hythloday, godel, penrose 1ofX

• axioms can't be proved mathematically (with formalism)
• people still want to know how we find them
• and how we can confirm them as truly well found
• people still want to know how we justify them
• to see if we really can
• I don't see anything at odds, it's just that WITHIN mathematics the rule, of necessity, is assume these things.  Assume induction.  Look, induction is better than that, it's not merely assumed, we're forced to "assume it" but it's not like assuming something else, say "fooduction" will do just as well.  
• I have long thought we find the axioms through trial and error, namely, through evolution
• Penrose thinks there is another way, which I see as quite possibly similar, that is, the quantum computational methods of "trial and error" or "parallel modeling" in which multiple models can be simulated at once.
• he thinks I'm wrong about G(R).  G(R)
• Penrose on Platonism
• platonism... plato said we didn't have to assume, we had direct access to the truth of the axioms, they were essentially a priori and true-in-themselves
• your relations-in-math diagram is nice... but there is no representation of these foundationalist issues... it's just "formal systems"... iow, "some formal system"... but some people look into the detail of that, and that's where the problem is.  
• when I talk about ideas that turn out not true, I'm comparing all things we think to induction... if we "just assume induction" and "just assume, say, racial superiority"... sorry, induction is cool that latter is bogus... and so far, induction is solid as a rock... but just "assumed"... 
• you have argued against Penrose's examples as with chess, and space filling... well sorry, I think he had a point...  why even bother with that... it's easier and the same exact subject to ask ourselves how we know induction is true... it seems true, it works fabulously well, practically, to assume it's true (you get math and lots of formal logic of use)... it's a bit unsatisfactory to say "we don't know that's true"... that I know an apple can be nutritious more than I know that induction is true.  Or even deduction.
• I'm sorry, I don't feel I am competant to defend penrose's argument against yours... I think penrose makes his point well... which means if I try, I'll probably just be trying to show you how you've misunderstood the issue.   If you want me to try to explain his explanation, ok, but I couldn't do it better than him.  I could run through it and tell you what I think it means. While I don't believe in all of this, if you are familiar with complexity theory, you'll see all he's talking about is especialy NP-hard type things, that computers suck at but humans HAVE been able to formalize.
• You reject Penrose but all he is saying is that human, heuristic methods, work better than analytic ones, even in finite games like chess where one might think analytics was not only sufficient but superior.
•  one way to talk about this is to ask... can an assumption be made computationally?  it would seem not.  it's posited, and from a logical point of view it's out of thin air.  But really it's out of something... I'd say trial and error of evolution as a default, Penrose says, out of the platonic realm which is accessible in quantum computation.
• (16:11) it sounds like you say you don't think there is some way to FOUND the axioms.  So you think they are without foundation.  They are held by... faith?!??!  please no. Right, if just defining as true is ok, then why can't I define anything I want to be true?  
• note: trial and error answers this... you assume as true and if it fails a trial, you say, nope.
• 
  
