should or should not do. Keeping up with the format of the show I would have expected Stef to ask him to imagine how free and powerful it would feel for him to be able to tell the truth in his heart. He would also talk about the great relationships he'd be able to have with his children if he kept honest and open and vulnerable, and how they would eventually respect him for his honesty and courage, in contrast with the miserable relationships of a coward hiding an earth shattering truth from his loved ones. How every ritual would send shockwaves of shame through his remaining spine. How his openness and honesty and vulnerability would have been actually welcomed by a community if the community was good and healthy, and would serve as strong beacons o hope to others who want a better life and for his children too. That honesty and integrity should never fall victim to intimidation in relationships, and those that do threaten honesty are not relationships worth having. I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case. Those premises and the conclusion are irritatingly wrong, misguided and offensive to me, who has worked so hard to get out of the religious mindset thanks to Stef. Religious people have worthless conversations since they are not about reality. Religious people act by inflicting their values, not defending them with arguments and reason. Religious people are cowards for not having the courage to face reality. It's not better to live in fantasyland since the first value is honesty. If he really believes religious communities are all that great and he has been promoting young single people to stay out of them means that he owes a lot of people some big apologies; but also begs the question of why would he have a different rhetoric had this guy been single? Are some people spendable to achieve social change, and ok for them to miss out on the great things Christians have to offer? About the man on the call giving up his family... I don't know what he should or should not do. Keeping up with the format of the show I would have expected Stef to ask him to imagine how free and powerful it would feel for him to be able to tell the truth in his heart. He would also talk about the great relationships he'd be able to have with his children if he kept honest and open and vulnerable, and how they would eventually respect him for his honesty and courage, in contrast with the miserable relationships of a coward hiding an earth shattering truth from his loved ones. How every ritual would send shockwaves of shame through his remaining spine. How his openness and honesty and vulnerability would have been actually welcomed by a community if the community was good and healthy, and would serve as strong beacons o hope to others who want a better life and for his children too. That honesty and integrity should never fall victim to intimidation in relationships, and those that do threaten honesty are not relationships worth having. I think Stef's argument was something like this: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case. I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case.

I was able to recover part of the post I tried and did not get through because of a Review wall. I don't know about this issue, but if it's just a bug I'm willing to ignore and just move on. Here's a reconstruction of my original post: I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case. Those premises and the conclusion are irritatingly wrong, misguided and offensive to me, who has worked so hard to get out of the religious mindset thanks to Stef. Religious people have worthless conversations since they are not about reality. Religious people act by inflicting their values, not defending them with arguments and reason. Religious people are cowards for not having the courage to face reality. It's not better to live in fantasy land since the first value is honesty. If he really believes religious communities are all that great and he has been promoting young single people to stay out of them means that he owes a lot of people some big apologies; but also begs the question of why would he have a different rhetoric had this guy been single? Are some people spendable to achieve social change, and ok for them to miss out on the great things Christians have to offer? About the man on the call giving up his family... I don't know what he should or should not do. Keeping up with the format of the show I would have expected Stef to ask him to imagine how free and powerful it would feel for him to be able to tell the truth in his heart. He would have also talked about the great relationships he'd be able to have with his children if he kept honest and open and vulnerable, and that they would eventually appreciate his courage, in contrast with the miserable relationships of a coward hiding an earth shattering truth from his loved ones, where every ritual and every prayer would send shockwaves of shame through his remaining spine. That openness and vulnerability would actually serve to empower others to follow and create an example of greatness in humility and dignity in a world so devout of it. I've called out inconsistencies and wrongs in the past in this community and have gotten an effect. I'm doing the same here.

Not sure this post will make it into the thread. You, the sensor, if you read this, you can reach out to me directly in my email. I learn now that for the first time in this many years my posts require review before being available. After over 1,200 posts. After pouring my heart out here so many times. After engaging so many to promote this site. After committing so much... I am now not trusted to speak freely? And this without an email or a reach out?

