Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

(05-23-2017, 01:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-23-2017, 12:16 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: To me what I have said on this makes eminent sense. No need to rehash. As I have also said, it makes sense these days to compromise between rural and urban needs on this issue. The rural side is not interested in compromise, however. The red side is stuck in extremism on this and all other issues. The blue side is more flexible. That is also the weakness of the blue side.

So long as there is significant talk of true prohibition on the blue side, compromise isn't likely from the red.

I'm not sure the red guys are as firmly stuck as they have been.  Trump has taken the unraveling memes way beyond the pale, and is doing so with remarkable chaos and dysfunction.  His narcissism and lack of people skills won't make it easy for him to recover.  The Republicans are split.  It's too soon to say where things are going, but it doesn't look like the unraveling status quo is the best bet.

I find it far easier to comprehend the red base than you.  For the most part I can follow you, but there are a few pieces of the puzzle that won't fall together for me.

The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

A few are pealing off now from the Trump/GOP base. The GOP and Trump are wedded at the hip, but if he/they lose a small percentage over the long run, then the GOP will lose elections.

I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

You don't speak for the entire blue coalition.  There are some who want more prohibition than you.  Alas, these tend to be the most noisy and attention gathering bunch.  Paranoia tends to be focused on the most paranoid worthy extremists.

It isn't hard to justify arguments for military grade weapons.  The founding fathers expected the militia to repel invasions.  The weren't kidding when they said the government couldn't restrict the types of weapons the People could carry.  There is also a collective rights Supreme Court case from the gangster area that said the government could restrict possessions of assault rifles (Thompson sub machine guns).  This is because the Thompson was not used by the military, thus had nothing to do with a militia.  The collective right assertion was that anything carried by the military can't be restricted.  Alas, not long after that litmus test was set, World War II came around and the military started distributing Thompsons to many infantry.  That precedent hasn't been totally clobbered.  At the moment, if the military can carry something, so can the People.

Not that I'm crazy about that precedent.  I wouldn't mind the 2nd being rewritten, but the two sides are so far apart it isn't likely to happen.

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A few are pealing off now from the Trump/GOP base. The GOP and Trump are wedded at the hip, but if he/they lose a small percentage over the long run, then the GOP will lose elections.

We can hope.

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.

You have a well developed straw man of how Republicans think.  It is a dark twisted parody of how they really think.  The purpose is to justify hate rather than to understand.  If they say something that isn't part of your straw man, you'll substitute your straw man for what people actually say.  This is not the same, though it does induce dizziness on any who might try to take you seriously.  Alas, parody straw men are all too common around here.

When the other guy's world view is clearly conflicting one's own, it's easy to create one's own delusions while pretending to be seeing through theirs.

[Eric the Green]

(05-23-2017, 01:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

You don't speak for the entire blue coalition.  There are some who want more prohibition than you.  Alas, these tend to be the most noisy and attention gathering bunch.  Paranoia tends to be focused on the most paranoid worthy extremists.

Not true at all. Those speaking out for gun control today are quite moderate in their proposals, as are all the politicians who support them. YOu can say that people are screaming for prohibition in order to explain the fact that the red side is rigidly extreme while the blue side is flexible. But it's just the fact that the red side is rigidly extreme while the blue side is flexible. If you want to be diplomatic toward the red side, that's fine, and good luck. But the facts are the facts.

Quote:
It isn't hard to justify arguments for military grade weapons.  The founding fathers expected the militia to repel invasions.  The weren't kidding when they said the government couldn't restrict the types of weapons the People could carry.  There is also a collective rights Supreme Court case from the gangster area that said the government could restrict possessions of assault rifles (Thompson sub machine guns).  This is because the Thompson was not used by the military, thus had nothing to do with a militia.  The collective right assertion was that anything carried by the military can't be restricted.  Alas, not long after that litmus test was set, World War II came around and the military started distributing Thompsons to many infantry.  That precedent hasn't been totally clobbered.  At the moment, if the military can carry something, so can the People.

Not that I'm crazy about that precedent.  I wouldn't mind the 2nd being rewritten, but the two sides are so far apart it isn't likely to happen.

Infantry is military, of course. Restricting military weapons just makes sense; there's nothing more to say, and yet people keep arguing. That's because the red side is stubborn and extreme.

Quote:

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.

You have a well developed straw man of how Republicans think.  It is a dark twisted parody of how they really think.  The purpose is to justify hate rather than to understand.  If they say something that isn't part of your straw man, you'll substitute your straw man for what people actually say.  This is not the same, though it does induce dizziness on any who might try to take you seriously.  Alas, parody straw men are all too common around here.

When the other guy's world view is clearly conflicting one's own, it's easy to create one's own delusions while pretending to be seeing through theirs.

No, nobody knows the Republicans better than I do!

No, it's not about hate, as I said before. The point is not to hate them; the point is to oppose them. Even understanding them is quite compatible with opposing them politically. Quite clearly, it's about understanding, and what I report about what they do is generally accurate. No substitutes necessary. When you or others substitute the word "hate" for the word "oppose" or "disagree," and start on ad hominems, you are admitting that you'd rather make accusations than engage in honest dialogue. There is no use hating anyone, generally speaking. In fact, spiritual advisors and authorities generally say it's better to forgive, for they know not what they do. And am I really any better than they? No; they may be confused or even wilfully-ignorant about certain issues, but that's no reason to hate them. It would be nice if they would inform themselves. Heck, I don't even hate Galen!

Some world views are more aligned with reality than others.

Are YOU delusional about guns and self-defense? Probably, I would think so; or at least you think that I don't understand your point of view, and I think you don't understand mine. Both have been explained and researched ad nauseum here and elsewhere, so further explanation is useless. Certainly many gun advocates are delusional, whether or not that includes you.

[Galen]

(05-23-2017, 07:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-23-2017, 03:16 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-23-2017, 01:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-23-2017, 12:16 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: To me what I have said on this makes eminent sense. No need to rehash. As I have also said, it makes sense these days to compromise between rural and urban needs on this issue. The rural side is not interested in compromise, however. The red side is stuck in extremism on this and all other issues. The blue side is more flexible. That is also the weakness of the blue side.

I'm not sure the red guys are as firmly stuck as they have been.  Trump has taken the unraveling memes way beyond the pale, and is doing so with remarkable chaos and dysfunction.  His narcissism and lack of people skills won't make it easy for him to recover.  The Republicans are split.  It's too soon to say where things are going, but it doesn't look like the unraveling status quo is the best bet.

The Republican Party base is at odds with its establishment which why Trump ended up as president.  On the other hand, the progressives seem to be at odds with everybody.  The Democrats have pretty deep divisions of its own to deal with right now.

Welcome to the wonderful world of living in a declining empire.  The government is bankrupt and neither it nor the various will accept this fundamental truth.  As a consequence each interest group is trying to stick everyone else with the check when the music stops.

The government is fiscally bankrupt due to an too heavy play of the low taxes unraveling memes.

