BSing vs. lying in politics

A well-known hard core conservative pundit, David Harsanyi writing at the hard core conservative site The Federalist, once argued the proposition that president Obama was a good BSer but a bad liar. It was posited like this: “Politicians break their promises and modify their positions all the time, of course. They BS us about their opinions and carefully craft identities that are palatable to the average voter. When a person enters this political universe, we need accept that most of the things we hear are, at best, poetic truths. But, yet, there is still a big difference between BSing and lying . . . .” According to the unreliable interwebs, BSing occurs “when someone has no f****ng clue what they are talking about, yet insists on trying to get others to believe him/her.”

The lament cites the “horrendous” job the political-media complex does because it routinely engages in “industrialized spin”, which was argued to be a bad thing that happens all the time. The author criticized misinformed, deceitful politics in general and president Obama's penchant to lie in particular. Obama allegedly always has a clue and therefore he does lies instead of BS.

Regarding the lies, BS, misinformation, deceit and spin in politics, politics-related social science research shows it's common, maybe the rule, not the exception. Politics really is based significantly on what one can argue is objectively false facts and objectively flawed common sense. Of course, that's not surprising in view of how weak and powerless human conscious thinking or bandwidth is relative to our much more powerful unconscious minds. That is true for democracies and probably all other forms of governance. In democracies, the typical voter has an inaccurate belief in how democracy really works or, more accurately, should work. A false belief in what “the will of the people” actually amounts to leads to cynicism. That's a bad thing for sure.

Writing an opinion piece entitled “The unbearable stench of Trump's B.S.” in the Washington Post on August 4, 2016, pragmatic commentator Fareed Zakaria asserts that Donald trump is an inveterate “bullshit artist” based on how the moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt (Princeton) distinguishes lies from BS in his 1986 book On Bullshit:

“Telling a lie is an act with a sharp focus. It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a specific point. . . . In order to invent a lie at all, [the teller of a lie] must think he knows what is true.” By contrast, BS “is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all . . . except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says.” The BSer’s “focus is panoramic rather than particular” and he has “more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the ‘bullshit artist.’ ”

One can ask, so what? Why does any of this make any difference given how misinformation- or deceit-based and self-interested political rhetoric and thinking is? After all, almost all misinformation, lies and BS are constitutionally protected free political/commercial speech. Nobody files lawsuits. Nothing can and/or should be done about it because (i) congress no longer governs due to gridlock, and (ii) regardless of chronic congressional constipation, difficulty in governing is baked into the constitution and the constitution protects it. Leave it alone.

That's a rational, reasonable argument. Reasonable, that is, if one wants to stay with irrational politics based on objectively false reality and flawed common sense.

Maybe nothing can be done. However, there's no prohibition on bringing this up to inform the public about it over and over and over. Cognitive science is clear: repetition often works for breathing life into both truth and outrageous BS or lies.

One final point. Zakaria writes: “This [BS] has been Trump’s mode all his life. He boasts — and boasts and boasts — about his business, his buildings, his books, his wives. Much of it is a concoction of hyperbole and falsehoods. And when he’s found out, he’s like that guy we have all met at a bar who makes wild claims but when confronted with the truth, quickly responds, ‘I knew that!’ . . . . Harry Frankfurt concludes that liars and truth-tellers are both acutely aware of facts and truths. They are just choosing to play on opposite sides of the same game to serve their own ends. The B.S. artist, however, has lost all connection with reality. He pays no attention to the truth. ‘By virtue of this’, Frankfurt writes, ‘bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies are.’ ”

So, are Frankfurt and Zakaria right to argue that BS is a greater enemy of truth than lies? Or, is it irrelevant because politics is so hopelessly mired in fantasy and irrational nonsense that it makes no difference?

B&B orig: 8/10/16

Lies & BS in politics

Fog at sunrise

The issue of politicians, business people and the mainstream media lying to the American people is a hot issue in the 2016 elections. Lying to the American people can take several forms, the most obvious is a statement of fact that is false. The speaker may or may not know of or care about the falsity. Other kinds of lies include (i) withholding facts that undermine or contradict public statements, and (ii) taking actions that undermine or contradict public statements. None of the foregoing kinds of lies is illegal, unless a line is crossed, e.g., a politician inciting violence or treason, or false advertising by a business.

