It seems to me that your model of Consciousness is unduly broad in that it incorporates a variety of systematical frameworks, such as may each apply in a very narrow context and with ideas of Quantum Nonlocality being an example of this, that aren't themselves requisite, nor necessary a priori for the emergence of Conscious Thought. Your manner of phrase also, is not so much unusual as indefinite in its implication; for instance, you refer to the so-called 'stable supervenience of an electromagnetic-field as created by systematic fluxing', presumably when describing the voltage-based outputs and channels associated with both large and well-defined neural substrates that themselves serve as the foundation for all cognitive processes so far as we know. Yet, any corresponding subject is left unspecified in this case, in that one doesn't find or otherwise cannot decide what the field is meant to supervene upon so as to leave the phrase itself semantically incomplete. Moreover, neural-structures aren't electromagnetic, in that while a voltage-based component indeed applies, it doesn't follow that there applies a magnetic component as well, or at least its effect is so minimal as to not even exert a perceptible force when active, and the latter term may therefore be omitted outright in applications of neural-modelling. To cite another example of the deficiencies of your choice of phrasing and theoretical exploration, consider the following; you regard a sustained radiative exposure as per your own words, as allowing for the integration of conscious perception, but the only influence which this has is to increase the available degree of radiation to measurement within that area immediately proximate to the organism. Granted, the examination of such exposure within a clinical context could conceivably result in DNA breakage, and in consequence a later development of cancer as those genes which regulate various growth factors, and tumor suppression, cease to act in the way they should; none of which, however, necessarily pertains to Consciousness, let alone the exact mechanisms which give it rise. Thus, there is beget the question of what facts of life you think yourself to have stumbled upon besides so vague an outline as you have presented?

On a secondary note, you leave me with the impression of one who has a great potential to contribute to the furtherance of man's knowledge of the world, and just as well his own understanding of his place within its sphere, but who for lack of opportunity has been disallowed from gaining that betterment of education which is a most essential step in refining one's ideas so far as to receive in them a proper credence and exploration of the reality of things. To this end, I would mean to suggest that you seek out any number of formal research papers on the subjects of both Biochemistry, the neural-structures associated with Consciousness, among others, and thereby establish a much finer understanding of those sets of notions which you have since invoked so carelessly, albeit in that most noble pursuit of self-knowledge. And, bearing in mind the nobility of this pursuit, I suppose what carelessness you have hitherto shown may be excused.

England is already confronted with the downstream consequences of this earlier decision, such as contraction or loss of economic growth, and these patterns I am sure, will only be rendered all the more apparent in the years ahead even to those who had previously been in complete ignorance to which, as the transition out of the European bloc is finalized. Eventually, your country will be consigned to a peripheral role in most matters of diplomatic exchange; politically isolated, faced with increasing rates of internal as well as economic strife, the loss of a monarch that members of the public can either adore or otherwise respect, the collapse of the Commonwealth as a united front, and the secession of Northern Ireland as a member thereof; just to name a few.

To cite another example; the levels of Anti-Union sentiment among those who fall within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, since the referendum first passed, have surged by a margin of more than three-fold as compared to what they were before, according to the most recent polls. And do remember, that this example of mine accounts for just one facet of the geopolitical difficulties, and the broader question of national relevance, that England now confronts. Moreover, lacking an effective basis of leadership, I am confident the state will only stumble through in disorientation, rather than seek to resolve with the urgency that is due, these same difficulties.

Demonstration of empty rhetoric without any additional evidence to predicate it, is a far easier thing to achieve than good-governance; and to some, such as the issue of Brexit illustrates so well, more palatable also.

My understanding is that just a decade prior your country remained quite prosperous, and indeed, held a higher standard of purchasing-power than even Germany did at the time. This changed however, with the onset of the Great Recession, which caused your government's representatives to naively institute a number of austerity measures aimed at minimizing the federal deficit, and notwithstanding the fact that in the face of recession along economic lines, this is precisely the response opposite that which should be implemented; a finely executed stimulus that has as its purpose to increase margins of public-spending, and provides direct subsidization to affected industries, is the only response of benefit in these circumstances. Reducing either factor instead, not only leads toward a delay in the rate of recovery, but induces a downward spiral of ever less ability to cope, leading toward the usage of austerity measures in an even further degree so as to thereby perpetuate the cycle. The reductions in funding then made to that most venerated National Health Service of yours, were particularly detrimental both to research, and quality of care; all of which, as gleaned from what I have read on this point.

While I haven't yet familiarized myself with that proposal of a possible social-credit system that you allude to, as applied within parts of the Commonwealth, and as infringing upon the most basic of freedoms, it seems to me that a general decline of national prosperity within much of the United Kingdom and England in particular has given cause for an opening to both mislead and restrict the doings of the public at large; the purpose of which, I don't know even in prospect, but a grand-scale restructuring of English society is what one can expect, such as may be determined with the available information in hand. Perhaps, the desire among those in power, and with the exception of those in parliament whose overall influence in recent years has from what I understand been curtailed, and to the benefit of the executive branch, is to distract from the failure of Brexit to make manifest the promises of wealth and improved standard of living that were treated within media as the foremost selling-point of secession from the European bloc. The perception of ineffective leadership, and lack of confidence among members of the public which now reign, in the ability of the current administration to govern, and to deliver that which had been assured, is to be seen as indicating on the latter's part, the need for subtler forms of control over the public discussion. That the country is on the verge of economic collapse, even when overlooking the negative effect of a continued lockdown on economic productivity, and how very unappealing it has since become as a hub of cultural and financial exchange even in the case of London proper, means the discontent will continue to expand in its hold; so too, can a growing show of Totalitarianism, at least as a more subtle approach than its historical expression, be expected as political infighting occupies much of parliament, as public goods become ever scarcer in consequence of the logistic and economic hurdles imposed by the loss of EU membership, and especially, upon the coming death of the Queen; that last bastion of hope in a world gone bleak. Do keep in mind, even this assessment of mine is unduly charitable to your country's circumstances, for the reason that it provides no mention of one of the central difficulties thereof; the status of the Commonwealth as Britain retreats from its former position of prominence on the world-stage, and whether other members of this union such as Australia, as they themselves make a steady gain of clout, are therefore under the obligation still to defer to the whims of monarchical authority, even on paper. Another issue that deserves analysis, and which has up to this point been a cause of great tension, and taken on the form of legitimate violence in the course of the so-called Time Of Troubles, is the status of Northern Ireland, the possibility of later reunification with its other half, and its consequent departure from this union, also. Any one of these developments would strike a great blow to national prestige, but taken together, and if occuring within a relatively short period of each other, such as they just might, would be sure to result in utter despondency; and, despondency it should be noted, is the condition from which more extremist ideologies always emerge, as well as a requisite for their establishing a broader acceptance within society.

