Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

Categories
Academic Freedom
Agitprop
Control vs Anarchy
Defending our Civilization
Geo-strategic issues
Lessons of History
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scott Adams, American cartoonist and commenter on events with a particular view to persuasion and narrative dominance seems to agree. Transcript of key comments:

I think I’ve been telling you for some time the obvious way that these protests/riots/looting episodes were going to go. There was only one way that these would go under the assumption that the police would not get more aggressive and that the local government would not let the federal government come in and take care of the violent stuff. There was going to be no adult supervision and that was intentional. The local leadership decided to not have any adult leadership during the protests/riots/looting. So it was obvious that the locals would end up arming themselves because what else would happen? Could you think of any other outcome? It was obvious this would be the outcome. And this is just the beginning, not just a one-off. It’s pretty obvious that more militia or more citizens are going to bring heavier arms…and they’re going to start showing up…. There’s probably no way it’s going to stop.

The worst case scenario is if the protesters [–> further?] arm themselves…ultimately this is the way it had to go. I feel bad for anyone who gets hurt and I don’t encourage any violence but as a prediction this was the way it had to go. It will end, but with more of this.

Sobering, and familiar.

Regulars at UD will know that I have long been very concerned about a kinetic escalation/spiral in an ongoing 4th generation culture revolution style, Red Guards driven civil war in the USA, geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. Events over the past few days in Wisconsin (U/D: additional, here also see background here with here, here & here, contrasting what is not seen here) underscore that concern, to the level of juggernaut– out- of- control. (The first just linked seems to be at least a good point of reference for thought on a very regrettable but all too predictable event; the second gives background on the metaphor.)

Let me hark back for a moment to my 2016 global geostrategic framework shared here at UD (after public presentations here in the Caribbean):

That is deep backdrop, as we ponder where our civilisation is in the case of the lynch-pin state, the USA.

What happens to the US over the next six to eighteen months is fraught with global consequences that the general populace is at best dimly aware of; but, bet your last cent that movers and shakers behind the scenes have these considerations (from whatever perspective) in mind.

Now, too, for twenty years, I have often used a representation of sustainability-oriented strategic decision-making tracing to/adapted from the Bariloche Foundation of Argentina, set in the context of Environment Scanning and SWOT analysis:

(This is of course precisely the decision theory model which has led me to point to a serious ethics-epistemology breakdown in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and how treatments are evaluated.)

Further to such, there is a more stringent version, in effect the challenge of the juggernaut i/l/o Machiavelli’s hectic fever model of political disorders:

Warning-signs, there have been in abundance, complete with many blood-dripping lessons of history. However, in a deeply polarised polity, building critical mass . . . “consensus” is implausible and half-measure compromises will predictably be built-to-fail . . . in good time to avert going over the cliff is hard, hard, hard. Such, is the nature of problematiques.

Perhaps, the problem can be recast instructively in terms of the dilemmas implicit in the Overton Window:

What happens when the acceptable limit imposed by dominant factions and their narratives locks out good solutions? What would shift the window?

The answer comes back, pain; pain and shattering from going over the cliff.

Or, if we are lucky, enough see the signs in time to act as a critical mass towards sound change before the cliff-edge collapses underfoot.

History, however, is not on the side of prudent foresight, and the history of radical revolutions has been particularly bloody and predictably futile. Never mind the pipe dreams sold by tenured profs and promoted by pundits and community organisers. As just a warning, let us compare a fools-cap image from the 1966 Mao-backed Red Guards:

. . . and a notorious recent incident in Washington DC:

. . . not forgetting the tragedy of the man who refused to salute in 1930’s in a Germany ruled by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (and yes, contrary to the dominant narrative, they meant the “Socialist” part and the “Worker’s” part):

We need to pause and think again, I am somehow unable to take it for granted that we cannot turn back, even at the brink. Maybe, I am being irrationally hopeful for reprieve; but, let us at least ponder a case from an often overlooked classical report:

Ac 19:23 . . . [c. AD 57] there arose no little disturbance [in Ephesus] concerning the Way.

24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen.

25 These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said [–> behind the scenes manipulative plotting], “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26 And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

29 So the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed together into the theater, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians who were Paul’s companions in travel. 30 But when Paul wished to go in among the crowd, the disciples would not let him. 31 And even some of the Asiarchs,5 who were friends of his [–> they had charge of the very Temple in question; obviously, Paul’s lectures in the Hall of Tyrannos and his reaching out to people had won him respect and even friendship], sent to him and were urging him not to venture into the theater.

