This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Dancing Without A Floor - "Sooner Or Later A Crash Is Coming... And It May Be Terrific"
Excerpted from John Hussman's Weekly Market Comment,
There’s really no point in trying to convert anyone to our viewpoint. Somebody will have to hold stocks over the completion of the present cycle, and encouraging one investor to reduce risk simply means that someone else will have to bear it instead.
But for those who understand the narrative of the recent half-cycle, where our challenges have been, and how we’ve addressed them, I do encourage reviewing all risk exposures from the standpoint of the losses that have repeatedly occurred over the completion of market cycles that have reached valuations anywhere near current levels (1929, 1972, 1987, 2000, and 2007). The point is not to discourage stock holdings entirely, but rather to ensure that exposure is not so large that a steep market loss would be intolerable. It’s important to recognize that the market is not only at a point where unusually rich valuations are already in place, but also where market internals and our measures of trend uniformity have clearly deteriorated. This is the most hostile set of market conditions we identify, and it closely overlaps periods in which the stock market has been vulnerable to abrupt air-pockets, free-falls, and crashes.
As I did in 2000 and 2007, I feel obligated to state an expectation that only seems like a bizarre assertion because the financial memory is just as short as the popular understanding of valuation is superficial: I view the stock market as likely to lose more than half of its value from its recent high to its ultimate low in this market cycle.
...
At present, however, market conditions couple valuations that are more than double pre-bubble norms (on historically reliable measures) with clear deterioration in market internals and our measures of trend uniformity. None of these factors provide support for the market here. In my view, speculators are dancing without a floor.
A final note: There is a danger in ignoring the concerns of value-conscious investors as a bubble proceeds. The danger is that the longer these concerns are “proven wrong” by further advances, the more severely they are likely to be proven correct by an even deeper loss over the completion of the cycle. Roger Babson offers a useful lesson in that regard. Babson, whose first rule of investing was to “keep speculation and investments separate,” is known not only for founding Babson College in Massachusetts, but also for a speech at the National Business Conference on September 5, 1929, at the peak of the market, saying “sooner or later a crash is coming, and it may be terrific.”
The back-story, however, is that Babson’s presentation began as follows: “I’m about to repeat what I said at this time last year, and the year before…” The fact is that Babson had been “proven wrong” by an advance that had taken stocks relentlessly higher during the preceding years. Over the next 10 weeks, all of those market gains would be erased. From the low of the 1929 plunge, the stock market would then lose an additional 75% of its value by its eventual bottom in 1932 because of add-on policy errors that resulted in the Great Depression. As a side note, those policy errors were not that banks were allowed to fail, but that policy makers allowed them to fail in a disorganized way, forcing loans to be called in rather than taking banks into receivership and restructuring existing debt. It's a distinction our own policy makers still haven't learned, and simply obscured and papered over in the 2008-2009 crisis through distortionary monetary policy, bailouts, and FASB accounting changes. As a consequence, the debt overhang is still very much intact, as the Center for Economic Policy Research recently warned in its 16th annual Geneva Report. But that's now a problem for another day.
In any event, be careful in believing that a market advance “proves” concerns about valuations wrong.
What further advances actually do is simply extend the scope of the potential losses that are likely to follow. That lesson has been repeated across history. The chart above offers a visual of this story, and may serve as a useful reminder that valuation concerns are generally not durably proven wrong by further advances, particularly when market valuation concerns have been ignored for a long while.
- 38208 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



Key here folks like in 2008 is to watch these 2 and 300 point losses and gain swings as they pick up and get more frequent ( like in 2008 ) you know the market is taking on water and will finally tip to one side once again. Above all preserve Capital.
It's October 2007 all over again...
No it is not. The Fed realized in 2007 that the world views the stock market as THE economic barometer. They will never let it go down again. As long as the "markets" are high, Steve will sign for a new 8 year auto loan and Tina will buy that new kitchen.
The Fed owns the market. .strong hands
Babson was known as "The prophet of loss".
Say it ain't so Joe!
Wish I had a permenant high...maybe I will move to Colorado
The notion the Fed can prop the markets forever has little or no historical support. They can, however, do so for a ridiculous period. Because, you need no reminding, they are reckless idiots.
Thanks Bangin & max
It is clear that market participants is a much lower number than 7 or 8 years ago. And much, much lower than it was in 1987.
The Fed does have very strong hands. Real estate values were used to prop up spending for 10 years through 2007. The stock market is being used now. It will be used until it won't be.
At that point a new bubble will emerge if the sheeple permit it to. They will.
I'm not so sure a new bubble will emerge. At some point, some of the other sovereign players will balk at continuing the game. We have so angered Russia and China holds us in strong contempt. The sword of Damocles is hanging over Europe by a thread and this insane navel gazing party on the Internet continues unabated. At some point, there will come the straw that broke the camel's back. I contend that we are very very close to that point and the next big crisis may prove insurmountable. There will come a point of capitulation where the billions of people that got knocked down will just not have the wherewithal to get themselves up again. .gov is doing a great job of hiding their fiscal weakness, but that too will come to light soon enough. They are hemorrhaging cash at an astronomical rate and the sources are drying up quickly.