• 
  

Mangina to Mangina

• up front: you won't believe this but I like you. you transition, you are open, you are non-groupish... so it pained me you were such an emotionally driven irrationalist in this video.  It saddened me.  I hope I don't make you so butthurt at the end of this video that you come up with more paranoid fantasies about what I'm about.  Otoh, we'll just have to find out, eh?
• One thing I like is that you give me a lot of credit... too much actually, to the point of paranoia, but it shows you think there is stage craft and planning, careful manipulation in my work, and as an improvisationalist, this is one thing I want to project into my videos, the sense that there is a re aon, somehow.  That it is to accomplish something.  Then, under the window of that impression, I can admit why I'm really hear without guilt... cause truth is, I feel guilty about the fact I am NOT trying to convince you.  I don't see the point, you don't seem like a bunch of power brokers to me.  What I'm trying to do is collect information, formalize what I can formalize, and ensure I have a good sample to study. It's terribly self serving, but luckilly no one will believe that, they assume I must be trying to convince them... cause, you know, they're special.
• Late in the video you ask why I want to make it only about women.  I don't.  You even play parts of my video where I say I'm into trying to do gender activism in a paired way, both genders at a time... not equality, but equity, like breast cancer and prostate cancer research, balance them, integrate them as  each-gender-needs-some-things-the-other-doesn't. You are making shit up.  Shut up.  What REALLY happened is all yall are bad mouthing all people that consider themselves feminist, you are bad mouthing anyone that focusses on women's issues... and that's like bad mouthing a specialty in biology because there are other areas of study.  Instead of study it's activism of some sort.  You don't seek out reasonable feminists, like me, to discuss actual world issues, you are just butthurt about women and the pendulum swing and whine whine whine, and we gather around to listen to the wounded animals moaning.
• I never called you a misogynist... don't get hurt, I'm sorry, I like handling delicate animals and I try not to break your fragile assumptions, really, give me another chance... tell me where it hurts.
• VIDEO NOTES
• Stephani took her video down as I was uploading mine, she had not seen mine.  Further, she apologized and I told her no problem.  In reality, it is a problem imo, but it's also a personal decision.
• The stuff about me wanting to get people to take videos down is baseless and offensive.  How about you take how I behave into account when analyzing my behavior.  To the contrary on that point.
• You liken my criticisms of points to the hate I'm talking about, I think you know the difference, it's stupid to act like a criticism is the same as violent rhetoric and threats.  What you identify as insults you have to put a lot of interpretation into, there is no "bitch blah blah blah" in my videos, and kind of fuck you for wasting my time without acknowledging that.  But then, evidently I hurt a lot of people by not agreeing with their take on things.  Oddly, I don't feel hurt at all when I'm the one criticized, and sometimes I feel better informed.
• you talk about the issue of is Stephanie MRA... in my video I acknowledge she classifies herself as a Gender Egalitarian or similar, thanks for noticing.
• twisting language: I find people say this when they discover words have more than one meaning, or they just don't like the result.  The rape culture is the culture of people that rape, or in some way advocate, or otherwise give aid and comfort to the former.  That's what the language already means, it doesn't fit with your complaint, so you don't like it.  Don't say it doesn't exist then, say it's not as wide... that Not All Men Are Like That.  You want to get away with your rigged terms, sorry.
• you are twisting the meaning of "culture" and acting like subcultures don't exists... the group of racists approve of rape, that's the group we start with.
• tell me if society accepts it... some subcultures accept, some repudiate.  And your argument that it's not "rape culture" if the mainstream rejects it... GUESS what?!?!? the mainstream rejects "all men are rapists" and "gendercide", so I guess you should shut up about the culture of feminism... oh well.  
• moderate catholics: would you say all catholics are conservative?
• you don't believe patriarchy, which you take to be the idea that all men are sociopaths... that's not a mainstream view... who believes all men are sociopaths... the radfem culture?  oh dears.
• I won't find the patriarchical attitudes in such a country eh?  Well, I showed a shitload of  prominant republicans with patriarchal attitudes, and I linked a frat caught yelling "no means yes, yes means anal" at the top of their lungs on campus... QED eos
• you ask is it good enough if most feminists don't hate men?  you are a hypocrite... is it good enough if most men are not consciously out to dominate women?  it cuts both ways genius.
• this is not a hang out group, this is an area of activism, and for people that want to change politics, it's not a hang out group, it's not an affinity group, it's an activism area.  To be a physicist doesn't mean agreeing with all physicists... that's not how it works.  Feminism is not rallied around hating men, it rally's aruond gender-based discrimination. 
• you don't believe in group think... perhaps when in a group, but you seem to believe in it outside the group.
• why were my comment to you less concialatory than my later vids... because I was bringing it back on coarse from my honest immediate reaction... however, I don't think that reaction was so bad, have no idea why it hurt so much.
• Let's look at the comments, as always, awesome comments from me!
• women and men have been oppressed, I acknowledge this, and you say I don't want to admit it.  Word Twisting.  My point is to look at the justifications... mostly men were oppressed economically along with their whole family suffering that oppression... secondarilly men have been oppressed by being drug off to war preferentially, but that itself is part of the patriarchy... the patriarch idolizes the warrior.
• feminism is not a primary area of activism for me, I merely appreciate the need for work in that area... primarilly I'm concerned with systematic economic oppression, atm.
• you argue men and women have issues, IN THE PRESENT, and yet you think the feminists should stop working on the women issues and the men's right activist... wait... what should they do again?
• you guys want to disagree with everything, you almost NEVER pick out something you could agree on, usually you appear to seek things to disagree on, even including trying to twist things you could agree with, like my description of oppression, and take it to a disagreement, pretending I have never thought men were oppressed for gender-based reasons.  What you REALLY REALLY miss is it's the so called patriarchy that gender-oppressed men... forcing men to compare to their ideals just as they force women, and both men and women are behind and in favor of the patriarchical attitudes.