No one denies that politicians lie. One conservative commentator writing for The Federalist put it this way: “Politicians break their promises and modify their positions all the time, of course. They BS us about their opinions and carefully craft identities that are palatable to the average voter. When a person enters this political universe, we need accept that most of the things we hear are, at best, poetic truths. But, yet, there is still a big difference between BSing and lying– though the latter is . . . . pardonable if you happen to be lying for the cause.”

According to the Urban Dictionary, BSing happens “when someone has no f***ing clue what they are talking about, yet insists on trying to get others to believe him/her.” Apparently, that accords with how academia sees the lies vs. BS difference.

Given pipartisan bitterness, some historical context is appropriate.

The founding Fathers and the 1787 Constitutional Convention: The Constitutional Convention took place over about 4 months in 1787 in Philadelphia. The public was told that the Convention was convened to fix the Articles of Confederation. However, key founders including Washington, Madison, Adams and Hamilton wanted to replace the Articles as America’s political operating system with a new form of government.

The delegates elected George Washington to preside. Washington’s rules were that (1) Madison would take notes, (2) the delegates were not allowed to leak any of the proceedings and debate to the press or public, and (3) at the end of the convention, Madison’s notes would be burned and never seen by the public. Washington knew that if the public were fully informed of the proceedings as they developed, opponents would be able to sway public opinion against the new Constitution. Instead, the public would be presented with a completed Constitution that they could accept or reject. Sixteen of the 55 participating delegates refused to sign the final document because they disagreed with the new form of government it embodied.

That is an example of politicians, the founding Fathers, saying or doing one thing in private or among themselves and saying (or doing) contrary things to the public. The founders were lying to the American people, not BSing them. At least, they knew exactly what they were doing.

There are many other examples of US politicians lying to the American people.

F.D.R. & World War II: In his 1940 run for re-election, F.D.R.’s campaign relied heavily on promises to keep America out of World War II. For example, F.D.R. said this on October 30, 1940: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” Despite that, a F.D.R. sympathizer (a Stanford historian) justified his deception this way: “Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor ... He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient's own good.”

F.D.R.’s inner circle was aware of his intentions because many of his actions before Pearl Harbor actively fostered (probably forced) US entry into the war.

Lyndon Johnson & the Vietnam War: Before US entry into the Vietnam War, President Johnson lied the American people about a non-existent attack on a US Naval vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin that was falsely asserted to have occurred on August 4, 1964. An attack on a US vessel did occur two days earlier, but the second attack was fabricated for public consumption to generate support for US entry into a Vietnam War.

The cigarette industry’s lies: Lies to the public were routinely used for decades to sell cigarettes. For legal and public relations reasons, the industry “continues to deny that it is clear that smoking causes lung cancer.” Other industry lies include denial of cigarette addiction despite knowing “since the 1960s that the crucial selling point of its product is the chemical dependence of its customers.”

Mitt Romney & the 2012 campaign: Romney told a private campaign donor audience that Obama’s supporters would vote for Obama “no matter what”, arguing that they account for 47% of voters and therefore he did not “worry about those people.” That’s an example of a candidate saying one thing to one audience (rich donors) and never saying it to the American people.

The 2016 presidential election: Hillary Clinton is under fire for saying different things to the public and private audiences and other kinds of lies. That’s like Romney and the Founding Fathers. Fact checkers show that Trump lies much more than Clinton. What, if any qualitative or quantitative differences between the two are there? How is the average American to judge the differences in terms of fitness for elected office?

If nothing else, it should help to put lying or BSing to the public in at least some (not complete) context. It’s not even clear if lying is worse than BSing. At least with the liar, they know the truth. The BSer just doesn’t care. There’s one difference between Clinton and Trump. Clinton isn’t nearly as much a a BSer as Trump is.

Does being a less frequent liar vs. a more frequent liar/BSer make a meaningful difference? Is Lying better, worse or about the same relative to BSing? Or, does lying and/or BSing 'for the cause' justify misleading the American public making Clinton and Trump about the same?

B&B orig: 10/16/16

Is Significant Political Compromise Possible?

A New York Times article, ‘You Control Nothing’: House Republicans Brace for Life in the Minority, published yesterday raises the question of what role, if any, that political compromise should play once democrats assume control of the House. Congressional democrats and republicans see each other as generally unwilling to compromise.[1] That seems to be at least somewhat in error. Some legislation does pass through congress. The process is complicated in view of President Trump’s unpredictable temper and his preference to insult rather than negotiate.