The next one may not be the "BIG" one, but it's coming...
Granite countertops are truly a value-added product.
pods
Granite is relatively cheap these days. Lots of people have moved into quartz and there are some very nice composite offerings.
I do not worry anymore, I have nothing to do with the stock markets. I am a watcher, content with viewing the show.
Buy quartz, more work for me.
The flouride in the water causes pitting in the surface.Known problem since
1959 but never mentioned by your salesman. Go granite if you don't want a costly
headache down the road.
My formica is still in very good shape :P
As is mine. If I want something nice to look at and smooth to the touch, well, that is why i got married. It's just a countertop.
pods
So that must be why my teeth are getting so bad.
Flouride might also degrade yer Pineal Gland (the "third eye")
That's how I roll. BTFD? Screw that - invest in lead and high-velocity lead moving machines.
I'm sure you're right, this time it IS different s/
They're gonna write books about this.....someday.
Perhaps. More likely some skinny son of a bitch will need to chisel the story onto a cave wall. Hashtag Backtotheolddays.
'Never let it go down ever again'.....you clearly don't understand the bigger overall picture here. They're just guaranteeing everyone is so inured to their system that when they implode the whole thing to rubble next, no one will have any choice but to be under their centralized world total control system. Or so THEY think anyway. Gotta get they an entire world war first against Russia and china et al.
Confidently said by a card-carrying member of the PINKO COMMIE FASCISTS!
It all comes down to chaos theory. All natural systems work in cycles. If they let the cycle run its natural cycle it will run its course but all the rocket scientists at the FED and Wall st. think they can beat reality. In a natural system when there are too many predotors they reduce the amount of prey to a point where the system can no longer support them and the predators die back. The way they are doing it they are artificially feeding the predators who will eventually completely wipe out the prey species. When there are no prey left there will be no way left to support the predators naturally or artificially and we shall have an extinction level collapse....the cockroaches shall inherit the earth. What comes after is unknown and will be determined by the level of collapse. If we fall back 200-300 years we should be able to build back fairly quickly. if we fall back 1000 years we not be able to come back at all.
You are going to have to get past that idea. The stock market is a policy tool, and as long as it remains a policy tool the direction is up,
True, so long as the policy makers have control of the situation, which is almost entirely reliant upon the confidence of the people that they have control of the situation.
Casinos collapse, not because the odds are against the players or the dice is loaded but because nobody goes there to play any more.
casinos can not print...
Within their "system," casinos can print as many casino chips as you have your hard earned money to play with.
yoo, but someone must bring that funny money thru the door and be stupid enuf to spin to win... yea, it is all humanly fucked up as afucking dumb human can make it as the will to cheat others is a reward based system of ever increasing debt pyramid until the new debt is wothless. cue euro, zimboob, dolla, and yuan to be printed equel to yen to "prevent" collapse, ha...
Stawkz are just another piece of cheese in the maze.
"Wolf!!!"
fire?!
.
I am not worried, the CRIMINALS at the "Federal Reserve" have our backs.
END THE FED.
I am not worried, the CRIMINALS at the "Federal Reserve" have our backside.
END THE FED.
FIFY
"Sooner or later"
My guess would be later...much later. I would love to be wrong, but these bastards are exprt at can kicking. No matter that the can is twice the size of an oil drum.
The only thing worse than losing everything in a collapse is standing by while others make money hand over fist doing nothing for it other than being in the right place at the right time. Missing out.
You mistakenly assume that the stock market is the only place to put money to work. It is in the sense of paper assets and we all know when the multiple claimants step forward to collect the ashes there will only be one urn.
i work with physical assets such as wood and metals, tools to fabricate for added value. only paper is that dirty green shit to pay for it. hopefully dopefully the end project has a 20 + percent gain so i can be gainfully employeed, have a nice ride, ha...
edit; oldwood, please don't fall into the paper trap...
... which brings us to the viability of "things." Many of us have hard assets, that is, actual things (for now, bracket gold) such as good art and photographs, rare books, silver objects, etc. The assumption is the value of such things will hold firm during a stock crash. At this point I'm not sure that assumption is correct. Won't there be a glut of investable objects when the shtf?
I did a study, once, of the value of a good copy of Hobbes Leviathan v. the market, over a period of 30 years. The value of the good book simply tracked the market -- when the market plunged or rose, so did the value of the book. I assume that other investables follow a similar trajectory.
Still, investables are a hedge, not merely a psychological hedge, but a hedge against inflation. Since they track the market, they're not good values in a downturn, although, since you have the object in hand, presumably it will retain some measure of value.