More like the government has a spending problem and won't scale back until circumstances force them to.  Declining empire scenarios range from Great Britain to Rome.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-24-2017, 03:25 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-23-2017, 07:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The government is fiscally bankrupt due to an too heavy play of the low taxes unraveling memes.

More like the government has a spending problem and won't scale back until circumstances force them to.  Declining empire scenarios range from Great Britain to Rome.

(This doesn't really belong in the gun policy thread.  If you want to take it elsewhere, do so and I'll follow.)

What do you see as the cause behind declining entire syndrome?

For me, each superpower in the Industrial Age has had different causes for having their dominant time followed by fading from having extraordinary status.  Spain had an influx of New World gold that made her an economic and thus military superpower for a time, but that faded with the supply of gold.  France united a large amount of territory to get a large economic and military position, but overused this military strength to the point that force Germany to unite and for alliances to form against her.  She faded and became a strong but not super dominant country.  Britain built a naval strength alongside a strong number of colonies, but at the end of World War II the United States forgave lend lease loans if the debtor would open colonial ports to trade.  This was financially too big an economic advantage to deny, but colonial imperialism and empires based on it faded.  For a time the United States had the only industrial infrastructure intact after World War II, but this is gone.

Most of these countries continued to spend money on their military after the economic advantage that made them a superpower went away.  It’s tempting, when one was a genuine superpower, to keep spending on the military and meddling internationally as if one still is a superpower.  There is a common symptom of superpowers continuing to spend on the military after they can no longer afford to do so, resulting in massive debt.  That seems consistent, but why they can no longer do so varies highly.

Today’s US is spending a lot more on the military than anyone else.  Still, they are cutting back from Cold War expenditures.  They should be able to maintain Cold War levels.  There hasn’t been that much a cause of economic upheaval.

I tend to blame the unraveling memes, often identified with Reagan but coming from other sources as well.  Cutting taxes has been a constant.  Allowing debt to accumulate is persistent.  There has been a partisan push to spend more on guns and less on butter.  A large part of the country favors this Republican unraveling pattern.  Trump’s popularity comes in part by pushing the unraveling memes in a blatant extreme way.

Now, I’d be broadly in favor of becoming a major power but not pretending to be the sole superpower.  With ten carrier groups and task groups intended to put marines ashore, we are maintaining an ability to meddle anywhere in the world with a seacoast.  That’s expensive, but ego satisfying.  We are still able to interfere most everywhere while serving the needs of our people ever more poorly.  Land wars in Asia, though, remain problematic.  The debt remains problematic.

Anyway, can one grumble about the declining empire pattern while sticking with the unraveling memes?

[bobc]

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is to have, in the people, the military power to face down the government.

The intolerance shown by the left, and the calls for violence against the right, only reaffirm the need for an armed populace.

During this time when the American people have a government that believes in America, we should repeal the unconstitutional laws of 1934 and later that made many arms carried by the standing army difficult or impossible to legally be owned by the public. Maybe if we can get another 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices who believe in the original intent of the Constitution, those laws can be struck down.

The State question, is still an open Constitutional one. It is possible, that 40 or so states can have freedom of firearms ownership, while the Utopia of California can have a monopoly of force for the government and the criminal gangs.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-30-2017, 06:29 PM)bobc Wrote:

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is to have, in the people, the military power to face down the government.

The intolerance shown by the left, and the calls for violence against the right, only reaffirm the need for an armed populace.

During this time when the American people have a government that believes in America, we should repeal the unconstitutional laws of 1934 and later that made many arms carried by the standing army difficult or impossible to legally be owned by the public. Maybe if we can get another 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices who believe in the original intent of the Constitution, those laws can be struck down.

The State question, is still an open Constitutional one. It is possible, that 40 or so states can have freedom of firearms ownership, while the Utopia of California can have a monopoly of force for the government and the criminal gangs.

Quibble.  The founding fathers had a lot of reasons why they believed the People should have been armed.  Hunting wasn't the most important, but it was still there.  Granted, the other issues you raised above were considered more important than hunting.

Quibble 2.  The US 2nd Amendment does apply to all US citizens, even Californians.  Some California gun restrictions are under legal challenge as a result of Heller and other recent Supreme Court cases.  There are some very restrictive Californian laws which are close to a true prohibition, but different counties enforce them differently.

Quibble 3.  Most liberals will not agree with the alt right notion that liberals are intolerant.  The Declaration of Independence lays out a basic principle that everybody has rights and everybody is created equal.  It's the government's job to make it so.  If it is not so, there is a right to rebel.  Thus, the alt-right's notion that everybody can be intolerant and can force inequality without the government putting it's foot down is garbage under the liberal perception of what the government's jobs is.  The alt-right seems to be holding on to old traditions of inequality and intolerance, and many alt right folk will throw a tantrum if their privileges and prejudice are challenged.

In short, at least this guy's idea is that everyone should be treated equally and well, and it's the government's job to make it so.  I'm not impressed by folks who whine about not being able to treat others poorly without the supposedly intolerant tyrannical government interfering by striving for equality, justice, civility and similar concepts alien to the alt-right.  From my angle, it is not tyranny to work towards equality, human rights and justice.

[Eric the Green]

(05-30-2017, 06:29 PM)bobc Wrote:

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is to have, in the people, the military power to face down the government.

The intolerance shown by the left, and the calls for violence against the right, only reaffirm the need for an armed populace.

During this time when the American people have a government that believes in America, we should repeal the unconstitutional laws of 1934 and later that made many arms carried by the standing army difficult or impossible to legally be owned by the public. Maybe if we can get another 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices who believe in the original intent of the Constitution, those laws can be struck down.

The State question, is still an open Constitutional one. It is possible, that 40 or so states can have freedom of firearms ownership, while the Utopia of California can have a monopoly of force for the government and the criminal gangs.

We don't have a government that believes in America. We have a government that believes in big business and government collusion and enabling of same. We have a government that colludes with and is beholden to hostile foreign nations.

If the USA government needs to be faced down, it is no longer constitutional; in which case the 2nd amendment does not protect your right to bear arms or that of an armed populace.

The danger from such a government comes from the current regime of this time. Another Supreme Court justice appointed by this regime would cement that need to face down this current unconstitutional, un-American government.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-31-2017, 10:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: We don't have a government that believes in America. We have a government that believes in big business and government collusion and enabling of same. We have a government that colludes with and is beholden to hostile foreign nations.

If the USA government needs to be faced down, it is no longer constitutional; in which case the 2nd amendment does not protect your right to bear arms or that of an armed populace.

The danger from such a government comes from the current regime of this time. Another Supreme Court justice appointed by this regime would cement that need to face down this current unconstitutional, un-American government.

I quite agree that the Supreme Court isn't doing its primary job of protecting the meaning of the authors and amenders of the Constitution.  I disagree that the conservatives, especially those concerned with the 2nd Amendment, are the greater transgressors.  Justices of various flavors have thrown away the meaning of the law in favor of modern ideas.  In this, the liberal justices have been far more free in legislating from the bench than the conservatives.  Five old men should not be changing the meaning of the Constitution.

