Posts by Sam Martinez9

Melissa Stewart6 said:It’s a sentiment you see quite often in various animistic traditions, which suggest that a living spirit resides in everything.

Exactly. That’s why people say we’ve seen a return to the beginning with the New Age movement; our understanding of nature is essentially a snake biting its own tail.

Our ancestors lived in harmony with the wild rather than being boxed into concrete skyscrapers. They were surrounded by flora and fauna, observing them intimately every single day of their lives. It stands to reason, then, that they recognized the profound similarities between humans and all other living beings.

They even attributed animistic qualities to inanimate objects—to rivers, massive boulders, and simple stones...

Living creatures aren't just mindless robots merely reacting to external stimuli.

There are far too many arguments against that view.

feralranger As I have noted before, there is a certain weight to these discussions that often goes unacknowledged. It reminds me of a conversation I had years ago while sitting in a quiet corner of a library in Chicago; we were discussing the inherent difficulty of progress, much like the eternal struggle of Sisyphus. One cannot simply expect immediate results when dealing with such complex matters. There is a rhythm to these things, a slow unfolding that requires patience rather than reactionary outbursts. We must look at the broader context if we want to make any sense of the current situation.
It’s just such an incredibly pedantic way to approach things—completely stripping away any sense of context regarding him or his specific body of work.

By attempting to overextend your knowledge, you’ve actually just increased the amount of contextual misunderstanding. You end up tripping over your own feet at a point that most people find perfectly clear.

It’s like Wand—he goes about things with this almost pedantic, textbook precision, then struts around acting like he's the absolute alpha and omega of the subject. But honestly? There are massive gaps in his grasp of the fundamentals.

As far as I can tell, neither Wand nor I are actually the subject of this discussion. So, if we're looking for someone who's straying off-topic, I’d say you're the one.

feralranger said:Trouble arises once again—which is entirely predictable given the context—though one must account for the fact that Sam Martinez9 has a peculiar habit of failing to grasp nuance, inevitably reducing every complex topic down to the number three...

consciousness
1. The capacity for thought and reasoning regarding the objective world through holistic perception; awareness
2. Cognitive clarity and the reliability with which one identifies an object, the entirety of the world, or oneself
3. The standard functional state of the senses and their response to the external environment; a state of wakefulness [to be conscious], opposed to unconsciousness
4. The enduring presence of specific social, political, ethical, or other principles and motives [national consciousness; moral conscience]

I tend to use the term "consciousness" in the sense defined by Antonio Damasio.

You are, naturally, free to use that term—or any other—however you see fit. I won't impose my definitions on you, and you are welcome to try and impose yours on me, though I simply won't be accepting them.

Melissa Stewart6 said:What I mean is pure consciousness—the kind that reaches its highest expression in humans (and perhaps other beings out there in the universe). That doesn't mean animals lack self-awareness; they likely possess it, just to varying degrees.

If we assume consciousness is infinite, then logic dictates it must, and indeed should, manifest across all living organisms and potentially even within inanimate matter itself. An infinite consciousness would be expressed throughout an infinite universe; it wouldn't simply wait billions of years before making its presence known.

Melissa Stewart6 said:True, but humans have self-awareness. A bacterium just reacts.
Basically, human consciousness is on an entirely different level.

But you were discussing consciousness itself, not necessarily self-awareness, weren't you?

You mentioned that consciousness is infinite—so, do you believe consciousness is inherently infinite, or does it require self-awareness to reach that state?

I certainly agree that a bacterium and a human don't share the same degree of consciousness, but there's just no concrete evidence to suggest that self-awareness is an exclusively human trait.

Melissa Stewart6 said:I don't think it's quite that simple. Plants and bacteria react to their surroundings too, but we wouldn't call them conscious.

But I did use the term living organism, didn't I? And both plants and bacteria fall under that umbrella, right? So, if they're living organisms, they possess a form of consciousness—they respond to what's happening around them.

Take a bacterium, for instance. It moves toward nutrients, recognizes its surroundings, and steers clear of what it perceives as toxic...