I think Stef's argument was something like: religious people (Christians) are the best communities for pro-family values. You already have children and is there really a better place for them? Religious people are nicer than atheist. Religious people have deeper conversations. Religious people stand up for their values (meaning are more courageous). Thus, it's better for you to stay with them. If you were single and had no children I'd say something different. But that's not your case. Those premises and the conclusion are irritatingly wrong, misguided and offensive to me, who has worked so hard to get out of the religious mindset thanks to Stef. Religious people have worthless conversations since they are not about reality. Religious people act by inflicting their values, not defending them with arguments and reason. Religious people are cowards for not having the courage to face reality. It's not better to live in fantasy land since the first value is honesty. If he really believes religious communities are all that great and he has been promoting young single people to stay out of them means that he owes a lot of people some big apologies; but also begs the question of why would he have a different rhetoric had this guy been single? Are some people spendable to achieve social change, and ok for them to miss out on the great things Christians have to offer? I have not listened to the followup. I should probably do that before continuing posting. I feel a strong pull to make an evaluation on many hours of arguments. About the man on the call giving up his family... I don't know what he should or should not do. Keeping up with the format of the show I would have expected Stef to ask him to imagine how free and powerful it would feel for him to be able to tell the truth in his heart. He would also talk about the great relationships he'd be able to have with his children if he kept honest and open and vulnerable, in contrast with the miserable relationships of a coward hiding an earth shattering truth from his loved ones. I could use some of the reasoning Stef is demonstrating here to twist and justify getting a State job or even running for office. It's just that it'd be easily shown as manipulative and dishonest if I did that. And that's how I feel about Stef's reasoning. And it's such a weird thing from such a man that the only explanation I can come up with is donations. I've seen dishonesty in the past caused by asimmetry in donations and have raised my voice accordingly and got an effect. I'm looking for a similar effect now. It's a show and I don't have an argument for a particular business model. A man has to do what he has to do to make a living. It's my taste. I don't want the show to be easy on religion.

Stopped listening at 1:02:47. I'm angry the show is taking this turn. I feel there's some sort of agenda to grow the listenership from the religious flock. They can certainly overspend us. I've made profound transformational changes inspired by Stef's ideas, to maintain a happy world for my wife and two daughters free from religion and statism. I feel it's a betrayal.

So you've just realized you live in a world overrun by zombies. Tough luck. I feel ya. Word. What are you gonna do? The zombies are the people walking dead. The overwhelming majority of those who's half-working minds are geared towards the protection of a parasitic worldview and world order that feeds on them and us, where they are merely work drones with preferred ice-cream flavors and an addiction to stories. They are the ones who diligently fight and reject the reason and clarity that would extend and improve our lives, and not out of sinister desire to rule, but out of anxiety-based self-management. What are you gonna do? These Zombies are everywhere, and they stumble upon themselves to eat you, themselves and us. They are herded by a few live ones who've mastered survival, zombie management and pestilence tolerance techniques.These zombie farmers don't grow stuff. They feast on the spillage left by the hoards as they run over the possessions of the live and productive. What are you gonna do? It's getting tougher. You can see the undead mobs stumping on fertile fields and munching on and rotting the roots. You can hear the herders behind them on megaphones, urging and cheering the feast; declaring the live and productive the most succulent dish to chew on. What are you gonna do? You've seen many who've worked on a cure. Highly skilled survivors who believed they could return a man from a zombie. Who have lived their lives running for cover amongst the mobs attempting to deliver antibiotics that some very rare times do work but nobody knows why, how or when, or how to potentiate, replicate or deliver in mass. What are you gonna do? You heard about some who have re-built towns and re-started civilization get run down, either from mobs herded at them or by infections from within. Building a camp will not only entice the herds, but also attract scores of robbers and scammers who'll pretend to be survivors looking to work with you to rebuild, but who will run away with your resources as soon as you lower your guard. What are you gonna do? You hear of some who tell you that you won't get to live in civilization. That at most you can get is to protect yourself from infection and maybe save a few children from the deadly bite that turns them. This effort takes enormous skills in combat, survival and immunization that take years to learn and many more to master. There is no other proposed or attempted treatment of the zombie outbreak with comparable comprehensiveness. But there is also no data or evidence that this will work and overtake the spread of the disease. What are you gonna do? You know of many alive, hiding out, surviving and fending off the roaming biters. They don't have a unified plan, nor method, nor goal. They don't have a camp, nor a stockpile nor walls. Not a common place to defend and fight for, nor a destination to take their children to, to be safe. What are you gonna do? The zombies don't care for you, nor your goals nor your dreams. They'll eat you. They prefer to eat you alive, while you're free from rot. The zombie farmers ultimately depend on you. They need your produce for sustenance, but they're happy to go to the next one living once your flesh is chewed up and swallowed in the belly of the beasts. What are you gonna do? Are you frightened by them? Sensible not to hurt them? Would you run them over to protect your own? Do you think the zombies are people who deserve protection, respect and dignity? What about their infected children? What's your limit in the fight? What is too gruesome and nasty for you that you'd not do to a zombie to advance yourself and yours? Will you help them? Would you? Would you rather fight to help the undead or their children to help build up a future zombie-free world instead of building up your stash and ever-higher walls to guard it for your own in this present apocalypse? What are you gonna do?

