[ingliz]

The mind is a...

Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived).

Berkeley asserts that ideas constitute all existence and this universe of illusion is sustained by God.

Berkeley’s principle of perception, existence and God presented in a limerick.

Monsignor Ronald Knox:

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Anglican Bishop George Berkeley's reply (Anon.):

Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.

Much ado about nothing?

Lord Curzon's (according to Rupert Crawshay-Williams, Letter to Bertrand Russel) quip, 'quoted' by Thomas Hewitt Key in Punch, vol. 29, p.19. 1855:

“What is mind?”
“No matter.”
“What is matter?”
“Never mind.”

[Truth To Power]

The mind is a spiritual component of the soul of man.

That claim assumes you can know the existence and nature of the supernatural. But there's actually no evidence for any such thing.

The brain is the physical component used like a computer by the mind to enter instructions through the nervous system to help control voluntary functions of the physical body.

How does the mind enter those instructions -- physically affect the body -- without itself being physical? You've merely accepted an explanation for consciousness concocted by pre-scientific minds, like the explanation of rainbows as signs from God. Sorry, but I'll need some evidence that these things exist other than in certain people's imaginations.

Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived).

<sigh> How can something be perceived without first being?

Berkeley asserts that ideas constitute all existence and this universe of illusion is sustained by God.

Which makes him a typical Stone-Age mystic unable to fathom the scientific method.

“What is mind?”
“No matter.”
“What is matter?”
“Never mind.”

Which roughly paraphrases much of the content of peer-reviewed philosophy journals...

These concepts aren't that hard! Nobody is trying to trick you just because you can't understand these things yet.

They -- you -- are trying to trick those who DO understand.

Some of the big words we use are there to shorten basic concepts down into something easier to write.

"The means of production" is not shorter or easier to write than "land and capital," so that's that explanation for Marxist dishonesty down the drain.

These shortcuts can seem intimidating if you don't know what they are, but once you know them, you'll see why none of the rest of us have trouble with these "complicated" concepts that you try to water down.

I know perfectly well why you don't have trouble aggregating unlikes: it helps you pretend that they are alike.

And watering things down to something you can begin to understand is a good way to start with these concepts. You just need to keep at it

<yawn> How many years of practice did it take for you to become so adept at evading by pretending superiority?

Just because you are frustrated that you don't understand something doesn't mean the rest of us are being tricked.

I am frustrated because I DO understand it, and can't seem to find a way to help others understand it. It's like I'm watching everyone else driving around on flat tires, and telling them it would work a lot better if they pumped them up, and they just keep insisting I don't understand how tires are supposed to work, that they get more traction with flat tires because there is more rubber in contact with the road, and I should just run along, because it's all just too complicated for me to understand.

Maybe there is an easy way to explain this at your level:

<sigh> Was that supposed to be responsive? In fact, socialism and capitalism are the naked emperors, both insisting that land is capital and capital is land, though they tell that lie for opposite reasons. They are like two crooked palookas, pretending to fight while they actually hold each other up to avoid meeting the real challenger: justice.

See, like the emperor, you're trying to convince everyone else that what we plainly see in front of our faces isn't real because you don't understand what is going on.

No. I am the one telling you that what you plainly see in front of your faces IS real, that the emperor IS naked, and that your delusional Marxist belief that a factory is not a contribution to production by its owner, as land is not, is false and absurd. I am the one trying to get you to know what you already know: that to make money through the productive contribution of owning a factory and devoting it to production is hard, but to make money by idly owning land and charging others for access to what government, the community and nature provide is so easy it can be done while comatose.

None of these things are that complicated for us. The fact that you're having some trouble with it is okay—we all learned from somewhere. I just want you to be able to participate more fully and am trying to help.

You are aware that you are trying to prevent your readers from knowing the fact that owning a factory and devoting it to production contributes to production, while idly owning land and charging others for access to what government, the community and nature provide does not.

Even though you couldn't help pouting, you gave a definition! Good job

You are aware that I did not pout.

