jwhitten's Profile

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

dmatic comments on May 5, 2019:

So, what are you recommending ? Minting gold coins and conducting trade with gold again? Might help with the obesity problem.

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@dmatic I agree. "Money" depends upon "honesty" far more than it does some particular mineral.

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

At this point the issue is moot and academic. Prices have long since adjusted to meet people's expectation for value. That's the other side of the coin that rarely gets mentioned-- no matter how much "they" tinker with the "value"-- which might very well enrich themselves-- in the broader market ...

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@dmatic They devalue the currency, in a bit of an abstract way. I can think back when I was younger and had jobs which were "closer to the bone", so to speak. Blue collar jobs where you had to really bust your ass every day in a literal sense. The pay wasn't as good of course and I fingered every dollar carefully before I handed it over to anybody. As I got older and moved up the ladder, I made more money. At some point it went from being a specific amount that I knew I had in my pocket to a regular "cash flow" that I could use to finance my lifestyle. More abstract. Less focused on individual dollars and more about simply staying within my budget and means. Yes, there is still consideration when I buy something, but less concern over an erroneous or over-priced purchase, for instance. Its possible I would have felt the same way if busing tables paid as well as working with computers. (shrug)

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

Farmergramma comments on May 5, 2019:

I don't claim to be any kind of economics expert or student of gold versus dollars. I do remember the downturn after we went off the gold standard. That added to my mistrust of government! It has always fascinated me that we all agree to call a "dollar" money. In itself as a piece of paper it has ...

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@MilesPurdue, @FrankZeleniuk, @Republicae Agreed. In that sense I think bitcoin has it right. "Money"-- at least the "standard" upon which it is based, has to be **hard** to obtain in order to have value. Otherwise people don't / won't treat it with the "reverence" that it requires in order to succeed.

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

Farmergramma comments on May 5, 2019:

I don't claim to be any kind of economics expert or student of gold versus dollars. I do remember the downturn after we went off the gold standard. That added to my mistrust of government! It has always fascinated me that we all agree to call a "dollar" money. In itself as a piece of paper it has ...

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@MilesPurdue, @FrankZeleniuk Yes, my concern is regarding the electronic dependency. It is quite esoteric. And given the fact that few people even actually understand it, what it is, how it works, just makes it all the more so. Apart from that aspect, in other ways, it harkens back to the earlier roots of money, such as before the federal government took control, when money was minted and traded by cities and larger banks and its was much more difficult to establish the value of your "money" outside of a particular locality.

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

Farmergramma comments on May 5, 2019:

I don't claim to be any kind of economics expert or student of gold versus dollars. I do remember the downturn after we went off the gold standard. That added to my mistrust of government! It has always fascinated me that we all agree to call a "dollar" money. In itself as a piece of paper it has ...

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@MilesPurdue Yes, you're right about that. And from that perspective, so does copper, zinc, aluminum, palladium, iridium, and a whole host of other metals and minerals-- and truthfully, in their modern context are worth quite a bit more than they ever were in the past. But that's a new and decidedly modern type of valuation which has nothing at all to do with its classical appeal.

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

At this point the issue is moot and academic. Prices have long since adjusted to meet people's expectation for value. That's the other side of the coin that rarely gets mentioned-- no matter how much "they" tinker with the "value"-- which might very well enrich themselves-- in the broader market ...

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@FrankZeleniuk, @dmatic Well, yes and no. The "value" of a dollar is the remembrance of the work effort that the individual put in to make that dollar.

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

At this point the issue is moot and academic. Prices have long since adjusted to meet people's expectation for value. That's the other side of the coin that rarely gets mentioned-- no matter how much "they" tinker with the "value"-- which might very well enrich themselves-- in the broader market ...

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@FrankZeleniuk Okay, I accept your distinction. But when I talk about the aggregate, that is how the overall "value" of an item is understood, as a collection of individual transactions. And I get your point, and I'm sure you get mine too.

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

At this point the issue is moot and academic. Prices have long since adjusted to meet people's expectation for value. That's the other side of the coin that rarely gets mentioned-- no matter how much "they" tinker with the "value"-- which might very well enrich themselves-- in the broader market ...

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@FrankZeleniuk Sure it does. People look down at the green stuff in their hand, then up at whatever it they're thinking about buying and determining whether or not they're going to make the exchange. It is definitely setting the price of whatever it is they're looking at but also the value of the dollar they're holding-- for the same reason.

How do we alleviate the effects of artificial intelligence and automation replacing human workers?

jneedler comments on May 1, 2019:

Every technological revolution that removes jobs from the workforce, ultimately results in a net gain of jobs (even if it's in another job sector). Just look at America today: * we have more automation than we've ever had before * we have more people than we've ever had before * **but our ...

jwhitten replies on May 6, 2019:

@jneedler The owner is the single shareholder, assuming a corporation. Otherwise he/she can operate the company as a sole proprietorship and take the risks associated with that or an LLC, Small-C, or any of the other setups. But I'm not sure what your point is. That's simply legal overhead, the underlying principle is the same. Maximizing profit for the owner(s). Yes, let's say we agree for the moment. I don't see anything I would strenuously object to in your definition apart from perhaps the freedom to own one's labor and property-- but you could go several ways with that and let's not split the hair. As far as a voluntary exchange, benefiting the community, etc. Yes, I agree with that. Although one could also make the larger point about a larger business benefiting the region, State or even the Nation. I personally don't care if it benefits the world, except in the most abstract sense. But in any case, I think we're in agreement. Go on...

