Who I am

[Guest]

What am I? I’ve often asked myself that question long ago Neo. How is it that I can hold my own in a debate with a theoretical physicist, when I myself never studied the subject?  There is a truth to reality to which most people are unaware of. Allow me to present it too you in this fashion.

Today, with all the technology and understanding of the universe, our scientists do not know what gravity is. When backed into a corner, they don’t even know exactly what matter is, or what distinguishes it from the most particulate of constituent components. They don’t even understand what energy REALLY is.

Energy, matter, these things confuses them. They can’t even distinguish one from the other, nor can they really show that one exists outside the other. But here’s a little secret, there is no such thing as matter or energy. Neither can exist apart from the other and neither can exist in its purity. They are in fact two aspects of something else entirely.

It amazes me that when I literally prove to them that their theories are wrong they turn their backs and refuse to talk to me. Why do they do this?  They do this because many people are so fearful that they could be wrong that they never admit it.

As I said before, I’m not here to tell you how to think or what to believe, Nor should you let anyone else do it for you. I will end this rant by giving you the same advice I give those scientists. Take what you believe and attack it with all your might. Do everything in your power to prove it wrong. Should you ever succeed, then you wont feel so bad when you abandon the idea.


-Malinson

[Plume]

...like i've asked, why do we turn on each other. becoming so concentrated onto resorting to name calling. put-downs. disrespecting a persons point of view and insisting it has no validity. this is a forum for open discussion. talking is simple and so is understanding and agreement, until it's inflicted with veiled hatreds and spites among the conversation participants. polluting the peace that flows filthy from your mouths.... but i ain't discouraged. take some bad with the good. even if it's just 2% good, it still stands out from the bad and i escalate.

[damageinc.]

Nice little tag team you two got goin here. Plume, malinson, you two playin good cop bad cop the whole time.  :-*

[damageinc.]