You made a few common mistakes.

No, you did.

For instance:

"Bourgeois" is an adjective; an adjective is a word used to describe a noun.

<yawn> I am the one who informed YOU of that fact, remember?

"Bourgeoisie" is a noun; a noun is a person, place, or thing.

So when you said that "bourgeois" refers to a class, the class it refers to is the "bourgeoisie."

I know this seems a little complicated, especially with the French words, but it is important if you want to understand some of these concepts.

<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.

The bourgeoisie class has a definition. Since you seem to be having a lot of trouble with words, I'll help you:

<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.

So if bourgeois is an adjective (a word that describes a noun) related to the noun (a person place or thing) "bourgeoisie" what do you suppose "bourgeois" means?

<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.

I asked YOU what SPECIFIC government you meant by, "the first experiment with bourgeois government."

Since then, you have done nothing but evade and pretend superiority:

Just in case you're a little ashamed to admit you don't know again, I'll write it out:

See?

"Bourgeois" would mean that it describes something "with social behavior and political views held to be influenced by private-property interest [like] a social order dominated by capitalists."

OK, so that would describe the governments of the Hanseatic League towns, which antedated the outcomes you ascribe to the "first experiment with bourgeois government" by half a millennium. I'm just trying to establish which part of your statement is the most incorrect.

Does that make sense to you now that I've written it out?

No, because:

Now, what do you think a means of production would look like if it had "social behavior and political views held to be influenced by private-property interest: a social order dominated by capitalists?"

I can't imagine land and capital having social behavior or political views at all, let alone ones influenced by private property interest. You don't seem to be talking about things that can possibly have the characteristics you ascribe to them.

Knowing this will help you answer the other question you've been having difficulty with: How is Egyptian slavery different than American slavery?

<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.

You did a really good job trying to answer what "bourgeois" meant and was really close to being correct.

No, you are aware that I was correct.

Let's bring it home and give me three ways that Egyptian slavery may have been different than American slavery!

<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.

We're really close to understanding what I meant by this. If you can just take the time to try and get an answer for how Ancient Egyptian slavery may have been different than 18th century American slavery...

If you can't defend your claims, just say so. I'm not going to provide your arguments for you just because you profess to be giving me homework assignments. Is that what you do with your students? Crib from their homework submissions for your scholarly journal papers?

I know, you're doing a really good job so far

Better than you, anyway....

Just because you don't understand words doesn't mean that the word itself is "dishonest" or that people are trying to trick you!

Dishonesty can't be converted into honesty by pretending that those who identify it as such just don't "understand" it.

I'm trying to help you understand these concepts that you seem to have a lot of problems understanding!

Disgraceful.

[Bulaba note: Triple posts merged]

[ingliz]

scientific method

In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down as far as possible relations between the multifold aspects of our experience.

Niels Bohr (1934)

The conception of the objective reality of the elementary particles has evaporated not into the cloud of some new reality concept, but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of the particles but our knowledge of this behavior.

Werner Heisenberg (1958)

The accepted properties of quantum entanglement and the superposition of states are essential properties of the concept of ‘probability’ developed by the minds that are engaged in the probing rather than of the energetic basis of the underlying processes.

[The Immortal Goon]

They -- you -- are trying to trick those who DO understand.

"The means of production" is not shorter or easier to write than "land and capital," so that's that explanation for Marxist dishonesty down the drain.

There are more than just land and capital for the means of production. "Production" comes from the word "produce." This means to make. If you were to make something, like a box to keep toys in, what kinds of things would you need to make this box?

When you think of some of these things, consider the action in making a lot of things—and how using these things might have a different nuance than land or capital. Let us know what you come up with!

<yawn> How many years of practice did it take for you to become so adept at evading by pretending superiority?

Don't get tired yet! There are lots of things for you to learn if you keep going!