How do we alleviate the effects of artificial intelligence and automation replacing human workers?

jneedler comments on May 1, 2019:

Every technological revolution that removes jobs from the workforce, ultimately results in a net gain of jobs (even if it's in another job sector). Just look at America today: * we have more automation than we've ever had before * we have more people than we've ever had before * **but our ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@jneedler Let's see.. ? Traditional capitalism is all about maximizing the return on the investment of the stakeholder(s). Whomever they are, wherever they happen to be. As companies grow they often need more investment capital and often create opportunities to "buy into" the company through the sale (or perhaps issuance, and then sale) of stock. Additionally, they often create two or more classes of stock which convey different types of "rights" onto the share holders, so that you might have a "common" class of stock for the major stakeholders and one or more "preferred" classes of stock for general investors. At some point the company may decide to "go public" at which point there are number of things to get in order such as a good top-to-bottom audit of the books and assessment of the holdings, conditions, processes and general outlook so they can be examined for irregularities and ultimately turned into company propaganda in the form of the prospectus. Assuming the company is granted the ability to go public, its stock-- whichever class(es) is being offered-- is then listed on the open exchange for any investor to buy. Also, the company will typically bring in a group of people from other organizations to act as directors, to provide arms-length governance to the public company. Then at regular intervals or as needed the company will call together shareholder meetings to relate the status and progress of the company, discuss any pertinent business, and vote on any proposed resolutions. Also at periodic intervals, or as desired, the company may choose to pass along profits back to the shareholders in the form of dividends. The company is also free to buy, sell, create, merge and otherwise utilize its assets in any manner in which is permitted in its charter with respect to its own operations and those of other companies. But in all of the preceding, the responsibility of the company is strictly to the shareholders and nobody else, assuming there are no provisos in its charter or contracts / agreements which stipulate otherwise. How did I do?

So I’m curious what everyone thinks is the real reason for the continued hysteria in regards to ...

WowHaus comments on May 5, 2019:

A New World Order: Globalism, Socialism, Collectivism, a Totalitarian State. Total governmental control and ownership. Ownership being the operative word. Their ideology has never changed since the days they defended and fought to keep slavery. Its just been adapted as the world modernized. But, the...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

No, I think those things are smoke and mirrors-- collectivism and socialism won't help the billionaires and giant corporations. They'll SAY that and back it for as long as they're achieving their parallel results... But they need consumers. So it will be more subtle than that and far more regulated, IMO.

How can the feds be removed from the legalization conversation, allowing states to determine...

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

From a legal standpoint I'm guessing it will require changing / rescinding some laws at the Federal level.

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@ObiRonMoldy Hmmm. Make you wonder if there isn't some underlying psychophysiological problem going on. But I get your point.

Crickets from the left on social media censorship

EdNason comments on May 5, 2019:

They have already sold their soul, there is nothing left

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

They have sold their rights, now they're all that's left.

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

Serg97 comments on May 5, 2019:

Let me tell you a true related story. About 7 years ago a customer came in to the establishment where I work. We are in the business of buying and selling gold and silver, along with many other things. The customer, I mentioned, appeared to be in his mid 90's, well dressed in a business suit. We got...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

Will he get two pairs of pants?

We live under such well-crafted illusions; the biggest is perhaps the one that is known as the ...

Farmergramma comments on May 5, 2019:

I don't claim to be any kind of economics expert or student of gold versus dollars. I do remember the downturn after we went off the gold standard. That added to my mistrust of government! It has always fascinated me that we all agree to call a "dollar" money. In itself as a piece of paper it has ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

In itself gold has no value either. It is simply a shiny metal. And yet we do covet it and thus it becomes "valuable".

ANYBODY WANNA HAVE SOME FUN?

RemiDallaire comments on May 5, 2019:

Suggest that channel to 4chan... this could become interesting

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@RemiDallaire LOL.

How can the feds be removed from the legalization conversation, allowing states to determine...

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

From a legal standpoint I'm guessing it will require changing / rescinding some laws at the Federal level.

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@ObiRonMoldy It's my understanding that the "psychosis" is only found among heavy daily users and with the more potent strains of Marijuana that have been purposely bred to have a stronger psychoactive effect. To counter that study, after a fashion, are the recent studies which show alcohol to be considerably more detrimental than marijuana and-- as we all know-- a far larger health risk and public safety risk. I've always been of the opinion that I'd rather be on the road with potheads going 10 miles per hour in a 25 zone than facing a drunk going 75 coming in my lane. Some people speculate that we would see a larger amount of public safety hazard if marijuana were more widely legal, but I don't really think so. Not that I really want to see more of either on the road. I'm not sure that big pharma is going to be able to keep this one under wraps. There has been a sea-change in this country relative to marijuana, both as a potential medicinal drug as well as a recreational use drug. A lot of it has to do with the youth culture which has now grown up to be adults-- and in office in local towns and cities as well as in State and Federal government. I think it's just a matter of time-- it's getting harder and harder to say "No" to keep it *illegal*.

Smoke a Dubby and watch John Lennon looking guy talking to you about corporate censorship.

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

That's Tarl, aka Styxhexenhammer666 -- he's a good dude with lots of interesting opinions. I listen to his channel all the time. Tosses a lot of 'F-bombs around though, just a quick warning about that if it's a problem for ya. I think his "corporate censorship" position is kind of a recent ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@RemiDallaire Yeah, I listen mostly with headphones, or after they go to bed. They don't mind some cursing, but Tarl is one F-bomb after another and even I wish he would dial it back a bit at times-- and *I* can curse like a f'king sailor on shore leave! But, it doesn't matter that much to me. I generally enjoy listening to him and can overlook it, no worries.

ANYBODY WANNA HAVE SOME FUN?

