What’s the alternative to the computational model? The only other logical alternative is some sort of supernatural mystical dualism – which is only an evasion. Computation” does not mean that the mind is literally an electronic computer with blinking lights and binary logic, but that it operates according to natural laws.

too bad libertarians don’t read Tocqueville

@jonatank If you consider that to be proof then you are very UN-convincing!

You also make a very specious assumption about what Dennis Wilson, Apollonius Dionysius, Tom Woods, I and libertarians know or have read.

How do you expect to convince or persuade others with blanket accusations and no reasoning or application of basic logic?

@atlasaikido
well here is the idea- you make that so. in 2 months we are back to where we started

@jonatank

There has been a BIG DEBATE on some “libertarian” discussion groups about who did what to whom in the Gaza strip. Personally I am grossed out and thoroughly tired of people–claiming to be libertarians–who think that I can be swayed to embrace THEIR particular totalitarian cause if I am deluged with enough pictures of dead people in Gaza or dead people in Auschwitz.

I can think of NO REASON why I should give a shit about two GOVERNMENTS–Hamas & Israel–fighting each other! As Jim Davidson said in one posting, “I could honestly not care any less which side is “right”. A pox on both their houses.”

We “libertarians” seem to agree that the BIGGEST threat to YOU AND ME as individuals is “Government” in general and the various governments within the USA (Federal, State, County, City, Parish, School districts etc, ad nauseum) in particular. These are a much bigger threat than anything that is half a world away. So why is there such a concern about what OTHER stupid and totalitarian governments are doing? It is abundantly clear that the biggest threat to YOU AND ME personally is MUCH CLOSER and more important than choosing sides in some stupid conflict between totalitarian governments(!) half way around the world!

Once again we are witness to “libertarians” choosing to focus energy and attention on less important issues that DIVIDE us rather than the really important issues upon which we supposedly can all agree.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence faced a similar problem regarding the (then world wide and centuries old) issue of human slavery and they put it aside in favor of issues that they COULD solve and upon which they were in **UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT**.

We alleged “libertarians” still have much to learn from people who are two centuries dead.

AtlasAikido p Dennis Lee Wilson
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Continued here: Solving ALL the world’s problems–*NOW*!
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=143.msg308#msg308

So what happens when really smart people build rocket ships instead of protesting gravity?

Feel free to adopt and model making that so! Where one actually leads oneself without squirming when asked to think like a free person, and without enslaving oneself nor others!

My focus is on those who want to help themselves instead of those who might as well be government:

How I Freed Myself.

@atlasaikido
wow.
non sequitur
but I can open it up, after all it’s my posterior on the line here. which of all the nonsense should I adress first?

@jonatank

https://liberty.me/members/jonatank/

Ahhh. NOW I remember where I encountered such postings.

Hermeneutics!

It was the subject of an interesting criticism from no less than Murray Rothbard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

“Murray Rothbard, an economist, had this to say in his 1989 article, The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics:
So why then does the present author … have the temerity to tackle a field as arcane, abstruse, metaphysical, and seemingly unrelated to economics as hermeneutics?

Here my plea is the always legitimate one of self-defense. Discipline after discipline, from literature to political theory to philosophy to history, has been invaded by an arrogant band of hermeneuticians, and now even economics is under assault….

The essential message of deconstructionism and hermeneutics can be variously summed up as nihilism, relativism, and solipsism. That is, either there is no objective truth or, if there is, we can never discover it. With each person being bound to his own subjective views, feelings, history, and so on, there is no method of discovering objective truth.”

THAT is why I felt a profound and fragmenting confusion.

Critics of hermeneutics –such as Jonathan Barnes or David Gordon[1] – are understandably moved to satire, to stating or quoting hermeneutical tracts and then “translating” them into simple English, where invariably they are revealed as either banal or idiotic…

…So why then have not the distinguished critics of hermeneutics played the game on their opponents’ own turf and waded through the mountains and oceans of hogwash, patiently to cite and refute the hermeneuticians point by point and journal article by journal article? To ask that question is virtually to answer it.

In fact, we have asked some of the critics this question, and they immediately responded in a heartfelt manner that they do not propose to dedicate the rest of their lives to wading through this miasma of balderdash. Moreover, to do so, to play by the hermeneuticians’ own rules, would be to grant them too much honor. It would wrongfully imply that they are indeed worthy participants in our conversation. What they deserve instead is scorn and dismissal.

Unfortunately, they do not often receive such treatment in a world in which all too many intellectuals seem to have lost their built-in ability to detect pretentious claptrap.[13]

[1] https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-hermeneutical-invasion/#_edn1

[13] https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-hermeneutical-invasion/#_edn13

@atlasaikido
I see I’m facing a master of non sequiturs.
Please tell me how Alexis de Toqeuville has something to do with Hermeneutics?

@atlasaikido
I am so sorry you think some obscure text by Rothbard or Auswitz has something to do with weird believes people have about Middle East

@jonatank YOU are living in a strange world where you CANNOT see the words I wrote and where you CAN see proofs that are invisible to me.