I am frustrated because I DO understand it, and can't seem to find a way to help others understand it. It's like I'm watching everyone else driving around on flat tires, and telling them it would work a lot better if they pumped them up, and they just keep insisting I don't understand how tires are supposed to work, that they get more traction with flat tires because there is more rubber in contact with the road, and I should just run along, because it's all just too complicated for me to understand....No. I am the one telling you that what you plainly see in front of your faces IS real, that the emperor IS naked, and that your delusional Marxist belief that a factory is not a contribution to production by its owner, as land is not, is false and absurd. I am the one trying to get you to know what you already know: that to make money through the productive contribution of owning a factory and devoting it to production is hard, but to make money by idly owning land and charging others for access to what government, the community and nature provide is so easy it can be done while comatose.

Using this tire analogy you made up, it seems that everyone is explaining to you that their tires are full of air but you refuse to believe it because you can't see the air. We try to explain the nature of air and inflation and you accuse us of making this too difficult for you to understand.

But don't worry, joining a discussion board like this might help you understand!

You are aware that you are trying to prevent your readers from knowing the fact that owning a factory and devoting it to production contributes to production, while idly owning land and charging others for access to what government, the community and nature provide does not.

Before we get too complicated, let's go back to understanding what the means of production means. Have you thought about what kinds of things you'd need to build a box?

You are aware that I did not pout.

You usually like to write down what you imagine you're physically doing, but sometimes words convey it too

<yawn> I am the one who informed YOU of that fact [of what bourgeoisie meant], remember?

You're getting a little mixed up. This happens when you have to do a lot of reading sometimes. But practice should help.

Right after you accused me of doing what you did, you quote me helping you to define the word you had trouble with for three pages. You called this:

<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.

It can be hard to ask for help though!

I asked YOU what SPECIFIC government you meant by, "the first experiment with bourgeois government."

Since then, you have done nothing but evade and pretend superiority:

See?

I mentioned the Atlantic Revolutions but this was understandably a difficult concept for you. So we had to spend some pages getting you to understand what "bourgeois" meant. If you're having trouble remembering this, it's okay to reread it! We all do it sometimes.

OK, so that would describe the governments of the Hanseatic League towns, which antedated the outcomes you ascribe to the "first experiment with bourgeois government" by half a millennium. I'm just trying to establish which part of your statement is the most incorrect.

Remember when I asked you to think about what things were needed to make a box? This goes into the "means of production." Once you get back to me about the kinds of things you'd need to make a toy box, we can discuss what that means.

For right now, we can assume that "trade" does not mean "a social order dominated by capitalists."

I suppose it's my fault that you're confused because I let you off the hook for thinking of three ways that Egyptian slavery might have been different than American slavery. If you can think of these things and think of things you'd need to use to make a box, we can go further and maybe help you understand.

I can't imagine land and capital having social behavior or political views at all, let alone ones influenced by private property interest. You don't seem to be talking about things that can possibly have the characteristics you ascribe to them.

We're talking about the means of production, not just land and capital. Think about the things you'd need to use to build a toy box

<yawn> [Asking me how Ancient Egypt was different from the United States is] More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.

I think that when you figure out some of these differences you'll start to see how the tools we use and what reason we use them have a lot to do with how we see the world. Keep trying!

No, you are aware that I was correct [about defining 'bourgeoisie'.

I'm sure you tried really hard, but you weren't exactly right. You were close though!

<yawn> More of your attempts to evade by pretending superiority.

I'm not pretending

If you can't defend your claims, just say so. I'm not going to provide your arguments for you just because you profess to be giving me homework assignments. Is that what you do with your students? Crib from their homework submissions for your scholarly journal papers?

No, my students wouldn't know how to use basic terms or the most rudimentary parts of economics. So I assign them projects to help them understand.

Dishonesty can't be converted into honesty by pretending that those who identify it as such just don't "understand" it.

Let's think back to the analogy about the car tires and you insisting that they're flat because you can't see the air and everyone else explaining that tires don't work that way. It's not that everyone else fails to understand tires in the scenario. Do you need some extra help?