RemiDallaire comments on May 5, 2019:

Suggest that channel to 4chan... this could become interesting

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

Make it so!

How can the feds be removed from the legalization conversation, allowing states to determine...

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

From a legal standpoint I'm guessing it will require changing / rescinding some laws at the Federal level.

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@ObiRonMoldy Well, not so sure. There has been some evidence of late that Marijuana might have some useful cancer-killing compounds in it. Some of the THC-compounds (not the delta-9 variety ;-) ) I have seen a number of articles claiming that it is, but so far I have not seen anything completely definitive. For instance, this first link from cancer.org says outright that it is: https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/complementary-and-alternative-medicine/marijuana-and-cancer.html However, this second link from cancer.gov is a little more reserved in their opinion: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq I think as more and more people start to see Marijuana as something OTHER than the PSYCHOSIS-INDUCING WACKY-WEED that Harry Anslinger (aka. Mr. "Reefer Madness") claimed it was, we'll start seeing the tide of public opinion change dramatically. It's nearly there now. I'm not sure what that Dude was smoking, but it sure wasn't the good stuff. ;-) Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

Smoke a Dubby and watch John Lennon looking guy talking to you about corporate censorship.

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

That's Tarl, aka Styxhexenhammer666 -- he's a good dude with lots of interesting opinions. I listen to his channel all the time. Tosses a lot of 'F-bombs around though, just a quick warning about that if it's a problem for ya. I think his "corporate censorship" position is kind of a recent ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@RemiDallaire Yeah, I don't mind. But it makes it harder to watch with my kids in the room. If it was just once in awhile they wouldn't care-- but my oldest turned to me the other day and said "Daddy, does he *have* to say that word *all the time*!!" -- LOL.

GOP Files NEW LAWS To Make Social Media Censorship ILLEGAL - YouTube

iThink comments on May 5, 2019:

it will be interesting to see how this plays out first in the legislature and then possibly in the courts. Suppose I wanted to establish a social media site that specifically focused on one thing - music or motorcycles for example. Then when someone posted something NOT related to that subject and I...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

I think it will ultimately hinge upon the scope of the website. If you have a site that's dedicated to "Tiddly Winks", for example, and someone comes up and posts something decidely UN-Tiddly, then you would have the right and be well within your rights, to remove it. BUT if you have a site which you have billed as a place for everyone to come together, post your photos, connect with each other and say whatever you want to say-- which is what the big social media platforms have been doing for years and years now, THEY won't be able to censor opinions simply because they don't like what's being said.

Smoke a Dubby and watch John Lennon looking guy talking to you about corporate censorship.

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

That's Tarl, aka Styxhexenhammer666 -- he's a good dude with lots of interesting opinions. I listen to his channel all the time. Tosses a lot of 'F-bombs around though, just a quick warning about that if it's a problem for ya. I think his "corporate censorship" position is kind of a recent ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@iThink It won't be favorable to you and me-- it will be favorable to the President of the United States and the Republican party. The rest of us who are tired of having our conservative / moderate voices censored will benefit as well.

Smoke a Dubby and watch John Lennon looking guy talking to you about corporate censorship.

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

That's Tarl, aka Styxhexenhammer666 -- he's a good dude with lots of interesting opinions. I listen to his channel all the time. Tosses a lot of 'F-bombs around though, just a quick warning about that if it's a problem for ya. I think his "corporate censorship" position is kind of a recent ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@iThink There is no such thing as "HATE SPEECH" as a distinction of law-- which was what I originally wrote. The people being punished for perceived transgressions are being done so socially-- through socially-applied pressure (or indirectly through socially-applied pressure against advertisers) and by the tech companies / social platforms themselves-- which is probably NOT legal but the legality of which is still just a "smidge" up in the air and thus they are getting away with it a LOT more than they probably should be. Interpret that as nearly 99-99/100ths% **ILLEGAL** but "powerful people" and all of that getting away with the tiny fraction of 1/100ths% unknown / to-be-determined aspect. It is really a pernicious issue, IMO and one that I hope the tech execs get RESOUNDINGLY PUNISHED OVER-- with REAL, ACTUAL stints in fk-you-up-the-a$$ prison. They've known all along what they have been doing. There is no "ignorance of the law" happening here.

There are many criticisms of the concept of God which atheists come up with, and it is not clear to ...

jwhitten comments on May 4, 2019:

Yup, that's one of the questions I'd like to know the answer to-- without the usual bullshit that usually goes along with it.

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

My view of God is pretty abstract also. To the point where I hardly understand what difference it makes whether God exists or doesn't. As I see it, my job is to figure myself out, figure out what I believe in, and then work to live by those principles. I think "God" exists as a sort of coat-rack upon which to hang "big" abstract-- and especially unknowable and/or hard-to-know things on, such as "where did the universe come from?" "How did everything get here?" "Why do we die" and so forth. And I think that organized religion, especially as administered and disseminated through the (a) church is there to make sure that the various members of the society all have a common basis for interaction, mores and standard practices of ethics-- i.e., the "social contract". Thus it makes it much easier for the members of the society to comport themselves appropriately within the society-- laugh, make jokes, moral behavior, conduct business and so on with a common / shared level of understanding. They know the limits for their jokes, their mischief, what's going to get them in trouble with the neighbors and the like. Over time as clans grew into tribes grew into towns and villages grew into cities, the number and sophistication of these various "social compacts" grew along with them. And people in larger areas, where competing modes existed, could rapidly identify themselves by saying "I'm a Catholic" or a "Jew" or whatever else existed in that place and people could quickly consult their internal references for such things and know how to interact with that person on a more human level. Thus, again in my view, God is nearly irrelevant to the scheme, except to act-- as needed-- as the implied Sergeant at Arms, or the Big-Bad MoFo who's gonna come knock some sense into you if you step out of line. Of course, for some reason-- he always seems to leave that bit to his human counterparts... guess the big guy doesn't like to get his own hands dirty ;-) But the other thing that all of this has in common, in my view, is trying to determine the scope and extent of human knowledge. Both what is known and what is knowable-- and what *could* be knowable. I think that in times past people had more of a "faith" based education and thus couched many of their conversations and discussions in the lingo and terminology of the church, and of "God". As an aside, I also don't get this obsession with God being a "perfect" being. Says who? The only way this makes sense to me in the "God as Coat-Rack" theory where people try to establish an entity which is always better than they are who knows the answers that they don't know or can't know, who understands the mysteries, and has a "grand plan" for everybody and the Universe. I think it's a comfort thing that helps people ...