Would you be so kind as to EXPLAIN how YOUR position “too bad libertarians don’t read Tocqueville” is incumbent on me to explain to you?

You clearly have had ample opportunity to support YOUR own claim.

Let’s review.

I stated //If you [Jonas] consider that [Tocqueville] to be proof then you are very UN-convincing! You also make a very specious assumption about what Dennis Wilson, Apollonius Dionysius, Tom Woods, I and libertarians know or have read.

How do you expect to convince or persuade others with blanket accusations and no reasoning or application of basic logic?//

You CONTINUE with “well here is the idea- you make that so. in 2 months we are back to where we started”.

That’s a Denial of Self Responseability.

I reviewed your past comments here: https://liberty.me/members/jonatank/ and it’s MORE of the same TINA: There Is NO Alternative [Statist quo cop-outs] I.E. ‘”it is weird to … [you] when people of liberty advocate “more of quantity and less of quality STATE” SOLUTION’. [Emphasis Added]

So?

I’m still NOT interested in fueling //…your [ongoing] stupid [quality state] CONFLICT between totalitarian governments(!) half way around the world!//

I supported my advocacy of Self Reliant Liberty here: http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=143.msg308#msg308 ”

I provided a Model for freeing oneself outside of State Conflicts…which evidently eludes you standing on Tocqueville’s shoulders.

I asked //So what happens when really smart people build rocket ships instead of protesting gravity?

Feel free to adopt and model making that so! Where one actually LEADS Oneself without squirming when asked to think like a free person, and without ENSLAVING oneself nor others!

My focus is on those who want to help and govern themselves INSTEAD of those who might as well be Government.//

Re: “I [you] see I’m [you are] facing a master of non sequiturs. Please tell me how Alexis de Toqeuville has something to do with Hermeneutics”?

Re: “I [You are] am so sorry you think some obscure text by Rothbard or Auswitz has something to do with weird believes people have about Middle East”

Re: “I [You are ] am sorry, I [you] do not inhabit the same context. Do you believe in some way that anyone in the Middle East would embrace libertarian creed?”

You are being disingenuous by dropping the context!! And hoping to get away with it.

Rothbard’s works has you, et al, dead to rights BOTH on his article on Zionists. That group of individuals in Israel as ruthless as the Neo-Cons in the USA.

AND

Hermeneutics! The subject of an interesting criticism from no less than Murray Rothbard.

What’s the alternative to the computational model? The only other logical alternative is some sort of supernatural mystical dualism – which is only an evasion. Computation” does not mean that the mind is literally an electronic computer with blinking lights and binary logic, but that it operates according to natural laws.

too bad libertarians don’t read Tocqueville

@jonatank If you consider that to be proof then you are very UN-convincing!

You also make a very specious assumption about what Dennis Wilson, Apollonius Dionysius, Tom Woods, I and libertarians know or have read.

How do you expect to convince or persuade others with blanket accusations and no reasoning or application of basic logic?

@atlasaikido
well here is the idea- you make that so. in 2 months we are back to where we started

@jonatank

There has been a BIG DEBATE on some “libertarian” discussion groups about who did what to whom in the Gaza strip. Personally I am grossed out and thoroughly tired of people–claiming to be libertarians–who think that I can be swayed to embrace THEIR particular totalitarian cause if I am deluged with enough pictures of dead people in Gaza or dead people in Auschwitz.

I can think of NO REASON why I should give a shit about two GOVERNMENTS–Hamas & Israel–fighting each other! As Jim Davidson said in one posting, “I could honestly not care any less which side is “right”. A pox on both their houses.”

We “libertarians” seem to agree that the BIGGEST threat to YOU AND ME as individuals is “Government” in general and the various governments within the USA (Federal, State, County, City, Parish, School districts etc, ad nauseum) in particular. These are a much bigger threat than anything that is half a world away. So why is there such a concern about what OTHER stupid and totalitarian governments are doing? It is abundantly clear that the biggest threat to YOU AND ME personally is MUCH CLOSER and more important than choosing sides in some stupid conflict between totalitarian governments(!) half way around the world!

Once again we are witness to “libertarians” choosing to focus energy and attention on less important issues that DIVIDE us rather than the really important issues upon which we supposedly can all agree.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence faced a similar problem regarding the (then world wide and centuries old) issue of human slavery and they put it aside in favor of issues that they COULD solve and upon which they were in **UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT**.

We alleged “libertarians” still have much to learn from people who are two centuries dead.

AtlasAikido p Dennis Lee Wilson
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent

Continued here: Solving ALL the world’s problems–*NOW*!
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=143.msg308#msg308

So what happens when really smart people build rocket ships instead of protesting gravity?

Feel free to adopt and model making that so! Where one actually leads oneself without squirming when asked to think like a free person, and without enslaving oneself nor others!

My focus is on those who want to help themselves instead of those who might as well be government:

How I Freed Myself.

