Ferk @ Ferk @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

290

Joined

4 yr. ago

Bluetooth works great in Android for me though... once the devices have been paired, they connect the moment they are available and it just works.

However, for some reason on PC it's often quirky (Windows or Linux). My PC bluetooth works through a dongle so I wonder if an integrated card would do better.

Also, most devices will not keep more than 1 pairing, so it will be annoying if you plan to be jumping around between computers. But that's not the fault of the protocol, in theory remembering multiple pairings can be supported if the devices wanted to implement that.

That's the footnote, the actual text on image hover is:

"Oh yeah and another thing, not a big fan of the English language, or the lack of Trial by Combat in deciding our differences!"

They didn't have the right frame of reference.

From what I gather, I don't think it's about any stance from Codeberg in general, it seems they are attacking "several projects advocating tolerance and equal rights" in particular. They just happen to be hosted in Codeberg.

lol.. it does make it sound like they are trying to hide things from him, but I don't think that's the intention... it probably means "before the branch with the breakage has to be reviewed / tested / checked by the main person merging branches from each subsystem into mainline (Linus)"

This might fool some scrapping, but at the expense of making it not very legible for humans too. Also while ti might work right now, if it ever became a popular approach the AI scrapping could easily adapt. I expect they already try to correct for spelling mistakes anyway.

It reminds me of leet-speak. The custom keyboard is not a bad idea though.

What makes Hegel's "idealism" an idealism is the way it assumes that matter (eg. a stone floating in space) does not really exist beyond the domain of the mind (ie. if something doesn't involve consciousness, then according to Hegel, it does not exist). His notion that ideas drive social development is not a characteristic of traditional idealism. Pure idealism is not necessarily tied to that.

In other words: there's Hegel's methaphysical idealism, and then Hegel's philosophy of history and society (which is where his dialectic comes in).

All those sociocultural ideas Hegel had, and his opinions on what is it that drives socioeconomical progress, are not necessarily incompatible with even the most extreme forms of materialism (defined by the belief that matter is the one substance of reality).

Those ideas are in conflict with Marxist materialism (which is essentially the materialist version of Hegel's mix of ideas, which is intermixed with its own set of sociocultural claims), but not with materialism in its commonly used general term in metaphysics (which does not make those claims).

What Politzer calls "materialism" is also not strict materialism in the way it's commonly used in philosophy of the mind, not even when he does try to link it to it. He toys with the idea of "mind" being a separate thing from "matter" even within his explanation of materialism. And this gets him closer to dualism, not the monist ideas subyacent in what's commonly understood as materialism. Even in the most generous reading, he's at most a dualist of properties (ie. an emergentist) but he does not develop his thoughts enough in this respect, his ideas could be perfectly followed by a dualist of substances too, who wouldn't really agree with the monist view of materialism.

Materialism and Idealism, in the philosophy of mind, are not incompatible with the ideas of the drive of sociocultural change that either Hegel or Marx have when it comes to philosophy of history.

In a strict/pure (ie. not intermixed with separate Marxist ideas) materialist view, brains are machines and all within them is material and physical. Ideas don't exist as anything but a form of physical electrochemical interactions between the matter of the brain.

In a strict/pure (ie. not intermixed with separate Hegelian ideas) idealist view, all physical properties, including physical things like factories, the products / goods produced, etc. are real and they can be just as primary in the development of society as any real thing can be. Idealism just says that matter only exists in so far we experience it, it does not say that matter is a different thing that's separate from ideas and that ideas are somehow important and matter is not.. no. It says that matter (food, house, factories) is important and it is part of our experience, and experience is part of consciousness, which is part of the realm of mind.

For an idealist, matter IS mind, just the same way that for a materialist mind IS matter. They are both monist views, there is no "X" is "primary" over "Y"... but rather "Y" IS "X", there is only one realm of reality in both views.

That said, I'm a strict epiphenomenalist materialist that believes in determinism and rejects the idea of free will (beyond it being just an epiphenomenological illusion of our consciousness), I also reject the notion that consciousness in any way or form affects reality. I definitely disagree with Hegel's views in more than one way.

