No, definitions are accurate to the degree that they accurately reflect reality, and are inaccurate to the degree they inaccurately reflect reality.
“Manufactured constructs of imagination”, if that were the case then our definitions would be useless out in the world, which clearly is not he case. Definitions are useless only when they are bad definitions.
That isn’t a free market.
Right, and why does any crime exist, why does anyone get mugged and robbed and murdered? Clearly there is no rationale for doing so, in your mind, therefore it must never happen. Lol.
No, employment is a voluntary contract that benefits both parties. If both parties did not benefit then both parties would not freely choose to enter into an employment/employee agreement.
Unless you think that you, alone, can create access to as much capital and machinery of production that your employer can allow you to use, in order to make values in the world?
Yeah, good luck with that. Go try and create a factory from the ground up, versus someone else who simply works at one that is already built, and then we can see which of you produces the most value, and ultimately has the most reward for the amount of effort and time invested.
No you didn’t. A simple barter trade isn’t what “free market” means. You clearly have no idea what a free market even is.
How by any stretch of imagination can that be construed as “slander”? You are really off your rocker here, aren’t you.
From the natural “point of view”, everything that is not natural, but cultural, is somehow artificial. You can use both words when it comes to the opponent of nature.
To some degree, yes, but they are not capable of being independent of natural selection. Is the number of the bird’s offspring determined by themselves or by nature? Please read my texts I quoted (again).
They are NOT natural selection; they are objects of the natural selection.
Because we are the only species that is capable of being independent of natural selection. We can live without any natural environment and can determine that e.g. the unfit survive and the fit do not survive. Please read my texts I quoted (again).
No.
Is it possible that you have not understood what I have said?
Yes, but note that this is the case only according to the natural selection principle. In other words: I am not saying that the humans are naturally more adaptable than, for instance, the cockroaches.
Yes, I did not deny that. Again: I am not saying that the humans are naturally more adaptable than, for instance, the cockroaches. That is not the point I am talking about here. The point is that humans are capable of circumventing nature by their culture (based on their intelligence), regardless whether they are naturally vulnerable or not. Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully.
Humans have invented machines that will perhaps take over sooner or later (cp. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185562). Machines are artificial, an invention of humans, so they are not natural, not even as natural as humans or their culture.
Did the Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans have no rules at that time? I do not think so.
Also, I was talking about the human history:
The Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans traded partly but not completely according to natural rules. The rules of historical humans are written rules. But the rules of the Indians as the Native North Americans were just orally transmitted and comparable with the rules of the Stone Age humans. So the Wild West Europeans in North America had no other choice than to trade according to the older rules, which does not mean that they traded completely according to natural rules. The rules of the Indians as the Native North Americans were mostly but not merely like natural rules.
Gangs have rules.
Mafia organizations have rules.
Mafia states have rules.
Global organizations have rules.
I don’t see a distinction because the number of human offspring are equally determined by nature. You could argue that we have the capability to abort or artificially grow humans, but that’s merely a capability and it’s possible that animals would utilize that capability if they could. Therefore it doesn’t necessarily mean that human actions in determining numbers of offspring are artificial because there is no reason to believe animals would not behave in the same way if they had the capability.
You know what I mean.
Suppose we setup a self-sustaining colony on Mars. Now, will that artificial environment naturally select for the fittest in that environment? Like Warren Buffett says: had he been born long ago, he would have been some animal’s meal rather than the richest man on earth. So the artificial environment we created in government and economics naturally selected Warren to be topdog. Other environments would not have selected him as favorably. So it seems that regardless what environment we place ourselves, the most successful will be naturally chosen.
Believe me, I get your point, but I’m arguing that whatever humans do can be considered natural and that the distinction between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.
Of course.
Are herds and swarms considered cultures that circumvent nature successfully?
The definition of culture is “an integrated pattern of knowledge” which implies mindlessness since the knowledge is integrated, therefore it seems a herd qualifies since it is also an integrated pattern of “apparent” knowledge. In other words, it’s a successful strategy.