DEEP ANARCHY
An Eliminativist View of "The State"
by Max T. O'Connor
1: Introduction
Two of the fundamental extropian values are responsibility for one's own life and actions, and the determination to do away with constraints on one's rational will.1 I believe that the institutions of religion and "the State"2 are antithetical to these values. I took aim at the dominant Western religion in the last issue and will be dissecting that entropic force again in future. The purpose of this article is to destroy a powerful barrier which stands in the way of personal responsibility and freedom.
Extropians tend towards libertarian politics and a suspicion of the "State." Many call themselves anarchists, holding that "States" are inherently coercive and should be replaced with voluntary institutions to protect rights and perform other necessary functions.3 Those who already think of themselves as anarchists are likely to be most sympathetic to my thesis, though the deep anarchy idea goes beyond traditional anarchism, whether of the free market or communalist type.
Traditional anarchists want to abolish the "State." In planning their strategies and in doing their thinking about this they rarely question the existence or fundamental nature of their enemy. This situation wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that their mistaken beliefs often lead them into counterproductive political strategies. Thus we observe the ludicrous sight of self-named anarchists joining political parties (usually the Libertarian Party) in order to hasten the end of the system. The idea seems to be: We can remove it by being absorbed by it!4
I want to suggest that when we talk of "the State" we are not talking of any entity, either concrete or abstract. I will provide two main arguments for this: One from considerations of methodological individualism, and another that could be called "the argument from fuzziness." "Deep Anarchy" is the view that results from these thoughts; it is the idea that we already live in an anarchy.
2: What is it to Exist?
In order to keep this article to manageable length I will not attempt to provide a complete ontological theory (a theory of what exists). I will only examine the conditions for the existence of complex objects and organisms. I will ignore issues of the existence of numbers, sets, relations, concepts, consciousness, and so on. I will assume that readers accept that complex entities such as tables and humans exist. What about collections of objects? Is a collection also an object? If we wish to accept as objects all the things we normally accept as objects, then it cannot in general be an objection to the objecthood of a thing that it is composed of parts which are themselves objects or individuals:
Case 1: An eagle is a thing, an object, even though it is composed of many parts such as limbs, organs, feathers, and so on. These parts can be further broken down into sub-parts such as cells, and further into organelles, molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles (or fields).
All objects are reducible to collections of more basic individuals except for the fundamental particles or fields, so we face the alternatives of (a) asserting, contrary to all normal usage, that the only really existing things are the sub-atomic particles, or (b) accepting that being a collection of more basic objects cannot, in itself, be a reason for denying the reality of a thing. I take it that everyone will agree that common usage, and the requirements of sanity and workability require us to take the second option. But is any collection of objects itself necessarily an object?
Case 2: Imagine that I have a bag of marbles, each of which we grant is an object. I scatter the marbles on the floor randomly. Now it is quite possible for me to refer to the collection of marbles as a whole rather than to each of the individual marbles. If I'm eccentric I might even give the collection a name such as "Gertrude." By using the name Gertrude I can then simply refer to the collection of marbles without having to point to or mention any of the marbles individually. Does this mean that we should say Gertrude exists, or that Gertrude is an individual, an object? This is far less plausible than in the case of an eagle.
Consider Case 3: On my desk I have a computer, a glass, a business card, and a sheet of paper with a note scribbled on it. I can now talk about the collection of objects on my desk. The collection is picked out simply by my listing the objects that constitute the collection. Again, if I'm eccentric I might name the collection "Jeremiah." Should we say that Jeremiah is an individual, an object?
If we answer in the affirmative we should also say that Jeremiah exists. Surely Jeremiah does not exist. There is no object here; there is only a mere collection of objects. By pointing to the objects in turn and then telling you that I'm going to refer to the collection as "Jeremiah" I am just giving the impression of unity and objecthood where there is none. The "components" of Jeremiah are not linked or causally related to each other in any way except one - my arbitrary act of calling them an individual with the name "Jeremiah." I might just as easily have given the name "Jeremiah" to the conjunction of the glass and computer only. There is nothing special about the group of four objects which I actually named Jeremiah. If a human act of naming random collections were enough to constitute an object then the number of objects in the universe would be arbitrary, indeterminate and limitless.
Why is the first case clearly one of a collection constituting a higher-level object (or meta-object) whereas the second and third cases are examples of collections which we would not say constitute a meta-object? The answer to this will determine what we should say about "States." My suggestion is this:
Functional Integrity Thesis: In the case of the existence of objects, what determines whether a collection of objects is itself an object is the degree of functional integrity possessed by the collection.
Secondary Thesis: (a) For each (kind of) object, there is a lower limit of functional integrity below which a collection will not constitute an object.
(b) Where that limit is will vary depending on the kind of object under consideration.
An object exists when its parts possess a sufficient degree of functional integrity. Alternatively, we can say that an object exists when it possesses the requisite properties of an object of that type. This is equivalent to the previous definition: Properties will only exist where there is a sufficient degree of functional integrity. The existence of an object can therefore be thought of as requiring a second-order functional integrity - sufficient functional integrity of properties (or parts), each of which must have a sufficient degree of integrity.
The three examples given above, and many others that could be given, are a major motivating factor behind the Functional Integrity Thesis. The collection of objects on my desk is a mere collection. Nothing makes them into a collection or set apart from the bare fact of my having arbitrarily put them into a group. The collection or group has no existence apart from my specification. My referring to the separate objects by means of a name is not sufficient (or necessary) to make them into a genuine object. Collections formed by fiat are not thereby objects. Such collections are not things; we can rightly say that such collections do not exist. By saying this we are not denying that, in the situation at hand, there is something more than the four objects; there is also an act of grouping or of collective reference, but that is all. This act cannot constitute a new object.5 I might point in the direction of the eagle and list the eagle's parts: it's wings, lungs, eyes, liver, etc. I then assert that the collection of parts constitutes an object, a thing. That object is an eagle. Now, though, the individuality of the eagle is not constituted by my act of referring collectively to the group of the eagle-parts. The eagle exists independently of my acts of grouping and referring. There is an objective grouping of parts such that there is a higher-level object in existence.