I am familiar with, albeit in a rather vague sense of how the so-called Cosmological Constant, with this latter term being interpreted in more modern treatments as encompassing the effects of 'Dark-Energy', has a great influence on the rate of universal expansion when possessed of a non-zero value and with a countervailing effect being accounted for by the forces of gravitational interaction instead; expectedly, it thus follows that their relationship to each other is one of competitive inhibition. I am familiar also with how the rate of expansion has since accelerated by virtue of gravitational forces exerting less of an influence than before, as the relative density of matter itself continues to decline, and that the associated factor, known as Hubble's Constant, will eventually reach its true value once the expansion becomes exponential. With the exception of what this particular value is, such as you communicated to me, all the information which has been proffered for my sake, I know of already. Certainly, this isn't to say I wish to sound disparaging, nor to overlook how much of a delight I found our exchange to be, just that I had hoped for a more thorough analysis of that relevance which current density has, as opposed to any other form of density, when modelling universal expansion.

In any case, that my role in society is of being a literal dropout, and with few prospects as it regards professional advancement, every one of those ideas which has been given mention for lies beyond my field of expertise. For this reason, I am sure you are still in a position to claim the advantage of that betterment of human-understanding which can be conferred only through a higher-institution, with respect to my own circumstances at least.

I am curious as to how the current density would have any influence on either the physical possibility of expansion, or the degree to which it occurs. In what way then are these two factors correlated, in particular, or otherwise based upon a mutual relationship of causality?

I think there is reason to note that while the conditions of that stress-energy tensor which is characteristic of a Black Hole are left unsatisfied in the case of a mass subject to an arbitrarily high-degree of compression, at least insofar as it is allowed to expand so as to not again revert into a singularity, certain discontinuities do emerge because of fluctuations in how it is distributed on the Quantum Scale; this, being a consequence of the Exclusion Principle, which induces a repulsion at the inter-atomic distance between any number of Fermions such that they are forced to occupy unique states and thereby be set at some distance from each other. Following a period of expansion, these fluctuations are amplified in scale according to how far the underlying metric of space has been lengthened. This same effect is responsible, so far as we know, for the large-scale structure of the universe and why in particular, bodies of mass tend to congregate in so-called Cosmic Filaments which extend in size to several dozen megaparsecs on average and themselves consist in hundreds of unique galactic-clusters. While the corresponding 'gaps' which emerged during the initial stages of expansion are now accounted for by 'Voids' of equal size to the aforementioned filaments, but consisting instead largely of empty-space.

I assure you there applies no leap of faith when one restricts analysis to moments after the Big Bang occurred, rather than before; this is because of the latter's inability to be either modelled or conceptualized with our current methods, and that in such a state, every means available to us collapses on its head. Only insofar as we conceive of a Unified Field Theory, in which all the forces of matter and causal interaction are treated as one, and able to thereby be quantized on the smallest of scales, can we hope to move forward in our analysis of its earliest stage of development, when there was found only the associated singularity.

Context of argument, is of more relevance than anything else, herein.

I am aware of how on a practical level the degree of redshift of a point-source as experienced by a distant observer increases to infinity in correspondence with a like decrease in its observed energy. I am aware as well, of how because we are restricted in our ability to observe only any portion of the universe, and that one cannot physically catch sight of such superluminal motion, for the reason that the local photonic-emissions, such as you yourself noted, are receding from the observer's position at an even faster rate. It is in likely consequence of this physical inability, that notions of proper causality breakdown, and therefore are deprived of all application when examining these sorts of instances; and, while I cannot attest to the deficiencies of Minkowski Spacetime that you alluded to, nor the degree of redshift experienced in select cases, my purpose was to show why this sighting of so-distant an object is forbidden, such that it resolves into contradiction when one assumes its exercise of a causal influence on things within the context of the observer's respective light-cone.

Notwithstanding our dispute over the aptness of "Superluminal" as a descriptor, at least as pertaining to the current discussion, I am in agreement with and thus recognize as true, every concern you raised. In fact, on several occasions I myself made the same points, with an example of this being that we may never even have the opportunity to observe certain signals because to ever reach us, they must cross a greater distance than the duration over which the universe exists, or is otherwise expected to before it reaches a state of maximum Entropy, will allow for.

You seem to have misconstrued my words; I know it to be the case that the rate of expansion is expressed in units separate from that of more traditional ideas of velocity, but as seen from the perspective of a fixed observer, relative to some far off position which is of so large a scale as to make the effects of such expansion dominate, for all intents and purposes it does appear to the observer as though a superluminal velocity is attained.

Do notice how I qualified my statement with likening its chosen object only as appearance, rather than an absolute. As my argument certainly wasn't that this reference frame is somehow privileged, or the only one of merit. The purpose for which I cited it was instead to highlight how ideas of causality are meaningless in these cases because the light-cone of the observer is forever prevented from accessing the image of such distant point-sources, and nothing more.

With respect, your question appears to me a rather senseless one. The available evidence indicates that it began as a tightly bound singularity, of such density, and extremes of temperature, and so well-compressed that the traditional constituents of matter cannot be spoken of, at least not in a meaningful way when examining this state. Only during the Planck Era, having lasted for a duration of approximately 10^-43 seconds beginning after the start of expansion, when the forces of gravitation began to separate from the electromagnetic and nuclear forces with which they were formerly unified, did temperatures start to reduce enough to permit the formation of matter as we generally understand it. Though, even in this case, fully-defined atoms began to emerge only during the Inflationary Epoch at which temperatures reduced overall by a factor of nearly 100,000, and which itself had succeeded another transitory phase whereby the separation of gravity as a distinct force was completed. It was during the Inflationary Epoch that the seeds of the universe's large scale structure were sown on account of the Quantum Fluctuations which in the immediate moments when expansion first initiated, caused certain discrepancies in the distribution of matter, and thus a differing level of destiny across unique regions, to emerge, which were then amplified proportionally in their scale as the metric of space rapidly changed to accommodate something much larger.