Here's the thing man, our brain is not just a coin sorter. We can create devises that perform intelligent tasks, meaning we can add intelligence into tools. And I'm sure in the future we'll create devises so intelligent that they will be able to identify and comprehend. But in order to deal with concepts (conceptualize), the requirement is for the intelligent system to be able to identify and comprehend. Sorting is not categorization. Conceptualization is a very advanced intelligent process that requires other fundamental layers of intelligence. The first layer is direct superficial identification of properties, and some sort of storage into memory. Then follows the setting of a representative environment for inter-comparison and modeling, or imagination and reasoning. Then a higher level of integration where the intelligent system extends universal and categorical markers, principles and properties of phenomena (objects, processes, etc.). This third one is the process of conceptualization.

If you accept and agree to say for a category or a concept you hold in your brain, that these exist, then god exists, werewolves exist, roger rabbit and Speedy Gonzales exist... all of those exist, and you would need to go into a lot of details to be able to differentiate between them. Someone would need to come up with a clear-cut term to identify what does not relate rationally to properties of matter and energy, what does relate to properties of material stuff, and what is actually composed of material stuff. Isn't it just easier to say: My car exists. Car does not exist, but as a concept it is a valid one. God does not exist, and as a concept it's invalid.

I think Stef's analysis is incomplete. It does not factor in corruption. The state originates out of the asymmetry in the capacity to display violence. It first relies on armed thugs to come into being. It starts with promises to thugs, who do extraordinary things for very little pay, hoping to get rich in the future. There aren't enough riches to pay the thugs to maintain an empire indefinitely. And the more empire, the less wealth. This is unsustainable and most empires in history disbanded or collapsed at this point. Religion introduced technologies of crowd control, and statists began using them to lower the cost of domination. This is where propaganda, spying and self-policing comes from. Culture adapts to push people to ignore the reality of their enslavement, I imagine in some sort of aversion of the death and destruction that usually comes along with regime change. Failure in this stage means people gradually adopt some foreign culture or belief system (mostly religious) and fall victim to another state (either a new one or a foreign one). This occurs instead of true freedom and a reduction of statism, mainly for two reasons: first states around the world dedicate an important portion of their efforts to eroding, subverting and distabilizing competitors to take away their tax farms through the formation of puppet regimes, and second, successful Cultural adaptation renders people dependent on domination. But as time goes on and scandals, contradictions and enormous costs pile up, so does an enormous pressure for change pile up. This is where the technology of organized corruption extends the life of the state. In any state you have several layers composing the structure of domination, each performing its own function for its own survival. The top layer is dominant for as long as the state survives and determines the survival of the state, because it determines the target of the state power and who is to benefit. It itself is the only one to blame for its own demise. If it fails to survive, the state fails to survive, and regime change occurs. In most states of the past this would be the king or emperor. But the growth of the banking sector allowed for the introduction of the republican form of government, where the ruling elite could step back and control the state without becoming public targets. In some countries there are dictators holding this positions. In Iran you have a religious leader. There is a second layer of indispensable people for the survival of the state, legitimacy of the top layer rulers and the indirect administration of the violence of the state. This layer includes the mega-rich who mold public opinion through media empires. In most countries it includes top religious leaders. In smaller countries it may include strongly influential public figures (but this is not the case for the US). In most countries top military leaders are part of this layer, as the potential for regime change is vivid in the barrels of M16 and AK47 rifles. But thanks to the CIA and FBI, this is not the case for the US (currently, although I imagine