32 Now [in the unlawful assembly] some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together. 33 Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, whom the Jews had put forward. And Alexander, motioning with his hand, wanted to make a defense to the crowd.

34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

35 And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd ] –> doubtless, sent by the Asiarchs], he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky?6 [–> apparently a meteoritic object turned into an idol] 36 Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. 39 But if you seek anything further,7 it shall be settled in the regular assembly. 40 For we really are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” [–> in effect he hinted of the regiment doubtless camped not too far away; cf. the Nika riots under Justinian]

41 And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly. [ESV]

How easily, the democratic impulse deteriorates into the raging, out of control, manipulated, riotous, destructive mob!

And if there was no excuse for rioting under a lawful oligarchy (what the C1 Roman Empire had become, after failure of the Republic through envy, selfish ambition, assassination and civil wars leading to the rise of Octavian as Augustus), how much more so, is it inexcusable in any reasonably functional modern constitutional democracy?

I give a bit of context:

U/D: context:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

Further U/D, Sep 5, context of the seven mountains model for mapping society/culture/ civilisation and its main pillars of influence:

Governance is visibly failing, some think the mob will be appeased (it cannot), we are at cliff’s edge, with alarming cracks.

Can’t we stop before we go over the cliff?

Please . . . ? END

F/N, Sept 4: FTR, here is a clip of the actual transcript in the context of an incident where Mr Trump is routinely and falsely said to have endorsed Neo-Nazis etc as fine people:

It is obvious that this is precisely the sort of condemnation of neo-nazis that it is suggested Mr Trump has failed to give. That such tainting misrepresentation continues to be routinely promoted speaks volumes on disregard for truth and fairness. Notice, too, how he anticipated the progression from attacking statues of confederate leaders to American founders, with the obvious extension that cancel culture has no limits.

F/N2: Anatomy of a Red Guards Brigadista hit team/swarm in action, Portland USA:

(I add, Sep 6, while the above photo is already demonstrative of a coordinated murderous ambush, there is a video analysis here, UD can only embed YT. This event likely shows that both major front groups involved in the Red Guards brigadista insurgency are joined at the hip. For instance, the shooter had a BLM fist tattoo on his neck and declared himself 100% Antifa. His later suicide by shootout likely shows commitment to not be taken alive, i.e. he had knowledge of key information he judged worth guarding at the cost of his life. Modern interrogation techniques will credibly eventually “break” anyone.)

Let’s clip:

Portland Police are seeking help to identify a possible accomplice pictured here in the Portland Patriot Prayer member shooting. Here is a picture of the moments before the shooting. Notice the shooter is beginning to move as he draws his weapon, even though he does not have a sightline to the targets yet, and his position behind that cover would seem to be far enough back he could not otherwise have known his targets were hitting that position at exactly that moment. How did he know his targets were about to enter the killzone right then, and he needed to draw and begin moving? Even more interesting, in the criminal complaint on page 17, it points out he was initially walking with a woman in a white T-shirt, coming from one direction to that corner, and both were staring down the street at the targets who were a ways away, coming from a completely different place, as if the shooter and his partner had been told over the air to go there, and the targets they were about to shoot were coming from that direction, and they were identifying them. Once they got a bead on the targets, the woman stopped at the corner and loitered as he continued on and took cover in that alcove. Taking a corner gave her sightlines up and down all streets there, which would be second nature to the trained surveillance operative. And yet not having a sightline to the shooter, how would she communicate with him?  They were linked by radio. Look up behind the targets in the picture above, and you will see a lone guy who looks like the guy they are looking for. Notice his hand is covering his mouth just as the shooter begins to move, and the shooter is not holding a walkie talkie to receive any broadcast. It looks an awful like the guy behind the targets had taken surveillance command of the targets, he was trained enough that casually covering his lower face as he whispered into his chest was second nature, and he was radioing to the shooter who had an earpiece to receive, and probably a chest mic to transmit, triggering his movement at that moment, coordinating it to the targets. Also interesting, this new character may be surveillance aware enough he turned away from the surveillance camera as he came into view of it.

