• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年8月15日

help-circle







  • There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.

    I’d agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I’ve provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.

    That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life

    As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it’s well established that it’s contingent on the body.

    And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?

    You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

    Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we’d just add the other paradigms to the areas they’re useful, like we’ve done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.

    A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they’re unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?







  • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.eetoLefty Memes@lemmy.dbzer0.com*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 年前

    Interesting.

    What you’re saying is well aligned, but from a fundamentally different viewpoint. Socialism doesn’t (by itself) address any of the things in your summation. The closest I can explain it in terms that could make sense to you is just the first part: “people shouldn’t be earning a living”.

    I think ideological socialism just axiomatically starts from a different perspective. A person (traditionally a citizen) shouldn’t have to earn their right to live, rather it’s our shared interest that all of us can live our best lives. From that perspective work is only relevant as a way to create wellbeing (sense of purpose, creating things, being helpful, etc), economy comes only in the implementation and how we fund the society that allows the ideal.

    And that’s where different groups have tried different things, planned economy has had mixed success, capitalism within the social framework is the current fashion in most of Europe/World, but you also have kibbutzes/communes, homesteading, and multigenerational and/or sectarian communes.

    All these are different implementations of socialism, and none of them are founded on the idea of work, salary or expenses. They typically start from other ideals, where the economic policy simply becomes a tool.


  • What a neatly succinct way to put your understanding, well phrased.

    It’s unfortunately conflating economic policy with social policy, and is quite divorced from anything happening since 1917. Most of Europe lives in democratic socialism, which combines none of A), with none of B).

    From the power perspective you’re mostly right though, in socialism it’s the citizen that has rights, in capitalism it’s capital. Meaning that voting and influence stems from different fundamental perspectives, sometimes different enough that they aren’t opposed (like in most western DemSoc).

    Economic socialism typically means that the purpose of the economy is to raise the standard of living for the citizens, this typically means providing healthcare, infrastructure like roads, housing and clean water, and affordable goods. And usually leads to equalising tax structures, with progressive taxation of the affluent, and higher tax burden in the things that exploit/hinder the societal good, like companies, damaging luxuries (like alcohol, sugar) and pollution.

    Ideologically it typically means that every citizen has the right to a comfortable and fulfilling life, where emphasis and understanding differs across the world. And it typically translates to citizens having equal, unalienable rights, with support structures in place for the more vulnerable. That could be that official documents are made available in multiple languages, more flexible voting arrangements, advocacy and support for infirm, elderly and marginalised groups. I’d simplify it as: every citizen is entitled to a comfortable and fulfilling life, and all the support they need to live it.

    Politically the focus is on common good, with as little individual impingement as possible. Universal healthcare and education are great investments in the national economy, so is child and elder care, which frees up the workforce from other chores. Support for the arts, hobbies, and recreational spaces is common, as is public beautification, public forums, parks/nature preserves.

    But none of this is in necessary opposition to capitalism, which isn’t a political system of governance more than economic anarchy. Capitalism doesn’t by itself have any aims, ideology, or principles about voting rights, it simply wants capital to produce more capital, and would in the extreme not have any voting rights beyond what you can create with your capital.

    In the US it translates through liberalism to policy, where small governance leaves more room for individually powerful citizens, of which capital is increasingly the dominant party.