• you talk about things like women getting the children, which is in the past dude, and is improving.  I'm very concerned about that, seems to be  getting better.
• you seem obsessed on the "men had it better"... I think men did not "have it better" as I fucking described... but I think the things that make it bad for men are one, mostly not gender based directly, two, when they are gender based are from the patriarchy (men must be warriors and dominators), and three, most feminist issues has to do with the role of women and men in individual relationships ("like no means yes")... so that although if you average the rights and treatment of women, statistically it can seem equal... the skew on the microscopice, individual, level, is clear, and needed/needs still to be rectified.  
• It's like you are bitter being called a rapist, but you don't understand why some women are bitter at being told by frats that no means yes and yes means anal.
• patriarchy is not a system motivated by hurting women, it actually thinks it's better for women to be in the roles they try to put her in, slut, princess, cleaner, etc... from this historical view this is just as much for the woman's good as anything else.  It does seem a bit self serving, but the roles assigned to men, while ostensibly better rewarded in terms of power, are not inherently better, say for someone that doesn't want to be a do minant warrior.
• The patriarchy is very much like the strict father family metaphor that Lakoff claims is behind conservative thinking.
• e.g. some woman might WANT to be treated like a sexual object and cleaner and she's happy as a clam.  As I said, and you ignored, the problem is the assignment of roles to people rather than letting people develop their own roles as individual participants in social systems.
• I admit women have real power... and you don't take it as potential agreement, you try to turn it into a disagreement... really it's what we smarter people like to call a clarification on my part.  Then you go off on "whatever, those were the exceptions, whatever... whatever"... the point is a little more important than that.  I am admitting over and over, and I have to assume you havn't noticed, that it's not about all women being lower than all men, this is mostly an bias at work within classes of an overlying class system, which itself is responsible for all manner of oppression and oppressive mind sets.
• if you were willing to find agreement we could make better mataphors for what patriarchy is... it's an emperical field study, what does it mean when the frats do this, the politicians do that, what is the real situation.  If RadFems want to act like rich women and poor women are both at the bottom of the larger social caste system, we could correct that. You act like you'd rather be butthurt about a minority opinion than invent a countermeasure, which is always in the form of a better model, a better metaphor.
• sometimes the husband is dominant, sometimes the wife, and the patriarchy is the social pressure for it to be or appear to be the husband genius.  OH, I'm telling you something you never heard of HUH?
• patriarchy has a lot of roles... the female partners of powerful men, for example, traditionally are given power.  wealthy women are educated before poor women, as in argentina iirc.
• we have different ideas of what patriarchy is, and also how we are trying to find out what it is.  I take the frat and republican examples... I see this kind of thing and see relations and gender bias in it... and I see to define that attitude... I name that attitude patriarchy and THEN I try to figure out the characteristics of the set I've identified, it's influence and so on.  I'm not investigating the subjugation of all women below all men because I already know that patriarchy is compatible with classism, and class is more important than gender, is used first, and gender second, allowing for special cases, like the monarch being a woman, because there is no man of her caste available.
• You put up a dictionary definition: READ THE MOTHERFUCKER, patriarchy is primarilly about Strict Father Familly Metaphor, well defined in the Moral Politics by Lakoff.  Your use of it is a distant second definition.
• when I say men don't have to go to war, I was talking about the West, remember... you guys love to say "in the west there is no need", but when I talk about having to go to war... suddently it's every culture.  But that implies you are saying it's justified to treat women badly in these countries... but perhaps you hadn't watched the part about kuwait yet... that should be funny.
• yes, in the us, for my whole life, men can say, "fuck this war I don't want to fight it"... the government has made moves to prove it's reserving the right of conscription... good luck with that, though I'm sure they'll try if we get a string of Republican Presidents with their warlike patriarchal attitude.
• I believe in role specialization, and it's the imposition of roles that are the problem, not what one person thinks of one role (it might suit them).  The system in question serves those that WANT TO PLAY A ROLE,   because it forces everyone else into their romantic view of things.
• quoting MRA and MRA statistics... why is that, you are not an MRA right?
• male military... who is it that just got american women the right to have combat roles... FEMINISTS... bwaahahhahahahah
• Kuwait: you say talk about the exception on the rule... I'm for women in an equal role in the military as a feminist, so bit me... radfem is the exception my friend.
• you don't even think in societies with gender oppression there is a place for feminism... cause those men do the dangerous jobs so alls fair... w T FUCK!?
• You say re feminism, "we're not in that time" and I say "we're not the in the time where patriarchy could be justified"... you my friend are hypocritical as fuck, and of course you bring up equal reproductive rights... that's bullshit... only women have babies, as a result only women have certain decisions about having babies... invent the male womb and get back to me fuckhead.  I think the right to abortion is the right to remove the fetus, if it can be put in an artificial womb or male womb (genetic engineering madness!), do it if you want.
• then you emphasize equal reproductive right saying that "reproductive rights" should be the same is assinine, and part of patriarchy, sorries... for reasons given above.  To grant you that "equal right" means a woman could be forced to have an abortion, or forced to carry a baby for almost a year... that violates individual medical rights we all should share, imo... and is a request to controll the body of another.  If a man could take the baby, then he ought to be allowed, and in that case the law would say the mother has to pay child support.
• the ballance of "roles" and the imposition of previously ballanced roles
• you say women have it equal or better, I disagree, I don't see the sororities out chanting "all sex is rape, all men are anal rapists"

