Americans Are Unified In Wanting A Better Life

In American life, a better life often involves compromise. Developing good skills in compromising will lead to a better life. Over three hundred million Americans used their lived experiences to decide our country’s political future. No matter what percentage of Americans actually voted, their families and friends make up 100% of America. I encourage us to respect ourselves.
Every two years we get to choose what kind of country we are.
Respect that.
Many countries do not get that chance.

To me religions are procedures about worshipping a god; how to please it as well as you can. Religions comfort those who are suffering, not those who aren't suffering. I would think that suffering would be mentioned heavily in religious literature and thought. A lot of religions offer paths through suffering for people who're lost, with prayers and acts of kindness and forgiveness. I'm not religious, but if I was a gangster, I'd go with the Catholics. I could whack someone on Friday, go to confession on Saturday, receive Holy Communion on Sunday, and if someone whacked me on Monday, I'd go to Heaven. I could cause suffering, be forgiven, suffer myself, and finally receive the reward of Heaven. What a deal!

Two New Infinities Discovered

Here's an introduction to the exacting infinity and the ultra-exacting infinity.

New Scientist described exacting cardinals as being so large that they contain copies of themselves—sort of like a house with many full-scale copies of itself inside. Ultra-exacting copies additionally include mathematical rules on how to create them “as if the nested house was also wallpapered with blueprints of itself.”

George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

Yes. In Lao Tse's time, there was no formal discipline of empirical Science. So philosophers and sages relied upon Intuition (look inward), Contemplation (observe together), or Meditation (mindful attention) to construct models of how the world works. Such practices might produce superficial (poetic) insights into how the Tao works, but subjective knowledge only becomes common knowledge when shared as objective & technical information : i.e. Science. — Gnomon

The lived experiences of agrian life, woven into the soil, air, water, plants and animals with which humans existed, was their "science".

In this American political era, whoever has the best story (fiction or non-fiction) wins. Period. Facts, other than who's giving the most money to who, are irrelevant in politics. In 2020, the story of the overbearing rich taking advantage of middle America won. In 2024, the story of overbearing liberal progressives destroying America won.

I see American politics turning more into a team sport, where if you're calling yourself an "x" then you support these people and these positions (whether you agree or not) in a show of team loyalty; and to be a "y" you have to support these other people and other policies.

Sport modeling isn't good for govening. Sports are "winner take all" modalities. Governments are designed to be "make as many people able to basically live" as reasonably (politically) possible modalities.

The only serious commitment to successful governance is the commitment to insure children are raised with accurate enough knowledge, and true feelings of support during their growth period, to create better governance in their maturity through having the capacity, and willingness, to honestly consider more than one or two viewpoints in their decision making.

I do not talk smack (however fun it is) about the other side because we each looked at the situation and made our honest decisions. In the "sport" of politics, someone has to win and someone has to lose.

People think they live in a democracy because they hear the word used. Yet everywhere they look is evidence that their most cherished institutions are nothing but toys for plutocrats. Is this truly how people think democracy should work? — Pantagruel

In this American political era, whoever has the best story (fiction or non-fiction) wins. Period. Facts, other than who's giving the most money to who, are irrelevant in politics. In 2020, the story of the overbearing rich taking advantage of middle America won. In 2024, the story of overbearing liberal progressives destroying America won.

My ideal Democracy requires educated voters who know basics about the workings of their government, not just figureheads telling people what to think about the workings of their government. Democracy that requires educated voters because whoever is in the majority in a democracy can become a tyrant to whoever is in the minority. Democracy that requires people educated enough to respect others as equal, even those in the political minority, and be able to show true consideration.

My understanding is that even in ancient Greece, everyone didn't vote. Those who were eligible to vote met almost weekly to make laws and foreign policy. Only men 18 years or older could vote, so if you were away in the military or had to tend your farm or do any work that didn't allow you to be in Athens, you didn't participate in their democracy either.

Any grouping of homo sapiens with a governing structure is going to result in a small percentage doing the actual governing and the rest just trying to live their lives. Doesn't matter what you call that small percentage, what matters is under what principles does everyone allow those few to run things.

People don't actually care until they get a boot on their face and they cry out "how did this happen!?" — Christoffer

By that time it's too late, cuz the half of the population that's getting paid to put a boot in someone's face are figuring they made the smart move and the ones getting a boot in the face are the dummies. It's too late cuz by then, enough people have been bought.

I'm of the view that due to the American mentality, and the fact of there being more guns in this country than people, fifty years from now central US government authority will either break down and we'll literally return to medieval state-level feudal authority, or the central government will have to go full martial law. I do not see a sensible resolution due to corporate greed (they won't know when to stop; and for global corporations, they'll lose their fat American goose but there are plenty other geese to eat [AI will make it more efficient]).

Do you think it's possible to record the individual human experience?

By that I mean, what each of us go through every second of our lives? The inputs to our senses, the thoughts that pass by, the emotions we feel? — Ayush Jain

There was a syfy movie 20 or 30 years ago where criminals would commit crimes and record everything going on in their head (their feelings and visions and sounds etc) while committing them and then sell the tapes to rich people to sit in their living rooms and relive it.