Smoke a Dubby and watch John Lennon looking guy talking to you about corporate censorship.

jwhitten comments on May 5, 2019:

That's Tarl, aka Styxhexenhammer666 -- he's a good dude with lots of interesting opinions. I listen to his channel all the time. Tosses a lot of 'F-bombs around though, just a quick warning about that if it's a problem for ya. I think his "corporate censorship" position is kind of a recent ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@iThink No, the LAW determines what is actually illegal. Pretty cut and dried. Kiddy Porn is the big one. There is no such thing as "Hate Speech" legally. IT DOES NOT EXIST. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal because it induces people to react on the spot and there is a direct and immediate threat to public safety. AND because the courts have considered it and declared it so-- thus it is not an issue of whether one company thinks it is and another one thinks it isn't-- it is ILLEGAL in all cases.

What most feminists actually think.

george comments on Apr 9, 2019:

So u can honestly say u speak for most feminists? Funny how none of the leadership of the movement seem to agree with u but they keep right on being the leaders. That implies that most feminists do NOT think like u. U seem to be a mix between traditional and modern feminism in a logical way from ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

>> "So u can honestly say u speak for most feminists?" Sure, as honestly as Feminists can say they speak for most Women-- or Men, for that matter. It's interesting how "Feminists" and "Feminism" as a group or a doctrine can't be criticized or challenged without howls of "Foul Foul"-- and yet ALL they ever seem to do is sit around themselves and criticize everybody and everything else. You know, according to Feminists there's "a MILLION ways to be a woman"-- but only ONE way to be a man, and it's all bad. FEMINISM IS A HATE GROUP by any reasonable standard-- including their own.

What most feminists actually think.

jwhitten comments on Apr 9, 2019:

Why don't we review some of those heartwarming, man-loving sentiments that Feminists have had for men over the years.... “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” — Valerie Solanas, founder of S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men), attempted to murder...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@Mzhammer Here are some other resources to explore: This is Karen Straughan, one of the Honey Badgers https://youtu.be/vp8tToFv-bA She's one of the leading advocates on Men's issues. She's part of a group that calls itself "The Honey Badgers" (HoneyBadgerRadio) and is comprised of herself (Karen Straughan), Alison Tieman, Hannah Wallen, and the others. Here are some resources such as Dr. Janice Fiamengo, Bettina Arndt at StudioBrule, Paul Elam at an EarForMen, Dr. Warren Farrell. Honey Badger Brigade: [honeybadgerbrigade.com] National Coalition For Men: [ncfm.org] Justice For Men & Boys: [j4mb.wordpress.com] Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE): [equalitycanada.com] StudioBrule: [studiobrule.com] WhiteRibbon.Org with Erin Pizzey: [whiteribbon.org] A Voice for Men (AVfM): [avoiceformen.com]

There are many criticisms of the concept of God which atheists come up with, and it is not clear to ...

jwhitten comments on May 4, 2019:

Yup, that's one of the questions I'd like to know the answer to-- without the usual bullshit that usually goes along with it.

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@RichardPD That sounds a bit like the basis for Buddhism or Taoism. I suppose that some of these Philosophies all head in the same direction with respect to building a more highly-evolved model for human social order. Which, in my view, is really what religion is all about-- cemented in place by the "Supreme Being" who is the supposed 'big guy' on the block to some knock heads when necessary. And yes, I'm also aware that "God" as a concept is less anthropomorphized in these particular philosophies, but I think that's a common "truism" among religions in general.

What is your opinion / viewpoint regarding God, the Universe, Life and Stuff?

An_Ominous comments on May 3, 2019:

@jwhitten Did someone mention the Farbeing Retzglaran? As to your assertion of god cast in our own image... I can see that. I think for a lot of people God is what we need him to be. I know a woman that grew up in a home with a drug addict for a mother and her older brothers molested her. ...

jwhitten replies on May 5, 2019:

@An_Ominous Yeah, that's generally my take on things too. You can sit around and navel-gaze until the sacred cows come home-- but eventually you gotta get up and milk them or else they create a ruckus.

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

jwhitten comments on May 1, 2019:

Do you suppose that the concept of 'free will' must necessarily suppose / include the ability to *act* upon that perception? Meaning that it is not simply enough to perceive a situation and make a choice, but to also have the ability to effect that choice within or upon the world. And I don't ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@Dlaing1986, @Lupinate You might be interested in the E8 hypothesis. Here are a few videos, they somewhat overlap so expect that. They are not particularly "sequential" but rather aimed at slightly different audiences, or perhaps maybe re-edited after obtaining some feedback or something. In any case, pick whichever one you like. If you're interested there are others. Just use E8 or "Quasi-crystals" or "Lie groups" or some such for keywords in YouTube. https://youtu.be/w0ztlIAYTCU https://youtu.be/vJi3_znm7ZE https://youtu.be/y-Gk_Ddhr0M

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

Dlaing1986 comments on May 1, 2019:

Even quantum effects are quantifiable in one form or another, that which is in this universe is because we can measure that it is. It is not clear that consciousness is quantifiable, not only in the fact that it can't be measured, but also that each one is completely unique. Generally speaking, ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@Dlaing1986 So basically it was okay for you to posit a self-actualized being for your examples and not okay for me to posit one that was externally-actualized? I guess I missed that page in the rule book.