It takes a lot of time, recruitment effort, ideological motivation/desensitisation to morality, tactical training by experienced experts and rehearsal to run a complex hit like this. (For sure, this is no hothead running up to someone they hate and shooting in a rage, the surveillance cam shot demonstrates an orchestrated hit of the type used by Intel agency wet work teams or sophisticated terrorists. “mostly peaceful” and “protest” are off the table.)

That has to have a significant, years-long logistics trail, with face to face and communications networking, yielding traffic patterns.

So, this one case may be a break into what is now clearly a terrorist network.

Take it as a yardstick indicating the extent and depth of what is going on, a full-orbed 4th generation war insurgency backed by years of organisation and serious logistics, with carefully laid plans and organisation.

F/N3: And yes, “NAZI” lives don’t matter:

Clear intent to slander, brand and rob of right to life. Instead, we must recognise that life is the first right, without which there are no other rights. Therefore, we start with mutual respect and go on from there.

F/N4: U-Haul a Riot, Sept 2020

Comments
This is not something that just started within the last 2 to 3 generations, but goes back much further. They started to teach case precedence over the wording of the law a little over a century ago. That was the first strike that led us to where we are today. Case precedence has nothing to do with the law, but twists the wording into taking any meaning judges wish it to take.BobRyan
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
U/D: with attacks on restaurants already routine, Red Guards have now been climbing up unto people's homes. The degree of violence is steadily accelerating, and home invasions like this invite armed responses, which seem to be desired to trigger confrontations to feed the agit prop optics and stories. At this threshold, people are going to die in numbers. KF PS: When arrested for blocking highways, RG's complained they were allowed to block roads. Highway patrol reply, this is not Seattle. Then, a signature term drops. They refer to themselves as "brigade[s]," the precise term used in Cuba and extended to my homeland 40 years ago, albeit in Spanish. Cuban-influenced training and organisation?kairosfocus
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus @ 215
1: Why then did you try to plaster with fronting, being in “an unsavory collection” — collected by what criteria, apart from constant allusions to Nazism and its implied racialist supremacism — and talk of how MAGA hats are just missing Nazi swastikas, with implication that red is a Nazi flag colour . . . which meant socialist BTW . . . so black swastika against white circle would recreate the Nazi flag?
It's very simple. When I watch Trump's rallies I see uncomfortable echoes of the Nazi rallies. The way he whips up anger amongst the crowd and then directs it towards the press. He hasn't done so yet but is there any doubt that, if he asked them, those crowds would happily burn books or newspapers or anything else he pointed them towards. And, yes, I do remember the Bible-burning incidents. I think we both agree that this is an alarming dangerous situation which Trump is trying to foment outrage and manipulate to his own political advantage.
3: For cause I find that seriously out of line to the point of being blood libel, with specific intent to taint with nazism.
Then you will understand how outrageous - and I mean outrageous - I find your attempts to discredit and delegitimize the BLM protests - in face of the massive evidence of persistent racism in US society which has animated them - by stereotyping them as "Red Guard" puppets of some ruthless and powerful Marxist conspiracy. And before anyone complains, I regard racism as a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in every one of us and all the 'races' have been guilty of it to some extent and at various times throughout history. Until we all accept that we are not going to overcome it.
4: You chose “nationalists” rather than patriots, and used a key qualifier, ALL.
I wrote that "I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis". And I don't. However, for me, the difference between a "patriot" and a "nationalist" is that the nationalist believes "my country, right or wrong" whereas the patriot does not bring shame on his country by doing or condoning wrong just because it was done by that country.
8: What you instead said is that the slogan and position of a main party garnering 60 million votes at its last outing serves as a FRONT for “an unsavory collection”; one that should be represented by a version of the Nazi flag . . . which pivots on a BROKEN cross, a classic sign of antichristian heresy. (And yes, that is an implied aspect of its symbolism, cf Hiene’s famous prophetic text of warning.)
I will be much happier but, much more importantly, the faith will be much truer to its core principles when it speaks out in forthright condemnation of a man who is both immoral and amoral by its standards rather than have some of its leading figures fawn over him and blaspheme about him being favored or even chosen by their God.
11: Clarification to include the left duly noted. That is, having been called on the matter, you latterly try for balancing.
It isn't simply a question of balance. Put very simply, if the need arose, would you be prepared to fight for Trump and all that he stands for or against him?
12: That noted, the implication of nazism clearly continues. In response I suggest to you that there is no credible objective evidence that any significant Republican faction is against the American republican framework of significantly democratic — We the people — character established 1776 – 1779.
