I heard yesterday about how a lot of Imams in Michigan posed for selfies with him.

Everyone knows where he stands.

I strongly suspect that isn’t true. I think anti-Trump people know where he stands, but I bet a lot of pro-Trump people are about to be in for a big surprise.

Probably not real, but if real, the graphic designer was probably 20 years old.

On one hand, bio power armor gives you an edge in mass and possibly strength. On the other hand, if the skeleton is moving, it’s animated by magic, and who knows what the limits of its magic are.

Also, while skin is “armor” of a sort, it’s pretty pathetic armor. What were some of the earliest knives used for? Cutting flesh, a.k.a. bio armor. What were some of those early knives made from? Bone.

And your bio armor: what is it protecting? Vulnerable blood vessels and organs inside the body. What vulnerabilities does a skeleton have? Probably none?

Then there’s tendons. Your knee bone’s connected to your thigh bone, as the song goes. How? Tendons. A skeleton lacks tendons, so theoretically it’s a lot easier to disconnect a skeleton’s bones from each-other. But, then again, magic.

True, it is bones.

Punches mostly hurt because of the mass of the fist and arm. If you’ve ever been punched by a kid you probably weren’t hurt. A skeleton weighs less than a 6-year-old, so there wouldn’t be much mass behind the punch.

But, then again, magic.

It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that’s used to capitalism.

Yeah, that’s important. It also doesn’t require a revolution to attain, just reforms of the current system. Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn’t have to be bloody. I think some people who have never questioned the economic and political system in which they grew up can’t even conceive of anything other than capitalism. Other people who have thought about it would worry that any attempted revolution might fail and we’d fall backwards into something much more like feudalism if not outright tyranny.

it’s important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission

Yeah, as bad as Feudalism was, at least serfs couldn’t be kicked off “their” land. They were tied to the land, so they weren’t allowed to leave, but the manor lord also couldn’t kick them out.

As for all land being owned, it is, and it isn’t. In commonwealth countries there’s a lot of crown land. In the US there’s a lot of government owned land. In cities there are a lot of city parks. In a sense all that land is owned. But, in another sense, it isn’t. It’s land that nobody’s allowed to build anything on, unless we collectively (via our reps) decide they are. In practice it’s not that simple, but in theory it’s effectively land that isn’t owned, at least by individuals. I’ve often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.

It still sounds like capitalism to me. It’s just more traditional capitalism. I’m pretty sure that the first mechanical looms were in factories where the owner was actually present in the factory, trying to make sure the machines kept working.

I’d even argue that ownership of land isn’t really capitalism anyhow, it’s more similar to feudalism. Capitalism involves buying capital and using that to transform raw materials into a finished product that can be sold at a profit. Feudalism involves charging someone rent for occupying land you own. Capitalism involves competing with other capitalists for more efficient processes, more cost-effective machines, and so-on. Landlords can’t have “more efficient” land. A capitalist has to use their machines to generate profits. If the machines are idle, they don’t make money. A landlord does nothing at all, then collects rent money.

So yeah, ban rent, or severely limit it. Require that a capitalist owner is actually physically present and involved in day-to-day operations, and you’ll completely eliminate billionaires, probably even centi-millionaires.

If you just want better, why not just aim for well regulated capitalism? That’s better than badly regulated capitalism, and it’s much easier to achieve than a brand new political and economic system that has yet to be tried.

If capitalism is abolished, we’re most likely going to be forced back to Feudalism. Mondays in Feudalism last 12+ hours and the work week continues until Saturday night.

In a politically and economically egalitarian society

So, in a fantasy? It’s nice in theory, but such a society has never existed, and probably will never exist until humans are no longer recognizable as humans.

Also, it’s the job you hate, not the economic system. People living in a feudal society also hated Mondays, the difference being that they hated Saturdays too because they worked 6 days a week, 12+ hours a day. They even worked on Sundays, but it was just a lighter form of work – mending garments instead of plowing fields.

Until the Replicator makes the world post-scarcity, some work is going to be inevitable, so there will be days of working, and days of no work. The first day back after a break will always be annoying.

It’s not just one generation receiving an education vs. another one that didn’t. It’s that the platforms the generations used are fundamentally different.