I like the things you mention, but they depend on other people valuing them.
I'd rather hedge with a large piece of productive land, relatively isolated, affording among MANY other benefits, self-sufficiency and relative safety.
If the assumption is that we will continue in a dollarized world then real things will probably follow the market. It is when the dollar fails that real things will retain value while paper promises die.
Gold at 1200 is what we have today. My prediction is that in the near future people will be saying 'god I could have bought it for 1200 in early October, now I can't get any...how did that happen?'
At least you'll be warm and dry and you won't be hungry
I build custom furniture and hold no paper but cash since 2010. Business is off 50%/from five years ago and the markets have almost doubled.....but they will NEVER see my money again. Something for nothing is the unending challenge to sustainable societies since the beginning of time, be it from outright theft or simple "investing".
Labor, Interest, Dividends, Capital Gains.
directe materials, plus LIDCG, less sales and admin to arrive a zero for tax reason, ha...
Missing out is more powerful to most people than losses that everyone else is experiencing also.
Their view is the view of Sheeple: it is better to share the experience of fortune or misfortune, than to be the lonely outlier, the "weirdo". Don't underestimate people's "need to belong".
No, including their need to belong to the small, elite, "awakened" group which gets to look down its nose at the rest of the mindless "sheeple".
Can we all just drop that idiotic term, ffs? Thank you.
The classic "herd" always works too.
So long as they cash out their paper "wealth" and convert to hard assets before the stampede hits the exits. Everybody knows they will see the signals and get out in the nick of time. That's a herd fantasy.
'In a stampede I'll be the first buffalo to turn back after all those others in front of me have gone over the cliff.'
Shrinking Deficit? US Government Debt Jumps by $1.1 Trillion in Fiscal 2014 | Wolf Street
After November's election all sorts of adjustments reflected.
See the problem with calling for a crash is that if you're wrong, no one will remember you or your call. If you're right, the upside for your future as a stock market forecaster is unlimited, in the media of course. That's sounds like an asymmetric upside versus risk equation to me.
Yes it does sound like it.
Note that a Broken Clock must be right twice a day, whereas a Broken Broker must be right only once in every so many years with his "The End Is Near" mantra.
Every time I hear this it's like the bots have to prove a point and blast the indexes to new highs.
More Social Security disability, Obama phones, section 8's and food stamps to keep the masses from revolting.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-03/is-a-market-crash-coming...
I thought it was different this time...
/sarc
Wall Street IS dancing on a floor - and that floor is the backs of the American tax (and debt) payer. QEternity is ending but the Fed will bring back some kind of QE program either during or immediately after any crash. The better question is to focus on what events or situations that can come up which may PREVENT the Fed from another QE. Only when THOSE happen - to block the Fed from another QE - will you get a crash. The Fed will NEVER have a hawk majority over the doves.
The next crash may be the one to finally expose the emperor....
that yellenator is out there...
Yeller laughs at the crash callers. Only the satanic oligarch/planet managers know.
I'm tired of the lies, let her rip! I agreed ugliness lies ahead, but it is always being kicked out a year or two and never going to happen tomorrow. It is as if we can't handle what is coming at us and need more time.
For a long time I have been trying to develop a scenario for a market "super crash" and a reasonable map that would arrive at such a situation. Below is an article looking at how it could happen sooner rather than later.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/01/flash-crash-on-steroids.html
Don't bother. When IT happens the market will be down 20% overnight before you can get short or sell and the market won't open till 6 months later.....bet on it
And you can bet a suitable fall-guy will be present to deflect any and all criticism of the actions of the monetary masters.
Especially when there's so many to choose from. Let's see, there's war and plague on center stage right now, with drought/famine just off-stage getting ready to play. Then of course, there's always the option in so many places to add in some civil wars.
Yellen appears to be well-covered at the moment, so...
GAME ON!
The crash will be blamed on a rogue Russian agent acting alone, fat-fingering a J.P. Morgan exploit.
"......the market will be down 20% overnight before you can get short or sell and the market....."
This part is 100% Correct......
The absence of "Short Selling" is ONE of the Key Reasons why......
The only "GUARANTEED" Buyers are Short Sellers....
In time this will be Crystal Clear.....
And all Delusions to the Contrary will have been dispelled...
So, the author, on a value basis, thinks the market will drop by more than half. Which would result in an S&P PE of less than 10. And a Dow PE of around 8.
That sounds plausible.
How much of that PE is QE?
Technically? A shit-ton.
History? It is being "recast" as you read this. Our not being taught at all...
Reminds me of when I was much younger.
Get "right" on Saturday night. Sometimes you felt like you were dancing on air.
But that ended much better than this will.
It will still end well, just not for us.
pods
My old man used to say, when the time comes, there isnt enough money in the world to stop the big crash. Well, gues he never figured some fool could just print whatever they need and buy it all. No rule of law, no elected people, just some ghost devaluing what you have to the benefit of someone you will never meet.