I believe there is no longer a Republican Party in the traditional sense. There is a Trump party ruled by members his family and those trusted as loyal minions and stooges and the rest who make up a personality cult around him and believe that whatever Trump says goes. It is an abject betrayal of everything the Founding Fathers sought to create.
13: The shift from fronting language is telling. You cannot contend against what fronting means, so have retreated to a different position. Similarly, I find the insinuation of tacit endorsement of no merit, as Mr Trump is obviously a displaced democrat with quite “progressivist” views; hitherto widely celebrated in the media culture.
Trump is a dictator-in-waiting. As the head of private companies, not answerable to boards of directors or shareholders, that is what he has been for most of his working life. The only things that have restrained him as President so far are the constitutional checks and balances built into the US political structure. If he ever finds that those restraints can be bent or broken and brushed aside when those who should be upholding them give way to him then what is there to stop him? His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?
15: Neatly left out, that BLM is explicitly marxist by confession of its founders — who by implication are Alinsky School community organisers (i.e. literally, trained, ideological, marxist/communist agitators) — and platform, with an emphasis on the cultural form. Further left out, that it endorses an across the board radical marxist position and has specifically sought to use critical race theory to advance it.
Yes, the two founders are self-proclaimed Marxists but I doubt that the great majority of the protesters are. But even if they were, would Marxism have had any traction unless there was a deep reservoir of grievance for which society at large was providing no adequate redress? I remind you that the Revolutionary War of 1776 arose from just such a sense of unrecognized and unaddressed grievance. You would be foolish to make the same mistake as Lord North's administration.
16: Also neatly side stepped, the course of events this year and earlier which clearly show a Red Guards insurgency strategic pattern being pushed through operationally, where co-optation, subversion, front groups etc are a cluster of signature marxist tactics.
A one-sided picture that both exaggerates the threat from the left and completely ignores that posed by extreme right groups who have been restrained so far mainly by the belief that they have 'their guy' in the White House. I remind you that extreme white right-wing groups have been responsible for more terrorist acts in the domestic US than the left or radical Islamic groups.
19: Blood libel has long since been extended to other materially parallel case. This fits that extension, for cause.
Has it? What "materially parallel cases" are there?
22: Libel falls before truth and before responsible analysis. I have shown, with significant evidence, the character of the current Red Guards insurgency, which does exploit and manipulate pain, history, perceptions and need for genuine reform. But once thresholds such as rioting under colour of protest, mayhem and murder, attempts to demand defunding/abolition of police and linked courts — including racially based reversal of verdicts across the board — are crossed, we are dealing with misanthropic anticivilisational radicalism of a type well known since 1789.
And I would argue that all of the above constitutes a libel against the BLM protests which are a culmination of literally centuries of discrimination and oppression. You defame them by accusing them of being "anticivilizational" yet what they are protesting against is a civilization which has failed to uphold the very principles by which it could be judged to be civilized.
27: All of that is a side track from the central point: you went over the line, beyond the pale of civil discourse and have refused to acknowledge, apologise and walk back. Duly noted.
I have always tried to remain within the bounds of civil discourse and I believe that, for the most part, I have. I can assure you I could be a lot less civil if I chose. But these are minor points compared to the political crisis we are facing in the US which I fear could get a lot worse if this President remains in power.Seversky
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Oh. And the "killing babies in the womb is ok" because "they are not humans until their brains are 3-5 months old" (the mistake of equating personhood with the brain), that monstrosity is over too. Humans are humans since the moment of conception. (With proof). Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
DaveS @ 224
It is conceivable that physicalism in true. I have seen lectures by Robert Sapolsky that cover some of the same issues you raised and find them persuasive. For the moment, I identify as a very naive dualist however.
That's fine by me. I identify as a materialist/physicalist but I also recognize that there is so much that we don't yet know so it's silly getting into partisan fights over whose viewpoint is the most 'right' or 'true'. We've only recently learned of the existence of neutrinos or the size of the observable Universe or black holes or, most recently, gravitational waves. How much more is there still to be discovered that could change our whole picture of reality still more radically? I believe that human society progresses not by limiting itself to the "truths" embodied in its various religious texts but by the simple admission of "I don't know".Seversky
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
TF, I'm complaining because (apparently) you're misreading my posts. I don't know anything about how vision or the brain works, that is true. There's not much point in asking me about it, is there? Perhaps you're trying to refute the "standard materialist understanding of vision"? Anyway, please proceed. :-)daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