You are also using a style of rhetoric more common from the conservatives.  You are confusing your point of view with The American Point of View.  This is a not subtle inference that what you think is correct, and what your opponents think is not American.  There are two Americas, at least, if you're only counting the bigs.  In spite of your partisan blindness, neither America is always perfectly right or perfectly wrong, or perhaps perfectly anything.

Yes, we have to confront the inhabitants of Washington DC.  I'm with you that the place to start is the Trump administration.  It doesn't stop there.  Both houses and both parties of Congress are too tight with the capitalist elite class.  The Supreme Court is too political.  A core problem is a conservative base that has preferred enabling the capitalist elites rather than let the coastal liberals transform the middle of the country by using the government to force their culture on everybody.  Of course, the central part of the country wants to transform the coasts too.

Now, I've seen often enough your perspective that you are right, those you disagree with are wrong, that the answer is intolerance, hate and beating half of America's culture into submission.  That's you.  You're hate, intolerance, and a refusal to listen personified.

And to some degree this can be justified.  There are precious essential elements of urban American culture at risk, and compromising on them isn't really an option.  The difficulty is the precious essential elements of rural American culture that are of equal merit.  What is too precious to let go of?  Excepting the precious, to what degree can the two cultures just leave each other alone?

Cause that's American too.  Liberty.  Freedom.  That means, in part, that so long as folks have rights and equality, folks shouldn't interfere with each other.  They should let each other choose and live their own diverse life styles.  Harm none, and the government strives to make sure that none harms you.  Nobody should be hatefully, stridently pushing to change others into what they are not.  From my perspective, it is the mutual intolerance and hate that is more the problem than the conflict in values and resulting drive to coerce each other.  Your basic attitude in many ways is the problem, not the solution.

Two armies, marching towards each other, with standard bearers in the lead, both flying the same flag.

In the old days, if one was hungry, one grabbed a rifle and headed off into the woods to find supper.  No paperwork.  No deep political partisanship.  That's what deer were for.  You can't arbitrarily decide that that's no longer American, that the words written in the Constitution now have a different meaning because you say so.

Last week, we were in rough agreement.  Work harder to ban possession by felons, the insane, terrorists and their ilk, with due process.  Close some loopholes in the background check process.  Acknowledge that the country is so divided that a legal extreme forcing of either culture on the other isn't going to happen.  This week you are back to your old hateful rants.  You did say you were tired of repeating yourself.  Frankly, so am I.  However, I am not one to stay silent in the face of hate, intolerance and a blatant disrespect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Eric the Green]

(05-31-2017, 11:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 10:02 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: We don't have a government that believes in America. We have a government that believes in big business and government collusion and enabling of same. We have a government that colludes with and is beholden to hostile foreign nations.

If the USA government needs to be faced down, it is no longer constitutional; in which case the 2nd amendment does not protect your right to bear arms or that of an armed populace.

The danger from such a government comes from the current regime of this time. Another Supreme Court justice appointed by this regime would cement that need to face down this current unconstitutional, un-American government.

I quite agree that the Supreme Court isn't doing its primary job of protecting the meaning of the authors and amenders of the Constitution.  I disagree that the conservatives, especially those concerned with the 2nd Amendment, are the greater transgressors.  Justices of various flavors have thrown away the meaning of the law in favor of modern ideas.  In this, the liberal justices have been far more free in legislating from the bench than the conservatives.  Five old men should not be changing the meaning of the Constitution.

You are also using a style of rhetoric more common from the conservatives.  You are confusing your point of view with The American Point of View.  This is a not subtle inference that what you think is correct, and what your opponents think is not American.  There are two Americas, at least, if you're only counting the bigs.  In spite of your partisan blindness, neither America is always perfectly right or perfectly wrong, or perhaps perfectly anything.

Yes, we have to confront the inhabitants of Washington DC.  I'm with you that the place to start is the Trump administration.  It doesn't stop there.  Both houses and both parties of Congress are too tight with the capitalist elite class.  The Supreme Court is too political.  A core problem is a conservative base that has preferred enabling the capitalist elites rather than let the coastal liberals transform the middle of the country by using the government to force their culture on everybody.  Of course, the central part of the country wants to transform the coasts too.

Now, I've seen often enough your perspective that you are right, those you disagree with are wrong, that the answer is intolerance, hate and beating half of America's culture into submission.  That's you.  You're hate, intolerance, and a refusal to listen personified.

And to some degree this can be justified.  There are precious essential elements of urban American culture at risk, and compromising on them isn't really an option.  The difficulty is the precious essential elements of rural American culture that are of equal merit.  What is too precious to let go of?  Excepting the precious, to what degree can the two cultures just leave each other alone?

Cause that's American too.  Liberty.  Freedom.  That means, in part, that so long as folks have rights and equality, folks shouldn't interfere with each other.  They should let each other choose and live their own diverse life styles.  Harm none, and the government strives to make sure that none harms you.  Nobody should be hatefully, stridently pushing to change others into what they are not.  From my perspective, it is the mutual intolerance and hate that is more the problem than the conflict in values and resulting drive to coerce each other.  Your basic attitude in many ways is the problem, not the solution.

Two armies, marching towards each other, with standard bearers in the lead, both flying the same flag.

In the old days, if one was hungry, one grabbed a rifle and headed off into the woods to find supper.  No paperwork.  No deep political partisanship.  That's what deer were for.  You can't arbitrarily decide that that's no longer American, that the words written in the Constitution now have a different meaning because you say so.

Last week, we were in rough agreement.  Work harder to ban possession by felons, the insane, terrorists and their ilk, with due process.  Close some loopholes in the background check process.  Acknowledge that the country is so divided that a legal extreme forcing of either culture on the other isn't going to happen.  This week you are back to your old hateful rants.  You did say you were tired of repeating yourself.  Frankly, so am I.  However, I am not one to stay silent in the face of hate, intolerance and a blatant disrespect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

But if you respond in kind, can you claim to be any better than I?

"You're hate, intolerance, and a refusal to listen personified.

And to some degree this can be justified."

Make up your mind. You have frequent trouble doing that in this respect.

While we may come to a level of agreement, we're not going to be in total agreement about guns, ever. That does not mean I am hateful, intolerant, don't listen, etc.. People who don't agree with you are not necessarily those things. Perhaps you could tolerate my different views. Agreement is nice when it happens, but sometimes it doesn't.

No, this was not a hateful rant above. It is perfectly obvious that any further Republican appointment to the Court will turn it into a protective agency for big business and big money, and will uphold their privileges against the rights of the people. It practically IS all these things already, thanks to Trump and Gorsuch. You can't be in favor of liberal legislation Bob, and then be in favor of a Court that will slap it down and impose conservative ideology in the name of originalism.

I can't see how if a USA government becomes unconstitutional, that it protects your right to bear arms, which is a constitutional amendment.