It is thence a rather misleading characterization to say that the universe "started" with the Big Bang, as it always existed beforehand, just in a state so unlike anything we can conceive that one cannot speak of it meaningfully.

That is precisely the argument which I had sought to make earlier; while the so called light-cone of the universe is available to us, this applies only in part, and even under the assumption that a far greater portion of which could be sighted through some technological means, those photonic emissions made by the corresponding point-source are at such a distance that their image may not even reach us across the entire lifespan of the universe so as to thereby preclude their reaching us outright. Under all circumstances then, and unless the rate of expansion slows considerably enough to no longer appear superluminal, such images will be forever confined to the immediate wake of expansion.

I assumed as much after having glanced over parts of your earlier exchange, despite having chosen simply to overlook it. But, you shouldn't feel yourself to be at fault for the reason that the other party who was of involvement has a known habit of commenting on a thread, only to cause an undue tension. His writings seldom demonstrate much of an insight either, even in those few instances for which he makes a genuine effort to bring something of value to the discussion; I myself can attest firsthand to this pattern he has shown, though I don't feel his behaviors warrant such attention at all.

I suppose the time has thus come to move on.

I am not at all certain of what you think to have implicated any disingenuousness on your part; my purpose was only to illustrate the specifics of that cosmology we are now reflecting upon, and thereby to contribute in some way to the broader part of its discussion. In these efforts of mine, I was motivated by nothing else than to inform, to teach, and while I do on occasion pursue argument for its own sake, this doesn't apply in the present case. But even if it did, to inform would have still been my foremost aim in doing so.

On an unrelated note, I seem to have made several errors, albeit minor ones in my initial response to your query, and while this is an expected thing, especially when using a mobile-device, I don't wish to give off the impression of illiteracy. Thus, they have since been rectified, even if in appeal to little more than my own semantic perfectionism.

As I noted in my earlier argument, the effect of its expansion dominates at the scale of so-called cosmic filaments, which are some of the largest known structures in the universe and generally fall within the range of several dozen, to perhaps even a hundred megaparsecs in length. These structures consist of many unique superclusters, which themselves consist of tens to as many as thousands depending upon how one characterizes them, of unique galaxies in close proximity to each other, and as being gravitationally bound. This indicates, that the scale at which expansion of the metric of space dominates is nearly three orders of magnitude greater than what has thence been suggested.

The confusion which so often results when one means to examine the expansion of the metric of space is because we conflate this, or otherwise treat it as equivalent with objects moving within its boundary at an ever broadening distance from each other, notwithstanding that such an effect is coincident as well, rather than something more intrinsic to the space itself. Which is to say, that while there exists most clearly, and as has been well-established by the available evidence, a fundamental limit to the relative pace with which any object can move, so far as it possesses a definite mass, and indeed, even for those objects which are regarded as massless, and with the required energy-expenditure needed to maintain its movement at such a pace increasing to infinity asymptotically as it begins to reach this limit; when one considers instead the shift in the so-called metric of space, with this latter concept allowing us to define ideas of physical distance at all, then from an observer sitting idle at a fixed point relative to some other point occupied so far off as to make the scales at which this expansion occurs, apply, it will seem as though a superluminal velocity is attained. Such structures however, are said to thus fall outside the observer's light-cone, because the photonic-information which is encompassing of that part of space subject to expansion cannot reach the observer by virtue of its inability to overtake how far the associated point-source has receded from the observer's own line of view, in that its image is forever confined to the immediate wake of expansion. This is the reason for why, at least for those with a formal interest in the study of stellar dynamics, we speak only of those regions of the universe which are "observable", as even under the assumption that a telescope of infinite size and complexity could be constructed, because the very notion of distance on these scales is expanded upon so continuously, what may be sighted are only remnants of that which took place in the past, and even then, the photonic-signatures, or imagery, corresponding to a particular such event may require a greater period than the universe will ever exist for, to have even a chance of reaching our position so as to thereby preclude their reaching us outright. That these effects aren't dominant on a more local scale is in consequence of the force of gravitational attraction, which keeps those masses that are in fair proximity to each other tightly bound enough to minimize their respective recession; that empty-space is in contrast, much more prevalent on the supra-galactic scale is why expansion becomes so prominent, herein, and as compared to those scales which are locally based.

I posit that as new methods of increasing material gain are made available to us, as well as an automation of those processes which have hitherto been within the domain of physical labor, that those soaring inequities which now plague so many millions will reach a tipping-point; I posit it as such that those representatives who have been bought off by either corporate interests or who are of a legitimate delusion in the belief that a sustained redistribution of wealth would somehow be of detriment to the poor and downtrodden, rather than a necessary act of remediation, that either they will acquiesce to this demand, or otherwise in consequence of the extent of the issue, given that there is no sign of this trend reversing anytime soon, that they will be forcibly overthrown. After all, it isn't difficult to see that throughout history when man's material needs are left unfulfilled, and whereby he has remained patient for so long under the assumption that his circumstances will not be improved upon overnight, that eventually his capacity for a further such exercise will shatter, most likely through some instigating event and thereafter what shall be centered foremost on his mind is that great injustice which ails him. What he is sure to then seek, isn't simply that right of a livable circumstance which he was denied, but an enemy onto which he may direct his frustrations; whether this be the state or a particular individual it doesn't matter, insofar as he feels gratified because of the fact.