Not possible yet, but if you record continuous brain scans and use AI to segment out the signals from each your five senses, it may be possible to record, but accurate playback would be impossible except for in the brain that originally recorded it. Thoughts would remain unrecorded and emotions would have to be strong enough to produce a brain sensed physiological effect to get recorded.

Usually they are people who prefer to be alone than constantly around others. — Rob J Kennedy

I don't know why people pursue philosophy, just like I don't know why anyone pursues any career. The preference of being alone I might be able to give you an amusing example of. I'm an OG, so back in the day our vehicles had carburetors. I was trying for the first time in my life to clean one, which involved taking it completely apart. To reassemble it, the parts had to go back in a specific order. On this glorius day, after I'd prettey much got it all apart and was ready to move on, several of my friends dropped by and I got pulled away from the task at hand. When I eventually came back I had no clue to the proper order of reassembly and wound up having to buy another carburetor.

If you've been on a thought for awhile; if it's out there and you're following along (which can take some time) solitude is a blessing.

The movie "Tuesday" is the most unusual depiction of Death I've ever seen.

Hope I don't misrepresent it.

The philosophical answer for everyone is, "be as you are until you decide to be something else".

The followup is: if you're happy on your path, maintain it; if not, seek change.

It will be entertaining to see if he whups MAGA into submission or if MAGA eats him and moves on.

I see this discussion as highlighting Trump the person. I see Trump as symptomatic of the control of our political system by large corporations. I see Trump as merely the latest entertainer. Would Trump have even made it without Musk's $250 million donation? Even if Kamala would've gotten elected it would have been financed by corporate billionaires. I didn't vote for him but I'm not going to condemn my fellow Americans for voting for him. Something is wrong with the other side if a person like him can get elected. Plus, corporations don't care about the content of anyone's character, they care about who's going to help them make the most money. Whatever Trump does or doesn't do, the one thing I guarantee is that large corporations who kiss his ring are going to make record profits. Along with the political slogan, "it's the economy stupid", goes another very relevant slogan, "follow the money".

I have a question about this discussion. Once Trump is installed and has put his incompetent but loyal staff in place, there will be countless opportunities to critique their screwups. Will we be allowed to fan out on this duscussion thread to discuss all the chaos the incompetent ones will be generating or must we focus only on Trump?

The coming together of singularity I'm currently seeing is of corporations trying for singular control of their industry and billionaires seeking singular control of their government. What am I missing?

As an OG (old guy) I look at it this way: some things are beyond my understanding because I choose to let those things drift off. I don't have the energy or desire to stay on top of all the changes going on. Thirty years from now (whether I'm alive or not), I would choose a child born today (1/1/25) to organize policy on artificial intelligence over a person who is seventy years old. When I was a young guy, I had the energy and time to scope out the latest and greatest, and I was doing my daily living within the new technologies and was able to handle them well enough to get what I needed/wanted. For new generations, they are embedded in whatever technology and social mores they grow up in, becoming fluent in them.

Part of the process of aging is letting go of some things and holding on tighter to others, depending on your priorities. OGs should just sit back and admire, or be aghast, at the new stuff coming out, realizing that each successive generation has to try to create the world they choose to live in. Some things OGs like or dislike will disappear, and some new things they like or dislike will appear.

Since life being static is sometimes associated with death, getting to the point where the world is unrecognizable could be considered a sign of new life coming forth.

Is brightness a static, intrinsic property of the sun? — Mapping the Medium

No. Brightness is a value judgement based on an organism's evaluation of the electromagnetic energies emanating from the sun. The emitting of energy is the intrinsic property of the sun. How that energy is interpreted depends on the interpreter.

I see sweetness and beauty, when used to describe something, as value judgements. Value judgements are analog; measures of fructose or glucose are specific and digital. Sometimes there is relevant correspondence between analog notation points and digital ones, and sometimes there isn't.

Sorry, to answer your question, in this example I don't think sweetness is a static property of honey.

What would an ethical policy toward Syria look like? — BC

Allow as many of the people of Syria as possible to answer the question, "Right now, today, what would be of the most help to you?". And whatever they answer, help them get it.

It's logically impossible for existence to be created. — Relativist

You're absolutely, positively undisputedly correct...yet existence is created everyday. Just depends on what existence you're talking about. It's kinda a philosophical thing and a laboratory thing. Both the scientist and the philosopher are trying to get past the "Big Bang". Personally, I think the three or four or whatever dimensions we exist in don't allow for that revelation. Both the philosopher and the scientist will be speculating on that without any "proof" as long as we exist (if we can agree we exist - lol).

My understanding is that one of the new occupations created by AI is the position of an AI Prompt Engineer, whose purpose is to construct a query that gets a company a useful answer from AI.

To paraphrase a scene from "The Graduate"

God: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Me: Yes, sir.

God: Are you listening?

Me: Yes, I am.

God: Fractals.