The Functional Integrity Thesis claims that what makes the difference, what gives the collection of eagle-parts an independent existence, is the functional integrity of the collection. There are various very specific and specifiable causal interrelations between the parts. The internal parts of the organism are causally related in a more intimate and systematic manner than the relation of the parts to the environment. There is no rigid separation of organism from environment since air, food and drink are incorporated into the body from the surroundings. Yet the organism is clearly distinguished from its environment by the tightness of its internal organization and by the causal history of its constituent parts. For the eagle to exist the organs must function in a coordinated manner and the skeletal and muscular systems must be appropriately linked up with the rest of the assembly. If the eagle gets torn into pieces we say that the eagle no longer exists. Only its parts continue to exist.
The first part of the Secondary Thesis requires more comment than I have space for, but a brief explanation must suffice. It might be thought that objects exist more-or-less, that there is no way of saying when an object is sufficiently integrated to exist. The idea would be that functional integrity is a matter of degree and so we should hold existence to be graded into degrees.
Certainly functional integrity is a matter of degree, and there will be borderline cases where, even given all the facts, we will have to decide what to say. However, the existence of borderline cases does not show that there are no clear cases of existence and nonexistence. The fact of twilight does not mean there is no night or day.6 Higher level properties and objects may not arise at an instantaneous point, but conceptual clarity and communication will mean that the extension of a concept is limited. Cognitive systems such as the human brain are well built to handle fuzzy boundaries while being able to categorize the world usefully.7
The second part of the Secondary Thesis contends that the minimum degree of functional integrity necessary for a collection to constitute an object depends on the kind of object at issue. Living organisms tolerate less loss of functional integrity before they cease to exist than some other objects. Objects like clouds and oceans can exist with a rather low degree of integrity. Unlike living creatures (or works of art, or even buildings), oceans and clouds don't require any very specific arrangement of their constituent parts; a loose conglomeration will suffice. Some limits do have to be imposed however. If the parts of a cloud are too separated they no longer form a cloud, though they may form more than one cloud.
For me to be a human, rather than a collection of flesh or a dead body, very many conditions of bodily integrity must be satisfied. My organs must be in the right place, connected up properly, and their parts must be precisely arranged. Integrity is required right down to the level of the cells and their molecular components, otherwise I am not a living human. In deciding on the degree to which something exists, then, we must take account of the kind of thing that it is. Things of the same kind require the same degree of functional integrity of their parts.
3: Argument From Fuzziness
I am now ready to apply these general ontological theses to the case of "the State." Applying the Functional Integrity Thesis (FIT) to perceivable physical objects such as tables, chairs, condoms and cars, is a simple enough matter. Even in those cases we have to take care to identify exactly the kind of object we are looking for, in order that we can correctly determine the degree of integrity needed for a collection to constitute that object. Unfortunately, applying the FIT to objects of a different order is more difficult. Some purported objects that we need to consider are "States," corporations, clubs, and societies.
Where is "the State" to be found? I've never seen one and I don't think anyone else has either. What I do find is a large number of people who claim to be "politicians," "policemen," "tax collectors," "federal agents," "judges," "government workers," and so on. I also come across buildings and collections of individual human beings which I am told are "the Department of..., " "Congress," "The White House," "The Supreme Court," "the IRS," etc. Amongst all these people, buildings, guns, pieces of paper, and assorted equipment I cannot find a "State."
Of course "the State" is supposed to be the collection of these things. But now I have two problems: First, exactly which people and things are to be included in the collection that supposedly constitutes a "State"? Second, how can a "State" act, have responsibility, or authority, if it is a collection whose parts (persons) themselves have these qualities? The second of these problems will be discussed in the section "The Argument from Methodological Individualism."
If the "State" is to exist, if it is to be a thing, it must be (a) a clearly identifiable collection of parts, and (b) a collection which exhibits a high enough degree of functional integrity. Neither of these conditions are fulfilled. Max Weber offers the most helpful definition of a "State." Essentially this comes down to saying that a "State" is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographical area. Each element of this definition is necessary. If no force were involved then "it" would be merely a voluntary organization. "Governments" or "states" have to use force or coercion in order to finance themselves - the system of taxation-extortion common to all governments.
Even more essential is the idea of a monopoly, since someone could argue that it is at least conceivable that a "government" be financed entirely by voluntary contributions, even if this has never happened (and almost certainly never would happen). Yet, if the "State" is not a monopoly then it just cannot be a "State." The deepest and most essential function of such an institution is that it decides what laws there are and enforces them. No one else has the right to do this, except and to the degree that the "State" grants this right (a right which it retains the power and authority to remove). The idea of legitimacy comes in here; only "the State" may rightfully make decisions about laws and allowable coercion.8
Furthermore, I ask: who or what is supposed to hold the monopoly of power? I suggest that this is simply a myth. As will be argued in the next section, the wielders of power and coercion are individual human beings. Each person makes his or her own choices about the use of coercion. We observe no organism, person, or creature with a monopoly on the use of force, legitimate or otherwise. The illusion to the contrary is made possible simply because many people who coerce others wear uniforms, carry badges, or otherwise claim to "represent" "the State." The wearing of uniforms, the carrying of badges, and the claims of some people that they are part of "the State" does nothing to show that there is such a thing.