That for nearly half a century within the United States, and elsewhere, so large a portion of national wealth has been allowed to concentrate within the hands of so very few, is sure to entail not merely disagreement, or incivility, but is precisely that which the historical record has shown it to be; a probable cause both of war, and social decline. The abundance of misinformation which now dominates within the field of media and public discourse, and has assumed center-stage in the minds of many others is most contributive to this dysfunction, also. Though, even this portrayal of mine, and what the future of these inequities of ours may consist in, overlooks that our world's productive capacity is already running a deficit of nearly two-fold that which it is able to sustain, without in turn suffering ecological damage, and eventually, collapse. Yet, the status quo continues in its course, unremarked upon, in the face of both climatic instability, loss of habitable land on the order of millions of acres each year, and the extirpation of species upon which we have a fair degree of reliance, and which have up to this point existed as ambassadors of the natural state of things for many millions of years, far before our genetic ancestors even ventured onto solid-land. I am doubtful we will ever have the foresight necessary to reverse our march toward the abyss, our consignment of posterity to the gutter, or ever reflect on the misguidedness of appealing so completely to short-term gains knowing what the consequences of which, are. An unrelenting consumption is thus the purpose of this economic-gamble, and once we have consumed all in our path, we will in our helplessness know only hunger from that time forward. Then, a mightiest despair, until nothing but silence remains.

On a final note, as I just recently celebrated my second decade of life and am therefore relatively young still, I have reason to envy those who are as of this moment in their final years because they will, and much unlike myself, be spared the sight of those more extreme conditions of instability that will become ever more dominant and deafening to every other concern before the end of the century. Except for those with both a proper recognition of where our future will lead, and the ability to attest first-hand to those difficulties which are most affecting of members of my generation, no one will understand how very loathing I am of the fact of being a millennial, and just as well how very resentful I am of those who in their ignorance, and continued misjudgment, scarred the face of our world so completely as to leave it in so much worse a state than when they first inherited it.

I am of the view which seems quite prevalent among those with a specialized interest in the study of neural correlates, and the brain more generally, that rather than endeavoring to create an Artificial Mind from scratch, that we begin with an examination of first principles instead, and not of any computational paradigm, but a neurological one. Such that the complexities associated with the 'Mind' itself serve as the foremost source of inspiration, and more relevantly, are the scaffold upon which whatever machine remains set to possess the qualities of consciousness by design, is built. There is reason for adopting this view precisely because, and as I thought to make clear in my earlier argument, consciousness, so far as we can tell, is an emergent property of sufficiently complex neural-networks and thus arises naturally only under the conditions granted to higher-lifeforms. For instance, most species of Great Ape can claim to have slightly in excess of 30 billion neurons, each of which branches off to forge new-connections, and impressions, as further experience is gained, beginning from the earliest stages of birth, and with this pattern of branching off being mediated on the most fundamental level, by reinforcement and decay of what neural-structures exist from this time onward, and as their respective amplitudes are potentiated according to frequency of use. Eventually, in a more mature individual, each such structure will have established at minimum, a dozen unique inter-connections within its immediate vicinity, leading toward a total amount of several hundred billion such connections on average within members of the above-mentioned taxonomic family. Moreover, depending upon whether environmental enrichment is deliberately provided or not, in the sense of a possible conservation-project, this value can be increased still further as the individual in question adapts to a more novel setting than would otherwise apply. And yet, we have succeeded only in modelling with enough fidelity the exact functions associated with the neural-structures of select species of Roundworm, whose complexity in this aspect represents less than even a thousandth of a percent, that complexity found among any member of the Great Apes. Which in turn, indicates to me the inviability that holds true as it regards uncovering the particulars responsible for consciousness, except as Quantum Computers become dominant, and outpace by several orders of magnitude the ability of our current devices to simulate the full interactions found within dynamical-systems of both this scale and type.

While I don't doubt that we will reach a solution by the end of the century, it will be a most exhausting course to get there.

If it is the case that you find yourself disinclined toward the idea of reading that which I have written, despite the dedication of so great an effort which it accounts for, then in a practice of self-reflection, and self-restraint, I would encourage you not to respond at all. Lest the result, such as it is, be one of gross irrelevance, and certainly of no import.

That is all I have to say on your point.

The beauty of viewing these arguments in the manner that I suggested lies in that personal concerns may be discounted at the start, with any one case in particular, being generalized to a far broader scale in how it is analyzed. This holds merit for a number of reasons, one of which, you yourself gave expression for, by means of your earlier response; that the cause of another's death doesn't matter insofar as it is restricted under the field of one's own consideration, given that after the fact, nothing further can occur with respect to the life in question. What in this instance is deserving of priority then, are those forms of behavior which emerged collectively in turn; this, encompassing the reactions of all others within society, or some part of which, to the outcome just mentioned; Death. And more to the point, whether its presentation had in its time been an expected thing, or otherwise sudden in onset, and consequent to no natural cause. This is where the relevance of that distinction between the character thereof, as being either natural, or of opposite meaning, draws its power from. It is this which serves to determine, also, whether the overlying sentiments consist in righteous indignation, or grief is all that dominates, and nothing more. When there exists an implication of fault, and an end which took place much too soon, this emotive structure becomes directed, and thus assumes for itself a purpose. To my mind, no other circumstance beyond this better illustrates why our attentions should be affixed to the macro. Individual patterns of behavior, contrarily, if seen in isolation, are too varied in their appearance to lend any insight into these principles of social evolution, and even less so, are able to render clear what utility they afford.

It seems to me that the imperative of not hastening by intent, the death of another, should be viewed on a societal scale; to be seen as a consequence of the macro, rather than justified by the negative grievance of any one person, or group, that is otherwise sure to emerge. This, is after all a longstanding need of human-kind, and even most other species, I would argue; to be free to live under the assumption that excepting natural causes, such life will continue. To which we have, as a product of our biology, an inclination, both in terms of the individual, and society as a whole. There exist no grounds by which this point can be disputed, and that we favor causes of order, as opposed to that which lies contrary hereto, and with anarchy being the alternative course, were we not to seek to exact punishment upon those who stand in contravention of this rule, further credence is given to this line of thought. The assignment of moral value to the preservation of life, arises as a result of those many dispositions toward increased fitness in which most forms of life often share, and whether they are cognizant of their influence or not carries little relevance; we in contrast, owing to our higher abilities of perception, and analysis, as compared to all other species' now extant, are subject to the forcing out of a process of rationalization, through which to give some more fundamental basis to our actions as they are directed toward the end of such preservation. That we don't recognize it as ad-hoc, and conceived along the lines of a more primitive, and insubstantial type of behavior, is to maintain the supposed primacy of these rationalizations themselves. On a separate account, absent any consideration of moral-goodness, structures of power which have long been established are prone toward punishing those who indeed are guilty of taking life, to resist the transition toward civil decay, and thus their own possible removal. The distinction that you speak of, between acts of this sort, and those which are based instead in the mutilative, as well as the difference between the degrees of their own perceived 'badness' is likely due to the localization of harm in the one case, which applies with respect to mutilation of body, and that of execution; the latter of which, if seen as permitted by the majority, grows in its prevalence, and leads toward a disorder that is complete in its effect, while also entailing other such acts in its path, with the former included in this collection. Hence, we find murder to be the most reprehensible of things, regardless of whether we can claim, truthfully, to be familiar with the reasons just stated on a level of conscious thought.