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

Lupinate comments on May 3, 2019:

@jwhitten if you desire the journals or vids on the ideas I've based this conception of consciousness on, I can provide them. Most are in emergent fields like quantum biology (yes, that is actually a thing) or mathematics itself. ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

I think consciousness probably lies outside the realm of "computation" but not because it is "non-computable" but rather it depends upon "quirks" in the hardware to resolve things and thus are outside the scope of the equation. They could be included if known, but they are not and so the model is wrong. Simpler models do not include "quirks" and thus the out-of-scope "phenomenon" is never observed. That's my opinion anyway.

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

jwhitten comments on May 1, 2019:

Do you suppose that the concept of 'free will' must necessarily suppose / include the ability to *act* upon that perception? Meaning that it is not simply enough to perceive a situation and make a choice, but to also have the ability to effect that choice within or upon the world. And I don't ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@Dlaing1986 >> "What makes fate what it is? In order for fate to exist, there must be one that knows it." I suspect that this is the tangent where you believe I veered off course. So let's fix it. Sure, you could look at it as a type of "literary device". The author, as the creator of the world in the book, "knows the fate" of each of the characters. If we accept "God as an author", then this could be true. But if we do make that assumption then "free will" is also dead. An alternate interpretation of fate could simply be a "prediction", without specific foreknowledge. Or it could be a ruse. Or it could simply be a lie. I can say to you, "You are fated to scratch your butt on the way to the bathroom in the morning" and if you do it, you were obviously "fulfilling your destiny", right? Or I could send 8 people an envelope predicting the winner of this week's game, half saying one team and the other half saying the other-- and note down which people got the "winning" prediction, however the game turned out. Then I could send those 4 people an envelope predicting the winner of this week's game, again half predicting one team and half predicting the other. Then the next week, send the remaining 2 people a letter saying for "$100,000", I'll send you the prediction for this week's game. It's a ruse of course. But the people receiving the letters don't know that. So the last two believe that I know something, they've trusted me several times and my predictions have come true. So they are going to believe that the next letter I send them is fated to come true-- a ruse. When you go to the Fortune Teller and she opens the door and says "Welcome, I knew you would be here. You were fated to appear". A lie. She looked at the external camera and saw you drive up. Each of those instances seemed to *someone* to be legitimate examples of "fate" and yet each of them were behind the scenes something else. Only in the event of "true foreknowledge", as in the case of the Author did "fate" actually exist-- and yet, "free will" did not. >> "All Jesus did in the eyes of the general population, was die, but his death effected a change in the world that has outlasted and outperformed every other choice by any other person in all of history." Apart from Adam and Eve, you mean. All Adam did was live. Between he and Eve they begat the whole of humanity-- if we go with the bible's version of events. Eve of course generated a bit of controversy of her own just by biting into an apple-- no death even required. >> "he marble has the ability to decide which direction it travels at each Y, becoming colored with whatever paint color was on the track that marble chose to travel down." The marble, in my example, was an inanimate object. The human inside the marble was not. ...

I have to admit some trepedation at the thought of " Joining " a group called " Keep Out " But being...

jwhitten comments on May 2, 2019:

Welcome stranger! Even if you is a liberal-- which I'm not saying you is, and I'm not saying you ain't.... if'n you catch my drift... Nah, seriously, we'll take all types here. What's the point of only talking to people you agree with? Especially if you can get an opportunity to annoy the living ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@MADcHATTER I think you'll do well here. ;-) Come join our 'God / Belief' thread, you might like it.

There are many criticisms of the concept of God which atheists come up with, and it is not clear to ...

jwhitten comments on May 4, 2019:

Yup, that's one of the questions I'd like to know the answer to-- without the usual bullshit that usually goes along with it.

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@RichardPD No, but the description of the "Process Theory" relative to the traditional view sure does come across that way. ;-)

There are many criticisms of the concept of God which atheists come up with, and it is not clear to ...

jwhitten comments on May 4, 2019:

Yup, that's one of the questions I'd like to know the answer to-- without the usual bullshit that usually goes along with it.

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@RichardPD I guess you could call that theory 'the neutering of God'.

There are many criticisms of the concept of God which atheists come up with, and it is not clear to ...

jwhitten comments on May 4, 2019:

Yup, that's one of the questions I'd like to know the answer to-- without the usual bullshit that usually goes along with it.

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@RichardPD What is 'process theology'? That it's the process that matters?

There are many criticisms of the concept of God which atheists come up with, and it is not clear to ...

jwhitten comments on May 4, 2019:

Yup, that's one of the questions I'd like to know the answer to-- without the usual bullshit that usually goes along with it.

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@RichardPD Yup.