notes GWW on patriarchy

GWW vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMifHT1AwY
Stefanie vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCE2Uy7DOXA

• saying everyone is subjugated does not change that one of the justifications of oppression is gender, as well as race, origin of birth, wealth, etc
• it's not like all women are under all men... they are under their men.  if the man is a king, the woman in question, the queen, is held higher than a lower man.  collation, at each level, gender bias
• thing is, we're not in that case anymore, men are not required to do more dangerous tasks than women, unless they want to, and this lead to a contemporary imbalance
• muscle mass doesn't help women survive the threats to them, such as childbirth, exposure, times of famine... etc.
• you act like "men were willing" to take these out of the goodness of their heart when you describe how they had no choice.
• inuits - do men have it like that NOW?  good job justifying patriarchy in the inuit
• lol at "stitching pelts" is not that hard... you don't think women evolved to be good at that work the way men did?
• your argument shows that both men and women are absolutely balanced in ability, in the state of nature, but what about a state of civilization?
• marriage is a contract that helps the women not get the short end of the stick...  yes... and now we have no real contract of marriage!  bwahahah  society has changed but our thinking hasn't.  we still think men are hunters, hahahahahah
• feminism means anti-science... stupid remark, you can easily see the science of this, which by the way supports more than one interpretation, and not think that means that it's an appropriate framework for our CURRENT situation.  
• you say they didn't need to do it for themselves.  You don't seem to understand the drive to reproduce is a goal of DNA itself... they did need to do it for THEMSELVES, it's how they came to be and is the definition of species success. 
• I'm just not seeing where every man has to harpoon whales at this point... so what is the justification now?  in this day and age, for us carrying around n otions from ancient times that no longer pertain
• you seem to say evolutarily women put in less, but your argument obviously shows that evolution insists on a ballance, and you mistake the scientific fact that men want to reproduce.
• agree that men also suffer gender bias... you are expected to have this role, and personally it seems like feminism has done more to release men from those roles, like sweethearted guys having to play meanguy to survive, etc, than any other type of activist.
• women have had power... through their husbands... because of the interleaving above this can be real power, and also, modulated by the character of the husband and his beliefs about assertive women.  But it's always a "level down" relative to the other aspects of the woman's "rank" in the pecking order.
• we have just finally let women die in war, which is a feminist movement!  to allow women to sacrafice like men  have, according to you
• draft, israel
• male conscription in kuwait, one death in gulf war, nothing on any recent deaths, no evidence of any notable military action at all.... instead, they funded Iraq, got bombed by Iran, and asked us to protect them.
• It's patriarchical metaphor that has you assume that since they're in the military they are risking their life, even in a country with a history of being protected by us.
• so let me get this right
• men were in a service position long enough to get buff
• women thus let men pretend they were in control and had special privs to balance the special evolved-to-serve mentality.
• so perhaps that was the problem, perhaps rather than giving men the illusion of control, they should have just been treated as pampered servants with the women, that evolution chose as the protected one, for some reason, as the less disposable leaders.  
• b/c as we evolved better technology, it seems men tried to keep control long after the biological justification wore thin.