Surprisingly, there appears to be some democratic thought to loosening House rules to allow more rank and file democratic participation: “Ms. Pelosi is now under pressure from some in her own party to cede some authority, give committee leaders more leeway and bring more Democrats into House decision making. As she rounded up votes in her drive to return as speaker, Ms. Pelosi also agreed to demands to enact rules changes intended to make the House more bipartisan and empower the rank and file. As a result, Republicans could have a chance to get proposals considered in committee and by the House provided they can secure some level of Democratic buy-in.

All of the Republicans said there was still a possibility, even in this hyper-polarized congressional era, for the two parties to find some consensus on a few issues, notably infrastructure. But given that the new Congress is kicking off with a shutdown caused by a deep partisan stalemate, it is hard to see much room for big compromises.”

Adding to the possibility of even more bitter division, one prominent House republican, Rep. Peter King (NY) commented about his party and its minority status: “You control nothing. . . . . There are going to be a lot of investigations. We have to be ready to be on defense when the investigations go too far.” Democrats plan relentless investigations of Trump, his campaign and his business activities, including his tax returns. Both Trump and some congressional republicans consider Trump family business activities and especially tax return audits to be off limits. That Trump promised in the 2016 elections to release his tax returns after alleged IRS audits were completed is now irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether IRS audits were nonexistent or are complete by now -- the investigations will come whether republicans like it or not.

Given that there is nothing House republicans will be able to do to block House investigations, it is not clear what it means to even be on defense. At most, the US Senate can reopen investigations into the Clintons, Obama, George Soros, James Comey and any other democratic or perceived enemy target they deem worthy of investigating and trying taking down, or at least smear.

The NYT is probably right that there is not much room for major compromises. That would require compromise by both the Senate and Trump for any legislation that comes from the House. Time will tell.

Footnote:
1. Reasonable compromise is considered here to be a core moral political imperative. It is necessary for liberal democracy. Without compromise, there is either gridlock when political opposition can at least slow and sometimes stop the majority exercise of power. Under tyranny or authoritarianism, compromise is unnecessary and political opposition can be ignored or crushed as political leadership deems appropriate.

BYB orig: 12/30/18

“Seriously” Weighing the Options?

Author: Just_PrimalSoup (aka Susan)

During President Barack Obama’s eight years in office, his administration managed to enact many environmental regulations for improving our universally shared home, Planet Earth. I must say, I for one appreciated that. But it seems not everyone would agree with me.

For example, it should be noted that Donald Trump’s prior EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, a Cabinet-ranked official, criticized Obama’s record. For reasons which shall remain nameless here, Mr. Pruitt is no longer with us, Cabinet Administrator-wise, continuing to go about making environmental policy. We now have Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, as acting administrator, effective July 9, 2018.

Regardless of who is in charge, I would hope that we can all agree that our global environment, a once healthy, natural, and self-sustaining ecosystem, is not in as good a shape as it could be. She’s rather sickly. It’s also true that no human on earth can instantaneous fix (disappear) the current 8-million metric tons/yr of plastics that choke our oceans.

and the ongoing carbon emissions that eat away at our air supply (the atmosphere). Fixing it is going to take some time, if it can be fixed at all. But at least President Obama, during his term, put forth some efforts toward mitigating the negative impact.

2016: ENTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

As some of us are aware, President Trump and company has sought to, and accomplished, rolling back many of those previous Obama regulations, in deference to their short term Capitalistic rewards; that is to say, in the name of profits. My guess is that, from Trump's and the accommodating Republicans’ perspective, the benefit of short term personal monetary gains outweighs the long term consequences of a provably negative environmental impact. In other words, for those who would agree with regulation rollback, they are on board with an “immediate gratification” kind of mindset.

While Donald Trump’s poll numbers seemingly fluctuate from day to day, my understanding is that the bulk of registered Republicans still stand with him. I’ve even heard that although some of the “buyer’s remorse types” who were willing to take a chance on him and have now abandoned him, in spite of that, Trump’s support numbers of those staunch Republicans who remain are slowly creeping upwards. Yes, his numbers are getting better there! Wow, remarkable (to me). Could it be ”Ann Coulter Syndrome” in action, a la Germaine’s OP?