[Sivad]

I am frustrated because I DO understand it

But you really don't. You're overcooked in the idea, you think unproven philosophical premises are "objective physical facts".

-TIG Edit

[Godstud]

Attack the argument, not the person. I know it's sometimes hard, but try, anyways.

[Hindsite]

That claim assumes you can know the existence and nature of the supernatural. But there's actually no evidence for any such thing.

How does the mind enter those instructions -- physically affect the body -- without itself being physical? You've merely accepted an explanation for consciousness concocted by pre-scientific minds, like the explanation of rainbows as signs from God.

According to the Son of God, we consist of body, soul, and spirit and the spirit acts on the body to make it a living soul, which seems to relate to our consciousness. How it does it we are not told. HalleluYah.

[ingliz]

Stone-Age mystic[s]

"[Quantum physics is] nature exposed to our method of questioning".

— Werner Heisenberg

Emergent reality and consciousness:

"Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position... we ourselves produce the results of measurements."

— Ernst Pascual Jordan

"It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness. Solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics."

— Eugene Wigner

Daft as it seems,

"It is clear that non-physical quantities such as information and goals can have physical effect in the world of particles and forces, and hence must be recognised as having a real existence."

— George F. R. Ellis

[Truth To Power]

In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down as far as possible relations between the multifold aspects of our experience.

Niels Bohr (1934)

The conception of the objective reality of the elementary particles has evaporated not into the cloud of some new reality concept, but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of the particles but our knowledge of this behavior.

Werner Heisenberg (1958)

The accepted properties of quantum entanglement and the superposition of states are essential properties of the concept of ‘probability’ developed by the minds that are engaged in the probing rather than of the energetic basis of the underlying processes.

"[Quantum physics is] nature exposed to our method of questioning".

— Werner Heisenberg

Emergent reality and consciousness:

"Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position... we ourselves produce the results of measurements."

— Ernst Pascual Jordan

"It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness. Solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics."

— Eugene Wigner

Daft as it seems,

"It is clear that non-physical quantities such as information and goals can have physical effect in the world of particles and forces, and hence must be recognised as having a real existence."

— George F. R. Ellis

If that sort of context chopping -- a practice of which you appear to be the world's foremost exponent -- helps you evade the facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil, go wild.

[The Immortal Goon]

Polls have confirmed the finding from the OP.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world ... rylink=cpy

Millennials aren't satisfied with capitalism — and might prefer a socialist country, studies find

Ask a millennial if they would rather live under a socialist or capitalist country, and they’re likely to give an answer much different than their parents or grandparents would.

That’s according to a new YouGov study commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist organization, which found that 44 percent of millennials would prefer to live in a socialist country, with another 7 percent saying the same about communism.

Meanwhile, just 42 percent of millennials said they would choose to live in a capitalistic country like the United States, according to the survey of 2,000 people.

Overall, according to the survey, 59 percent of American adults would rather live in a capitalist country than a socialist one. And among Baby Boomers, only 26 percent would want to live in a socialist country, showing a generational divide between the young and old.

Those findings are backed up by other studies — and the voting patterns of millennials in the 2016 presidential primaries.

A 2014 poll by Reason-Rupe, a libertarian think tank, discovered that 58 percent of those aged 18 to 24 have a favorable view of socialism, while just 56 percent of that age group said the same about capitalism. In comparison, just 23 percent of those between the age of 55 and 64 look favorably upon socialism.

Also, Gallup found in a 2016 poll that while more millennials have a positive perception of capitalism than they do for socialism (57 percent to 55 percent, respectively), the two economic systems are well-within the poll’s margin of error.

And even when a 2016 survey from Harvard University determined that only 33 percent of millennials support socialism, it also found that a majority of that generation — 51 percent — don’t really like capitalism, either, according to The Washington Post.

Those beliefs were evident during the 2016 election, when Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, easily won the vote of that younger generation.

The Washington Post reported that just over 2 million people under the age of 30 voted for Sanders, who ran on a platform of healthcare for all and raising taxes on the wealthy, in all primaries and caucuses.