I understand why you called me idealist. It's because you were thinking about Marxist materialism and interpreted what I said (in your mind) as if it were opposed in some way to that view.

And yet, I do believe that the material act of punishing the powerful and distributing material goods efficiently and fairly is what can drive change in society.. not culture/ideas per se. And in order to do that effectively you need to implement real tools with real physical mechanisms of distributed transparency and control that so far have not been applied in any society, nor do I see socialist States (like China) to be steering in that direction.

Agreed.

That's your opinion.

I'm also not surprised you agree with "the red-headed philosopher". Maybe read other philosophers too. It helps building up some perspective.

Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy

He's definitely mixing things up, so I'm not surprised you mix them too... he's even involving a "God", as if this had anything to do with religion. He even talks about a "soul"...

There are theists who are hard materialists (eg. Thomas Hobbes), and there are atheists who are hard idealists (eg. Bernardo Kastrup). It's also possible be atheist and believe in a soul (eg. Michael Humer) or theist and believe there is no soul (eg. Peter van Ingwagen). The ideas in that book in relation to philosophy of the mind must be a product of its time. It's full of assumptions and pre-conceived ideas.

And he uses the generic term "materialism" in a way that's too specific, despite of all the different forms of materialism that exist, I'd say he seems to be more of an epiphenomenalist, or perhaps emergentist (which are just particular forms of it), but he does not seem to develop it well enough to clarify it. However the way he talks about it excludes many other forms of materialism, particularly the more extreme ones like eliminative materialism.

Personally, for a book like this one that's meant to be an introduction (he does not go very deep), I would have first made clear the difference between dualism and monism.. specially given that he seems to like the idea of including in materialism the concept of "matter" and "mind" (or "spirit" as he calls it) as two separate things, which would likely lead many to confuse materialism with a form of dualism after reading this book.

When it comes to your argument, “Ownership” is just an authority position recognized by the state as falling under that term. There’s no functional requirements or powers.

No, the executive power is a power. It does have a function.. in the same way, the management/administrative obligations of a position has a function.

A society where “owners” have no actual ability to buy or sell what they “own” and who are selected by society to “own” rather than by virtue of posession aren’t owners at all.

I don't agree with that, if I can't sell something that does not mean I'm not its owner, it just means I will be stuck with it (unless somehow I find a way to get rid of it).

I also did not say they don't have that ability, what I said that if the property is a means of production, the rules of the State would force them to require the approval of the State/Workers for any action related to that property. So if the State/Workers don't agree with the operation, it would not be allowed.

This is not dissimilar to how in many countries some properties are protected by the State, even when they are privately owned. Some States will try and place laws to prevent certain practices with certain properties. Like forest/woodland and so. Sometimes you will not be allowed to do certain things with your house if the State does not consider it sensible (like how I'm not allowed to install solar panels, because for some reason my city does not want houses in my neighborhood to have anything that could make them look modern -_-U).

We reached max comment depth in the other thread so I cannot reply there... I'll post the response here to your question:

That's decided by the State, they are the ones enforcing those rights and demanding those obligations.

This is idealism, not materialism, ie this believes ideas create reality, rather than the inverse.

No, materialism is the view that all of reality can be reduced to the material, while idealism is the view that all of reality is in the realm of the mind / mental experience. I think you are mixing concepts, and in any case, neither of those positions has ever been able to be proven true.. I'm perfectly happy to talk about philosophy of the mind (though you'll find I'm more of an epiphenomenalist.. even though all positions in this case have their issues), but it's a completely different topic and you are not applying the concept correctly here.

If the paper is signed by an official of the US state with sufficient authority, and the laws of the country allow it, yes.

EDIT: I cannot respond to the reply below because we seem to have reached the max comment deph, so I'll reply here

What comes with this ownership? What “rights/obligations” do I have?

That’s decided by the State, they are the ones enforcing those rights and demanding those obligations.

This is idealism, not materialism, ie this believes ideas create reality, rather than the inverse.