@atlasaikido
wow.
non sequitur
but I can open it up, after all it’s my posterior on the line here. which of all the nonsense should I adress first?

@jonatank

https://liberty.me/members/jonatank/

Ahhh. NOW I remember where I encountered such postings.

Hermeneutics!

It was the subject of an interesting criticism from no less than Murray Rothbard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

“Murray Rothbard, an economist, had this to say in his 1989 article, The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics:
So why then does the present author … have the temerity to tackle a field as arcane, abstruse, metaphysical, and seemingly unrelated to economics as hermeneutics?

Here my plea is the always legitimate one of self-defense. Discipline after discipline, from literature to political theory to philosophy to history, has been invaded by an arrogant band of hermeneuticians, and now even economics is under assault….

The essential message of deconstructionism and hermeneutics can be variously summed up as nihilism, relativism, and solipsism. That is, either there is no objective truth or, if there is, we can never discover it. With each person being bound to his own subjective views, feelings, history, and so on, there is no method of discovering objective truth.”

THAT is why I felt a profound and fragmenting confusion.

Critics of hermeneutics –such as Jonathan Barnes or David Gordon[1] – are understandably moved to satire, to stating or quoting hermeneutical tracts and then “translating” them into simple English, where invariably they are revealed as either banal or idiotic…

…So why then have not the distinguished critics of hermeneutics played the game on their opponents’ own turf and waded through the mountains and oceans of hogwash, patiently to cite and refute the hermeneuticians point by point and journal article by journal article? To ask that question is virtually to answer it.

In fact, we have asked some of the critics this question, and they immediately responded in a heartfelt manner that they do not propose to dedicate the rest of their lives to wading through this miasma of balderdash. Moreover, to do so, to play by the hermeneuticians’ own rules, would be to grant them too much honor. It would wrongfully imply that they are indeed worthy participants in our conversation. What they deserve instead is scorn and dismissal.

Unfortunately, they do not often receive such treatment in a world in which all too many intellectuals seem to have lost their built-in ability to detect pretentious claptrap.[13]

[1] https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-hermeneutical-invasion/#_edn1

[13] https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-hermeneutical-invasion/#_edn13

@atlasaikido
I see I’m facing a master of non sequiturs.
Please tell me how Alexis de Toqeuville has something to do with Hermeneutics?

@atlasaikido
I am so sorry you think some obscure text by Rothbard or Auswitz has something to do with weird believes people have about Middle East

@jonatank YOU are living in a strange world where you CANNOT see the words I wrote and where you CAN see proofs that are invisible to me.

Would you be so kind as to EXPLAIN how YOUR position “too bad libertarians don’t read Tocqueville” is incumbent on me to explain to you?

You clearly have had ample opportunity to support YOUR own claim.

Let’s review.

I stated //If you [Jonas] consider that [Tocqueville] to be proof then you are very UN-convincing! You also make a very specious assumption about what Dennis Wilson, Apollonius Dionysius, Tom Woods, I and libertarians know or have read.

How do you expect to convince or persuade others with blanket accusations and no reasoning or application of basic logic?//

You CONTINUE with “well here is the idea- you make that so. in 2 months we are back to where we started”.

That’s a Denial of Self Responseability.

I reviewed your past comments here: https://liberty.me/members/jonatank/ and it’s MORE of the same TINA: There Is NO Alternative [Statist quo cop-outs] I.E. ‘”it is weird to … [you] when people of liberty advocate “more of quantity and less of quality STATE” SOLUTION’. [Emphasis Added]

So?

I’m still NOT interested in fueling //…your [ongoing] stupid [quality state] CONFLICT between totalitarian governments(!) half way around the world!//

I supported my advocacy of Self Reliant Liberty here: http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=143.msg308#msg308 ”

I provided a Model for freeing oneself outside of State Conflicts…which evidently eludes you standing on Tocqueville’s shoulders.

I asked //So what happens when really smart people build rocket ships instead of protesting gravity?

Feel free to adopt and model making that so! Where one actually LEADS Oneself without squirming when asked to think like a free person, and without ENSLAVING oneself nor others!

My focus is on those who want to help and govern themselves INSTEAD of those who might as well be Government.//

Re: “I [you] see I’m [you are] facing a master of non sequiturs. Please tell me how Alexis de Toqeuville has something to do with Hermeneutics”?

Re: “I [You are] am so sorry you think some obscure text by Rothbard or Auswitz has something to do with weird believes people have about Middle East”

Re: “I [You are ] am sorry, I [you] do not inhabit the same context. Do you believe in some way that anyone in the Middle East would embrace libertarian creed?”

You are being disingenuous by dropping the context!! And hoping to get away with it.

Rothbard’s works has you, et al, dead to rights BOTH on his article on Zionists. That group of individuals in Israel as ruthless as the Neo-Cons in the USA.

AND

Hermeneutics! The subject of an interesting criticism from no less than Murray Rothbard.