I can't see how this current Trump government is not one that endangers our rights and our constitution, and probably is a government in collusion with hostile foreign powers. This seems to me to be fact, not hate. I don't hate Trump or his minions. He's entertaining, and claims to love America. That's fine. But he doesn't belong in his current office, and his behavior and policies are extremely toxic. That's not hate; it's fact. And we need to resist him.

In which case, you may be right that the people need to be armed. But if it comes to that, and goes that far, the 2nd Amendment is moot and does not apply.

You could argue that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution protects the right to bear arms just in case the government later becomes unconstitutional. It's a bit of a stretch; the constitution enables a state of rebellion against the government that it itself establishes, if needed? That would probably be X_84's position and bobc's as well. But I doubt that was the intention of the framers; they were thinking of the means of protecting public safety from crime and rebellion and even invasion in the days before the USA had a standing army, national guard or police force. It "protects" the security of a free state, which means that it assumes that it is a free and thus a constitutional state. That seems a more probable interpretation to me.

[Eric the Green]

Is People for the American Way guilty of "hate, intolerance, refusal to listen," or are they closer to the truth?

quote:

We’re in a fight for the soul of our country.

If you can get past the important headlines about Trump administration corruption and the Russia investigation and the painfully mundane (and distracting) headlines about Trump’s latest typo in one of his tweets, the news from around the country is beyond disturbing.

There have always been violent elements on the modern Far Right, from the militia movement to abortion clinic bombers, but the mainstreaming of violent hate in the Trump era is something new. And make no mistake -- right-wing Republican leaders’ hands are very dirty in all of this…

The sheer brutality of their policies -- like ripping lifesaving healthcare away from 23 million people -- erodes empathy and fosters a culture of indifference to the suffering of others. Meanwhile, their encouragement of “Alt-Right” media and their tacit endorsement of attacks on journalists further radicalize their extreme base.

Some Republican officials might see this as nothing more than a cynical political calculation. But what they are doing is really much worse. They are throwing gasoline on a fire. And they need to be held accountable for it.

That’s why I’m asking for your critical end-of-month support now before our midnight deadline -- to help us keep the fight going… not just in the Resistance to Trump and his allies, but in the fight against right-wing hate and extremism at every level … the reason PFAW was created.

Will you make a donation to People For the American Way before midnight tonight, and consider making it a monthly gift?....

Take a look at what’s happening to our country, under the direct stewardship of far-right Republicans…

Trump’s budget -- which Paul Ryan called “right on target” -- takes a chainsaw to the vital programs Americans depend on:

Hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps.
Billions more in cuts to Social Security and public education.
The TOTAL ELMINIATION of the National Endowment of the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and heating assistance for low-income households.

Attacks on Freedom of the Press:

A GOP Congressional candidate in Montana violently assaulted a reporter who was trying to ask him a simple question about the Republican healthcare bill on the eve of their special election.
A journalist was arrested in West Virginia while posing healthcare questions to the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price.
Another reporter was stalked and manhandled by security guards at Federal Communications Commission headquarters when posing questions to a FCC Commissioner.

Racist hate crimes on the rise -- including high-profile incidents just this week:

An African American Army officer who was set to graduate from college this week was killed Maryland by a white college student who was a member of a racist Facebook group called “Alt-Reich.”
Three “good Samaritans” were stabbed, two of whom were killed, by a neo-Nazi in Oregon, for intervening on the behalf of two young women he was harassing on the train with racial and anti-Muslim slurs (one of the women was wearing a hijab).
A white California man attacked an African American man with a machete while shouting racial slurs.

We’re not going to sit back and watch our core values, our democratic institutions, and the American Way itself be destroyed.

We’re going to fight with everything we have and we hope that you’ll be by our side in every single step of that fight....

THANK YOU for everything you do. Your steadfast commitment to the defense of our constitutional rights and values could be this country’s only hope.

In solidarity,

Ben Betz, Director of Digital Advocacy

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-31-2017, 11:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But if you respond in kind, can you claim to be any better than I?

"You're hate, intolerance, and a refusal to listen personified.

And to some degree this can be justified."

Make up your mind. You have frequent trouble doing that in this respect.

Do you still watch 1950s style westerns? The good guys wear white hats, the bad guys black, and the goody goody types triumph at the end of every episode? Have you noted that as time has gone by, Hollywood and their audience have evolved into portraying more complex values, characters, conflict and situations?

The world is more complicated if you try to respect the other guys, if you believe that most cultures have valid reasons for coming into existence, and members of said cultures still think those reasons valid.

If you shut your ears rather than listen to and respect other's beliefs, you can live in an imaginary world with simple answers to all sorts of questions. Cynic Hero lives in another such world. Lots of us have such worlds. It is sometimes amusing to listen, try to figure them out, and maybe sometimes try to break the values luck. The hazards of that is bruises on one's forehead as one smacks one's self in frustration.

[Eric the Green]

No I don't watch 1950s westerns. Guns do not concern a valid "culture," and the issue does not depend on "values." We all value safety. This is a public safety question on the use of a particular technology used to kill. We have different views on (among other things) how possession and use of guns affect public safety and self-defense.

Yes, it is wise to accept that people have different views. My views are based on my best evidence and my best knowledge of truth, and the ideals and values I hold. All people share a lot of the same values. I can always learn more.

Integral philosophy and spiral dynamics (and planetary dynamics) shows the stages and evolution of different cultural values. As you say, these cultures came into existence for valid reasons at their stage, "and members of said cultures still think those reasons valid." That is in accord with integral philosophy and spiral/planetary dynamics. At their best, higher stages transcend and include the lower ones. Different people are at different stages and hold the corresponding values memes. Cynic Hero is stuck on the red or Mars meme. I am between green (Pluto) and yellow (solar) memes. You are primarily between the orange (Uranus) stage, and the lemon (Neptune) stage. Your empirical science views may still be at the brown (Saturn) stage, apparently, to the extent they are based on Newtonian mechanics, rather than Einstein and quantum theories that understand the role of the observer (not the Many Worlds interpretation which is an attempt to evade it and preserve Newton-era science).

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-02-2017, 09:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No I don't watch 1950s westerns. Guns do not concern a valid "culture," and the issue does not depend on "values." We all value safety. This is a public safety question on the use of a particular technology used to kill. We have different views on (among other things) how possession and use of guns affect public safety and self-defense.

Yes, it is wise to accept that people have different views. My views are based on my best evidence and my best knowledge of truth, and the ideals and values I hold. All people share a lot of the same values. I can always learn more.

Integral philosophy and spiral dynamics (and planetary dynamics) shows the stages and evolution of different cultural values. As you say, these cultures came into existence for valid reasons at their stage, "and members of said cultures still think those reasons valid." That is in accord with integral philosophy and spiral/planetary dynamics. At their best, higher stages transcend and include the lower ones. Different people are at different stages and hold the corresponding values memes. Cynic Hero is stuck on the red or Mars meme. I am between green (Pluto) and yellow (solar) memes. You are primarily between the orange (Uranus) stage, and the lemon (Neptune) stage. Your empirical science views may still be at the brown (Saturn) stage, apparently, to the extent they are based on Newtonian mechanics, rather than Einstein and quantum theories that understand the role of the observer (not the Many Worlds interpretation which is an attempt to evade it and preserve Newton-era science).