Intelligence was not an advantage for the sauropods. Due to their long necks, their survival was greatly improved by reducing the size of their brains over time due to the difficulty of pumping blood that high. In other words, it was more of an advantage to have a longer neck than a bigger brain.
As I said before, sharks have not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years of evolution, so it seems sharks are optimally intelligent.
Satoshi Kanazawa argues that the average IQ will decline throughout the 21st century due to intelligent people not reproducing. researchgate.net/publicatio … ldlessness
It would indeed seem that intelligence is a lethal mutation.
We needn’t look farther than an online message boards for proof that anyone truly intelligent has been selected against rather than staying to endure the constant barrages of insults. Evolution favors the thickest-skinned and the hardest heads. I’ve been watching the comments section of zerohedge for years and have observed most of the insightful commenters are gone, leaving a bunch of angry old men ruling the roost. That’s natural selection.
I never thought about machines being natural… I never had reason to, but in this light, I’m wondering if a case can be made that argues successfully that AI is natural. I’ll have to ponder that some more.
No. That is just the point. The number of human offspring is partly determined by humans (by their technology, their artificial practice and their social policy), whereas the number of all other living beings is determined by nature. If the number of human offspring was regulated only by nature, then the current number of the humans would be merely one billion or one million or or even less.
Non-human living beings are not capable of doing what human living beings are capable of (in that said case).
Non-human living beings are not capable of doing what human living beings are capable of (in that said case).
We already have the ISS (the better example):
The planet Mars has no artificial environment. So again: We already have the ISS (the better example):
He is not the richest man on earth.
But that does not mean that it is impossible to circumvent the natural selection.
Believe me, it is not an artificial distinction.
But that has nothing to do with the humans’ artificial environment. A “successful strategy” is not necessarily an artificial environment.
That does not change anything of my statement: Intelligence is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully. I did not say that sauropods were intelligent. Intelligence is one advantage of many advantages. So there are other advantages too.
Note that I am not saying that humans are more successful than sharks or sauropods. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called “natural selection”.
Noam Chomsky is an interesting linguist.
Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called “natural selection”.
So Satoshi Kanazawa knows what I mean: survival of the unfittest, survival of the disadvantaged groups. It is a fact that intelligence is an evolutionary advantage.
Also, intelligence and altruistic sociability are correlated with each other. (Cp.: youtube.com/watch?v=02vvYDxXQ3w&t=369s). So we can conclude that the number of humans will shrink, if the average IQ is shrinking.
Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called “natural selection”.
You are missing the point.
You are missing the point again. Remember that the topic of this thread is “Free Government” and that I was referring to the topic by saying that humans are capable of circumventing nature, which means a form of relativelyfree government as compared to the “government nature”.
Again: I am not saying that humans will forever be more successful than other living beings and that they will live forever. I am saying that humans are much more intelligent than all other living beings and that they can circumvent the so-called “natural selection”.
ILP is a perfect example of what happens when you don’t have rules, laws, standards of merit. This place is a raw anarchy, not a free market of ideas. Which is why almost nothing good gets produced here, and certainly even the little good that is produced does not get selected and elevated above the nonsense.
A free market is a system designed specifically to allow merit to be elevated into a selection standard. For that to work you need institutionalized rules against things that represent the deliberate destruction and abnegation of merit, such as theft and fraud and any use of force that would destroy the voluntary nature of economic transactions.
Dipper, I’m done with you. Have a nice life, or whatever you call this thing you’ve decided to live for yourself. I’m too sickened to see your deliberate retardification of yourself to bother caring any further: so don’t reply to what I wrote, either here or in the previous post of mine that you also ignored-- keep pretending it is “slander” and go full retard mode yourself into a hole somewhere.