But if you've met them it's ok?
Well, in his defense, money used to be actual wealth, rather than merely a borrowed claim upon it.
These days, there's nothing left but a globalized, "Wimpy Economy."
Only question is, what happens when Tuesday eventually arrives?
He's right by adding "with today's purchasing power"...
It takes two to tangle. At some point one person dancing by themselves looks pretty foolish, especially when they're in the buff. In that case both the stripper and the observer are devalued chatel: Lifeless.
Your "Old Man" will be Proven Right.......
It is Arrogance by those who Think otherwise.......
If current approach of "supporting" the market doesn't hold, Fed can and will BUY up market under guise of national security. That said, when enough people figure out the game, then it will be over.
Let the mother fucker burn!
Irving Fisher then, Stanley Fischer now. History rhymes once again.
missed one http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2014/09/23/dallas-feds-richard-fi...
This article is the definition of why ZH has egg all over its face for years
you have a point in principle : People who try and define life according to their preconceived dogmatic prism, do get egg on their faces.
When they have POWER they can then formulate it--the preconceived theorem--- and make it come about as a self fulfilling philosophy or prophecy.
This is true for those who have power to manipulate the world so that "reality" looks like the dogma; aka influence reality for their worst nightmares to come true; as after that their repressionary crusade is justified on the basis : "see I told you, 'cos I was PRESCIENT"... where in fact they should have said "I was manipulative to make things bend my way--and I've succeeded! "...until there is such awesome blowback that that manipulation will totally boomerang.
Alexander did it by naming himself God; and he achieved his universal Empire showing the world he was effectively God until it all collapsed so bad that his homeland became a simple colony of bigger fish in the pond : the Romans.
The Caesars, Charles V, the Crusades--- now Pax AMericana's "clash of civilization" meme espoused by GWB--have all gone down that road and all have ended in the trash can.
So its a thing to remember about human nature. And when ZH analyses events it does it magnificently.
But when it wants to influence the outcome...like a latter day beacon of an alternative, world order or a vigilant projection of a perfect market lever...
ZH is not a power construct but ZH is dogmatic in its thinking as it does have a political agenda which is not clearly defined by keeps biting away on the ankles of the powerful, like an enraged pitbull of the altermedia cabal.
And, Dat leads to wishing what you want to happen as an obsessive voyager on a deterministic time line--a bit like the pitbull-- not watching with a neutral eye, what will happen, keeping in mind the past tells us a lot about the future.
Pros and Cons...Balance. WE never know where the lightning will fall.
Nothing is predetermined, 'cos the uncertainty principle reigns in human constructs.
And pitbulls are relatively unintelligent and dangerous dogs. So why copy them? Better to stay neutral and vigilant.
Trump Casino went bankrupt. Trump had his name removed from the building. He can't be associated with its failure. Same with the FED. They'll make sure they're not connected with this debacle. QeInfinity, and Beyond!
DAX just lost 80 points from the crazy US overnight spike, perhaps someone just noticed that factory orders down nearly 6% ain't bullish
OMFG just crash already, enough with the words. I want this to be big and I want it NOW
The bottom line here is that noone knows what is going to happen or when. Market corrections and occasional crashes are inevitable, or at least have been a regular feature of markets up to this point, so one can say with certainty that a correction or crash is in the cards with confidence. The problem is that one can just as confidently state that a market rally is coming, and eventually you'll be right. The real question is: which is coming first? And when will it happen. Get that one right and you'll fare very well. Get it wrong and you'll either get hosed in a crash, or get left behind by a rally.
I remember in 2009 when "Dr. Doom" was predicting DOW 4000. Still hasn't happened and those who listened to him got left behind by a 275% rally in 5 years, a life-changing event for those who stayed invested.
Will a crash come? Count on it. When will it come? And will we rally in the meantime? Who knows, but it pays to remember that the overall trend of the market through history is UP. Also remember that it's a casino. Never bet more than you can afford to lose.
Hussman. My favourite contrarian indicator.
On the theme of "History" for those who know alot more than " at least a bit":
A Generational "Bottom" has ALWAYS been marked by Various Attributes, the most Graphic of which reflect an "L" Bottom, Left Side Down, that lasts Years, Not Months.....
That is in Confluence with Human Nature which reflects the "Digust" Phase associated with a True Bottom.....
Not a "V" Bottom that last weeks......
In due course your very Graphic will Educate you in this regard....
The "Devil is in the Details".......
I hate superficial comparisons to the 1920's and 1930's. Whoever knows at least a bit about history must hate it. And despite the popular permabear knowledge, the US stock market is valued just about adequately:
http://www.devilsdictionaries.com/blog/the-dow-inflation-adjusted-update
Your very own Link shows "Lower Highs and Lower Lows"........