NOTES: Hythloday On Penrose

• he's not saying it can't be proved AT ALL, the point is G(R) can't be proved with R but it has to be true if R is true.  So G(R) is true but not provable BY R.  That leads us to what can prove it?  How do we know it?
• "only one technique fails"  I know, but the big mystery was if we could make such a proof WITH THOSE RULES, and the answer is determined.
• elevating human understanding to another realm... dude, I am elevating LIVING understanding if anything, and I don't take myself to be doing even that... I'm seeing an unexplained phenomenon.
• The brain uses Heuristics.
• Does the brain do differential calculus... a turing machine has to do that to simulate the behavior
• Obviously there is a calculus library of some sort built into our motor functions
• Mr Calculator
• Not heuristics, with ESTIMATES and real time correction
• Calculations are occurring by circuit
• a computer doesn't really DO a calculation, the circuit flows in a way that MAPS to mathematics.
• does that look like I'm going to catch it?  look like?  visualizing a solution for the data you have had
• I notice you describe human trial and error a lot like a computer does calculus
• quantum mechanics and the efficiency of photosynthesis
•  why do you feel newtonian mechanics relate to our everyday life?  well, it's just we have a different feeling about this
• true understanding of the high level requires understanding why the sublevel behave that way.
• everything we've discovered at low levels is by noticing the affect at the high level, e.g. glass is transparent
• the chess example, like the computer is smarter?  we understand induction itself.  the stuff you talked about recognizing is something we can't make computers due with standard logic.
• the heuristic approach to AI is not novel.  Humans infer from past behavior better than computers.  It's our wiring.

• it's "natural" and "chemistry".... chemistry is described by quantum mechanics... that's what QM was invented to explain... the atom!
• when you put down the microbial phenomenon, you put down the human one as well, imo
• a very small qm computer can do amazing calculations, solve linear algebraic equations, able to do image recognition and other hard AI techniques much better.  coincidence?
• a good heuristic system NEED qm... quantum computers are good at this pattern/heuristics
• clustering maths, qc is good
• all explained in the realm of the physical?  why do you talk like quantum mechanics isn't physical?  even if it's explainable classically, IT HAS NOT BEEN, so keep looking in that toolkit as much as you want!

• theories exist that cannot be proven... and they are needed to prove R
• one way I heard it is that it proves that in second order logic there are unprovable true and false statements, so it's not complete, and you need second order logic to establish the rules of arithmetic.
• math cannot be undermined... it's useful, we are not justifying math, we are trying to explain why it's so fucking useful
• it's not that there is no method to build them, it's that they have to be built.. they can't build themselves... no sui causus, no A PRIORI and among other things, it means all truth is actually synthetic, and analytics just exists to analyze synthetic truths. 
• That leaves one little problem, math is incredibly reliable and has great fidelity.  
• The way I see it, math/logic is designed to introduce very little distortion during analysis, all the distortion comes importing terms, where one problem is the sort of things you have to ignore to pretend the material objects you are analyzing are the analytic objects you'll be processing.  You have to map these into and out of the logic.
• 
  

How to live without will

• wake up saying "I have no free will so..."  the point is you are faced with the decision to get up or not, and if you avoid that decision you will remain inert.
• you have to live AS IF.  What is the affect of fundamentally thinking you are going to change yourself.  Studying the behavior of things compared to the "is".
• free will, will power, ---> CHOICES
• The "I".  I see it as a chorus, dualism is out, but also monism... it's fusism
• decomposing "determinism"... pre-determinism vs conservation of energyism.  I don't think youre definition of determinism is technically defined enough to argue that excluded middle.

Ramifications of Will vs No Will

Gratex, in his latest video, says that we need to discuss the ramifications of certain views of will, or about conversations including these three terms, will, awareness, and consciousness.  So let me consider what I see as some of the ramifications of my and select other views of these phenomenon.

First of all, some working definitions.  A working definition is a preliminary attempt at a definition as useful to as many schools as possible without losing the general sense of the word, so a working definition generally tries to start by capturing such general senses.

• awareness - first person perceptions
• consciousness - firs person perceptions
• will - a perception of acting

You can see I don't distinguish at this point between awareness and consciousness, but the latter seems to carry additional terms for others.  Perhaps consciousness means, for them, self-awareness, but to me it seems like this is "self consciousness".  

I will compare the meaning of my theory of will to alternates, such as the idea that will is an illusion insofar as there is no real choice (i.e. all choices are predetermined by prior conditions)

Social Activism

One major impact of my view on will, compared to the notion that choice is an illusion, has to do with social and political activism.  I blogged politically for years and found it a great way to stay involved with politics without having to be in the city, and there there is an assumption you can make choices. I found there was a lack of philosophy.  Then, when I find the liberal philosophers, I find they don't even believe in choices, which makes me think the progressive activists lack the council of the progressive philosophers, on the ground that it is impossible to advise best choices where there are none really.

A belief in will power, that there is energy in will, gives the idea that there is energy in will, just like energy from the sun, or a tsunami, or of the wind, there is will, and with engineering it can even be as strong (in sum) as those former.