What is your opinion / viewpoint regarding God, the Universe, Life and Stuff?

chuckpo comments on May 3, 2019:

So, just to be clear about where you are, you don't believe in God. Your argument is much like Jordan Peterson's. Starting to get a feel for you on this site, I imagine you're closer to an agnostic than an Atheist, but what you've written on the page mostly rejects God as any real or personal ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@chuckpo >> "I think we have to trow objective reality in here somewhere because ideas we invent aren't necessarily real or true." Meaning, I agree with everything you just thought and said, **but...** >> "Take God out of the definition and replace him with a giant fluffy bunny." Here it comes... >> "The argument still works, but there's an absurdity that really changes the value of the entire thought. There would be a difference between a truth in an objective reality and an idea we produce to serve some psychological need." Why can't the truth be both? At the same time? And-- with a completely straight face, at least as much as I can muster-- if we believe all the stuff about "branes" and "multiple universes" and "bubble universes" and how everything that we conceive is "destined to happen" (pronouncements from our men of science, no less)-- why must we wait? Wouldn't a good deal of those things-- (and I can conjure up some pretty zany stuff!)-- have **already** happened? Oh-- but there is also this-- where's the evidence that it has? For the scientists to be RIGHT in their lofty realms of math and physics, there would need to be a pretty interesting cosmic junkpile sitting out there someplace with all the phantasmagorical artifacts resting neatly in it. Now I'm not saying it doesn't exist (nor am I saying that it does)-- but where is it? Where are all of those "pink bunnies" and "elephants standing on sea-turtle backs"?? When I look around me, all I see is regular, everyday boring kind of stuff. Well, I guess that some of it is pretty exciting. But mostly everything else is just kinda ho-hum. >> "Not pushing back on your criticisms of the church even a little, there's an important purpose in that space between atheism, agnosticism, and theism. It matters. Two of those are strong faith statements--I mean you picked a side." Interesting assertion there-- I've "picked a side" by NOT picking a side! But do go on... ;-) "There's no question in your mind about the objectively real truth." I think the best answer is to always question the truth. And the only time to stop questioning the truth is while you're busy questioning some other truth. Even question the "truths" you've already examined and especially the "truths" you've gleaned from them. For they might not be "true" anymore. And quite possibly they never were "true" in the first place. And I don't mean to get overly bound up in metaphysical mumblings because too much examination can drive you crazy, fast! But I guess what I'm really saying-- and you already know it-- is not to get so bound up in your conclusions that you can't shift gears and back away quickly when the whole mountain starts to shift and crumbles into an avalanche. And of course, it's good idea to try and ...

What is your opinion / viewpoint regarding God, the Universe, Life and Stuff?

chuckpo comments on May 3, 2019:

So, just to be clear about where you are, you don't believe in God. Your argument is much like Jordan Peterson's. Starting to get a feel for you on this site, I imagine you're closer to an agnostic than an Atheist, but what you've written on the page mostly rejects God as any real or personal ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@chuckpo You're a pretty astute fellow, IMO. You do a pretty good job of honing in on the meatiest bits and giving them a good chew. >> "Great post--so many things I could address." I suggest you get busy... ;-)

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

jwhitten comments on May 1, 2019:

Do you suppose that the concept of 'free will' must necessarily suppose / include the ability to *act* upon that perception? Meaning that it is not simply enough to perceive a situation and make a choice, but to also have the ability to effect that choice within or upon the world. And I don't ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@Dlaing1986 I've been mulling over how to respond to this, and I think the best way is to invite you into another conversation here: https://idw.community/group/KeepOut/post/35435/what-is-your-opinion-viewpoint-regarding-god-the-universe-life-and-stuff-ive-been-engaged.

I have to admit some trepedation at the thought of " Joining " a group called " Keep Out " But being...

jwhitten comments on May 2, 2019:

Welcome stranger! Even if you is a liberal-- which I'm not saying you is, and I'm not saying you ain't.... if'n you catch my drift... Nah, seriously, we'll take all types here. What's the point of only talking to people you agree with? Especially if you can get an opportunity to annoy the living ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

@MADcHATTER I generally find that the truth tends to be wrapped in yet another mystery ;-)

What is your opinion / viewpoint regarding God, the Universe, Life and Stuff?

An_Ominous comments on May 3, 2019:

@jwhitten Did someone mention the Farbeing Retzglaran? As to your assertion of god cast in our own image... I can see that. I think for a lot of people God is what we need him to be. I know a woman that grew up in a home with a drug addict for a mother and her older brothers molested her. ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

>> "I tend towards Intelligent Design." I can understand why. I don't know if I share that view-- which isn't to say that I don't, only that I don't know. Nature's had a 4-1/2 billion year head-start, if we're to believe our scientists. And I generally do-- though not always. They're human too. If there is a "God"-- a specific "God" and he exists in any real, meaningful way-- I lean more towards the idea that somehow he did something to kick it all off-- to set it into motion and after that, it's been pretty much on it's own ever since. Maybe now and then he pulls it down off the shelf to dust it, poke at it, shows it around to his friends at parties. Who knows, maybe he just picked it up one day at the "Universe Store" and went home and plugged it in and there we sit, like a cosmic lava lamp bubbling and glurping throughout all eternity.... I've always been of the opinion that if you give 100 monkeys 100 typewriters for a 100 years that one of them will eventually produce "Luggage of the Gods" and the whole of Hollywood. But you know, even if it turns out that we ourselves are electronic fish in an algorithmic fishbowl, it still doesn't answer the mystery of "God". Even if it turns out that WE have some being we can point to as OUR God, who made THAT guy? And THAT guy's guy? And THAT guy's guy's guy... and you know.... >> "God probably exists and is probably nothing like our "image" of him." I've always thought that God probably looks a bit like a cross between Morgan Freeman, Jerry Garcia and George Carlin.