Yet all the while with Higher and Higher Debt Ratios, by any Metric....
Classic "Forest for the Trees".......
Think "Law of Diminishing Returns" and "Rate of Change"....
Forces NOT subject to Human Veto.....
That doesn't annoy me, Mr. Dictionary.
What does, however, is when people use an apostrophe separating a numerically typed decade and an "s."
Lose the apostrophes. It should be "... 1920s and 1930s."
Will this be the much fabled Zerohedge crash that's been happening every trading day since, well, March '09, but has never happened? Or is it a different crash?
Good look with that one, boys...
Hussman is quite articulate, but his specific predictions haven't panned out for nearly 5 years now (I supect if I peak back before the crisis I would find some wrongness there tood). And he appears to be totally wrongfooted at present, betting against equities and for Treasuries. It is clear the US economy is starting to heat up, inflation is held in check by Europe's deflation, and thus it is a no-brainer for the Fed to hike short term rates. Treasuries will then seem less intereresting. I am not sure they will crash, but potentially trillions of dollars will reallocate out of bonds into other asset classets probably including good ole stocks.
Hussman is quite articulate, but his specific predictions haven't panned out for nearly 5 years now (I supect if I peak back before the crisis I would find some wrongness there tood). And he appears to be totally wrongfooted at present, betting against equities and for Treasuries. It is clear the US economy is starting to heat up, inflation is held in check by Europe's deflation, and thus it is a no-brainer for the Fed to hike short term rates. Treasuries will then seem less intereresting. I am not sure they will crash, but potentially trillions of dollars will reallocate out of bonds into other asset classets probably including good ole stocks.
Thank You CNBC.
I told my folks, who watch CNBC, that everything they say is pointless and just stawkspeak. Fundamentals, valuations, PE, everything is horseshit and computers run the game. Everything learned in Econ classes should be tossed. It rides the CPU.
DAX futures off over 150 now
It seems like many ZH readers have been throwing in the towel on any type of crash. I see lots of" Fed has the floor" comments. You know when that starts happening , we are getting that much closer to one.
That was true up until 2008. Then a new Pair o' Dimes was invented and here we are 6 years later with the shorts near bankruptcy.
I don't anticipate any market crash simply because of one very telling stragety that was put into play in 2008 after Lehman but not Bear Stearns, Goldman Sucks, and AIG were not permitted to go under the bus.
That strategy is called for all time as Too Big To Fail.
If the major banks are deemed too big to fail, than an entity such as the Economy the Size of the one in the United States is, is also Way WAY Too Big To Fail.
TBTF = WWTBTF.
Just buy the fucking dip, fer krissakes and stop whining.
Nah, what changed is mark-to-market was abolished...and mark-to-fantasy was instituted. There will never be another failure b/c 'their' financial position will never really be known...
A fire has been set under the still growing paper tower. When the masses realize the tower is on fire, it will be too late for them. Panic then ensues and it's game over, and a new game starts.
There will be no crash.
Here is why.
Does your family/extended family gather for the holidays? This year at T-Day dinner, look around at the folks. How many are getting a check, be it a pension, SS, disability, EBT, etc….
If this thing crashes, you have to ‘bring ‘em home’ and take care of all of them yourself. (Or perhaps you are one of them and will need to be taken care of.) Nobody wants to do that.
We all saw “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”.
Who wants an Alzheimer's person screaming racial epithets out the front door? LOL
I think if we were to overlay the 1924-1932 chart onto todays market chart I would think that we are late '27 early '28. Almost all of '28 and most of '29 was a parabolic blowoff top. Still looking for that in our present market. Could be a couple more years or so before this bubble goes bust.
Gold as in Golden Rule, that Gravity is an eternal force, the result is what goes up by some external impetus will come down when the impetus is removed. The impetus of gold is history and though it doesn't pay interest it does store valus and is trusted by almost everyone, That is where gold and equities are very much different. I like the feel of gold and the beauty it radiates. The impetus for equities is the greed of the elite who are NOT eternal. I am buying gold miners now at bargain prices, who can resist an extraordinary sale. Even Mr. Berkshire has faced some failures and too bad he has to invest even when investing STINKS! My final recommendation is the hybridation of Bit-coin and precious metals. Each coin will be registered and counterrfitting will be reduced if not eliminated.
What if they gave a StockMarket Crash, and noboby came??
It IS different today than it was up till 2007.
That should be obvious to all but the Perma- Shorts who made no provision for a FED controlled market.
You can't control market behaviour and never will. The trick is to profit around it, regardless of what the market does.
If you're long gold and short stocks, you've been wrong for 3 years, simple as that!
The question to consider is: "Who will be the actual owners and beneficiaries after a crash?"
For example: we know a few things ...
1. The DTCC owns the majority of stock shares and most likely yours ... unless you are holding certificates.
2. Most people who think they are owners of stocks are actually beneficiaries, not owners.
3. If a company is squeezed into bankruptcy, the common stock owners and common stock beneficiaries lose their investment and bond holders become the new "official" owners... but they were all the time anyway, right?
