Okay, well I'm curious - especially to see what kind of information-processing does not count as what Dennett called "maximally bland computationalism" - which includes e.g. quantum computing.

Thanks for your thoughts. Again I'm glad to see cool philosophy problems discussed on steemit and getting some attention! The idea that consciousness is information sounds to me to be the

Dennett is well worth reading on this problem. It's a big and difficult enough problem that part of defending a position is suggesting why it is superior to the suggested alternatives, and this means examining

Obligatory xkcd:

Thanks - a useful post! I especially like this point If given a choice, people would rather live in a world where justice exists. People get rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad behavior. How

Thanks @andreaspeijerb, I'm so glad to hear this was helpful to at least one person! (I also plan to refer my future students to it, so it's useful to me I guess even if no one else reads it.) And congrats

Yes. Political philosopher John Rawls argues that the right amount of inequality is the amount that helps even the poorest (because the incentives in inequality make the pie bigger even for the smallest

Also I thought I read somewhere that the payout at first includes the curation rewards, but then (after first payout?) reflects only the portion that goes to you.

Thanks for your interesting response! First: this may be the bottom of the "reply" chain, and if so I should remind anyone who happens to be reading (probably just you and I at this point,

Faced with the alternative of 133 pages, I opted for the video after all! It was quite fascinating and gave me a much better glimpse into how anarchists think it might be a better system, thank you. I

Thanks for the link! I hope to watch someday (though I'd generally rather read than watch a video, myself). Meanwhile I have to wonder how these laws are enforceable if there's no threat of punishment

Thank you! But it seems if that kind of thing consistently worked, the government wouldn't need implicit violent threats either. I like the point about free association, which I can see looks different

Thank you! I certainly get the impulse to avoid coercion. But could you explain a little more? I still don't understand how the kind of sanctions imposed by whatever cultural group in power in the Rifkin

Yeah without organized laws and governments, agents must manage some other way. But I still don't get why the non-governmental way - even on the global scale - is better.

I have to say It does often look to me, too, like that's what the anarchist says: "the current system is imperfect, so let's chuck it all out and hope that's better." But that doesn't seem a

Hi @clains and @camilla. Thanks for your patient answer, and I will look forward to the details of this account. I'm especially curious to hear about how our consciousness is a real part of the universe

This is all so new to me, I have to ask - how do legal challenges work in anarchism? It seems to me that where you have laws and methods of enforcing them you have a de facto government.

It seems like @sean-king's answer is just a variation on your "rote" answer. What is it to shun etc if not to have a group coordinate to punish the deviant economically? I also am curious about

Here is a peanut. I'm sorry about your head.

Honest question, since I'm new to these discussions: is enforcement by shunning and shaming and social ostracization and taboos - to the extent they're effective - deemed preferable by anarchists to a