that top NSA leaders may have already joined this layer). It's necessary to note that this layer is constantly colluding amongst itself and testing the ruling elite for efficacy. This class fights for its own survival by secretly backing and supporting challengers of strategy and action to the top rulers. This class is the first in line to receive benefits from the top rulers, as this layer alone is sufficient to prevent or allow regime change. The third layer of the state is the interchangeables. It's the public figures, the political candidates, the "opinion makers", the legislators... the middlemen of the state. A fourth layer is the thugs and brutes that do the dirty work of the state. The policemen and the government clerks. I needed to explain all this to get my point on corruption across. Systematic and organized corruption is a technology the top ruling class have introduced to extend their survival. It works by accelerating the rate of exchange of the interchangeables, minimizing the requirements to join this class, increasing the power and wealth controlled by this class to make it more appealing, in the hopes that potential power-hungry regime challengers get discouraged of full blown confrontation of the top rulers and the second layers, and instead are able to easily share a portion of state power. This class ruthlessly self-polices, because it is by design composed of dysfunctional sociopaths of mediocre intelligence whose feeble hold to very lucrative power is entangled in each-others hands. It is designed to self attack. The Chinese Communist Party dedicates significant efforts to recruiting new party members, and the rewards and access to power once becoming a party member are unmatched by any other career. So, first Kings stay in power by changing "you can't overthrow me" to "you mustn't overthrow me". Then they also say to those who are able to see the truth about that mustn't, "Ruling is good, so be a mini-ruler yourself and enjoy a share of the wealth and power". I want to add that it is impossible to end the state by targeting any of these individual layers. If you substitute the top layer, you've just executed regime change, and the whole structure is itching to support and integrate with the newcomers so they can continue to make money and share power. If you instead aim for the Indispensable, it is such a varied and diverse group that it is hard to identify them as a real group or class. The challenge is making the case and proving these individuals are part of a conspiracy. You are called a conspiracy theorist and ridiculed as a nut. Targeting the interchangeables is a waste of time and effort, because there's a huge line of individuals willing to do almost anything to take their place and in essence continue what they were doing. The only thread that binds them together and is their fundamental weakness is that they all exist, survive and thrive because of the original violence of the state. And because initiating violence is wrong and evil, they cannot reduce their investments in efforts to obscure, negate, confuse and hide the nature of their relations with the rest of us. By communicating the state is evil, you are blasting away enormous piles of money invested against that reality. You are pushing them to come back to the original strategy of hiring more thugs to keep their hold on power, when a good portion of their wealth and power was already distributed amongst the interchangeables. You are crippling their economics. I would truly love your feedback.

I'm I using my terms correctly? cat•e•go•rize (ˈkæt ɪ gəˌraɪz) v.t. -rized, -riz•ing. 1. to arrange in categories or classes; classify. 2. to describe by labeling or giving a name to; characterize. A rock divides water into water drops. di·vide (d-vd) v. di·vid·ed, di·vid·ing, di·vides v.tr.1. a. To separate into parts, sections, groups, or branches A rock holds no classes, nor databases of characteristics, nor labels, nor names for the things it interacts with. A rock does not categorize. Now, we can use an rock as an instrument to divide some stuff, and then make it easy for us to categorize, but it's not the rock doing it. Again, we're working to come up with a framework that can properly deal with and model material reality, concepts and nonsense. I proposed a definition of existence that, I think we can agree, has held. I've also pointed out how concepts fit into that model or framework, in that they are immaterial and non-existent in themselves. Nonsense is just invalid concepts because it bares no direct rational relation with material reality. So, if you say that categories (or concepts, as this is what they are) or actions exist, you would need to challenge my definition of concepts or of existence.