I’ll acknowledge that cultures evolve, and my ‘arrow of progress’ meme buys into the notion that there is a direction we are moving that can be observed.  One aspect is that in the old days (hunter gatherer and agricultural age cultures) violence was used much more commonly to resolve cultural and political conflicts.  Enlightenment concepts such as human rights, democracy and equality attempt to reduce such violence.

Yet, so long as a culture or large numbers of individuals within a culture seek goals using violence, violence will still be around.  The US is meddling in the Middle East.  Many in red cultural areas want to continue to exercise a perceived right to self defense.  Criminals exist in locations labeled both red and blue.  In abstract, ideally, it is easy to wish upon a star that all the violence could go away.  One can state that cultures where it has started to go away have ‘evolved’ more than others.

But you shouldn’t confuse evolution with morality.  Evolution favors the survival of that which survives.  In some respects, it’s less a theory than a tautology.  During the guided age, Darwinism was used to justify the strong exploiting the weak.  Thus, I can get befuddled when addressing a question that can be perceived from both angles.  What is apt to happen given a world of tooth and claw?  On the other hand, what ought to happen?  What sort of culture should we strive to build to keep teeth and claws blood free?

Should we be building more aircraft carrier battle groups?

In the Middle East, we have a surplus of agricultural age cultures.  Strongman rulers force their will upon lesser beings.  Surely, they are less evolved than we?  Surely it is right and proper to force their culture to change at gunpoint, and to drop bombs on them until they do?  The time of the agricultural age pattern is over.  They are going to have to shift anyway.  

And yet, as former colonial possessions, they have seen the worst of both the Enlightenment and Marxist patterns.  Both, to a great degree, are an excuse for strong men to gather power.  Middle easterners have good reason to reject the great western memes, and thus are clinging to the agricultural age Islam in this conflict.  How would they not?  And if bombed, how would they not strive to strike back in any way possible?

To me, when one is striving for both a moral solution, and a plausible solution, things get complicated.  I believe in morality, that there is an arrow of progress that points towards a moral, just yet practical solutions.  Not always.  Not easily.  In traveling in the direction of the arrow of progress, you aren’t apt to be moving in a straight line.  Things get complicated.

Then there is the US gun policy question.  Have we developed an advanced enough culture to let go of violence?  Do we need to and have a right to protect ourselves?  Again, that’s a practical question and a moral question.  There are those who would answer differently.  The answer indeed varies depending on environment and culture.

One place where we differer is in readiness to judge people and cultures.  You have an extreme faith in your ability to judge how much a person or a group has evolved.  The group who uses force the least is right and has a duty to force the other group to become more like it?  Color me dubious.  It’s more complicated.  Forcing people to use less force is a dubious proposition.  Leave the poor people alone.  Freedom and liberty mean part of the country shouldn’t be trying to force the other part to become something they are not.

***

On another front, I’m a fan of many worlds for reasons you don’t fully get.  I do have an interest in parapsychology, as opposed to the occult.  There is repeated evidence of reverse time causality.  Something that might happen in the future can effect the probability of something happening before.

I became convinced that if the futures matter, if there is more feedback in one set of possible futures than another, that the alternate futures must be real.  The many worlds alternate futures are somehow effecting the present.

While you might perceive the many words perspective as an attempt to preserve the Newtonian perspective, my own attitude is that many worlds is necessary to explain the experimental result, and way far out weird enough that I’m not trying to preserve an old dated perspective.

Now over the years I have said this repeatedly in several ways, yet you have not listened, or not understood, or have not remembered.  For whatever reason you continue to entirely misrepresent my position on quantum physics.  This is hardly surprising.  You do not listen, understand or remember an awful lot.  I believe a lot of why you refuse to listen, understand or remember is that you do not want to have to tune and change your own particular way of looking at things.

You have your own judgements.  Your way of looking at things builds in these judgements, including disregarding what you ought to know about the things your are judging.

[Mikebert]

(05-30-2017, 06:29 PM)bobc Wrote: The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is to have, in the people, the military power to face down the government.

If this is true and one interprets what you said literally, then this means any citizen or group of citizens has to right to acquire and possess powerful military weapons, even those typically only available to states.  

So if US citizens who are members of a military-religious order construct an anthrax weapon or Sarin weapons, they have a constitutional right to do so?  

If this order were al Qaeda or ISIS, would that not disturb you?  Yet on what constitutional grounds could you deny them the right to build WMDs?

[Eric the Green]

(06-07-2017, 06:54 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 09:47 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No I don't watch 1950s westerns. Guns do not concern a valid "culture," and the issue does not depend on "values." We all value safety. This is a public safety question on the use of a particular technology used to kill. We have different views on (among other things) how possession and use of guns affect public safety and self-defense.

Yes, it is wise to accept that people have different views. My views are based on my best evidence and my best knowledge of truth, and the ideals and values I hold. All people share a lot of the same values. I can always learn more.

Integral philosophy and spiral dynamics (and planetary dynamics) shows the stages and evolution of different cultural values. As you say, these cultures came into existence for valid reasons at their stage, "and members of said cultures still think those reasons valid." That is in accord with integral philosophy and spiral/planetary dynamics. At their best, higher stages transcend and include the lower ones. Different people are at different stages and hold the corresponding values memes. Cynic Hero is stuck on the red or Mars meme. I am between green (Pluto) and yellow (solar) memes. You are primarily between the orange (Uranus) stage, and the lemon (Neptune) stage. Your empirical science views may still be at the brown (Saturn) stage, apparently, to the extent they are based on Newtonian mechanics, rather than Einstein and quantum theories that understand the role of the observer (not the Many Worlds interpretation which is an attempt to evade it and preserve Newton-era science).

I’ll acknowledge that cultures evolve, and my ‘arrow of progress’ meme buys into the notion that there is a direction we are moving that can be observed.  One aspect is that in the old days (hunter gatherer and agricultural age cultures) violence was used much more commonly to resolve cultural and political conflicts.  Enlightenment concepts such as human rights, democracy and equality attempt to reduce such violence.

Yet, so long as a culture or large numbers of individuals within a culture seek goals using violence, violence will still be around.  The US is meddling in the Middle East.  Many in red cultural areas want to continue to exercise a perceived right to self defense.  Criminals exist in locations labeled both red and blue.  In abstract, ideally, it is easy to wish upon a star that all the violence could go away.  One can state that cultures where it has started to go away have ‘evolved’ more than others.

But you shouldn’t confuse evolution with morality.  Evolution favors the survival of that which survives.  In some respects, it’s less a theory than a tautology.  During the guided age, Darwinism was used to justify the strong exploiting the weak.  Thus, I can get befuddled when addressing a question that can be perceived from both angles.  What is apt to happen given a world of tooth and claw?  On the other hand, what ought to happen?  What sort of culture should we strive to build to keep teeth and claws blood free?