Gen X / Millennials grew up with Macs and PCs, computers that were fundamentally not locked down. You could install any software you wanted. You could modify the OS in many ways. DRM wasn’t really a thing in general, and there were almost always easy ways around it.

Gen Z / Gen Alpha grew up mostly with cell phones. The phones they had are much more powerful than the PCs from 20-30 years ago, but they’re incredibly locked down. The only applications you’re allowed to use are the ones that Apple / Google allow on their app stores, unless you root your phone which is a major risk. It’s very hard to even load up your own audio files, movies or images let alone “dodgy” ones. DRM is everywhere, and the DMCA means you risk serious prison time if you bypass access controls.

Gen X / Millennials grew up at a time when there were still more than 5 tech companies in the world, and the companies out there competed with each-other. There were plenty of real standards, and lots of other de-facto standards that allowed programs to interoperate. Now you’re lucky if you can even use an app via its website vs. using a required app.

It’s not just a difference in education. It’s that companies have gained a lot more power, and the lack of antitrust enforcement has made for plenty of walled gardens and “look but don’t touch” experiences.

It’s pretty interesting how we’re all running basically the same hardware, but there are major software differences.

I have songs stuck in my head all the time and I ‘know’ what they sound like, and my brain keeps the beat with the song, but I’m not hearing it.

That’s just weird. You’re aware there’s a song stuck in your head, but you can’t actually hear it? I wonder if that’s more or less frustrating than a song stuck in your head that you can hear.

Can you taste or smell things that aren’t around?

Yes, but if normal experience of a taste or smell is a 10/10 in sensation, imagining a taste or smell is like a 1/10. Like, imagining smelling salts which are just overwhelming in reality barely rate a tickle in imagination. Same idea with taste. I can imagine biting into a lime, which in reality would be an almost painful experience in reality, but in the imagination it’s barely noticeable. I imagine that when I’m imagining a situation, all the body sensations are there: sight, sound, taste, smell, touch, even proprioception. But, I think everything is muted compared to reality, sight might be at a 3/10 compared to reality, sound maybe at a 2/10, and the others are lower, probably even below 1/10. I can only manage a 1/10 for something that would be an overwhelming sensation in reality.

I think the name comparison I mentioned is probably the best I can think of. When you see a person you know, how do you remember their name?

I remember their name as just a fact associated with the person. However, I can’t imagine remembering someone’s name without also trying to picture their face. So, I guess it’s more like remembering the name of someone who’s like a pen pal or something. Someone I’ve never met face to face.

I was just thinking about this, and thought of podcasters that I listen to, whose faces I’ve never seen. With them, I don’t picture a face because I’ve never seen one. But, I can “hear” the sound of their voices. I’m guessing you don’t do that either?

A stop sign is a hexagon, red, with STOP in the middle.

It’s actually an octagon. But, I assume that if you see a stop sign you don’t have to count the sides, you just recognize it immediately?

What’s interesting to me is that if I read a book, part of the pleasure is that the author is describing things in a way that allows me to picture them. It seems to me like not having the ability to picture things would make the book much less interesting. Like watching a movie that didn’t have any soundtrack, just sound effects and dialogue. I guess you don’t have anything to compare it to. But, I wonder if people who have aphantasia are less likely to enjoy books and more likely to enjoy movies?

and I’m super unclear what seeing things in your mind is supposed to be like.

It’s hard to describe, but it’s not replacing your eyesight. If I close my eyes I see black, or if there’s some bright light I see red. But, it’s like there’s another visual channel going into your brain other than the one from your eyes. Most of the time, that channel is either off, or it’s drowned out by the actual visual information which is so much more dominant. But, if your eyes are closed the fact there’s no real information coming on the “real” visual channel means you’re able to notice what the “virtual” visual channel is showing.

It’s sometimes described as your “mind’s eye”, but for me, at least, it’s not really like another eye because it’s not detailed enough for that, but it’s still as if there’s an additional visual stream of information that goes from my memory to the visual processing part of my brain. For me, it’s blurry and lacking in detail. It would be like using a slightly out of focus projector on a white wall in a well lit room. There are shapes and colours there, but they’re hard to see. But, like an image from an out-of-focus projector, if you try harder you can make out more of what it’s showing, and if you reduce other visual stimulus (like turn off the lights) you can notice more.