The fault of argument seems to lie not in the claim of any right in particular being absent, but instead that in each case, the rule of the majority dictates what is, or otherwise cannot be considered, a right. To which end if there be shown a difference of opinion, and belief, that precludes the establishment of any such consensus, and in turn renders the verdict all the more difficult, if not impossible, to determine, questions of the good, and the just, become meaningless. Of importance, also, is the seeming indeterminacy of right, of the bounds which constrain one's ability to act, so long as it be permitted, and hence of the idea of rights in general, to which the premise of your argument gives rise, and which you illustrated well. To an extent, I think, the power afforded to one has an influence on the outcome, and equally on whether one faces conviction for that of which one is accused; yet, we must reconcile this image with the universality of those rights which all are said to possess, and their application on a basis that is similar hereto in terms of broadness. Along the lines just described, the variance that can be observed, and had been cited as evidence for the whole of your claim, between past times, and those of present, as regarding the norms of behavior which many accept, and are endemic to any period, owes itself to the circumstances of each time, differing, and the ever-constant need to adapt to these changes; to ease tensions among the formerly oppressed, and pave the path toward a better future, for instance. That we have moved beyond the mistakes, provided their cause by our forebearers, and recognize how essential reform of the ideals to which we hold ourselves accountable, is, doesn't deny the objectivity of the moral. To present things as you have done, and offer no mention of this fact, thus amounts to a false-dichotomy.

If for nothing else, I hold to the view that what quality most differentiates us, from other species, whether sharing a closeness of relation to our kind, or not, is the ability, as described, to pass with each generation ever more informational-content, by means of which we continue to better ourselves, and enhance all manner of recognition of both our place, in the world, and the many processes of which it consists. As once seen, and understood, there can be left only an impression of awe at its majesty, at the character of fullness and refinement of that wondrous system upon which we depend; each variable having a role in which to serve, meshing seamlessly with the rest, and adapting to any changes that occur along the way of its natural procession. To make known then, and realize that the entirety of the world to which we lay claim is one of innumerable such things, there is, so far as I may tell, no greater, nor more substantial, an experience of humility, to be given.

Neotony, play. Philosophy keeps us young ? — path

Its study fosters a desire to know, to understand, that is almost child-like in intensity. Which in some sense, would correspond to the retention of a certain trait that is little apparent in those of adulthood, and which deserves to be cherished for all time.

Forever the instrument(s) of a young mind, we are.

OK, but my employer doesn't see any need for me to philosophize at all. In worldly terms, I should be attending to something else right now. Why am I so addicted to philosophy? — path

I would be wrong to argue that the nature of your motivations can be attested to, either on my part, or that of any other besides yourself. The worlds onto which our lives are so often projected, are self-contained, and hence inaccessible to most if their workings are not rendered explicit. I am however curious, as to what particularities can be found, beneath the surface of yours.

To reiterate, we couldn't get rid of the 'subject effect' if we wanted to. We can't disconsider it. Not us anyway. In 1000 years humans may manage it, but they might be neo-humans with green skin who live on sunlight, water, and minerals. What we can do is intervene in today's routine hazy intelligibility and use it against itself to reveal our being entrapped in it as false necessity. We can see that we were dominated by metaphors without realizing it. We can see that we had strangely been satisfied with mud and fog (what everybody knows), because it was familiar mud and fog. — path

I hadn't come to state, then, that it is possible to achieve separation of these things, in any way; rather I sought to entertain the possibility of its occurrence, and therefrom, illustrate why it is indeed impossible by showing that contradiction emerges as a result.

On the basis of behavior, we do have a pattern, both individually and in sum, of resigning ourselves to the familiar, and the already known. I would imagine it to be the reason for which life seldom borders on the thrilling.

I can agree with you on this. We are just unlikely to ever put subject-talk aside. It's too basic for our form of life. So abolishing the subject is not a live option. I agree. On the other hand, we can as philosophers do as you just did, and think of the 'I' or 'consciousness' as caught up in especially basic or foundational conventions.

Note the connection to 'freedom of choice' and implicitly to responsibility. A body is trained to take responsibility for its self. This is tied up with reward and punishment. Children aren't held to the same level of responsibility for their actions. Alcohol complicated consent to sex, etc. So in practice we have a continuum of consciousness, agency, responsibility. No doubt.

The issue is whether we want to reify these important conventions into some quasi-mystical substance and get trapped in the old metaphysical maze. — path

I fail to see whether there lies a need to deprive ourselves of a discussion of the subjective, to further expound over our source of understanding, and the faculties through which the whole of the world, in representation, is mediated. For reasons just stated, I am of the belief that so far as the effects of prejudice, of that blindness with which so many are fraught, and that derives its power, its ability to compel, through a force of conviction, and arrogance, as to the 'truth' bore by one's judgment, are minimized, if not suppressed by way of striving toward what is contrarily based, and by which I mean the objective, queries of the sort that disconsider the subject, in full, neglect a tenet that remains fundamental to all forms of human experience, and has never ceased to be, without in turn offering any benefit that an alternative course, through which this element is retained in consideration, couldn't provide in its own right. Our position must instead be predicated by an embracement of those limitations in thought, that bind us, and which at times, darken, rather than illuminate, the path down which we walk. Never should we seek to content ourselves, either, with the idea that what conditions are antecedent to the experiential, in any case, can ever be escaped; it is necessary to realize then, that the most sensible action, in the face of our descent toward insensibility, being made possible, is to ensure integration of these disparate forces, and forge a cohesive unity of both parts, that despite at first glance, seeming to conflict, can be altered so as to fall within the confines of a complementary type; a relation that is wholly inclusive, and from which to create frameworks of greater broadness.