[thirdeye]

Well Damage, you have certainly flexed, but Im too busy in my own extremely contradtictory life. I fight myself enough for all. LETS FROTH! Jump on in, plenty of mud for all. Lets tell all our secrets, thatll be fun! Like a slumber party eh?

[damageinc.]

Malinson Wrote:Mass is not function Damageinc for functions are activities of that which cannot be classified as being potentially unreal. In no where in that ontological diatribe did it once ever describe what a fundamental particle really is.

Thank you malinsom! you just showed all of us on this forum that your wrong. ;D

Quote:Time is an illusion that is conventionalized by illusionary particles and illusionary energy. Even Einstein amazingly realized that his work basically showed that matter contained infinite energy. He tried to get away from this infinite problem, mainly because an infinite regressive answer to his theories, was no answer at all.

Again Thank you!

Quote:Everyone that has come to me trying to describe what reality has miserably fallen down the same trap as everyone else. This is mainly because the truth to reality conflicts with their view of reality. As a hint all I will say is that they look at things so separately, so distinctively. That is why they fail.
-Malinson

No, that is why you fail. Again your wrong. Don't bother reading my post again, you just don't have the mind to comprehend. :-*

[damageinc.]

Plume Wrote:talking is simple and so is understanding and agreement, until it's inflicted with veiled hatreds and spites among the conversation participants. polluting the peace that flows filthy from your mouths....

Which reminds me, I got to go brush my teeth. ;D

[Marc Stevens]

Quote:No, that is why you fail. Again your wrong. Don't bother reading my post again, you just don't have the mind to comprehend.

Let's stop the personal attacks.

[damageinc.]

Malinson Wrote:That's fine, there not your words anyway.

As if yours are? You didn't learn what you say from someone else? Are you "God"? Please! Nuf said...

[damageinc.]

Malinson Wrote:     I assure you they are my words. After all, when one discovers fire dose he not discover other truths? Who told him? As an enlighten being I see many things that are invisible to most because they think with only their eyes.   I’m asking you to cast aside what your perceiving with such conceptions and in so doing I crack the shell of ignorance.

     Problem is that some don't want it cracked.

-Malinson

I assure you, you have not assured me.  :rolleyes:

[damageinc.]

Malinson Wrote:I'm perfectly fine with you believing what you want to believe.

Oh, I'll bet that hurt.

[damageinc.]

Malinson Wrote:Why would it?

Did it? Hurt?

[Darren Dirt]

THREAD CLOSED. BORING LIMIT EXCEEDED.

[Lordmetroid]

Malinson Wrote:It amazes me that when I literally prove to them that their theories are wrong they turn their backs and refuse to talk to me. Why do they do this?

Simply, you don't know what you are talking about. To try to have a discussion based on highly complicated math and mesurements you have never experienced is equally yielding to have a discussion with a child who don't want to listen.

[thirdeye]

Darren Dirt Wrote:THREAD CLOSED. BORING LIMIT EXCEEDED.

Indeed