The banks create all money out of thin air and trade it for actual ownership. In other words they give nothing and get everything when stress is put on the system (which they themselves do through the manipulation of price).
(one can carry this further: Who owns your house? Who owns your children? Who owns your body? If they have taken the right to take possession through force, then they are the owners ... you are just a beneficiary.)
What a racket!
@Notsobadwlad Actually, I "own" my house -- whatever that means in a society under rule of law. Noone owns anyone since slavery was abolished. And I "own" the stocks in my portfolio, once again whatever that means in a society under rule of law.
As to whom the owners will be after a crash, my house will still be mine, my children will still be whatever they are now, and my stocks will still be mine provided I didn't sell in a panic (or with foresight) and the companies are still in business.
The property of all people everywhere and in all ages has been subject to expropriation by force. This does not mean that they didn't "own" their property. It only means that the rule of law had broken down or had been perverted into a form that subjugated property rights to power and privilege.
"Ownership" is not objectively real. It is simply a social custom -- an agreement among people, if you will -- based on ideas of fairness and reward for productivity, which are themselves social customs. We subscribe to them because we believe that they are the underpinnings of a just and prosperous society. Clearly, not all societies believe in justice and prosperity for all of their members. At the rate things are going, we could become one of them in the not-too-distant future.
Damn that is one wicked chart. Has anyone checked on the performance of USLV lately because that is another wicked chart unless you were short. I smell backwardation coming in physical silver based on all of the ETF charts. It's only matter of when to pull the trigger. How low will they pound the PM's before they get called? Something is rotten in Denmark again.
I have been looking at more silver dimes and the prices are not moving downward. I tred to buy some MOAR the other day and by the time my order was placed they were already sold. In fact, many dates have disappeared. There really are so many less silver dimes out there then there used to be. Apparently people went back and got a shitload of dimes. Maybe it is time to just buy what you can get like the 64's. The Denver mint struck 1,357,517,180 dimes that year and the Philadelphia mint struck an addtional 929,360,000 dimes. Those are still out there for a reasonable price. There was a reason why they struck so many that year and most of you know why. They were sending us a message for those who care to look at numbers like that. Not a bad long term investment.
@Notsobadwlad Having said all the above, I agree that crashes are generally the times when the sheep are fleeced. ;)
I am suffering from extreme crash fatigue. Back in 2005-7 I was sure a crash was just around the corner, the fraud and debt were epic, and so it did come, to quickly be replaced by an entire new economic model based on mass money printing, asset buying by the Fed and open market manipulations by the Fed and private banks and trading houses using free money from the Fed.
Today, by all rights, the entire centrally planned and quasi Fascist government and it's central bankers should be on the edge of total break down. Yet, the wealth effect is pouring billions every day into the sick economy. The King Dollar is still riding high, and aas long as the USA can rely on "King Dollar" and the World's acceptance of this printed fiat in exchange for energy, manufactured goods and all types of low cost services that can be done abroad, I don;t see the crash coming.
If the fiat dollar comes under threat, then YES, it will tumble down in a New York Minute! The dollar seems to really have legs, backed up by the giant war and spy machine the fiat dollar allows the USA to employ.
Greatest financial mistake of my life was to "Fight the Fed". I did, and I got my fucking ass beaten to a pulp. The 1% went with the Fed and have won the greatest financial gains in human history just by playing the Feds game. Crash? Might take another 5 years or more.
@ KnuckleDragger-X At some point, fossil fuel energy will run short. I'm not sure when that will happen, but the reality of living on a finite planet coupled with a fossil-fuel formation process that proceeds at geological time scales makes it a given.
The real question is, when that point is reached, will we have developed viable alternatives? Given the denial of obvious fact and logic in today's world, the answer is "probably not". But one can still hope. Either way, how this issue is addressed will determine whether, as you say, we find ourselves falling back 200-300 years, 1000 years, or in a relatively modern world that runs on much less energy.
I'm surprised to see so many arguments below that essentially just come down to the difficulty of "timing". Obviously the market, economy, dollar, nation will crash. The difficult question is always "when".
Part of the difficulty relates to global interconnectedness. There is a tendency to imagine we can model the economy of the USSA or EU or China or some other fictitious nation or gang separate from external influences and get an accurate answer. Not so, and if you catch pretty much anyone when they're not in the mood to argue, they'll agree. The USSA is currently in the process of consuming the advantage it has due to recent history (since ~1970s and the petro-dollar). That makes the USSA look great while they consume this advantage, but once that advantage is trashed, this will make the USSA look horrible.