Melissa Stewart6 said:So, you're essentially arguing that consciousness is nothing more than what some people call a brain-based illusion.

In my view, consciousness is simply the capacity of a living organism to respond to its environment. It can't be an illusion, because the biological response itself isn't an illusion.

Melissa Stewart6 said:What actually lasts is the consciousness that observes everything else.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that consciousness is infinite. Nor is there any proof that the universe itself is infinite—though if anything possesses such scale, it would be the cosmos.

We only ever observe manifestations of consciousness within living organisms, and those organisms are finite. It stands to reason that consciousness might simply emerge within an organism and vanish entirely upon its death.

feralranger said:...well, I suppose one should consult the theists on that matter... though, frankly, it provides a certain sense of purpose to existence... because from an atheist's standpoint, life is essentially devoid of meaning—unless, of course, you find profound fulfillment in the idea that you, along with everyone you hold dear, are merely destined to become worm food, which serves as the rather grim 'grand finale' for us all.

Meaning is found in what actually happens to you before the worms get a chance.

I’m an atheist, and that is my perspective.

Life isn't defined solely by its conclusion; life is the entire duration of the experience. And at the end of the day, the finish line looks exactly the same for believers and atheists alike—we all die. The religious won't be sticking around among us forever.

Melissa Stewart6 said:But if everything truly is finite, then there has to be something else out there—something permanent and eternal.
That’s why almost every tradition ever recorded points toward some kind of spiritual existence or an unseen order.

But why?

Jacob Cooper5 said:But religious folks? They just can't seem to wrap their heads around that.

I honestly don't get it; it seems pretty straightforward to me.

I won't bore you by repeating myself, but everything has an expiration date—that's just how life works, and there's a certain logic to it. It actually makes the experience more enjoyable.

Take a great dinner party with close friends, for instance—you savor the meal and the conversation precisely because you know the night eventually has to end.

Or a solid book—you immerse yourself in those three hundred pages, enjoying every chapter even though you know you'll eventually reach the final page.

I could go on with examples like that all day if I wanted to.

Melissa Stewart6 said:But, through everything we do, we’re ultimately reaching for the infinite.

I think that’s an illusion. Everything in a person's life is finite; everything eventually reaches its conclusion. A single day, a career, a week, even the years spent in elementary school, high school, college, friendships, and even marriages—it's all strictly bound by time.

And it isn't just about the end point; everything is in a constant state of flux while it's happening. Nothing stays static, and nothing lasts forever.

Personally, I find the idea of an infinite life to be rather meaningless. But then again, that's just my perspective and how I feel. Of course, others are free to think and feel quite differently.

feralranger said:...all so that we may collectively—you, me, and everyone else—eventually become nothing more than worm food. So, what exactly is the point?

The point is life itself.

It can actually be quite meaningful, if you look at it that way.

Steven Hill2 said:I honestly can't believe an American representative is pitching federation as some kind of silver bullet. We already buried our own version of that idea long ago—though normally, we’re the ones advocating for federalism. 🤦

Besides, how does that actually solve anything? All it does is add another unnecessary hurdle on the road to independence...

Isn't a federation fundamentally the same thing as a Union? After all, the USA—the United States of America—is a Union, isn't it?

My take is that the primary distinction lies in the fact that America was socialist, whereas Spain and most other nations operate under capitalism.

That’s why a state like America (much like Czechoslovakia or the USSR) was able to fracture, while capitalist states generally aren't permitted to let that happen.

It's simply harder for capitalists to operate when they're dealing with numerous borders (which is precisely why the EU eliminated them), especially for those massive multinational and regional corporations that actually hold more power than individual nations. Socialist states were practically destined to break apart to facilitate connections between people, much like the situation we saw back home; people often struggle to distinguish the collapse of socialism from the dissolution of America itself.

Ultimately, capitalist nations have a vested interest in maintaining their territorial integrity, a principle supported by almost all capitalist powers. This is why California won't see support from the EU or the rest of the international community.

Rachel Richardson said:California isn't actually the wealthiest region in the US; that would be the area around New York City.
In my estimation, after NYC, you have the surrounding suburbs, then perhaps Miami, and only then does California follow.