Should we be building more aircraft carrier battle groups?

Violence isn't going away tomorrow. With my different view of evolution, I don't see morality as separate from it. As life develops, its abilities develop. Darwin only outlined the mechanical aspects of evolution, promoting it on the basis of the paradigm of cause and effect from without inward. But actually, life grows from within outward. That's observable in any living thing. And within everything, is spirit or consciousness. So, with this different view, I have a different outlook on life and evolution than yours. It is only a world of tooth and claw to the degree that we still have not grown, evolved and developed our inward potential enough yet. But that's life too; it was not all created in one moment from without inward by a Bid Daddy in the Sky. That's not how it works either.

Quote:In the Middle East, we have a surplus of agricultural age (RED/Mars) cultures.  Strongman rulers force their will upon lesser beings.  Surely, they are less evolved than we?  Surely it is right and proper to force their culture to change at gunpoint, and to drop bombs on them until they do?  The time of the agricultural age pattern is over.  They are going to have to shift anyway.  

And yet, as former colonial possessions, they have seen the worst of both the Enlightenment (ORANGE/Uranus) and Marxist (LEMON/Neptune) patterns.  Both, to a great degree, are an excuse for strong men to gather power.  Middle easterners have good reason to reject the great western memes, and thus are clinging to the agricultural age Islam (BLUE/Jupiter) in this conflict.  How would they not?  And if bombed, how would they not strive to strike back in any way possible?

To me, when one is striving for both a moral solution, and a plausible solution, things get complicated.  I believe in morality, that there is an arrow of progress that points towards a moral, just yet practical solutions.  Not always.  Not easily.  In traveling in the direction of the arrow of progress, you aren’t apt to be moving in a straight line.  Things get complicated.

Then there is the US gun policy question.  Have we developed an advanced enough culture to let go of violence?  Do we need to and have a right to protect ourselves?  Again, that’s a practical question and a moral question.  There are those who would answer differently.  The answer indeed varies depending on environment and culture.

No question about all that.

Quote:One place where we differ is in readiness to judge people and cultures.  You have an extreme faith in your ability to judge how much a person or a group has evolved.  The group who uses force the least is right and has a duty to force the other group to become more like it?  Color me dubious.  It’s more complicated.  Forcing people to use less force is a dubious proposition.  Leave the poor people alone.  Freedom and liberty mean part of the country shouldn’t be trying to force the other part to become something they are not.

But we can force public safety on a group that does not appear to be concerned about it, if we choose as a society to do so. No doubt, if this is done, elements in Red America may violently resist. I am aware of that. I am aware that they are in the wrong about that too. But I have given up on the idea of forcing them to get rid of their guns entirely. Forcing non-force is not workable; I have already agreed with that. But needed laws and regulations can be imposed. Red America needs to leave US alone and stop forcing their views on the poor people of the cities dying from rampant gun violence.

Quote:On another front, I’m a fan of many worlds for reasons you don’t fully get.  I do have an interest in parapsychology, as opposed to the occult.  There is repeated evidence of reverse time causality.  Something that might happen in the future can effect the probability of something happening before.

I became convinced that if the futures matter, if there is more feedback in one set of possible futures than another, that the alternate futures must be real.  The many worlds alternate futures are somehow effecting the present.

While you might perceive the many words perspective as an attempt to preserve the Newtonian perspective, my own attitude is that many worlds is necessary to explain the experimental result, and way far out weird enough that I’m not trying to preserve an old dated perspective.

Now over the years I have said this repeatedly in several ways, yet you have not listened, or not understood, or have not remembered.  For whatever reason you continue to entirely misrepresent my position on quantum physics.  This is hardly surprising.  You do not listen, understand or remember an awful lot.  I believe a lot of why you refuse to listen, understand or remember is that you do not want to have to tune and change your own particular way of looking at things.

You have your own judgements.  Your way of looking at things builds in these judgements, including disregarding what you ought to know about the things your are judging.

When you judge me in those ways, however, you are no better than me.

My view is that the Copenhagen interpretation accounts better for possible futures than the Many Worlds interpretation, which is an attempt to preserve the old paradigm by evading the role of the observer. But only if consciousness and the observer are seen to be real, can any choice in possible futures exist. The way I have heard MWs explained to me doesn't have much to do with the future, but with parallel worlds. But you're welcome to add your views if you think I am incorrect on it. I am not an expert quantum scientist, so my opinions about it can't be set in stone (as you might assume).

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-07-2017, 11:03 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But we can force public safety on a group that does not appear to be concerned about it, if we choose as a society to do so. No doubt, if this is done, elements in Red America may violently resist. I am aware of that. I am aware that they are in the wrong about that too. But I have given up on the idea of forcing them to get rid of their guns entirely. Forcing non-force is not workable; I have already agreed with that. But needed laws and regulations can be imposed. Red America needs to leave US alone and stop forcing their views on the poor people of the cities dying from rampant gun violence.

But there is no lack of concern about personal, family and community safety in the red community.  Both sides want safer communities, and see the other faction as making their world unsafe.  There is just a disagreement on how to achieve protection.  As I perceive it, population density is a large factor in how to achieve public safety.  Depending on the government for defense works better if there are cops nearer by.  Both cultures have identified the best approach to public safety in their environment and regions, with many trying to force their approach on others in very different environments.  

One size does not fit all.  To me, what you are trying to is force the system which sorta works well in your local region on everybody.  In order to do this, you ignore or impugn what others have seen and done in other parts of the world.

(06-07-2017, 11:03 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My view is that the Copenhagen interpretation accounts better for possible futures than the Many Worlds interpretation, which is an attempt to preserve the old paradigm by evading the role of the observer. But only if consciousness and the observer are seen to be real, can any choice in possible futures exist. The way I have heard MWs explained to me doesn't have much to do with the future, but with parallel worlds. But you're welcome to add your views if you think I am incorrect on it. I am not an expert quantum scientist, so my opinions about it can't be set in stone (as you might assume).

I prefer many worlds as it explains observable data the Copenhagen can't account for.  As I've never been able to get you to read and understand the data, and not for lack of trying, I don't really anticipate your accepting or understanding where I'm coming from.

On a more broad intuitive comfort level, I'd prefer many worlds for other reasons.  The universe worked just fine before there were observers, and the rules of physics seem not to have changed when observers finally came into being.  Thus, at gut level, the need and role of observers that exists in some variants of the Copenhagen perspective makes me uncomfortable.  The universe ran just fine without observers.

To me, neither psi nor every day life has people selecting what is going to happen.  In my personal experience, events that generate higher emotion, thus a higher metabolism, thus a greater number of quantum collapse events, become ever so slightly more probable.  Of course, I haven't been able to truly convince anyone, either physicist or parapsychologist, that I'm onto something.  You are hardly the only person to reject my scheme.  In this respect, you are part of that class of beings best described as everyone but me.

Still, in my youth, the Great Problem was whether science or spiritualism/religion ought to be the primary dominant world view.  Where should I hang my hat?  Many people seemed able to keep the science half or their way of looking at things separate from their religion.  I couldn't.  I felt a need to keep digging at things.