It's the job of physicists to figure out why there's an imbalance between particles and antiparticles. It doesn't make much sense to attribute every unsolved problem to God; it certainly doesn't "prove" Goddidit- that would be an argument from ignorance. — Relativist

The only unsolved problem that could truly be blamed on a god is the problem of how existence was created. All other "unsolved problems" are just detritus from the opening act. And perhaps it's the job of philosophers to figure out why there's an imbalance between particles and antiparticles.

Amen to that. But hey, it's fun :smile:
Just like how you spend your money only shows your viewpoint on money, how you choose (or not choose) your god only shows your viewpoint on your existence.

So the question is: which is more plausible? A being of infinite complexity, with magical knowledge of everything it could do and it's consequences OR a natural state of affairs that evolves due to its internal characteristics? Each is uncaused and exists without deeper explanation. Which is the more parsimonious, and thus better, explanation? — Relativist

The physicists say back at the beginning, there should have been an equal number of matter and antimatter particles created, which should have prevented matter from predominating. They do not know why matter particles came to outnumber antimatter particles. Before I wonder about everything that came after, I wonder why the matter particles won. Did a being of infinite complexity rig the game, or does a "natural" state of affairs prefer matter over antimatter?

I do. If there wasn't, we wouldn't perceive the same thing. No matter how we test or verify it, we see the same thing. The reason is because we independently perceive the same thing outside of our minds. — Patterner

Please help me understand. Many traffic accidents have objectively shown that four different people standing on four different corners at the same intersection watching the same auto collision see four different things.
And this may be BS but I'm willing to bet that sometimes two people standing on the same corner watching the same accident see two different things.

I have a primitive view of creativity. If something is made that didn't exist before, no matter how many millions of other examples of that same thing exist, the making of that something is creativity. If I take a piece of paper and make a paper airplane, to me that is being creative. That particular paper airplane didn't exist before I made it. If the soil accepts an acorn and grows an oak tree, the soil is being creative no matter how many oak trees are in existence, as that particular oak tree had never existed before.

My take on the changing climate is, money talks and BS walks. All the protests and statistics and numbers being tossed around is the BS, cuz it's not stopping the large corporations and various governments from moving ahead as usual in the use of fossil fuels. The U.S. seems to be the largest purveyor of fossil fuels currently (Dec 2024) but that could change as other deposits or retrieval techniques are discovered.

So from the money perspective, legacy fossil fuel companies are stalling and denying while eyeing emerging alternate energy sources to see which ones can be profitably co-opted. Other companies are developing technolgies to help rich people fend off the effects of a changing climate and if they're successful, they'll probably be bought by the legacy fossil fuel companies to burnish their climate credentials and maybe even make a few bucks. Just like 40 years ago people would create computer companies in their garages, and now computer creators just want to create something that Apple or Microsoft or whoever will buy.

Until those who wish to change the direction our climate is headed in learn to cause serious economic and political pain to the legacy forces causing this current climate situation, it's all BS, even with all the deaths and destructions, because they're not being effective. Sure, the people care, they just don't care enough, and don't see enough entities successfully opposing legacy fossil fuel corporations.

Suppose several other life forms were discovered in the universe, some not carbon based, some not even needing a planet to exist on. How would the perspectives illustrated here change? How much of our beliefs are homo sapien based? What if the universe was designed for a totally different life form and homo sapiens are just a temporary part of the chaos? What if the universe wasn't designed for any particular life form and various life forms just pop into and out of existence?

Consciousness, acting in the role of boundary administrator, formats a grid of material boundaries in superposition into a navigable environment. — ucarr

I'm just spitballing it here with no backup references (my apologies), but it seems to me as the quantum environment gets explored more deeply, basically what we've defined as "matter" is just different levels of energy in different forms. My hand feeling the surface of my desk is the energy fields of the atoms (which can be decomposed into energy) in my hand reacting to the energy fields of the atoms that make up the desk. Could one function of our consciousness be to define all the energy fields we come into contact with, whether "matter" or not, into a "navigable environment"? In this context I would separate consciousness from awareness as awareness doesn't require acknowledgement beyond "this exists", which may or may not be navigable.

As has been demonstrated many times...truth always loses to free will. Free will involves ignoring truth or describing truth to fit whatever free will chooses for it to fit.
Truth is revealed...free will deals with it.

In the beginning there was nothing. Then something came into existence. Whatever created existence is the god that still exists. We are all literally a part of that god. The hydrogen atoms in our body are billions of years old, going back to the "Big Bang" (inaccurate but cute name).

I do not concern myself with how much artificial intelligence can do what humans do. My fascination is what's gonna happen when artificial intelligence starts doing something humans cannot do, use wisdom in all their actions. Wisdom being defined as making correct assumptions and judgements covering longer and longer periods of time. Then you have to start being concerned about what, if any, ethics they were trained on.

I've a question towards the universality of consciousness. For animals, plants and the planet geology itself, where does consiousness appear, distinct from hormonal, biochemical, genetic or chemical interactions?