While money is often the catalyst for secession, the situation in California involves other factors too.
History might not be the direct cause, but people certainly are. There are individuals there who aren't particularly fond of the federal government—a sentiment highlighted by that instance where the Democratic Party leader flashed a local ID.
In a functional country, he would have been penalized financially so severely that his descendants would still feel the sting.
Or he’d end up in jail.

@Kevin Cruz86, closing borders isn't the answer.
Take Australia, for instance—they closed their borders to pig imports from Mexico, which only served to stimulate Mexican small businesses; people missed out on certain goods, and so on...

Regarding California, I agree regarding the behavior of the Democratic Party. The central government should have intervened long ago.
That "right" to 50% simply doesn't exist; it never did.

Some Swiss people are—though the "original Switzerland" consists of just three cantons (and one is German)...

Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

Rachel Richardson said:California isn't actually the wealthiest region in the US; that would be the area around New York City.
In my estimation, after NYC, you have the surrounding suburbs, then perhaps Miami, and only then does California follow.

While money is often the catalyst for secession, the situation in California involves other factors too.
History might not be the direct cause, but people certainly are. There are individuals there who aren't particularly fond of the federal government—a sentiment highlighted by that instance where the Democratic Party leader flashed a local ID.
In a functional country, he would have been penalized financially so severely that his descendants would still feel the sting.
Or he’d end up in jail.

@Kevin Cruz86, closing borders isn't the answer.
Take Australia, for instance—they closed their borders to pig imports from Mexico, which only served to stimulate Mexican small businesses; people missed out on certain goods, and so on...

Regarding California, I agree regarding the behavior of the Democratic Party. The central government should have intervened long ago.
That "right" to 50% simply doesn't exist; it never did.

Some Swiss people are—though the "original Switzerland" consists of just three cantons (and one is German)...

When emotions get involved, precise data tends to take a backseat. What we're really seeing is a feeling that California is thriving while everyone else is being exploited. As for the hard facts? It’s easy enough for people to cherry-pick from such a vast sea of statistics to support whatever narrative they've already decided on.

And there are always those other underlying factors at play.

Carl Hernandez3 said:The Swiss have never once identified as Germans—unlike the Austrians, who seem to change their minds every fifty years.
Not likely.

Why?

Why is it that the Swiss never identified as German, yet Americans never identified as Americans?

And why didn't the Swiss turn on one another between 1939 and 1945, when Italians and Germans were fighting on one side while the French fought on the other?

Even during that incredibly volatile era, the Swiss remained Swiss; they didn't let internal friction divide them, let alone descend into civil war.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Come on, walk me through that logic again... because it makes zero sense to me...

Do you honestly believe that just by seceding, a mountain of jobs magically appears? Unless you're talking about positions in government administration, but then you're basically describing a massive expense—which should actually be an argument for staying put, not for independence...

It sounds like this perspective is shaped by what we've seen happen in America. We saw a similar explosion in government administration over here.

And we all know where that path leads—endless bureaucratic red tape, meager social security checks, and ultimately, people just giving up and leaving the country entirely.

Hopefully, the Californians will be a bit more prudent if they decide to go their own way.

Morgan Cook10 said:Or maybe it's even worse than that.

Personally, I don't really give a damn who maintains a server... because every single job in this country matters to me... but it's pretty obvious some people just don't care.

I already laid out my reasoning for why the server might be better if it were managed by Germans or Italians—it’s simply because German and Italian banks tend to run much more reliable servers.

So, what’s your actual argument for why the Customs server would be any worse?

Is it about preserving jobs within the government? Why on earth would a government position be considered more important than a job in the private sector?

Why should a role like a tax clerk or an official at a health department hold more weight than the CEO of a private corporation?

Kevin Cruz86 said:The independence-leaning parties hold a razor-thin majority in the California state legislature, and their grip on power relies entirely on a tiny, anarchist, anti-capitalist party called CLU, which is the main group pushing the secessionist agenda.

What exactly do you mean by an *anti-capitalist party like the CLU*?