Language serves to denote, and the objects upon which this activity is impressed, despite their symbolic-forms being entrenched in the abstract, apply concretely. The difficulty that we confront is one of misapplication, whereby the objects toward which an argument points, are taken as absolute, and beyond change; this, when in fact the propriety of language's usage is more often than not, dictated by convention, and naturally assumes differing meanings, that vary in their effect, and appearance; modifying lines of phrase which formerly differed, to better align with the norms of the present, or otherwise describing something that is found within a select context, with such meanings as those of past remaining intact, but added to. In any event, none can dispute that these very objects, the terms of which our language consists, evince a quality of concreteness. That the map stands as a product of our own devising, and is by all accounts, contrived to some degree, doesn't give cause for doubt, as to the existence of that of which it is designed to reflect; the territory.

Note: I encountered a slight error; it has since been amended.

Additional Note: I apologize for the excess of length; it was inviable to condense these reflections of mine, further.

It seems to me apparent that existence of self, in the sense of both the tangible, as it applies in any case, and the abstract, that being as a property of the imagined generally, manifests once a certain complexity of awareness, and recognition, has emerged. This is clearest in instances wherein another is asked to determine their reflection, or is otherwise placed in circumstances that by purpose, allow such things to occur, and in consequence, responds with shock at the following sight; the condition of which holds true particularly in the case of infants, during their most critical stage of development, but can be extended to those species which possess an order of thought having semblance to ours in some aspect. What one speaks of as 'self', then, is integral to every judgment, and way of viewing the world; that is to say, it serves as the foundation atop which all parts of the subjective are built. To deny its fundamentality, that it is indeed requisite for an understanding of any form, is to commit oneself to an error of the most egregious kind.

The distinction which can be found, between the ideas of subject and object, and to which many attest, is I believe, and such as you assert, also, a product of convention, yet nonetheless essential for structuring of the ability to know, to conceive; a heuristic of sorts, whose significance can scarcely be overstated, that enables the mind to recognize itself as agent, as capable of guiding the whole of its own actions, absent any extraneous influence, and thereby attaining freedom of choice, and thought. Regardless of what term is employed as a means to describe, with respect to either of these notions that I had provided reference for, previously, an almost instinctive reaction is present, and shown, as if intended to illustrate the root of that of which we are aware when in a state of blankness, and inunderstanding; the drawing of a difference between them, of subject and object, and what one first knows upon birth, subsequent to the formation of person-hood, of self, albeit incomplete, are thus facilitated as the logical contingents of experience.

That which we are to speak of as "Concept", I see reason to hold as the immaterial force by which our every representation of the objects of experience derive their substance, and by which they are thereby informed of what constitutes any such object both singularly, and as a whole, in any particular case. Which is to say, that though they are byproducts of the activity of thought, and brought to mind only upon the exercise of these same faculties, the sum of their manifestations exists as potential within the field of the abstract, and by virtue of that fact, are in some sense at least, antecedent to the course by which they are set to emerge from view. Moreover, there can be found many ways by which to illustrate any one notion; to render clear, and explicit what conditions inhere therein, without deferring to traditional means of the descriptive. In which instance, the referent of one's choice of phrase, stands as the criteria which impart to its object, a depth, and uniqueness in character that can only be reconciled with itself as a matter of form, and presentation. Yet, these characteristics retain their hold, and are no less significant in meaning regardless of the manner in which one seeks to describe, or at all provide reference for, the object thereof. It is this unchanging aspect of the understanding, that serves as "Concept".

A template for the notions themselves, as it were.

It seems to me that what takes primacy in judgement, when one considers those choices of methodology that as a whole, are known as Linguistic Analysis, is only the extent of their need to render clear, what meanings had been expressed within the set context, that lies in question. That is to say, whether circumstances require for clearness that one must define, explicitly, the sum of those meanings which were granted through some form of statement, or proposition, is dependent upon whether one has any ((pre-existing)) measure of familiarity with what is meant thereby, and furthermore, whether such understanding is sufficient to allow one to infer, based also upon the associated environment of usage, the object of reference, and the relationship between each; by the latter phrase I speak of the relations that govern meaning, and the ways in which this correlates with the object to which one chooses to refer in the case of any statement, in particular. While I acknowledge that there are times at which it may prove needless, that one endeavor to actively reflect upon the significance of what one expresses, and thus, that the object thereof can in fact be intuited by any other in passing, without its fullest content being first brought to a level of conscious thought, and awareness; recognition ought to be made, also, that the quality of being acquainted therewith, to know incontrovertibly what one is to convey, in meaning, presupposes a past familiarity with the context, and general foreground in which said statement, or line of phrase, is to appear at all. This same condition is present, also, with respect to those other manners of expression, which demand of one separate aptitudes, to be understood, and are, in both their appearance and effect, confined to equally separate domains of thought; as distinct from the previous.

I think in all these cases, to put a Wittgensteinian spin on it, the background is sufficiently well known and the language games supported within it are sufficiently well travelled that analysing how people use words isn't required to clarify the domain studied; people know what the sense of touch is and universities are. Moreover, inventing concepts to explain things here is important (like, say, Lakatos' "research program" or Foucault's "episteme", or Clark's "extended mind" and Gibson's "affordance"); analysing how things work usually requires some new vocabulary, which stands or falls upon the accuracy and perspicacity it describes its target and the utility it provides in its analysis, — fdrake

The fact upon which I came to expound, previously, leads one to the implication that what claim you have set forth in argument, cannot be generalized. By which I wish to emphasize that oftentimes there is encountered, in the case of most, a dearth of understanding, and consequently the inability to identify, or at all attest to those meanings presented to one in such a way as to be detached from the events of which one's life, tends to consist. Which is to state, without cause for equivocation, that the truths of our world, and the course by which one seeks out greater understanding, are relegated within the lives of many, to a position of the second-order, and seldom fall within the field of one's foremost concerns. When one bears in mind instances of this sort, then, as they occur generally, not strictly as one conceives of them in the sense of the ideal, one is confronted with the certainty of other's ignorance, which precludes one from expressing the query, or statement, at hand, while ensuring that the meaning thereof, be preserved, and understood, wholly.