Well, okay… you’ve waded through my preamble and waited long enough. Here comes my punch line (the question):

Can you give me some reasons why ANY person would be AGAINST stronger environmental regulations? Are any of the reasons legit, from your point of view? What’s going on there? Could it be:

-Money is much more important than the environment (my “Capitalism Gone Awry” complaint)?
-Such threats are NOT real (climate change deniers)?
-Threats may be real but are way overblown (Chicken Little Syndrome)?
-Stubbornness (a game of “us against them” and I’m in it to win it!)?
-Other problems should and must take priority (bigger fish to fry)?
-Science and technology can always and adequately deal with anything later that becomes serious enough or life threatening? (Let’s wait until The Sky really is Falling)?
-Environmental ignorance can be bliss (I’ll be at the mall ;)?
-Just_PrimalSoup is the one with the problem (experiencing the liberals’ version of “Ann Coulter Syndrome”)? -[Your suggestions here]

Please explain it (the mindset/justification) to me. I want to understand it better. I especially want to hear from you if you have any formal training in the human psyche, but all please feel free to chime in. I’m listening. Thank you.

B&B orig: 1/28/19

James Madison's Defense Against Human Nature

“The government cannot endure permanently if administered on a spoils basis. If this form of corruption is permitted and encouraged, other forms of corruption will inevitably follow in its train. When a department at Washington, or at a state capitol, or in the city hall in some big town is thronged with place-hunters and office-mongers who seek and dispense patronage from considerations of personal and party greed, the tone of public life is necessarily so lowered that the bribe-taker and the bribe-giver, the blackmailer and the corruptionist, find their places ready prepared for them.” Theodore Roosevelt, 1895

Mob: (Hannah Arendt, Imperialism, 155) the mob is not the industrial working class or the people as a whole, but it is “the refuse of all classes”; citing Arendt, the mob is “the riff-raff of bohemians, crackpots, gangsters and conspirators”; James Madison: impetuous mobs are factions, which he defined in Federalist 10 as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”, wherein (i) factions arise when public opinion forms and spreads quickly, but (ii) they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification

An article The Atlantic recently published, America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare, is one in a series that asks if democracy is dying. The author, Jeffrey Rosen, argues the barriers that Madison helped design to prevent mob rule have failed. Rosen argues that Madison tried to design a representative democratic form of government that would avoid the fate of “ancient and modern confederacies,” which had fallen to rule by demagogues and mobs. Madison felt that direct democracy would always fall to demagogues who stir mob passions on their way to political power. Madison wanted to avoid government where “passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. . . . . Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

Rosen writes:

Madison and Hamilton believed that Athenian citizens had been swayed by crude and ambitious politicians who had played on their emotions. The demagogue Cleon was said to have seduced the assembly into being more hawkish toward Athens’s opponents in the Peloponnesian War, and even the reformer Solon canceled debts and debased the currency. In Madison’s view, history seemed to be repeating itself in America.

Madison referred to impetuous mobs as factions, which he defined in Federalist No. 10 as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions arise, he believed, when public opinion forms and spreads quickly. But they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification.

The US Senate was intended to be an institution to cool inflamed mob passions that would invariably arise from the House. Mechanisms to cool mob passions included a Senate comprised of natural aristocrats chosen by state legislators. And, instead of directly electing the President, “the people would vote for wise electors—that is, propertied white men—who would ultimately choose a president of the highest character and most discerning judgment.”

Rosen describes the failure:

What would Madison make of American democracy today, an era in which Jacksonian populism looks restrained by comparison? Madison’s worst fears of mob rule have been realized—and the cooling mechanisms he designed to slow down the formation of impetuous majorities have broken.

The polarization of Congress, reflecting an electorate that has not been this divided since about the time of the Civil War, has led to ideological warfare between parties that directly channels the passions of their most extreme constituents and donors—precisely the type of factionalism the Founders abhorred.

The executive branch, meanwhile, has been transformed by the spectacle of tweeting presidents, though the presidency had broken from its constitutional restraints long before the advent of social media. During the election of 1912, the progressive populists Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson insisted that the president derived his authority directly from the people. Since then, the office has moved in precisely the direction the Founders had hoped to avoid: Presidents now make emotional appeals, communicate directly with voters, and pander to the mob.