No, materialism is the view that all of reality can be reduced to the material, while idealism is the view that all of reality is in the realm of the mind / mental experience. I think you are mixing concepts, and in any case, neither of those positions has ever been able to be proven true… I’m perfectly happy to talk about philosophy of the mind (though you’ll find I’m more of an epiphenomenalist… even though all positions in this case have their issues), but it’s a completely different topic and you are not applying the concept correctly here.

To me all you need for ownership is a paper stating that your title will be “owner” in relation to a good, and some rights / obligations assotiated to it.

Yes, that's what you think.

Why do you think they should be considered owners if they don’t own?

Because it's you who thinks they don't own, not me.

I have explained that they don't, as long as they are scrutinized in the same level as I consider owners should be.

We are, because what you call ownership isn’t what I call ownership.

Let's agree to disagree. But I find it sad that you wanna boil it down to semantics and don't address the aspects of control that allow you to stop considering ownership as ownership.

I'm not saying that it ownership is an absolute requirement... again... THAT'S MY POINT.. that ownership is IRRELEVANT to the root of the problem.

I feel we are going in circles.

I think you misunderstand. It's not like they are a completely separate kind of person.

They are as distinct as an executioner who needs to cut someone's head is distinct from the person whose head needs to be cut.

The minute executive officials become friends with the officials redacting rules and/or the officials organizing the push towards kicking them out, my trust in the system decreases. Because now you can't trust the ones pushing for rules to make them in a way that benefits the one executing them.. or that the ones judging the rules do not get swayed in favor or letting malpractices slip.

What does “independence from the workers” do to help accountability for the workers?

The Workers is not a power, it's a community.

What I'm talking is an executive power, one that needs to be overseen by other entities and that has to abide by regulations. I feel the more independent from the ones setting those regulations and from those who are judging the execution of those rules, the least chances of corruption.

Do you believe in division of power?

The statement you made that contradicted it was believing individual ownership would last in a system where those rules no longer apply.

What rules? where's the quote? I still don't understand what you think that I'm thinking.

Your proposed role of ownership is functionally no different from an administrator and doesn’t consist of actual ownership. There’s no reason nor benefit for it, like, you could have a society where everyone has to wear an eyepatch, but that doesn’t make any sense and would never happen.

Having an eyepatch does make a functional difference though, it obstructs vision.

A better example to your point would be a society decides they want it to be spelt "color" (vs "colour", lets assume that really makes no functional difference).. then a bunch of people show up and argue that the spelling of "color" is the cause of problems so they want to make it so it's spelt "colour" instead... and just on the side maybe try and fix problems that they think were caused by the spelling... even though the measures to fix them can also be done with the same spelling in place.

My position is that the spelling of the word is not relevant.. what's relevant is the measures that should be taken to fix the problems, which would continue to happen if the only thing you change is the spelling of the word.

What does individual ownership add over public ownership if this role of management and administration is held by someone who has just as much ownership as any other worker?

Other than the idea of individuals being independent from the state (separation of power), it doesn't add anything and it doesn't remove anything.

This is exactly my point. We do not gain anything from taking away private ownership in a situation in which the real control / power is in the State / Workers and the owners are just independent individuals at the service of the State/Workers.

Profit only exists through exchange, ie for the purpose of sale so that you can use a greater quantity of money to produce a greater quantity of commodities, in a Money -> Commodity -> Greater Money circuit. This process inevitably results in competition, centralization, and death of competition. It isn’t a static, motionless system. Markets suffocate themselves.

Which statement I made is specifically challenged by this?

Let me ask you this: does the manager of your local publicly owned facility, be it a Post Office or school, own said facility? Would they need to?

In my proposed State, they would not necessarily need to (ie. they could delegate to a manager that does that job), but the responsibility towards the State/Workers in relation to the use of the facility would still be with the owner. So if the State/Workers are not happy about this arrangement for whatever reason (maybe they think the distribution of services is not being held with the benefit of the State/Workers in mind, or don't think it's fair for the owner to not take action himself), they can vote him out and elect a different one.