DaveS You complained because I was debunking the physicalist P.O.V. and not yours and now you complain because I am focusing on yours. :)Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
241 DaveS
I’m saying I don’t know how to explain it purely in terms of physics.
Because it can not be done. :) Materialism is a failed philosophy. According to natural sciences' dictum, the final step is number 4) (4) changes inside the brain (occipital lobe) And you can add nothing after this 4th step (you say you "don't know").Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
TF, I'm not making any suggestions about how the experience of vision is actually produced. I'm saying I don't know how to explain it purely in terms of physics. I stated that I think belief in God could be rational. The same is true of belief in souls. Edit: Here's an idea. Instead of focusing on my position, just say "this argument refutes the following position: ________." Then state the argument, and we all will hopefully learn something.daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
And now the plot thickens. :)Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
236 DaveS
I don’t claim that vision is a purely material process. As I said above, I don’t know how to explain the experience of seeing a printed page using only physics.
You mentioned some "abstract" ideas ("numbers" and "goodness"). Are you suggesting they are part of the chain of events I wrote? - and you said that "God is ok for others" (if miracles) but not "for you" personally and soul is a no-no. Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
TF, I don't claim that vision is a purely material process. As I said above, I don't know how to explain the experience of seeing a printed page using only physics. You are reading my posts, aren't you? :-) I do agree with part of your post, in that my experience is not of the printed page itself. It's triggered somehow by the light reflecting off the page. Like how a bat senses objects indirectly via sound waves bouncing off the object.daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Seversky, I am coming for you and your "map" non-sense. Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
233 DaveS Thank you. Now, let's examine your position (some parts are repeated for the sake of clarity). The Argument
Chain of Events DaveS wants to read the dictionary (#200) to gain knowledge, using his eyes (entry point of information). 1.Natural science tells us that light bounces off objects, passing through space, to enter the eye. 2.Photons striking the retina are then converted into nerve impulses which pass through the optic nerve into the occipital lobe of the brain deep inside the brain. 3. Occipital lobe of the brain: where visual experience takes place. *** The question is what exactly do we experience in vision: (1) the external object as it is at some distance from the eye, (2) the external object as it is presented to the end organ in the eye (retina), (3) changes in the end organ itself (retina), or (4) changes inside the brain (occipital lobe) which appear to terminate the visual sequence? *** Assuming that vision is a purely material process (DaveS' P.O.V.), this causal chain of events necessarily implies that what we know, in the last analysis, is: - NOT the external object, but rather - changes in the occipital lobe deep inside the brain
Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
JVL, insofar as the common sense view includes the principle of distinct identity and close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle, yes. For, the physicalist/naturalist view of the world either collapses into self-refuting evolutionary materialism (mind = brain as computational, GIGO-limited substrate thus a dynamic-stochastic entity not free enough to be rational) or else it is forced to smuggle in elements of other worldviews it would dismiss. KFkairosfocus
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
TF, If you delete this part:
But other aspects of reality that may fall under the category abstracts are “pants-on-the-head-crazy”, namely “God” and “souls”.
(reread #209) the rest is ok.daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Truthfreedom: “Scientific” materialists/ physicalists propose certain epistemological and ontological claims, allegedly in the name of natural science, that conflict with man’s common sense experience of the world. Is this a problem? I'm thinking of things like the fact that the earth is rotating about its axis and revolving about the sun and the solar system is travelling around the galactic core none of which is obvious to common sense. Perhaps you should be more specific.JVL
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
One appetizer (while I await DaveS' and Seversky's replies): "Scientific" materialists/ physicalists propose certain epistemological and ontological claims, allegedly in the name of natural science, that conflict with man’s common sense experience of the world. This thread will show :
(1) that such claims are not based on sound natural science, but the assumed philosophy of materialism, (2) that the materialist/atomist worldview is fundamentally flawed, and (3) that "we" have a worldview that offers scientifically-compatible alternatives that align with reality.
Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
223 Seversky From a physicalist P. O.V: Was "darwinian theory" (an abstract) inside Mr. Darwins' head (brain)? Yes/ NoTruthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
229 DaveS
I will add that I don’t/didn’t claim I am identical with my brain.
So, to clarify your position: -You believe that reality (existence) is comprised of:
A. "physical stuff": it can be located via spacetime coordinates and B. non-"physical stuff": not locatable via spacetime coordinates Examples of *B* would be "numbers" and "goodness" - which are abstracts. But other aspects of reality that may fall under the category abstracts are "pants-on-the-head-crazy", namely "God" and "souls". *Although you have not offered a reason for this discrimination regarding the abstract category.
*** And you know that a physical "brain" is part of "you", but there is "more that you can not explain". Then "DaveS" = "brain" (physical) + "something more" Am I right? So I can proceed with the argument.Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
I will add that I don't/didn't claim I am identical with my brain. I do not know how to explain my experience of seeing a printed page solely in terms of my physical body. (Erm, there's a lot that I cannot explain).daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
225 DaveS
Would it be possible to lay out this ‘argument’ in a single post, so as to accelerate the pace a little? Presumably it should end with a conclusion rather than a question.
It is an exceedingly complex issue. I will do my best to be succint , but this ain't a child's question. Yes, there is a conclusion. So please be patient. :)Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
TF, Ok, let's say you have refuted physicalism. Do you have an argument against my position?daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
223 DaveS
I don’t know, but that’s typical of animals with vision, no? Dogs, fish, and bees all can see but I doubt they have any idea how it all works.
Logic dictates that if you are something (X), then you have that something's characteristics. X = X If you are a brain, (and the brain "creates" consciousness), this means that: - you are matter and you are "conscious" of yourself (your own existence and characteristics) But: I have asked you (Mr. Brain) :) about your workings (your "seeing" processes) and you say "I (Mr. Brain) :) , do not know". Therefore: You =/= brain. (No identity). The physicalist thesis fails. *** Animals have imagination (they can form images). Humans have imagination (they can form images ) + intellect (they "understand" they are "seeing").Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
TF, Would it be possible to lay out this 'argument' in a single post, so as to accelerate the pace a little? Presumably it should end with a conclusion rather than a question.daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Seversky, It is conceivable that physicalism in true. I have seen lectures by Robert Sapolsky that cover some of the same issues you raised and find them persuasive. For the moment, I identify as a very naive dualist however.daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
TF,
How can you do your work (“seeing”) without knowing how the process you are carrying out works?
I don't know, but that's typical of animals with vision, no? Dogs, fish, and bees all can see but I doubt they have any idea how it all works.daveS
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
Seversky, if all that is is physical, how then does a knowing we exist to warrant such a claim as accurately referring to reality? For, conceptual reference is not a physical phenomenon, neither matter nor field etc. In short you simply illustrate that there is no stable middle between tumbling to inherently non rational GIGO limited computational substrates, or smuggling in key ideas from theism or the like without acknowledgement. Which implies an untenable worldview trying to dress itself up in a lab coat. Noting on the incidental discussion, where of course evolutionary matertialistic scientism -- naturalism, so called -- has in it no capability to bridge not only the reference gap or the freedom required to be rational gap but the is-ought gap that is faced by morally governed creatures. No wonder then we find the cynical nihilism that is part and parcel of the rolling juggernaut issue. KFkairosfocus
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Seversky, for reference I have provided a F/N to OP with condemnation several years ago, by Mr Trump, of neo-nazis etc. Quote: "they should be condemned totally." Where, despite much correction on record the false tainting accusation continues to be circulated, including in the past few days in the current election campaign. I point this out for record, without thereby generally endorsing the NY Contractor in Chief. I do recognise that sometimes a populist outsider is a useful corrective to the entrenched establishment, its self-selecting nomenklatura class interests and conventional wisdom. The obvious conclusion is that we are dealing with toxic disregard for truth and fairness, ruthlessly and recklessly proceeding with tainting to gain an advantage from sowing division, polarisation and hostility. That speaks volumes as to intent. KFkairosfocus
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
213 Seversky
The thesis (physicalism) is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis.
ATTENTION EVERYONE Metaphysics =/= natural science. *** Materialism/ physicalism is NOT natural science. *** This is the THE POINT OF DISPUTE: you materialists equate your philosophy to natural science to make materialism/ physicalism look as "legit" (therefore the "true" worldview; "it offers tangible results, you know" being your mantra) so you can spread your atheist gospel without resistance. You have been doing this (illegitimately) for DECADES. But you have been betrayed by your own mistress "logic". And I am going to show it in this thread. :)Truthfreedom
September 4, 2020
September
09
Sep
4
04
2020
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
1 22 23 24 25 26 32

Leave a Reply