It's true things that are composed of matter and/or energy exist. There is some ambiguity in saying what exactly "interacts". It seems there are phenomena such as gravity which exist, and even gravity could be said to be composed of energy (a gravity field contains energy, even though it is generated by matter). To take it a step farther, my calculator interacts with the number 317. The number 317 is now composed of energy after I compute it. There are some who will object to this and say "numbers do not exist". But it seems to be nonsense, because numbers make predictions and often useful ones. Why is that important? Well if they are useful but still did not exist, there should be no guarantee my numbers behave like yours, nor should there be benefit to rely on numbers because we would be relying on dumb luck, since repeatable usefulness ought not continue to persist (ie. exist for later recall). It should be purely a mental game with no external proof by repeated experimentation. I will have my mathematics and you will have yours, and sharing and convincing others by proof should be basically off the table. I personally have no doubt a number such as 317 works the same way even after all energy that represents it is extinguished. But others imagine numbers are a human mental invention or some kind of trick, which I know is true as far as symbolism goes. 3 can be any number, it is convention we use the same symbol. Yet the conclusions that can be drawn from them, which seem to persist completely outside of changing social conventions, those are things that cannot be explained by a simple assertion that things without matter and energy automatically do not exist. Numeric, spatial and proportional properties of real things spring out of comparisons and categorizations. The categories don't exist in themselves, just as the quantities (or numbers) don't exist. Just like squareness, roundness, superiority, orbits, biological niches or female hotness, these things are concepts our minds are able to form, compute with, communicate and rely on to comprehend or confuse. They and numbers are immaterial and non-existent. They are as real as ghosts. You can do all these things with the concept ghost, or god. But concepts will never fill a bag, or push, pull, energize, or change any property of anything made of matter or any form of energy. Clearly the number 3 and the #3 Key in my keyboard have something fundamentally different between them. Now the number 3 and god have something different between them too. But you cannot say that one exists and the other does not. That would be incorrect and confusing. What you would say is that one is valid (or correct) and the other is not, because one relates to and describes properties of real existent things in the universe and the other one does not.

Because this statement you made and the weaknesses in the definition you're working with, I suggest you start using mine: To exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and energy.

Things that exist are defined as things that exist? /emoticons/BigSmile_Anim.gif/emoticons/head2wall.gif To exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and energy.

This boils down to exist = matter/energy. What have we learned? This does not resolve the meaning of exist but rather appears to provide two synonyms. What is matter? What is energy? These are not basic concepts but crucial terms that make or break your definition. When we observe the universe, what we're observing is actually events where matter and energy interact. Those events have different properties and can be categorized. MATTER is identified by events in the universe that evidence mass, inertia and are affected by gravity. Examples are Protons, Neutrons, Planets and Stars. ENERGY (present in all events in the universe) is an indirect quantity observed by its effect on matter, usually defined by how much an amount of mass changes its position, speed, temperature, mass (I know, circular), or some other property. Examples are EM radiation, kinetic energy (related to momentum), temperature (or rate of event occurrence or interaction), etc. My take is that, like many other fundamental properties of the universe (time, space, light, leptons, spin, mass, etc.), scientists don’t know what Energy is in itself (whatever that means), but they have very good models of how it works. If something needs to interact with other existent entities in order to exist, then you are using the word exist to define the word exist, a circular definition. "Something exists if it interacts with things that exist." I mean, how much more circular can you get? If you take the definition apart and make two independent statements out of it, I can see the circularity you point at. But that is not the definition. To exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and energy. I don't see any circularity there.