Whatever wants to preserve its form of existence must impose restrictions upon whatever is threatening to destroy it. Otherwise, the form is lost so it no longer persists through time. For example, if you want to continue living you must impose restrictions upon every kind of expansion that would be at the cost of your life. Giving up on restrictions, regulations, rules, laws, etc is giving up on control and surrending to the circumstances. This is not always a bad move – there are times when it is good-- but if it is understood as an absolute in the sense that it is always better than the alternative, then yes, it is not a good thing.
The term “free market” only makes sense if there is such a thing as “market”. If people are stealing from each other then there is no market.
Market refers to consensual exchange of goods.
When someone steals from someone else, there is neither consent nor exchange.
How can market exist (i.e. persist through time) if it does not restrict that which would destroy it?
One man’s freedom is another man’s unfreedom.
That’s how it is.
Whenever something happens at some point t something else does not happen at that same point t.
The question is thus never freedom versus unfreedom but what form (i.e. order) you want to establish versus what form (i.e. order) you don’t want to see established.
Magnus, it seems brazen perhaps to suggest that between the marketplace , the freedom to exchange views thereof, there lies the indefinite, variable identifiable power to form the system where such rules can be laid down, and a s such, those values can either be accepted, or, excluded.
This power has been fueled and propelled through at least the beginning of the twentieth century by reduction to elemental underlying motives, identifiable lesser inclusive effects
.
This devaluation is of necessity, and more and more, freedom has been undermined by a degree of difference corresponding to what has become known as that which incrementally describes a defacto and dejure discrepancy.
Power, does corrupt absolutely, when the patent appearances are the only measure by which they are the only measure of their affects
There is no total lack of regulation, as well as there is no total chaos. They are in the absolute sense merely a play of smoke and mirrors.
Capitalism uses chaos more as a tool to generate the need for regulation, that is why it appears freer.But this kind of freedom masks its intrinsically subtle and hidden motives, hiding acquisition under the fear of avoiding chaos.
Which basically reverberates the cliche that what we really fear (not fear its self), but the fear of true freedom.
Mathematics does not exist in reality but the laws of physics are written in mathematical form and they are derived through observation
Language does not exist in reality but the entire history of the planet is written in multiple languages which is fundamentally how we all
communicate and learn. Sometimes abstract concepts can be very useful and in these cases absolutely indispensable. No language would
mean no sharing of knowledge or ideas or experience. So just because something is not real does not mean it has no practical application
Because it is a human construct incorporating history and religion and philosophy all of which are constructs themselves
They are not naturally occurring phenomena so when the human race becomes extinct then so too will its entire culture
Can you think of a way that we could circumvent it?
When I asked you to believe me, it was my saying that I understand what you are trying to convey, which is asking you to believe a fact about myself on my authority. When you asked me to believe you, you’re asking me to believe a fact about reality on your authority. Quite different.
Of course, a successful strategy is a natural environment created by natural beings doing things that come natural to them.
You said “Intelligence is an advantage and”. I gave you an example where intelligence was a disadvantage. Actually, there is empirical evidence that as sauropods evolved, the brains shrank and necks grew longer. Not only is a large brain-size a disadvantage due to blood flow, but intelligence itself leads one to become bored standing there eating leaves and growing to monstrous sizes. All intelligence would accomplish is leading the sauropod into being curious, bored, and it would not grow as fast or as large because it would desire more time away from eating. That is principally why I feel it’s immoral for most folks to own dogs (particularly the smarter breeds) because the animal is not dumb enough to endure being tied to a tree in the yard. The smarter an animal is, the more it’s going to need things to do and if growing to enormous sizes through constant eating is the success of the species, then being intelligent is disadvantageous to the goal.
I know what you’re saying, but I’m not sure you know what I’m saying
Well, no, it’s the survival of the advantaged groups. You’re assuming intelligence is always an advantage and obviously it is not… at least, not in excess of proper proportions. And the title to his book is “The Intelligence Paradox: Why the Intelligent Choice Isn’t Always the Smart One”
So if people are smarter, the population shrinks from lack of births and if people are dumber, the population shrinks from lack of altruism. Wait, what?
I’m not missing points… I’m arguing that the circumvention of nature is natural.