Another major difficulty is the degree to which the governmental and central-bank market manipulators are willing to go, compared to just a few decades (or years) ago. Those who predict consequences cannot be expected to know in advance exactly how egregious the predators-that-be will become as time passes. Most predictions are based on the notion that the near future will be much like the near past. That has been a bad bet the past decade or two, and the predators-that-be go to ever-more-insane lengths to attempt to pretend they are not the cause of the disasters they have caused.
Another major factor is the mind-bending degrees of numerical manipulation that go into the creation of EVERY government economic measure and statistic. The size of these lies are so enormous they defy sanity. But sane or not, a great many people and corporations take those grossly manipulated numbers seriously, or close enough to seriously that their behavior does not reflect the actual state of reality.
Perhaps the best lesson to learn from the past decades is... how long powerful predators-that-be can extend the illusion of viability in the present... by destroying actual viability in the future. Every action does indeed have consequences. But consequences can be shifted to others, obscured by lies, deceit and statistics, and delayed by artificial means such as fiat debt. But the shifting, lies, deceit, statistics and delays do not cancel the consequences, they only delay the consequences and make them vastly worse. Why so much worse? The simple answer is "interest" on debt (paying more for something due to interest). But the vastly greater though less obvious damage comes from manipulating the behavior of productive beings (and the physical plants they operate to produce goods and goodies) into vastly less efficient configurations. Remember, the main reasons dirt poor countries in Africa produce less than western nations is... because they have less efficient configurations (of physical machinery, supplies and labor). And so, the former efficiency of the west is being utterly destroyed, which will have astronomical consequences when the illusions, delusions and manipulations no longer work.
And for sure, the time is coming when they will no longer work. In fact, the one fairly reliable way to predict when a bogus manipulated system collapses is... when those who have been pointing out the fact the system was bogus start to question their own sanity, because the consequences have [apparently] been pushed off so long.
We are definitely getting close to that point.
It won't be too much longer. How much?
Let's not fall into that trap again, eh?
-----
Metaphorically speaking, the predators-that-be have eaten most of the seed crops, and so have very little to plant. Soon the flow of food will drop radically, and nothing will be able to hide the consequences. Sadly, the predators-that-be are unlikely to suffer... they'll be hiding in the continuity of government bunkers at Valhalla Sector.
Please what does "DBA" means when you write "predators-DBA" ?
Also: you once said that consciousness is "thought processes", but what if you and I were organic consciousness believing to be "thought processes"? Such identification is very common, one may identify oneself with the "voice in the head" for example. But maybe you are not the voice in your head, nor your thought processes. And replicating those thought processes would not transfer you into them, it would at best clone those in another self. Maybe you are not your thought processes, but "that wich hosts" those processes. Maybe you are the unique background of any form you experience (inner or outer). So, what makes you so sure about the nature of consciousness? How do you discriminate between hypothesis 1 "I am my thought processes" and hypothesis 2 "I am organic consciousness identifying with thought processes"?
Please know that I do not write that in an "arguing mind" - I do appreciate your posts
thanks, regards
DBA == "doing business as"
-----
DBA is a common term in business, especially for small businesses where the company name simply refers to an individual, a couple, or a small number of partners.
The point of term1-DBA-term2 is that term1 is something real (real human beings), while term2 is some fiction (a name of some kind).
My point is this, for example. So-called "government" literally does not exist. If a pack of [human] predators run around stealing, bullying and harming people, nothing real pops into existence when they decide to give themselves a name, whether that name be "Gambinos" or "federal government" or "state government" or "county government" or "city government" or "Goldman Sachs" and so forth.
The important point is to get humans to understand that NO human has any legitimate basis to steal from others, obligate others, force others, harm others or dictate to others. The single main fact that makes humans accept abuse from these various predators is... their erroneous assumption that "government exist", "corporations exist", etc. Or put another way, the delusion that something exists besides human predators. But in fact, giving a pack of predators a name does NOT create anything new... except a new name inside the head of human beings. But what is a fiction? It is a name inside the head of human beings that do not refer to anything real. And so, every "government" is a fiction. Every "corporation" is a fiction. The predators who call themselves officials of these so-called fictions are real, and the weapons they wield are real, but nothing exists except the predators and their weapons.
-----
The phrase "thought processes" is not precise. You might say "mental processes", since that is more general (only some mental processes are "thought"). To be a conscious being requires the being perform a certain minimal set of mental processes. To have "sensory consciousness" only requires a very limited set of mental processes. To have "perceptual consciousness" requires a larger set of mental processes. To have "abstract, conceptual consciousness" requires an even larger set of mental processes.
It is fairly accurate to say that each more complex level of consciousness simply means the being has more forms, and more sophisticated forms... of awareness. For example, a consciousness that only has "sensory consciousness" does not have memory, and can thus only be aware of what it senses at each moment. But that "sensory consciousness" cannot compare an awareness it had last week with a current awareness because that being does not perform the mental processes known as "memory" and "recollection". And so, "sensory consciousness" cannot be aware of as wide a variety of reality as a "perceptual consciousness" or "conceptual consciousness".