That’s more than all of Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s votes from that age group during the primaries and caucuses combined.

There’s a likely reason that millennials voted for a socialist candidate during the primaries — the YouGov survey from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that 53 percent of that generation believes the United States economy “works against me.”

That troubles Marion Smith, executive director of the foundation, who described the survey’s findings as a “troubling turn.”

“Millennials now make up the largest generation in America, and we're seeing some deeply worrisome trends," Smith told Fox News. "Millennials are increasingly turning away from capitalism and toward socialism and even communism as a viable alternative.”

[Godstud]

So, in a nutshell, Millennials are getting smarter and realizing that capitalism isn't delivering what it has promised, and so they are looking to an alternate vision. That sounds pretty smart, to me.

Less capitalist countries(more socialist), are seen as the best countries to live in, now.

[The Immortal Goon]

There's a certain tragedy (in a funny way) with people like this Marion Smith.

"Young people are saddled with debt, have never had the chance to have a full time job, are the first generation in the US to have lived a less prosperous life than their parents, and there are Nazis having torchlight vigils supported by the president to celebrate traitors to the US. Why don't they have faith in the system?"

[Vlerchan]

This seems meaningless without providing what definition of socialism millennials are using.

Free tuition! isn't socialism. Neither are higher levels of taxation.

To be honest, these fill in the blanks ideology questions are highly problematic and at most tell us 1) young people are more liberal than old people, 2) the United State's cold war ideology is starting to wear off. Reading much more than that into it seems misguided to me.

[Potemkin]

This seems meaningless without providing what definition of socialism millennials are using.

Free tuition! isn't socialism. Neither are higher levels of taxation.

To be honest, these fill in the blanks ideology questions are highly problematic and at most tell us 1) young people are more liberal than old people, 2) the United State's cold war ideology is starting to wear off. Reading much more than that into it seems misguided to me.

^ This. The last point is especially pertinent. Back in the 20th century, Communism (and socialism) was the Public Enemy #1. To be even a moderate democratic socialist was regarded by most Americans as little better than being in league with Satan. Quite literally. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union has, rather ironically, had the effect strengthening the Communist cause in the capitalist West's heartland. The arrogant hubris and bumbling incompetence of our financial and political elite since 1991 hasn't helped either. Lol. The ruling elite dismissed socialism as a busted flush back in 1991, and Islamism is now the Public Enemy du jour. They've taken their eye off the ball.

[Hindsite]

So, in a nutshell, Millennials are getting smarter and realizing that capitalism isn't delivering what it has promised, and so they are looking to an alternate vision. That sounds pretty smart, to me.

Less capitalist countries(more socialist), are seen as the best countries to live in, now.

No, it is not very smart at all. In fact, it is pretty stupid. May God help them.

[Godstud]

Yes, God help them because they might embrace socialism, and have a better life than the old twits who are enjoying their socialist programs, and spouting off nonsense about how bad socialism is.

[Joe Liberty]

No, it is not very smart at all. In fact, it is pretty stupid. May God help them.

Well, it's a combination of their not being versed in exactly what the various economic models are; the fact that we have a hybrid economy, it's not just capitalism; and the question being incredibly vague.

But yeah. It's okay, though, a lot of leftists grow out of it when they become adults and are expected to pay for everything.

[skinster]

[Zagadka]

A generation that hasn't gone through college yet. I wouldn't put too much stock into them. Most kids are have high ideology.

[MistyTiger]

Some millenials have already graduated college Zag. I shouldn't be in the millenial generation since my dob is an edge year, but I am.

If millenials truly rejected capitalism, then they wouldn't be so gullible and buy into the capitalist policies like competitive sales tactics. I personally like that there are many brands that sell the same thing, monopolies mean that you're stuck with one high price from one source. Like for home internet, I can only use Comcast because they are the only ones providing service to the area where I live and in the past, their service was less than stellar but it was either them or crappy dial up.