Vegitarianism

It was a surprise to me to discover that one issue about "consciousness" is vegitarianism.  When I was an ethical vegitarian in the past, it was due to the cruelty of the big ranching industry.  I was not as concerned about eating animals that lived well, for example, in the wild, and were not hunted cruelly (quick death, don't take animals with young, etc).  But then, perhaps that shows lack of real commitment, explaining why I stopped being a vegetarian in my twenties.  It seems a lot more vegitarians pride themselves on not eating "conscious" creatures, and one suspects the term "awareness" won't really change the reasoning.  

I can of course see the implications of that, but I still tended at first to miss the impact of this on such vegitarians, and thought that sufficient distinctions were available... e.g. eating a conscious being that is not very conscious (conscious of thirst is not like the neurological machines that allow things like human trauma), and has no pain neurons, which I pointed out.  I repeatedly talk about relative dullness of the senses.

But pointing out such comforts that to me still make a distinction, ethically, between eating animals vs eating plants was really just harkening back to my own thoughts on vegitarianism, which was that animals should not live abusive lives.  The senses of the plant, being so much as focussed on slower moving phenomenon, in my estimation, and it's lack of mobility make it much easier to raise in a habitate it appreciates and flourishes in.  It is difficult to maintain a large enough natural area to house 100 head of cattle in the way most comforting and healthful for them, but relatively easy to create a garden in which 100 plants will  have everything they enjoy, sunlight, water, nutrients.

But if the notion hinges on the act of death, and that it snuffs out an awareness, a consciousness, perhaps none of that is comfort in the face of the fact that there literally is no way for us to survive but to consume other living things, at least not until we create entirely synthetic food... which hardly sounds as good to me as a proper organic polyfarming agriculture where all the animals and plants live in a harmony enhanced, rather than abused, by the will of man.

Microbial will perhaps aids the argument that life is cannibalism too strongly, but my attitude is that this seems to be the case, and I will not reverse engineer what I've learned to make the universe seem worthy of a better reputation over all. For my part I find it much more complicated, an fortunately so, when it comes to what type of ethics is possible in such a living world.  I note that our cells themselves were probably created by bacteria eating bacteria, and sometimes, instead of the eaten being digested, it just went to work in the cell, and increased the size of the partnership, as with mitochondria.  There is symbiosis involved.  I think it's possible to raise animals and plants in symbiosis, and I suspect we will stop eating animals... it's too expensive, has many drawbacks, and many aspects which simply cannot ever be fully mitigated, whereas with plants, they all can be mitigated.

Crime and Punishment

I'm glad our discussions on will and consciousness do not always centered on the ramifications in crime and punishment.  This is a traditional way to reverse engineer ideas of will... people must have will so we can punish them.  I think the issue of how to deal with people that refuse to cooperate with us in ways we find minimally acceptable, at least, can have no influence on the will, but it is certainly not true the other way around... views on will must affect how we treat other people's use of their own will.

As a relativist I think it's impossible to find an absolute view of "how we should treat each other" and the potential restrictions on how we might otherwise behave and so it is impossible to expect a particular agent to agree with such a view.  However, as a skeptic, I do think it's possible to find systems one believe in and can accept.  Thus we can find systems agreed on by a wide group of people.  The issue of crime in punishment is not a matter of convincing those that reject the system agreed on by this group, but is rather a matter of agreement itself, a part of the agreed system... "we say that you cannot steal, those that disagree will suffer the following treatment..." Such sentiments are part of the social agreement.  People ought to have as much chance to explore their will as possible, and thus if a group of people wanted to ban construction of cities, while this  is a restriction on those that want to build cities, such people could have a region to try their ideas, and let those that would build cities have theirs.

A belief in will in all things, and that given all chances it ought to be less constrained wherever possible, leads to a distribucratic view, where dissagreements that can not be resolved satisfactorilly to all parties ought to be compartmentalized in the spirit of "self-soveriegnty", which means delegation to the individual will in all things possible, and delegation to groups of wills where nececessary, going up to groups in general, to the group of all humans, to the group of all creatures.  At the level of all humans I would give an example... murder... it ought not be allowed local legality.  But I can think of a lot of things that should.