I've been proposing the definition: to exist is to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and/or energy. Detectability is a problematic concept. Does it mean that we can detected or that at some point we will be able to detected or that it's supposed that someone in some way could detect it? If instead we say that X exists because it interacts with Y matter and/or Z energy, then we just need to look for evidence of such interaction.

I'd love for you to expand on this or point me where I can get more info on this. Thanks.

huttnedu, I think you're misquoting me on my definition of reality. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough. I attempted to show the definition by developing it in stages on the previous post. The definition is: The universe/reality is composed of matter and energy. To exist means to be composed of matter and/or energy and interact with matter and/or energy. Because we know that matter and energy are interchangeable (matter can be turned into radiation and other forms of energy without mass) we presume the definition can still be reduced to: to exist is to have energy and interact with energy. This definition is derived out of the current model (standard model) that describes the universe. It has more unknowns than knowns, but it's a work in progress. I'm no physicist, just an engineer. I personally dislike the introduction of the Higgs field because I think it raises more questions than it answers, and I also think a spatial/geometrical/dimensional model would serve better than the concept of Dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe in its largest scales. But I find no purpose in going out to ramble about these things when I don't have a model that can better describe these phenomena and hold when subjected to experimentation/observation. If I did that, it would simply be trolling. If I had a model that I thought better described the universe and could hold to observation/experimentation, first I'd be excited about the possibilities to predict things we don't know about yet, and also the technological impact it'd have on the world. It'd be pretty awesome. I'd be working hard to experiment on it and run it through the peer review process. Fame and fortune would be awaiting just around the corner. What I'd be doing the least is go around the internet telling people they are inconsistent. Now, Stef is no ordinary person. He is the host of the largest most popular phylosophy conversation in history. He also works with a model of reality that would be impacted by my new model (pending confirmation). He would be high on my list of people to contact once I have proof. I'd even contact him to tell him how excited I am about proving my model is correct/true. You mentioned a model where there are tiny ropes connecting atoms. I mentioned some of the problems with this model in another thread. Basically, a rope is a very specific thing with very specific characteristics. If you say there's something down there in the atom that is like a rope in some aspects, but unlike others, then you're introducing a concept, and we need to go out and find evidence for it. If indeed there are tiny rope-like things down there, that's great... we'd have a new standard model of physics. You'd be the man. [notworthy] I'll add something I think you'll like. A concept describes an arrangement of an interaction of matter and energy in our brain's neural network. The matter and energy in the brain both exist, as they interact with matter and energy in the universe. But the concept by itself does not exist. It is still useful to describe a process or a state of matter and energy, but absent of the matter and energy, a concept is immaterial. So, concepts do not exist. But matter and energy in our brains arranges itself in ways that allows for a process we call conceptualization, where "concepts" (or particular arrangements of matter and energy in our brains) form as a result of identification of characteristics of matter and energy that interact with the brain. It's a process of tagging and categorizing reality through phenomena (identified matter/energy interactions). I think Conceptualization is not inescapable; meaning there may be (and there are) other forms of intelligences that don't need to create concepts in order to produce results and thrive. But I think Conceptualization is required for comprehension. On the rest of your posts, I'm choosing to ignore some of the points you've made. I feel is unnesessary to go and debate those. Please tell me if after reading this you still think I need to address those. I also understand I was harsh on you with comments uncalled for. I'm sorry. I got overprotective of this community. I think you'd agree it's a great thing. I think you're brilliant and I'm happy you're part of this community. I look forward to lots of energetic arguments with you in the future.