It is a prime requisite that the conditions of one's inquiry, the finer elements of what notion is considered, be imparted a character of wholesomeness, and defined in their furthest depth; and, most importantly, be recognized as such, by all involved in their study, and pursuit. To fail in the establishment of any mutual-ground for the understanding, at the outset, is to commit oneself to the path of error, before having even begun. For the sake of preventing such misinterpretations, or at least, to deprive them of what sway they might otherwise hold, those fields of study which have achieved for themselves an air of legitimacy, and fullness, and which demonstrate a similar character in their predictions, carry also an inclusion of certain terms that by consensus, have a degree of particularity, and certitude in their meanings, and apply only within the bounds of select contexts, that have themselves been agreed upon by virtue of the same conventions as those described. i.e 'Terms Of Anatomy', and the like. Though, I digress that in any event, one's efforts can be complemented by the benefits in precision, and exactness in thought, that such a methodology confers. Confusion grows most emergent, I believe, only insofar as these qualities are neglected.

Consider the following; https://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

Oh. I am sorry for that, truly. My intention was not to render any depth of understanding difficult to achieve, nor was it to impede your recognition of what had been said, on my part. Though, I must remark upon the extraordinary aptitude which you seem to have developed, in that regard. Unfortunately, I can only lay claim to my own usage of those non-native tongues for which I have some faculty((Latin, German, Spanish)), as being rather tenuous in standing((much unlike yourself)).

Whilst I can attest to the need for maintaining a certain brevity, at times, I nonetheless fail to see how my preceding exposition is of fault. Of greatest importance however, is that one caught in my position is likely to be unable to determine at all the finer meaning of any response, as given, inasmuch as it prove as briefly stated as yours. I ask then, that the nature of my error, as you regard it, be identified, such that I may have the opportunity to address those concerns which pertain to it, and if possible, amend its content, in full.

Well, it’s not true that I have not considered what a market is; I just wasn’t certain exactly what you intended by your question. One reason for this is that I do not offer, and should not be thought as offering, a structural vision, or a set of principles for ‘social organisation’. I may make predications about what a market might look like in the absence of the State (I strongly suspect that there would be currency, for example), but it is not my place to dictate what the aggregation of peaceful activity between persons ought to look like. That would be quite illiberal of me, and therefore contrary to my own principles. — Virgo Avalytikh

The difficulty in establishing any objective basis upon which to found one's chosen analysis of the subject at hand, in this case, is that none may conceive of how a market, in its general operation, might appear in the absence of any extraneous structure, that otherwise holds sway over the particularities of its course, and to some extent, dictates thusly the outcome of each exchange of value, and product, which as a whole embodies the purpose for which all forms of market likely stand. This bears truth on account of the universality of our kind's proneness to seek out order, whether by means that are forceful in nature, or even passive, when confronted with what lies contrary thereto((disorder)), in those affairs of life with which we occupy ourselves. Furthermore, the urgency which is demanded by the need for such forces of mediation to remain present, at all times, is greatest when the resources of one's livelihood, that which allows one to subsist, are compromised, or at all without the assurance of being regarded as sacrosanct((and might therefore be infringed upon with greater frequency than is the case when set procedures of conduct are in place, and enforced without exception)); that is to implicate their exploitation for the sake of the gain of another, as though its finding were certain, and eventual, without those entities((the state, government; any party whose function is applicable to the generality, and mediative in effect)) which, provide to the machinations of society, a firmness in position, and sense of stability by which to proceed forth, in a way that reflects due confidence in what benefits have since been garnered in relation to any other, remaining within the field of one's ownership, unless voluntarily relinquished, by oneself.

If there is some way that a market might work, such that it is dependent upon the existence of the State in order to work that way, then obviously it would not work in that way in the absence of the State. But I don’t see this as particularly problematic. It’s true that the markets of our acquaintance are intimitely involved with the State, but that does not imply that a market is eo ipso dependent upon the existence of a State – which it is not. — Virgo Avalytikh

I would argue that the conditions of the market's dependency upon the state, are broadly found, yet to some degree, are isolated; in the sense that only when the latter is disconsidered, is the fullest weight of its necessity made known to one. Which is to say, without cause for equivocation, that we have become accustomed to the state's presence in our lives, and to that end, cannot imagine even the vague, in portrayal of a world, nor any fundamental aspect thereof, for which the state, and the influence which it exerts, are truly concealed from view. Without being able to entrench oneself in the experience of such forces of tradition being deprived of their power, one can only gaze upon instances of past, within which developments arose, of comparative similarity to that which we hold as worthy of deliberation in the same respect. Yet, herein, we find much variance as to the result of each such instance, that adheres to the constraints, and parameters of our inquiry. This, is attributable to the fact of the initial stages of development exhibited by any society under consideration, often deviating from those which characterize our own((the central point of reference, in our judgement(s) as to what constitutes a society, and how it ought to manifest)), and that of any other beyond itself, in addition to demonstrating amongst themselves, an individual distinctiveness of equal magnitude to that manner of variance which was mentioned, previously.

One might speak of the following as illustrative of such decline, and regression; https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/world/americas/Venezuela-collapse-Maduro.html

I can recall of no other nation, that in our time has assumed what one may rightfully describe as a functional collapse, in the case of its own government; wherefore the burden of responsibility for its people, assigned to the state, is relegated on a vast and near-systemic scale to other parties; lest their needs all persist unfulfilled, except for those of the most privileged few.

Seeing as I have since grown fatigued((5:31 am)), and would rather not be forced to produce work that fails to concur with a certain idealized standard that I myself strongly feel to be necessary, I must now rest. Though, I will have for some time, the desire to maintain our prevailing dialogue, with respect to those general notions for which it was given, at the outset((however much my favor lies with the ironic, as well)).

((The latter likely being a truth to which you can attest, without fault.))

Good-night((or, perhaps afternoon?)). Und danke frau.