reply to Gary on Humble Video On Consciousness

•  you seem to get the issue about first person awareness which I appreciate
• the example of parts of your own actions which are not conscious is interesting, but to me it simply reinforces the possibility that the intentionality, the execution of your will, relies on the will of others, namely the cells involved with the nitty gritty detail of that action.  It's getting "excited" as the neurologists say... you are not conscious of it because by then it's its actions.
• I don't find paramecium creepy at all, they seem beautiful and graceful
• They look pretty complex to me
• I've showed video of them doing more complicated things.
• Nothing unliving can do that... it's significant.
• "Just typing" requires TRILLIONS of eukaryotic cells.
• Software can reproduce, is it alive?
• we agree on the colony of cells issue.
• cells are slaves...  to what?
• you could turn OUR CONSCIOUSNESS off an still have a living body because a lot of the body is not involved in that and goes on.
• software replicates!  I say again.
• you don't say what does allow it SEEMING to be some way.
• I think emotions are the "simple way" for things to reacts.  "Ew" is good enough to back off after bumping into something
• I think you might be hung up on the pain-sensation...
• the "complexity" of paramecium... most of the history of life was unicellular, here look at some pictures.
• theaters don't come cheap... most of our evolution was getting to eukaryotic life... but anyway, I think it might come cheap thanks to simple physics tricks.
• making it special: I say consciousness happens in little bits all over, I'm not making it special, QED
• you misunderstand my goals, I'm not trying to use consciousness to make the universe special, I agree with your position from earlier, it makes the universe a bit more horrific, to know that all the insects eaten alive and the rest experience it, even if it is without pain as we know it...  it's just realism on my part.
• plain and crude theme here
• re thinking aparatus, an abacus doesn't think on it's own.
• it senses light through cilia, it senses pressure through cilia, it brings chemicals in and out... and react to them... these are "means of sensation"...
• "it has to happen in something really complex"
• interesting, pain vs unpleasentness... doesn't need pain neurons, I called these "stress"
• google plants and stress
• distributed brain... centralized at the nucleus though.
• christians exercise their free thinking by deciding which parts of the Bible to read and reread.

to gratex on consciousness

1. It's not elitist to say your making a special place for humans by ignoring living behavior
2. I said I could do at a mental exercise consciousness going down to all matter, but what I said I believe is just living cells have it.
3. I am using consciousness and awareness interchangeably.  I'll try to use awareness... I made this clear imo by talking about the hard problem, I'm saying there is a hard problem for all living things... I think awareness is the internal state causing intentionality in life.  Sue me.
4. You don't have to define the classification first: extentional analysis, you collect an acceptable step, you analysize it and test you analysis by seeing how it expands, restricts or fits the original set.  Rinse and repeat.
5. aware of "thoughts"... no, some thoughts you are talking about are human thoughts... I mean aware of the environment, conscious of, not self-conscious (conscious of the self).
6. the neural system is something YOUR awareness depends on... that's not the issue... the paramecium's awareness is based on its metabolism.  The belief it is aware is because it seems aware, of constrains, temperature, salinity, being pursued, pursuing.
7. you say it's not fed up some microtubules but this part isn't controversial between us, is it?  it's fed up through the neurons, which internally are using microtubules to behave.
8. you are suprised you had to say it?  you honestly don't see why I see awareness in microbial life?  intentionality?
9. free will vs will power.  People are unclear on this, I don't think they are saying that will is totally free yea!
10.  I see a lot of will in subconscious thought... and I think the neurons know what they are doing, but it's not cohered into our consciousness.
11. our consciousness is clearly made of a network... if the network units are also aware, I wouldn't expect to see them exactly the same in capability.
12. I don't like the "why should you have to tell me?" approach.  I interpret the ability to focus conscious mind as going around amplifying what's already going on in the noise when I'm not putting energy into it.
13. I'll try to use awareness... but I don't think the word consciousness is so well defined that it can't be used loosely.

Visualizing Composite Consciousness

I take it from a reductive analysis that our consciousness is not particularly centralized, that it's a distributed phenomenon of the mind... thus in some sense it decomposes (or just lies potentially released) in the neurons. Since single celled creatures, not unlike, but merely less specialized cells show intentionality, it seems to me, our neurons most likely have it.  Having felt this way a long time, I have tried to visualize how I would be having my experience, unaware of theirs, and they having theirs, unaware of mine.  I think a metaphor that illustrates how this composition might work shows that we do experience each other's consciousness, similarly to h ow a listener might experience a chorus.  A chorus is made of individual voices, you can even at times isolate out a particular voice from the din, or at least particular sections of the chorus.  On the other hand, the chorus tends to blend together and become an altogether more powerful and complex voice than any individual singer, since it is composed of individual singers.

I think our consciousness is like the sound of the whole chorus together, and the neurons are the singers.