So for the ball example, I’d know the ball is “small, about the size of a plum, solid pink somewhere between neon and intense salmon, smooth matte texture, looks like it might be foam”.

Does this happen instantaneously for you? If I tried to come up with a description like that it would take several seconds, whether I’m doing it while actually actively looking at the object, or with my eyes closed working based on a memory of the image my eyes saw.

If you close your eyes and intentionally picture something other than the ball

Something real, or something I’m inventing with my imagination?

would you then be unable to tell me what color it was in your example?

Like, translate the image to a word? I can tell you a word, but the metal image will come first. I think I do need the visual representation to know the object. Like, if someone gives me a description of something, I’ll build a mental image based on that description. If someone asked me to describe it later, I’d probably use different words because I’d be going based on the image not on remembering the words.

In your case, if you have a memory of something that is “small, about the size of a plum, solid pink somewhere between neon and intense salmon, smooth matte texture, looks like it might be foam”, how easy is it for you to change the words you’d use to describe it? Like, say someone asked you to describe it but not to use any words related to living things, could you swap out “plum” and “salmon” without effort? Do you think you’re storing those actual words, or are you storing a concept? For example, if you’re remembering a white rock, is it “rock” you’re remembering, or is it the concept of a rock, which can match similar words like “pebble”, “stone”, etc.?

Also, I wonder how this affects your ability to remember descriptions of things that are not physically possible in our 3d world, like a Klein bottle or a hypercube. I wonder if, for you, there’s no real difference in difficulty remembering the details of a cube vs. a hypercube because you can’t picture either of them. Whereas for me, I can easily remember / picture a cube, but for a hypercube it’s hard because it’s not something I can get a real visual representation of.

When you say you’re answering from memory, what is it that you remember? For example. I have a plush soccer ball / football near my bed. I haven’t looked at it recently but I can remember what it looked like. I can tell you it was white with 2 black pentagon shapes near the mid-bottom (where it’s squished) and 2 more near the top. I didn’t think of the words “white” or “black” or “pentagon” until it was no longer in my field of vision, I was able to come up with those words based on the mental image I still had. What I’m remembering is the image, and I’m able to come up with words based on that image. Are you remembering the words you would use to describe it? If so, do you automatically come up with those words?

For me, if I glance at something for half a second I can take a mental snapshot of how it looks, and then with my eyes closed I can come up with a bunch of words I’d use to describe it. The mental snapshot isn’t going to be very detailed, but it’s enough to come up with maybe a dozen descriptive words over a few seconds. But, if I tried to come up with the words while looking at it, I would still need those few seconds to come up with the words. The words aren’t an automatic thing, it’s something I have to intentionally choose to generate, and it’s slow.

I’m assuming that if you have full aphantasia, you wouldn’t even be able to picture a simple shape like a triangle. So, if you want to draw a triangle, do you do it based on remembering something like the dictionary definition of a triangle and using that “recipe” to generate one? For me, I imagine the shape I want to draw, then my hand attempts to create that shape. For something simple like a triangle that’s easy. For something complex like a face it’s hard because my hand isn’t able to create something that matches what I’m imagining.

What about something like a stop sign. I assume you can’t picture a stop sign in your mind, but do you recognize one instantly without effort when you see it? If so, I wonder what details your brain is actually storing, like if it’s storing words, how many words are in the description. The other day someone posted an image of a stop sign but the “stop” text was in lowercase not uppercase. I wonder if your brain stores the word (or a symbol representing the word) “uppercase” and mine stores how the letters look, which I can interpret as being uppercase if I think about it.

If someone told you to study a ball for 20 seconds and then close your eyes, then asked you immediately after you closed your eyes what colour the ball was, could you answer? The second something disappears from your visual field, is it gone from your “mind’s eye”?

What’s interesting to me about this is that the way our visual field works involves a lot of fantasy. Like, our minds are convinced that we’re currently seeing everything in front of us and most of it is in focus. But, in reality our eyes can only really see a tiny amount of the world in full focus at once, but they’re constantly flickering around filling in details. This is why some optical illusions are so strange, because they show us that our visual systems are taking shortcuts and what we think we see isn’t actually reality. It makes me wonder if people with aphantasia actually “see” the world differently too.

I’m sure it depends on the extent of the unnecessary details Thinking the ball is red is surely not hyperphantasia.