From the very beginning, the devices that the Founders hoped would prevent the rapid mobilization of passionate majorities didn’t work in all the ways they expected. After the election of 1800, the Electoral College, envisioned as a group of independent sages, became little more than a rubber stamp for the presidential nominees of the newly emergent political parties.

Rosen goes on the describe other phenomena that foster mob rule, e.g., (i) media polarization, (ii) social-media platforms that spread misinformation and inflame partisan differences, and (iii) the physical sorting of people into communities of like-minded citizens. He sees no short-term solution to the problem. Free speech cannot be suppressed, so dark free speech (lies, deceit, unwarranted opacity, irrational emotional manipulation, etc) is now a permanent fixture. It is also coming from America's enemies, especially Russia and China, so the social damage is impossible to accurately assess.

Rosen mentions a potential at least partial remedy that Madison proposed: “The best way of promoting a return to Madisonian principles, however, may be one Madison himself identified: constitutional education. . . . . Framers themselves believed that the fate of the republic depended on an educated citizenry.” Regarding public education, the Funders, Rosen and this channel are similar pages. Rosen and the Founders, looked to education about how the Constitution and government work.

This channel adds to that, education in cognitive biology and social behavior. Without at least a modest understanding of the human mind and how it works or fails to work, any defense against the dark arts of opacity, propaganda, lies and unscrupulous manipulation will be incomplete and probably much less effective than it could be.

This is a link to other articles in the series.

B&B orig: 1/1/19

The Effects of Lobbying

An invitation to dinner. The invitation describes “requested contribution levels” of $5,000 or $2,500 for PACs and $1,000 for individuals. The event is hosted by several PACs representing the health care insurance industry—the companies Aflac and Cigna and the professional associations America’s Health Insurance Plans and the National Association of Insurers and Financial Advisors. All four of these groups gave $5,000 to the Representative’s campaign plus $5,000 to the Scalise leadership PAC in the 2018 cycle. What is the return on the investment here?

Research on the effects of campaign contributions and lobbying is an ongoing topic for research and has generated a rather large body of often conflicting literature. There is probably more than a little self-interested bias in the mix. Cost-benefit effects are hard to pin down, with most research showing little or no significant effect on legislation or the value of a corporation. One study found that reduced campaign contributions increased the likelihood of corruption in congress. That researcher pointed out that even the definition of corruption is open to dispute.[1] The data on campaign contributions and effects is all over the place and so are the measures used to gauge the effects, good or bad.

A recent paper, Fundraising for Favors? Linking Lobbyist-Hosted Fundraisers to Legislative Benefits, finds evidence that lobbying groups sometimes seem to prompt legislators to introduce amendments the group wants. This study relied on “uncommon data sources and plagiarism software to detect a rarely observed relationship between interest group lobbyists and sitting Members of Congress. Comparison of letters to a Senate committee written by lobby groups to legislative amendments introduced by committee members reveals similar and even identical language, providing compelling evidence that groups persuaded legislators to introduce amendments valued by the group. Moreover, the analysis suggests that these language matches are more likely when the requesting lobby group hosts a fundraising event for the senator. The results hold while controlling for ideological agreement between the senator and the group, the group’s campaign contributions to the senator, and the group’s lobbying expenditures, annual revenue, and home-state connections.”

A complex issue: This approach to analyzing the effect of money and lobbying on legislation points to the complexity of the issue. Studies that try to find benefit to a contributor by looking at the value of a corporation may be missing a much larger point. That approach is described by one group: “We identified dates of key campaign finance regulatory decisions and measured changes in stock prices of firms affected by those decisions. These decisions immediately affected hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate giving, but they have no apparent effect on the markets valuation of the long-term profitability of firms. This conclusion suggests that the fundamental critique of campaign finance in America – that donations come with a quid pro quo and extract very high returns for donors – is almost surely wrong.”

If one looks for effects on stock prices of big companies, the return on investment could very well be nil, but that doesn't mean an actual return is nil. Impacts of legislation can be hard to see, hard to assess, and/or take years to bear fruit, e.g., have future value by preventing reduced revenues in future years or by making it harder for competitors to enter a market a company wants to defend. Also, corporate value measures ignore social effects that are distant from immediate stock price changes.

