They’re just categorically different, there isn’t an “inside” or an “outside” in the sense of spatial structure as that is something derived a posteriori as part of thought.

So… there are things that are either within the category of thought or not? Is thought mutually exclusive to material? Is thought composed of material or the other way around? Or are they both the same?

I’m not sure what it would even mean to say reality is “thought”.

That is the standard definition of idealism, is it not? That existence is immaterial?

But what justification is there that what is thought of is actually in existence outside of thought? One can think of things that do not exist outside of thought.

What justification is there that reality isn’t thought by it’s very nature?

How do you justify the premise that reality is objectively-existent?

also, apologies to everyone at lemmy.sdf.org if i am flooding local for you. i’ve been busy adding a bunch links

they also have an email address: membership at sdf dot org, but yeah, the internal BBS is where it is at.

We are a public access UNIX system, so it’s not as much of a void as it might seem :D

Well, please do share what you find!

You are on the right track w/ idealism vs materialism in psychology, at least.

The question there arose from the brain: how do you rectify the mind/soul with the brain/body? Dualism apparently fails (the idea that there is a separate mind from the brain) which leaves only some form of monism. A sort of hybrid materialism-idealism seems to make the most sense, where consciousness is a property of the universe, like time or space, and different entities have differing consciousnesses. In that sort of a philosophy, when talking about the brain of a person you are equally talking about the experience that person is having, just in different terms.

I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?

apparently, depending on the language used, it will drive the easily angered on the right to insanity

You are very welcome!

I’m glad to be able to be of appreciation, as I know how that is - looks like you are in the right place to discuss political science though!

In the interest of conversation, maybe you can explain or point me to an explanation of why Anarchism vs. Marxism is considered “idealism vs materialism” in sociology?

In Psychology, we had an “idealism vs materialism” debate, but it is mostly resolved with a sort of “idealistic materialism” or “materialistic idealism” where, essentially, “idealism <=> materialism”, as I understand it.

I’m curious about what the current state of the art is, in that debate!

Either way, I’ll definitely spend some time in !politics@lemmy.ml checking things out.

Have you read about the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights yet?

Based on my understanding, that treaty will require us to have universal healthcare and social security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/17708289

I think “Outsider Left” may have subsumed “Faith and Family Left” in the new version of the typology.

A good rule of thumb is to measure twice, cut once, so perhaps give it a try twice: once where you answer philosophically and once where you answer practically?

I’m due for taking it again, myself, but I generally consider myself a radical moderate (I’m all for system-wide changes) and I think Pew described me as “faith and family left” when I last took the test.

Hah, hello neighbor :D

I’m curious how universal these political typologies could be made. I’m sure this one might apply a great deal to a number of western countries, if you change the names accordingly, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_Wi-Fi

:D

I’ll see if i can find something specifically about what you are asking, but I would be surprised if anyone has taken the time to try to bounce WiFi. The wavelength might not be amenable to bouncing, as it is such a high frequency signal. If I recall correctly, there is a relatively narrow range of wavelength that will actually bounce back to earth off of the atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

Good catch, I add archive links to everything, but doing it by hand right now, so sometimes I miss them.

Sorry about that.

Planning on writing a script or something to handle archiving.

IAEA is the international body responsible for standardizations on nuclear energy.

Four years is not a long span of time in the context of nuclear energy, where technological developments take the scale of decades.

This press release pertains to the newly announced western strategy for nuclear, low-carbon energy. That strategy is still current.

By working to ensure that everyone can benefit from nuclear science, the IAEA underpins rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1976. These include the right to benefit from scientific progress; the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to the highest-attainable standard of health.

The Agency does this by using nuclear science to combat zoonotic diseases; bolster food safety; protect fruits from pests; strengthen water management; treat cancer; and of course, to help countries mitigate climate change.

if you feel like it, i’m actively moderating https://lemmy.sdf.org/c/humanrights and would love to see more people post there with relevant info and questions

Do you really wish to sue moderators of an internet forum?

If an instance operator violated my UN Human Rights, and my Nation-State had written domestic laws to allow me to sue for injuctive or other relief, then you had better believe it.

the concept of suing under UN law in the USA is comical

Well, this is why I advocate for us to finally, after 60+ years, ratify the ICESCR.

UN text you’re quoting does not ostensibly protect internet comments from moderation either

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights has other Articles. Read the whole thing…

There is a difference between reasonable, valid moderator actions and wholesale censorship.

https://www.article19.org/issue/censorship/

Ok fascist

It happens, no one is perfect. Your apology is appreciated.

So, could you provide a specific example of where I don’t seem grounded in reality?

It might help to know that some of my comments are intended to be humorous in nature (“Black MAGA in UFC rings” ought to have been obviously dry humor, from my perspective, for example) whereas others are extremely serious, in particular those referencing UN Human Rights that got downvoted to oblivion.