Notes on Extreme Endurance

• I didn't say don't be emotional.... why do you interpret it this way, later in the vid I specifically say it's ok.  I'm noting it.  It's notable... WHAT you get upset at is informative.  I'm not saying don't do it, I'm processing that you did do it.
• "sloppy seconds" is not a metaphor?  get a dictionary
• you notice I do not use clichés  and colloquialisms to add flair, and assume I can't do that?  I'm not in that domain... it does not make a video more engaging for me to watch.
• I don't want to have flair, I want to have content.
• Or I'm a hater... lol... I am interested in the ideas, packaging is just a distraction.
• Women being mysoginist
• my subscriber count being laughable, what's laughable is that you think I want subscribers.  What use are they?  Do they help egos or something?  I don't get it.
• your sister and mother, feminism is indulgent bullshit?  whatever, my mother is a radical conservative, she thinks feminism is bullshit too... so?
• I don't say people should cater to others the way you imply, I've AGREED with you on that... but you turn that into something about feminism, when all ideologies have such people, and into something about introspection in general which is just false, as you have more or less admitted.
• You are not an MRA, but your commenters are, your side of this argument IS
• Women own all the banks.  Oops, I'm "wrong" about that.  My idioms are over your head I guess.
• your eyes, seriously?
• innocuous things you say?  with flair means "meaningless"
• blame yourself for sloppy "cast away" terms... but you went into great depth about her looks, that you have slept with women "just like her" etc etc
• you wish I'm passive agressive
• you're going to hurt me?  how?
• it's counter reactionary because feminism is reactionary
• you claim not to like to hear your own voice... sounds like self-promoting introspective bullshit to me... you can't edit videos without liking to listen to yourself.  I admit to like listening to myself because I learn about myself.
• I don't understand your complaint about painting a picture of you... you painted a picture of whatherface, didn't you? Is your position just a defense of hypocrisy?
• the topic says me... yeah, I say the topic of my videos.  I noted it in the comments to the video.
• grinder, you're grinding on this.  You don't say what's important.
• you took me mentioning the neurological terms as an insult?  cause I said "memorize"... um, ok.  And no, I don't believe normal functioning minds are supposed to be able to count the number of times they have heard a word, automatically.  In fact, that seems impossible... maybe you are deluding yourself.
• "most people disagree" on sloppy seconds being negative
• I did not say you are driven by sexism in all your videos... I said, IN A VIDEO ON SEXISM YOU WERE SEXIST.  That's what I was pointing out, you can disagree, but could you also just get it... that's the disagreement.  You don't think I demonstrated it but frankly I didn't have to, it was obvious.
• I did not rush in and save her feelings, I havn't interacted with her.  The different is, I am sick of this reactionary MRA bullshit.
• most people would say it's not sexist... not demonstrated

notes for video to snake

1. introspection, the value thereof
2. we're talking about "how this works"
3. we're talking about Feminism and MRA
4. last and very least, we're talking about JUST THE CLIPS YOU SHARE of the Woman you criticized.

1. I see you have a greater intellect than you let on with your general vibe.  I am this way too.
2. If I criticize or characterize what you say I'm not saying don't say it... say it and we'll talk about it.
3. You seem to side with the idea that feminism needs a counter-reactionary treatment, I disagree but that's fine, provide that all you want.  
4. "Sloppy seconds" and the talk about bedding girls like her... they were the subject. The metaphors you choose do saying something about you.
5. I don't begrudge the effect but I thought it was lame.  However, I used some lame effects to effect... consider it an homage.
6. We disagree on introspection, it is useful
1. you admitted you learn a lot about someone when they do it publicly
2. you said you give perspective. step two requires step one
3. I add perspective to your perspective.
7. If that's the case, don't you think that someone can introspect, say on film or paper, watch that, critique it themselves, and gain perspective that way.
8. If 50% of people get more problems in therapy, do you think that might be the therapists fault.  Psychology is like in the leeches stage of medical science.  Too complex for us at the moment.
9. You have a point about "punch life in the face and don't bitch about it"... fine, I like to point out the irony of bitching about that.  I never said you didn't deal with anything.
10. White male priv.  I basically believe that, but I don't think anything in my believing that justifies you to feel oppressed.  As long as I don't support legislating that, forcing you to do some particular action, I think telling you, as part of the world, a self-selecting audience, is fair.  You bitching about it is fair.  You may think that leads to some weak willed giving in, but generally what people do remains the same after they face such things, "wow, history sucks..." maybe give someone the vote or whatever
11. I didn't say sweet talk her, or worry about her feelings or build her up, I said POSITIVE, and I used an example of a criticism someone wouldn't want to hear (fake individuality)... but again, I'm comparing what you did to other options, I'm not saying to take the option I gave, I'm saying that since you CHOSE not to take it, it MEANS you do perpetuate the framing the feminists are complaining about.  It does exist.
12. Ignoring brain trolls. Introspection as neurosis.