Studies of campaign contributions and lobbying impacts on society appear to be limited. One study observed that the slush funds business organizations used to influence and distort regulations in the 1960s and 1970s caused a strong public reaction that led to strict accounting and reporting requirements in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Joan T.A. Gabel et al., Letter vs. Spirit: The Evolution of Compliance into Ethics, 46 AM. BUS. L.J. 453, 459–60, 2009). That evidence suggests the American public did consider corruption a significant problem, at least for businesses doing business outside the US. Presumably, that attitude extended to businesses doing business with politicians in the US.

The public trust factor: Poll evidence indicates that public trust in democratic institutions has fallen in recent decades. Trust in congress is fairly low, running at about 40%, which is up due to increased republican trust in the republican congress. Presumably that will reverse to some extent once democrats take control of the House this week.

Poll data indicates that the millennial generation, roughly, people born 1980-1997, are losing faith in democracy, not just liberal democracy. One source reports that about 30 percent of millennials think it’s essential to live in a democracy, while about 75 percent of Americans born in the 1930s believed that.

Perception of corruption associated with campaign contributions and lobbying is a factor in the loss of public trust in congress. That loss of trust damages faith in liberal democracy, and in turn, that is correlated with an increase in acceptance of the corrupt authoritarianism that characterizes President Trump’s governing style. It is reasonable to think that in this case, correlation probably reflects causation to some non-trivial extent.

If that is basically true, then measures of the effects of campaign contributions and lobbying on public trust in democratic institutions is a component that must be included somehow for the measure to have better context and meaning. Ignoring the fact that many American see campaign contributions as a corrupting force, whether that is mostly true or false, cannot be ignored. The appearance of corruption has real impacts on the stability and well-being of the American experiment in liberal democracy.

Footnote:
1. The definition of corruption that study used was: “The abuse or misuse of public office or trust for personal rather than public benefit.” That definition was stated to embrace “aspects of the public interest and public office definitions, and also refers to incentives in a manner that echoes market-based definitions.” One can wonder what abuse, misuse, public trust and personal benefit mean. All those terms are open to dispute.

B&B orig: 1/2/19

Just What Is Life?

Author: honey the monster

So I was discussing markets and economies with someone, and I characterized them as "alive"

This was of course met with skepticism, but it raised some very good discussion.

I'd like to share some of it here and see what y'all think. It in the end has to do with the parameters, the boundaries of life itself.

First of all, I make the this distinction (i'm quoting from a discussion)

i make the distinction between life and sentience, and i think it's an important one. I don't believe there is evidence of sentience simply because something reacts. It has to *experience* the sensation. And we may have different ideas about what that means - it's qualia, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility, and even likelihood that lower level forms of life are not sentient at all. they have no "experience" in any sense that could be meaningful. They react just like gravity does - it doesn't mean it's necessarily sentience - just biochemical reaction that says nothing about experience.

So to me, life and sentient life are two distinct concepts. The former includes the latter but would also include things that can't be demonstrated to be sentient, like a starfish, or a venus flytrap.

I don't believe there is evidence of markets being sentient. But I maintain they fit the important qualifications for life. Or at least a compelling illusion "as good as the real thing" which I'll go on to explain.

They are adaptive, evolving, largely irreducible and only partly predictable. They grow. They react. They even provisionally reproduce.

I believe that everything lots of life touches, takes on that life. a government. an economy, an ecosystem/habitat, a social grouping, actually anything complex and vaguely self organizing.

basically what i'm saying is markets are ultimately collections of people by way of behavior and as such they take on the organic properties of the life that is driving them - but in a way that is only partly predictable from its components - it has "a life of its own" in other words.

and see, i see that as literally, if only because i don't see the meaningful difference between this phenomena, as explained in complex adaptive systems theory and the complexity sciences and life, which exhibits those same properties. CAS encompasses it all.

And here's why, philosophically, why i'd disregard, in some cases, the distinction between a thing and its mimic.

and here's a philosophical question that has direct bearing on this.

If an illusion is a perfect representation of a thing, how is it meaningfully not the thing?

I believe a fully articulated illusion is as good as the real thing.

the reason i do is because our entire perception is filtered through our senses and our cognition, meaning everything we see is not real, but a reflection perhaps, of real - the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave.

Ergo, reality as we understand it, is an illusion of reality to varying degrees of perfection. Because cannot truly, directly examine reality, but only indirectly. We see the shadows - its reflection.

But if we treat those as real, then mustn't we also treat any other exquisitely formed illusion as real - absent any meaningful material difference?

So what do you all think?

B&B orig: 1/3/19