It came down to the question of whether, when and how the mind could directly effect matter.  Could prayer or psi experiments demonstrate some power of the mind over the material world?  I saw considerable circumstantial evidence of strange coincidences in the born again Christian movement, and in occult circles.  Still, the emotions involved and invoked in creating these minor miracles, these so called 'Christian coincidences', was not consistent with the motives and ethics of the spiritual beings that were hypothesized by the religious and occult leaders, groups and traditions I associated with.

The probability shifts were associated with very emotional people creating very emotional situations.  No ultra wisdom.  No wise or powerful being somehow perpetually just out of sight.  Just random highly emotional weirdness.  Thus, when I gave up on religion and the occult and turned to scientific parapsychology as a way of examining mind over matter, the notion that the more emotional future was slightly more probable clicked in.

Of course, being scientists, embracing data rather than feeling, the parapsychology folk didn't get significant probability shift.  Emotion was considered a bias, an affront to objectivity.  It was judged as a prejudice to be eliminated rather than a big part of what they were trying to study.  The probability shifts the scientists generated under tight scientific protocol seemed tiny when compared to what I saw in the wild of various religious and occult cults.

Still, that's where my interest in the scientific view of the universe trumped my interest in religion and the occult.  I became more the engineer, less the believer from then on.  I feel safe to say that this is a significant difference between us that isn't apt to change.  To me, occult and religious people tend to be emotional and effected by emotional pseudo random events.  The mind does effect matter, but the universe is not particularly wise nor beneficial.  It is random and tends towards emotion.

That's a very different perspective.

[Eric the Green]

(06-07-2017, 02:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-07-2017, 11:03 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But we can force public safety on a group that does not appear to be concerned about it, if we choose as a society to do so. No doubt, if this is done, elements in Red America may violently resist. I am aware of that. I am aware that they are in the wrong about that too. But I have given up on the idea of forcing them to get rid of their guns entirely. Forcing non-force is not workable; I have already agreed with that. But needed laws and regulations can be imposed. Red America needs to leave US alone and stop forcing their views on the poor people of the cities dying from rampant gun violence.

But there is no lack of concern about personal, family and community safety in the red community.  Both sides want safer communities, and see the other faction as making their world unsafe.  There is just a disagreement on how to achieve protection.  As I perceive it, population density is a large factor in how to achieve public safety.  Depending on the government for defense works better if there are cops nearer by.  Both cultures have identified the best approach to public safety in their environment and regions, with many trying to force their approach on others in very different environments.  

One size does not fit all.  To me, what you are trying to is force the system which sorta works well in your local region on everybody.  In order to do this, you ignore or impugn what others have seen and done in other parts of the world.

Nope.

No-one needs military weapons of any kind, unless we are in the throes of revolution.

Quote:

(06-07-2017, 11:03 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My view is that the Copenhagen interpretation accounts better for possible futures than the Many Worlds interpretation, which is an attempt to preserve the old paradigm by evading the role of the observer. But only if consciousness and the observer are seen to be real, can any choice in possible futures exist. The way I have heard MWs explained to me doesn't have much to do with the future, but with parallel worlds. But you're welcome to add your views if you think I am incorrect on it. I am not an expert quantum scientist, so my opinions about it can't be set in stone (as you might assume).

I prefer many worlds as it explains observable data the Copenhagen can't account for.  As I've never been able to get you to read and understand the data, and not for lack of trying, I don't really anticipate your accepting or understanding where I'm coming from.

Probably, since I don't think the Copenhagen is lacking in explanations, and frankly accepts uncertainty, which is not only wise, but from what I can tell, is inherent in the mathematics of quantum theory itself. Quantum Theory/Mechanics is a breakthrough precisely because it admits the significance of the observer to the experiment. Interpretations that attempt to explain the data without the observer, or consciousness, reverse that breakthrough and send us back into a Newtonian world of pure cause/effect mechanics. That is the issue, and it can't be skirted. Nothing exists except within a mind, and within all minds.

You can refer to emotion as some kind of causative factor. But then your concept needs to be defined to see if you are skirting the issue or not. If emotion is a physical reaction of some kind, you're back to Newton (just like Freud was). If it's a kind of consciousness, then you're in the realm of the new paradigm.

Quote:On a more broad intuitive comfort level, I'd prefer many worlds for other reasons.  The universe worked just fine before there were observers, and the rules of physics seem not to have changed when observers finally came into being.  Thus, at gut level, the need and role of observers that exists in some variants of the Copenhagen perspective makes me uncomfortable.  The universe ran just fine without observers.

Actually, it did not. There are two answers to that, if not more. 1) the universe is conscious on some level, even within the inanimate. 2) the universe comes into being like an electric current. If the end is not connected to the beginning, the current doesn't flow. So, human consciousness and beyond is embedded in the universe even when there aren't human or animal observers around, just as you can't see a cherry in the bark or seed of a tree, but it's implied.

Quote:To me, neither psi nor every day life has people selecting what is going to happen.  In my personal experience, events that generate higher emotion, thus a higher metabolism, thus a greater number of quantum collapse events, become ever so slightly more probable.  Of course, I haven't been able to truly convince anyone, either physicist or parapsychologist, that I'm onto something.  You are hardly the only person to reject my scheme.  In this respect, you are part of that class of beings best described as everyone but me.

I have heard the research that says that in our personal lives, events that generate negative emotion tend to be the most memorable.

The voluntary and the involuntary are interconnected; so choice is something that happens, and vice-versa.

Quote:Still, in my youth, the Great Problem was whether science or spiritualism/religion ought to be the primary dominant world view.  Where should I hang my hat?  Many people seemed able to keep the science half or their way of looking at things separate from their religion.  I couldn't.  I felt a need to keep digging at things.

It came down to the question of whether, when and how the mind could directly effect matter.  Could prayer or psi experiments demonstrate some power of the mind over the material world?  I saw considerable circumstantial evidence of strange coincidences in the born again Christian movement, and in occult circles.  Still, the emotions involved and invoked in creating these minor miracles, these so called 'Christian coincidences', was not consistent with the motives and ethics of the spiritual beings that were hypothesized by the religious and occult leaders, groups and traditions I associated with.

The probability shifts were associated with very emotional people creating very emotional situations.  No ultra wisdom.  No wise or powerful being somehow perpetually just out of sight.  Just random highly emotional weirdness.  Thus, when I gave up on religion and the occult and turned to scientific parapsychology as a way of examining mind over matter, the notion that the more emotional future was slightly more probable clicked in.

Of course, being scientists, embracing data rather than feeling, the parapsychology folk didn't get significant probability shift.  Emotion was considered a bias, an affront to objectivity.  It was judged as a prejudice to be eliminated rather than a big part of what they were trying to study.  The probability shifts the scientists generated under tight scientific protocol seemed tiny when compared to what I saw in the wild of various religious and occult cults.