What is your opinion / viewpoint regarding God, the Universe, Life and Stuff?

chuckpo comments on May 3, 2019:

So, just to be clear about where you are, you don't believe in God. Your argument is much like Jordan Peterson's. Starting to get a feel for you on this site, I imagine you're closer to an agnostic than an Atheist, but what you've written on the page mostly rejects God as any real or personal ...

jwhitten replies on May 4, 2019:

>> "what you've written on the page mostly rejects God as any real or personal entity. Is that right?" I don't see how. What could be more real or more personal than a God you create, personify and animate for yourself? And if God doesn't like it, he's free to come and tell me so himself. He can do it in any form, a brahman bull, a burning bush-- or even some long-haired dude with sandals. You know he works in "mysterious ways", right? >> "I imagine you're closer to an agnostic than an Atheist," For sure, but what does it matter really? "God helps those who help themselves". We hear it all the time. The many well-meaning, time-worn conspiratorial bromides extended as offerings and fill-ins for the unspeakable indignities which confound us in life. Often ushered along with a knowing look and a heavenly aroma suspiciously disguised as coffee-fueled halitosis... We go to church on Sundays to hear the "Word of God", to have it fed to us, explained to us and meticulously sliced and diced and served up on toast. We sing our songs and we cross ourselves like good little children knowing confidently that we're all going to heaven. God is all knowing, they say. He is all powerful and omniscient, they tell us. He is everywhere and omnipresent, they explain all quite authoritatively. They dress up in their fancy red shoes and funny hats and tell us how God is so complex that our little mortal minds can never comprehend the mighty plan that he has for our lives. But the one thing they've never gotten around to mentioning is if God is all that, they why on earth does God need a mouthpiece? The whole bit smells so strongly of bullshit, I'm sorry to say it so bluntly. And I don't mean to burst anybody's bubble, honestly I don't-- although that's a recent change for me. When I was younger I was far more militant and insistent about it. Now, meh. If people choose to believe differently, that's okay. And you know, if turns out that they're correct, then I'm going to hell for my blasphemy so they'll get the last laugh in the end anyway, right? -- My thoughts about God began in earnest when I was about 11. I remember quite clearly the morning as I was sitting by myself staring out across the valley to the small mountains there on the other side. And I remember wondering what is "God", what would "God" be? And I took in the fresh air and listened to the birds and communed with nature as I was sitting out behind the church on that fresh, spring Sunday morning waiting for the service to be over. And I sat there pondering the questions that each of us has. How did I get here? What does it mean? Why is there evil in the world? Why would God allow bad things to happen? And as I sat there thinking, it occurred to me that none of that mattered. But rather what is ...

Beto said it best when he almost said, “Desperate times call for desperate candidates and I’m ...

jwhitten comments on May 2, 2019:

Given his proclivity for standing upon tables and bartops, he may literally topple out of the race at any moment.

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

@Lickspittle That's it. All you need is Hillary dressed in an orange jumpsuit looking out between bars under the stage and you'll have the entire Left-wing pantheon!

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

jwhitten comments on May 1, 2019:

Do you suppose that the concept of 'free will' must necessarily suppose / include the ability to *act* upon that perception? Meaning that it is not simply enough to perceive a situation and make a choice, but to also have the ability to effect that choice within or upon the world. And I don't ...

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

@Dlaing1986 >> "God may be able to predict with some level of certainty our choices through his understanding of our creation, and though its a viable arguement, it is also illegitimate, as its a mis-representation of his Omniscience." What is your evidence that God is omniscient? Or of any of God's attributes?

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

Dlaing1986 comments on May 1, 2019:

Even quantum effects are quantifiable in one form or another, that which is in this universe is because we can measure that it is. It is not clear that consciousness is quantifiable, not only in the fact that it can't be measured, but also that each one is completely unique. Generally speaking, ...

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

@Dlaing1986 That's an interesting response. It seems a bit emotionally centered. What is your evidence that God exists (in any other form) and that he is invested in your life or even in your side of the universe?

What is your opinion / viewpoint regarding God, the Universe, Life and Stuff?

RichardD comments on May 3, 2019:

I started a group called Ideas of God, but it hasn't taken off yet. I haven't yet populated it with anything so well-written as your post. "Ideas of God Group" If we created God, where does that creation exist so that it can be there when we need God?

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

@RichardPD Fortunately some people would have to live with 'em. ;-)

So just what is a goal?

parsifal comments on May 2, 2019:

all good. and now a most terrible question - what is your purpose?

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

@parsifal As you wish.

What is your opinion / viewpoint regarding God, the Universe, Life and Stuff?

RichardD comments on May 3, 2019:

I started a group called Ideas of God, but it hasn't taken off yet. I haven't yet populated it with anything so well-written as your post. "Ideas of God Group" If we created God, where does that creation exist so that it can be there when we need God?

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

Thanks for the kind words. >> "If we created God, where does that creation exist so that it can be there when we need God?" In your heart and in your head and in your hands. If you (we) created God, then you (we) are the embodiment of God. What he is-- is up to you (us).

What is your opinion / viewpoint regarding God, the Universe, Life and Stuff?

MilesPurdue comments on May 3, 2019:

Seems you've thought about this for sometime, and I look at if we are gods, we are doing it wrong. Also would say with a god outside your definition and watching he's got some sense of humor. Most I've talked with say we have a choice in life of good or bad, like free will, and in our end will be ...

