A fair example of this is 3rd world countries today where the government either doesn't have the laws like the U.S has or they don't enforce them

No it isn't. If third-world countries had rules like that nobody would have a job in the first place.

Not to mention, corporations shouldn't exist.

Some history work that needs doing.

Oh, and politics.

And my personal statement.

And enrichment projects.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 16, 2014, 01:29:31 AM

I believe in a relatively free market, which should be deregulated in comparison to today's economy.

So what economic regulations do you support?

I think it'd be political unfeasible to repeal a lot of the current safety laws we have, considering businesses and workers have come to adapt to the cost of them, although the burden could probably be made lighter on small businesses.

Things like an appropriate working week are generally fine. Umm, I'd rather get rid of minimum wage. Punishing things like cartels is important.

Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure.

Similar to monism. .

Essentially: both the mental and physical realms are reduced down to consciousness in its purest from, that being simply 'just being,' which is the one absolute truth that supersedes all others.

That seems like idealism, to me.

Yeah, actually...

I change my mind; materialism, as long as you concede that the consciousness exists. I wouldn't think purist materialism in that sense would include consciousness in the equation, hence my decision to take dualism first...

Funny you mentioned that.

Materialism is actually split into two camps. Eliminativists think mental processes (or a lot of them) don't actually exist, and only the physical matters. Reductionists fully acknowledge mental processes, but believe they can be firmly reduced down to the physical foundation of the brain.

In other words, eliminativists, in a sense, deny the mind.

I believe in a relatively free market, which should be deregulated in comparison to today's economy.

I don't care about morality, given its nature.

Society should be based on a justice system which protects the basic autonomy of the individual and provides stability. Usually, the most heinous and immoral things are so considered immoral, not just because of empathy, but because of the seriously destabilising effect on the community.

Any other social conventions can develop as they please, so they as they are consensual and don't violate the individual's rights under the law.

Of 1846?

Yeah, laissez-faire. Corn Laws were fucking killer.

Let's discuss some fucking metaphysics.

Which of these would you put yourself under:

Pluralism:
- There are many fundamental substances which things are reducible to.
- An example would be Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality.

Dualism:
- Mind and matter are two fundamentally different substances. Things may be reduced to the material or the mental, but neither can be reduced to the other.
- Descartes was a notable dualist.

Idealist:
- Only the mental fundamentally exists; everything, including the material, is reducible to the mental.
- Kant was a notable idealist.

Materialism:
- Only the material fundamentally exists; everything, including the mental, is reducible to the material.
- Richard Dawkins is a notable materialist.

Neutral monism:
- There is a fundamental substance which everything is reducible to, but it is neither material nor mental and both can be reduced to this neutral substance.
- David Hume was probably a notable neutral monist (this sort of monism is incredibly rare amongst philosophers).

Eliminativist Nihilism:
- There is no fundamental substance to which everything is reducible; in essence, objects do not meaningfully exist.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 15, 2014, 04:46:59 PM

Quote from: Sprungli on September 15, 2014, 04:42:15 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 15, 2014, 04:37:33 PM

Would've been funnier if you didn't spell "paedos" like a fucking autist.

Eh, you gives a fuck? I'm tired so if you want me to give a shit you'd better shift you midlands arse down here and take them from me

Shut the fuck up you Kentish cunt.

I thought he was from Hampshire?

>implying all of southern england isn't just kent

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 15, 2014, 04:39:41 PM

Quote from: TrussingDoor on September 15, 2014, 04:36:47 PM

Quote from: PSU on September 15, 2014, 04:22:24 PM

But energy cannot be created or destroyed.....

Consciousness is not energy.

Surely it's the aggregate energy caused by neuronal functions?

Nyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm a little iffy. Energy is certainly involved, but I see it more as a result of energy and neurons firing, not the energy itself. I'm certainly not educated in brain functions, though.

Seems like hair-splitting today. It's undoubtedly the result of physical, neuronal functions though.

Although, I'm no materialist.

Whatever, though, like you say: we ain't neuroscientists.

I like commie russia better than modern imperialist russia

Czarist russia is GOAT though

Alexander II = best tsar.

Would've been funnier if you didn't spell "paedos" like a fucking autist.

He sounds like a moron.

m8

do u even welth of nashuns?

Smith was described by several of his contemporaries and biographers as comically absent-minded, with peculiar habits of speech and gait, and a smile of "inexpressible benignity".[51] He was known to talk to himself,[45] a habit that began during his childhood when he would smile in rapt conversation with invisible companions.[52] He also had occasional spells of imaginary illness,[45] and he is reported to have had books and papers placed in tall stacks in his study.[52] According to one story, Smith took Charles Townshend on a tour of a tanning factory, and while discussing free trade, Smith walked into a huge tanning pit from which he needed help to escape.[53] He is also said to have put bread and butter into a teapot, drunk the concoction, and declared it to be the worst cup of tea he ever had. According to another account, Smith distractedly went out walking in his nightgown and ended up 15 miles (24 km) outside of town, before nearby church bells brought him back to reality.[52][53]

James Boswell who was a student of Smith's at Glasgow University, and later knew him at the Literary Club, says that Smith thought that speaking about his ideas in conversation might reduce the sale of his books, and so his conversation was unimpressive. According to Boswell, he once told Sir Joshua Reynolds that 'he made it a rule when in company never to talk of what he understood'.