P.S To clarify the meaning of my previous line of phrase; I am an asthmatic you see, and consequently cannot at all hold my breath, without encountering great discomfort. When I then remarked "Nor yet speak of thy truth as deceit", the implication was that no such deceit can be found, as it is an element that seems almost foreign to your own character ((just as the former feat is to mine)). In either event, I at last recognize how it may have been needed, to provide a depth of context for that sake, beforehand. Oh, irony, what contorted webs of wonder hath thou woven for we!

Nor yet speak of thy deceit as truth.

Indeed!

Let us hope, that all those in observance of this exchange of ours can appreciate the great irony which underlies it.

In all earnestness my choice of prose serves only as an established preference, in relation to both form, and style. Beyond which, there can be found no other reason to account for that same decision of mine. This is truest when it is acknowledged that to express oneself in such a fashion, seldom lends itself to clarity, as perceived by another. One even has the ground to argue that its effect, is to that end, not merely an hindrance, but wholly detrimental, also.

I stand as an aged man before my time.

I see reason to speak of the position occupied by any manner of society as tending toward certain extrema, in the absence of any governmental entity of the abstract, that one may refer to as the 'state', of sufficient influence, to lay claim to the exercise of force, as being permissible, and a right vested thereby, within its own sphere of authority. That is to say, I find merit in the case of your previous assertion, that the whole of a society, needn't collapse unto itself, in the event that those traditional forces which restrict its most instinctive, and primal motivations, come to fade from view. Those residing within its boundaries, may likely recognize the need, and be confronted in the midst of their plight with little else, to adapt, and seek out some means, regardless of nature, or form, to achieve the reestablishment of order, amongst the chaos. Thus, it can be inferred readily, that as man is a subject of the rational, and strives to accord with those decisions which reflect this sentiment, by way of action, when any great disorder within his system of dwelling arises, it is necessary, and represents the most sensible course, to rectify such irregularities, and hopefully, address the heart of the matter, prior to such time as the loss of function becomes irreparable. For which, the medium of exacting such a need as that described, whereby its resolve can be brought to the fore, is cooperation. As it is a trait of our kind to inflict undue hardship, upon others, even our own brethren, it is true also, that the conditions which guide us, retain a purity, in counterbalance to those proclivities which we often entertain, that evince only malice, and entail only greater conflict than before, in their respective outcome(s). When none can hear any longer the cries of the helpless, nor can bear sight to the losses of one's nation, without succumbing themselves to the same agony of which each is an exemplar, all shall grow inclined, to reverse what pattern of social and moral decay has emerged, for the betterment of all. One's lifetime consists of an endless shifting between these states of living; though, perhaps not with the weight in imagery, comparable in magnitude to that which my chosen portrayal thereof, might indicate.

It seems to me the case, that each notion, the sum of which is expressed both by the noumenal, and objects of experience as they are in themselves, serves to restrict the boundaries of sensibility, and by extension, what may be conceived in thought, without acceding to the conditions of blind conjecture. One could then set forth in argument, that their respective function, yields the same effect, and holds thusly, the same object upon which the former is impressed, as though to falsely lay claim to it, in each case, as its own. Yet, this fails to address the cause of those general contentions which have hitherto prevailed. It is inferred, then, that to garner sight of those truths which lie in wait, one must first descend toward greater depth, within the field of the abstract.

The world stands' as mere appearance within the faculties of the subject, one for whom thought is an active exercise in reflection, and despite being rendered perceptible with an almost faultless clarity, there is much of substance that remains absent within its whole, as we perceive it to be. This, is an unassailable truth of which we are ever-aware, that takes primacy in all matters of the experiential. That which persists beyond the farthest reach of all that can be apprehended, by means of the preceding instruments of cognition, may nonetheless reside within the mind in the form of its object, as it is truly, amongst itself, for no sake but its own, and that may furthermore be conceived in much the same way as described before, without facilitating any transition within the understanding of those in question, the subject(s), to a state at which there is exceeded all ability of the mind to attain clearness therefore, in regard to the object as appearance of whatsoever is considered.

Herein, one is forced to confront the difficulty in imparting richness to its form, to what is known only insofar as one speaks of it in the sense of the intangible; an idealized notion that can be held as existent, only to the extent that it conforms to one's chosen intuitions of the object to which it pertains, yet is itself wholly detached from the intuitive. When one provides even the faintest reference to the 'Noumenal', one is left only with the impression of it being hollow; a contrived husk that defies all aspects of the sensible; contrary to all that can be found, as predicated by experience, though a necessary element, through which thought must be granted on account of the faculties deriving their object, from a broad conception thereof, which manifests only by virtue of the immaterial. The Noumenal.

For those whose preference is conciseness, see the following;

1. The world is made intelligible by the faculties of the mind, wherefore phenomena contained within it are represented as mirrored object(s), which in each case, is based upon the particular correlate of that to which it relates, and corresponds, distinctly.

2. The truth of which, as it is independent of observance, remains a necessary unknown. Yet, this isn't to preclude the freedom bore by the subject, to conceive of such objects of the world, as they are, with respect to the prior constraint. One might therefore, draw upon the force of reason alone, to cogitate, as to the sight of the world, how it would otherwise appear, in a manner that isn't merely bound by our own portrayal thereof. The latter notion however, denotes the maximal degree to which sensuous impressions can prove worthwhile, or at all be deemed fundamental to one's analysis.

3. Noumena thus confer a depth of substance, and form, to what appears in the case of one's judgement, as object; providing a mould of the universal, which the particular is allowed to occupy, and within which it need only dwell, to at last become wholesome.

I would argue that the notion of both object and subject, within the most general of cases, remain correlative with one another, and necessarily so. Such that whether either term is regarded as applicable to a certain instance, is determined solely by the relations of each, between themselves and the theoretic-structure within which either's application is found; this, implies that they represent indistinct entities, yet are differentiated only insofar as their forms of expression require it, and are therefore separate only on the basis of an isolated modality through which they may appear, and be spoken of, whilst remaining as a whole, identical in constitution. In the sense that the propriety in usage of each, is bound by the relational alone, as pertaining to which element within any manner of phrase, has agency, and is permitted to act thereby, contrasting thusly with what is acted upon.

To establish this dichotomy, beyond that which is expressive, and of no greater function, lies in gross error, and reflects little else in its occurrence.