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

>> "I look at if we are gods, we are doing it wrong" So if we are gods, what would be the right way? >> "we have a choice in life of good or bad, like free will, and in our end will be judged" And when you look around, who do you see judging us more than ourselves? We are likely to be the "judgiest beings" in all of the known Universe. And quite possibly, that might be saying something. >> "Have you looked at different religions" I have mostly sought my own counsel and worked to discover my own perspective and relationship to "God". I think 99% of what we all think about say about "God" is pure baloney-- if he is everything everyone says he is-- as if any of us would ever actually know-- then why in the world would he need a mouthpiece? Why would he need some blowhard in red shoes and a funny hat to tell us what's on his mind? The only way any of that makes sense is if it is there for a different purpose-- and I strongly suggest that it is. That the purpose of the government is to express, administer and enforce the rules and laws of the secular society. And the purpose of the church is to express, administer and disseminate the mores, ethics and foundations of the social contract. The secular laws need to be expressed in such detail as to provide a more-or-less equitable basis for business and the governance of daily life. They are typically formulated in such language as to leave as little room for interpretation as possible to reduce the number of disputes between citizens. The religious / social laws need to be expressed differently such that they can be understood by the lowest-common-denominator of society, which is why they are typically conveyed as stories and parables which are more memorable and relatable to the average person. The religious / social rules lay down the basic structure of society. What is good and bad, morally right and wrong, instilling the notion of virtue, charity, love and respect-- all the things that cannot be easily legislated but still need to be conveyed in order to establish a common framework and context for the members of the society. Thus the notion of "God" was constructed-- originally there were many "Gods" but as man got busier and busier and his schedule began to fill up, the "Gods" merged and mutated into just the one God for easier reference. All throughout history people have been doing things in the name of God. Building churches and cathedrals and breaking bodies upon the rack. They have pushed each other off buildings and burned their bodies at the stake. Wars have been waged, armies raised, entire legions sent to their doom-- all in the name of God. God, as he is expressed to us, is all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent. Perfect for making sure people don't get up to anything naughty ...

NYT admits Obama Admin deployed multiple spies against Trump Campaign in 2016.

WowHaus comments on May 3, 2019:

Bout time. NYT throwing a "we know we are full of shit" bone. It will be short lived. I don't trust those bastards!

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

They're trying to dig themselves out of the hole and hoping nobody will notice.

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

Dlaing1986 comments on May 1, 2019:

Even quantum effects are quantifiable in one form or another, that which is in this universe is because we can measure that it is. It is not clear that consciousness is quantifiable, not only in the fact that it can't be measured, but also that each one is completely unique. Generally speaking, ...

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

@Dlaing1986 I believe that God was created in our image. And I believe that the basic concept of God is a good and purposeful construct as it permits us to ponder the unknowable and give attribution to that which perplexes and/or vexates us in our lives, and to venerate that which we find beautiful and elegant and revel in the resonant condition it generates within us and we are thus charged and renewed and able to spread echoes of that elegant resonance out in the world. I believe that we ourselves provide the animus for God and that we ourselves give him form and meaning. And that God is what we need him to be. When we are weak, he is strong. When we are downhearted he is caring and comforting. When we are outraged he is our avenging angel. But always and the whole time, God was us-- God is us. And God shall always be us. As we need him to be. And I believe if there is a God which exists outside of this definition and viewpoint, he will understand and smile upon us-- upon me-- for trying my best to understand and contemplate the mysteries and meanings of his universe.

The Hard Problems of Consciousness Lately, the likes of Sam Harris devotees, along with ...

jwhitten comments on May 1, 2019:

Do you suppose that the concept of 'free will' must necessarily suppose / include the ability to *act* upon that perception? Meaning that it is not simply enough to perceive a situation and make a choice, but to also have the ability to effect that choice within or upon the world. And I don't ...

jwhitten replies on May 3, 2019:

@Dlaing1986 >> "i posit that freewill is the underlying force which determins the choice we make [...] Using the case of beheading, if you make the choice to struggle against your executioner, your body will have moved into a new state" I understand and accept your distinction. >> "How is there a difference between the outcome and the cosmic appointment, or are you suggesting that you can miss the appointment? I suppose that would be a difference in the explanation of terms." Using my original understanding of the word, destiny would imply that you are bound / required / can't get out of it to *show up* at some location at some time-- and perhaps imply for some reason. What you *do* there is different, and up to you. Aka, "Free Will". "Outcome", would imply the result of whatever action you took. If you were "Fated" to do something, on the other hand, it would all be predestined and predetermined and you would have no choice in the matter or the outcome and thus no free will. So regardless of which words we use to imply those concepts, I think those are the valid underlying meanings and distinguishing characteristics between the terms. >> "In order for fate to exist, there must be one that knows it." While I understand your point and meaning, I'm not sure I agree that it is necessarily true in every case. Let's posit, for the sake of argument, a mechanical track of some sort with a marble poised at the top. If you want you can substitute yourself for the marble, or maybe better still-- place yourself inside the marble. We know from countless trials that when we push the marble it will traverse though the course until it reaches the end whereupon a physical barrier will prevent it from travelling further. Thus it has a predetermined destiny-- to reach the end, and in this case, a predetermined fate-- to stop when it reaches the end. I do not see where you are able to exercise any semblance of free will in this scenario, except perhaps to choose not to get into the marble at all. But if we take it a step further and assume perhaps that you were born (winked into being) inside the marble, then even that possibility is removed from you. So considering the "real world" implications of that, it would require knowing whether the course of the universe was finite or infinite, and whether the course it is set upon is mutable or immutable. One potential outcome / scenario is that the universe is finite and the course is immutable but due to its vastness and seeming chaotic complexity, that fact is unknown to you. So in this instance you might believe that you have free will and yet ultimately it is simply an illusion. >>"This is an argument for the imposition that we were created with a free will of our own AND that God has a plan for each of our ...

20 states trying to keep Trump off the ballot. This is unconstitutional. Is your state one of them?

jwhitten comments on May 1, 2019:

Relax, it can't happen. Doesn't matter what the States want or doesn't want.