Still, that's where my interest in the scientific view of the universe trumped my interest in religion and the occult.  I became more the engineer, less the believer from then on.  I feel safe to say that this is a significant difference between us that isn't apt to change.  To me, occult and religious people tend to be emotional and effected by emotional pseudo random events.  The mind does effect matter, but the universe is not particularly wise nor beneficial.  It is random and tends towards emotion.

That's a very different perspective.

Yes, I would tend to think the universe is not random, and tends toward wisdom. But no doubt, there's lots of behavior by humans and other living things that cast a shadow on those ideas. Lots of folks tend to reject the paranormal today, especially among millennials interested in science. I've seen the evidence which they refuse to consider, and so I am not convinced to go back to the old paradigms, before this saeculum's Awakening that brought the new ones into the mainstream for a while.

And philosophy remains relevant in my mind to knowledge of reality, along with science, art and mysticism.

[Bob Butler 54]

Hmm. The quantum equations show may solutions, many things that might come to pass. They only provide a probability of which of these things might come to pass.

Copenhagen presumes that as one can only observe one universe, it is natural to assume that this and only this universe is real. All other universes can be presumed not to matter, or not to exist.

Many worlds acknowledges that only one universe is going to be observable and observed, but takes a leap in saying that all solutions to the equation are equal. The are all presumed to be equally real, though only one can be observed.

In most to every matter, the two perspectives use the same identical equations, and get the same identical probabilistic answers.

My system proposes that the more emotional future becomes more probable, more likely to be observed. Thus, as shown experimentally, the future effects the past. If a team scores at a sporting event, that team and its fans become emotional, jump up and down, scream, and otherwise express their approval by increasing their metabolism, thus increasing the number of quantum events happening, which increases the number of alternate worlds associated with the score on the field. At the same time, the opposite team and their fans will be depressed, emotionally and metabolically. They will precede to create less alternate realities.

Simplistically speaking, if there are more alternate futures where something happens, you are more apt to observe one of those futures. While the emotion and the probability changing metabolic shifts come after the score, the chances of scoring is effected by what happens after the score. That’s what I mean be ‘reverse time causality,’ the future effecting the past. The desire to applaud after something good happens is an instinctive form of ‘magic’. It is an instinct that creates probability shifts favoring good outcomes.

Whether or not there is an emotional probability shift, the equations no doubt about it say there are more than one possible outcome, and that one can only project probabilities. If you honor quantum physics at all, one has to accept a universe that is basically random. That is what the equations used by both Copenhagen and many worlds say. There is more than one solution. We will only observe one solution. In advance, we cannot say which solution, only how likely each is to be observed. Thus, the universe is random.

Wisdom? This requires well evolved brains. Brains are incredibly complex. There is no room for this sort of thing in the equations.

To my mind, you are creating your system of thought to extend the idea of supernatural beings or universal super minds. These ideas are common in agricultural age systems of thought. You too might be accused of twisting your mode of thought to sustain old ways of thinking.

I’d wield Occam’s Razor. Gods, observers effecting quantum events, universal super minds, are all unnecessary hypotheses. I don’t need any of them to explain my universe, even though I do see mind effecting matter, if only by recognizing good events and pushing one’s body to race one’s metabolism after a good event.

But if you are saying the universe is not random, your viewpoint is not at all compatible with quantum theory. It is you that are embracing Newtonian thought, that the universe is clockwork, that there is only one possible solution to the equations, only one possible outcome.

[Eric the Green]

(06-07-2017, 04:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  The quantum equations show may solutions, many things that might come to pass.  They only provide a probability of which of these things might come to pass.

Copenhagen presumes that as one can only observe one universe, it is natural to assume that this and only this universe is real.  All other universes can be presumed not to matter, or not to exist.

Many worlds acknowledges that only one universe is going to be observable and observed, but takes a leap in saying that all solutions to the equation are equal.  The are all presumed to be equally real, though only one can be observed.

In most to every matter, the two perspectives use the same identical equations, and get the same identical probabilistic answers.

My system proposes that the more emotional future becomes more probable, more likely to be observed.  Thus, as shown experimentally, the future effects the past.  If a team scores at a sporting event, that team and its fans become emotional, jump up and down, scream, and otherwise express their approval by increasing their metabolism, thus increasing the number of quantum events happening, which increases the number of alternate worlds associated with the score on the field.  At the same time, the opposite team and their fans will be depressed, emotionally and metabolically.  They will precede to create less alternate realities.

Simplistically speaking, if there are more alternate futures where something happens, you are more apt to observe one of those futures.  While the emotion and the probability changing metabolic shifts come after the score, the chances of scoring is effected by what happens after the score.  That’s what I mean be ‘reverse time causality,’ the future effecting the past.  The desire to applaud after something good happens is an instinctive form of ‘magic’.  It is an instinct that creates probability shifts favoring good outcomes.

Whether or not there is an emotional probability shift, the equations no doubt about it say there are more than one possible outcome, and that one can only project probabilities.  If you honor quantum physics at all, one has to accept a universe that is basically random.  That is what the equations used by both Copenhagen and many worlds say.  There is more than one solution.  We will only observe one solution.  In advance, we cannot say which solution, only how likely each is to be observed.  Thus, the universe is random.

Wisdom?  This requires well evolved brains.  Brains are incredibly complex.  There is no room for this sort of thing in the equations.

To my mind,  you are creating your system of thought to extend the idea of supernatural beings or universal super minds.  These ideas are common in agricultural age systems of thought.  You too might be accused of twisting your mode of thought to sustain old ways of thinking.

I’d wield Occam’s Razor.  Gods, observers effecting quantum events, universal super minds, are all unnecessary hypotheses.  I don’t need any of them to explain my universe, even though I do see mind effecting matter, if only by recognizing good events and pushing one’s body to race one’s metabolism after a good event.

But if you are saying the universe is not random, your viewpoint is not at all compatible with quantum theory.  It is you that are embracing Newtonian thought, that the universe is clockwork, that there is only one possible solution to the equations, only one possible outcome.

Nice try! You can articulate your view, and I will articulate mine.

IF there really is "mind," which you refer to, then it can't be explained as matter.

The universal mind or cosmic consciousness did occur to a few mystic esoteric initiates and philosophers in the agricultural age, but they were hardly the dominant paradigm or attitude shaping the culture. Still, it lies at the heart of all the religions. Traditional religion in The West remained authoritarian; roughly the idea that a personal god created the world; the Big Daddy in the sky. In the Orient, though, mystical or at least organic views of the cosmos were more prevalent, and so they remain. Modernists adopted materialism; but it's outdated, and post-modern and new age views embrace consciousness again, in an updated way.

Uncertain or probable does not mean random, as I understand the term. I view probability as more a statement of the limits of knowledge, rather than a definite proclamation that the world happens all by chance. But yes, I am all for minds. I don't use the term supernatural, because there's no division between consciousness and nature; everything is conscious. Pan psychism. Right now, I can't prove it's compatible with quantum theory; maybe another time    

(and on another thread....) See my new thread "New Paradigms" in the spirituality forum.

Gotta go now.