Hi. Jumping in for Stef, as this is posted on the forums and not on a personal message. That would be your definition. The definition I recognize as rational and true is "the universe is all that exists." What exists is matter and energy or that which interacts with matter and/or energy. Space (or rather space-time) is just the result of inter-relational properties (near, far, above, around, before, after) of matter and energy. I've had this discussion with you before without reaching a conclusion. Your definition of the universe requires it to be populated by objects. An Object is that which has shape. Shape is an external boundary or geometrical description of the space occupied by an object. But we know of things that exist and yet have no shape. A good example is an electron. So, your definition is flawed, and as your argumentation is based on this definition of reality, what follows is an exercise in futility. You cannot understand me and I cannot understand you because we don't agree on the basic definition. Another issue I've identified in your thinking is that you don't recognize the existence of energy and processes. So you don't recognize that a certain arrangement of physical matter can have properties. A concept can be described as a particular arrangement in our neurons and the electrical processes in our brain, and I think this is what Stef was trying to point out, but your basic definition of reality does not allow for this and you end up asking questions that to me, and I think to Stef too, just seem ridiculously bizarre. These two quotes reveal the contradictory nature of your thinking. You state that detection involves surface to surface contact, yet mention the example of telescopes to detect distant stars. Are we in contact with the surface of a distant star in order to detect it? The contradiction springs out of the fact that light is not an object, and then would not exist per your definition. So you quietly ignore it in order to hold on to your believes. If you accept the scientific method, then you understand we cannot arrive at a true or accepted model describing anything independently from observation or detection. This is not a handicap of our thinking. Rather this is a handicap of reality, because by definition what exists is that which interacts... This is actually the essence of the scientific method, as it allows us to disregard fantasy and myth by their inability to interact in any detectable means wiht matter and/or energy. Again, because your definition of existence is "different", your conclusions are bizarre. You apply your definitions consistently, but they are not consistent (I think I evidenced it above). I have contradicted them in the past, but you seem impervious to that. That may be why you understand they cannot be contradicted. But at least you are aware your definitions are "weird". Here, as I've pointed out in other threads, you are confusing intuitive definitions with unambiguous and consistent. You seem to think that because you can imagine objects interacting, but cannot imagine energy by itself, holding a definition of reality that includes energy as something that exists by itself (without matter or shape) is ambiguous and inconsistent. That is not the case. I've proposed a definition which is both unambiguous and consistent and I'm willing and able to defend it at your leisure. I'd like to make the thread about you. Because your definitions require we dump most of our physics and re-work most of our science, it does seem like an attempt at stalling progress or holding people down, specially because it has no predictive power and does not help us to model reality in better (truer, more accurate) ways. It would in fact make us abandon most of modern electronics. It looks very much trolly to me; given my definition of a troll as someone who goes out to the world to re-create the bad experiences he's had unto others... someone who works to make the world ugly and the people in it unhappy. I ask you to prove to me you're not a troll. Demonstrate my definition of reality is inconsistent or irrational, as I've done with yours.

What is it that the state robs you of specifically? And if your argument is how childhood is lost due to public schooling, that doesn't completely hold because homeschooling is allowed. I feel sad for having to explain this, but it's ok. I understand. I have a 1 year-old daughter. Her life is exciting and wonderful. She has a powerful drive to learn and play and is full of love and laughter. She's safe and surrounded by happy people interested in what goes on in her life; people eager to get to know her preferences and respecting them. Now I know what I missed as a child. The state, the institutionalization of violence and the externalization of responsibility, the collectivization of debt... I have no experience of a world without it. And I know it is simply impossible for me to accurately imagine a world free from this, just as I could not ever imagine a happy childhood while living a crappy one. All I can do is dream. It's impossibly hard to imagine a world where people can travel the world freely and live and work where they decide it's best for them; a world with no invasions or armies; a world without thugs administering/pillaging the wealth of billions; a world where people are not hiding from and adapting to a violent hierarchical hegemony of vicious manipulative thugs; where there are no secret police and mafias and intelligence services and government sponsored cartels; a world where people relate with one another individually with respect and with full expectation of quality... I'm an imaginative guy, but I cannot get that far. Can you?

Not Europe. The people in it can, but not the mental construction called Europe, nor the states that pillage under its name. And not those brought up under government sponsored irresponsibility. I'm sure we'll see temporary setbacks and adjustments, but the leaches will always suck as much as is available. When the day comes in which the economic lives of the people are uncollectivised, then we may see a real change.