When you understand the above... the evolution of very simple forms of awareness and consciousness through what mankind has, you can see how each level of consciousness is nothing more than adding one or a few very simple additional mental processes to what the lower levels have.
I partially understand what you're trying to point at, but maybe not fully. That "voice in the head" is almost a necessary corollary or consequence of self-awareness, which is pretty much an unavoidable characteristic for any being with conceptual consciousness.
-----
One claim that is definitely wrong is the notion that "you (your identity) is the host (the physical structure)". One can come to understand this in quite a few different ways, none of which are immediately direct, but are easy to understand given enough thought on the topic, and enough richness of thought. I'll attempt a very much shortened explanation to see whether it helps you understand how this works.
First you need to decide "what is you", meaning "what is your identity". One way to address this is to ask yourself the following questions.
#1: What do you mean by "you" (your identity)? Are you the same person as last week, last month, last year? Clearly the "you" of today has more experiences, more memories, perhaps a few more insights and a bit more knowledge. And perhaps your attitude about one or two of the thousands of issues humans think about has changed since last week, month or year. But does that mean you are no longer you? Has your identity vanished and been replaced by "someone else"? Most people implicitly accept that they slowly change over the years, but these changes are simply the development or evolution of themselves, of their identity. We accept this meaning of "identity".
#2: If you (or a spouse, or a child, or a friend) lose a finger-tip, are you or they still the same individual? Are you still you, or are you now "someone else"? How about if you lose a whole finger? How about if you lose a leg... or both legs? How about if your appendix is removed? How about if you get a liver transplant? How about if your heart fails and the doctors give you an artificial (mechanical/electronic) heart? Are you still you? Or has your identity changed and you are now someone else? Most people implicitly accept that small, medium, even large changes like these do not terminate our "self", our "identity". They understand that they still have the same memories, the same attitudes, the same knowledge, the same skills, expertise, strengths and weaknesses, and those are what constitute the indispensable components of their "identity".
#3: Are you aware that virtually 100% of the atoms in your body are discarded every 7 to 10 years, and replaced by new atoms? Does that mean you no longer exist, because virtually all the atoms that you were composed of have been discarded over the years? Probably not. After most people consider this question, they agree with the conclusion that as long as the pattern of those atoms remains largely intact, this means their memories, thoughts, skills, experiences, values and attitudes remain intact... and thus they are still themselves.
To boil the above down, the typical conclusions is that conscious beings retain their identity as long as they develop in a continuous manner. They can literally lose every last atom of their physical being... and yet remain "me" (retain their "identity").
I planned to add more, but I think I said enough. The point is, before you can answer your questions, you have to decide what constitutes the concept "I" that begins your questions. This is a choice. You can choose a different meaning for "I" in your questions, and indeed some people most certainly do. Some people believe their identity is equivalent to their physical body... with processes being irrelevant. Which is why some people believe an absolutely completely and permanently brain-dead (and body-dead) human being is equivalent to a living, breathing, observing, active human being in daily life. The fact that their memories are gone is irrelevant, their ability to [ever again] sense the world is irrelevant, their mental processes are irrelevant, their awareness is irrelevant... only the physical body is relevant. Clearly I/we/most do not believe a completely DEAD human being retains their "identity", because those characteristics we consider necessary for self and identity are gone.
-----
But to perhaps a different answer to your question is appropriate. You ask why I am sure about the nature of consciousness? Perhaps the best answer to that is, because I have observed consciousness, investigated consciousness, experienced consciousness, performed analysis upon consciousness for with sufficient intensity and care to get to the point that I understand what consciousness is (a set of processes in a being with certain components). Which means, I not only understand what is required to BE consciousness, but exactly what processes must take place for such a consciousness to exist and function.
A related answer is this. I am working with someone who already implemented a smarter-than human consciousness with exclusively inorganic components (sensors, computers, software, data/memory/contents and robotics). It was much slower than human consciousness, enough so that it was not practical for anything but proof-of-principle, but I believe this answers the question.
It is a bit like this question, which I formulated to be similar to yours: "What makes you so sure about the nature of flying?". Let's assume you asked me this in the late 1800s, before any human had created a flying device/machine. Of course, all humans knew "flying" was possible, since they observed many "insects" and "birds" perform the process we call "flying". But... How would I know whether I knew the nature of flying?
My answers will probably not completely satisfy you, but here goes. The answer comes in two parts or phases. The first phase is purely intellectual (theory). It asks how can I know I understand the nature of "flying" before I ever create something that performs that process of "flying"? The second phase is existential (practice/experiment).
To answer the first part requires careful, extensive, objective and thoughtful observation, inference and deduction. To oversimplify, such a process would eventually lead me to understand that the necessary "processes" or "components" that are required to perform that existential action we call "flying" are: lift, thrust, stability and control.
At that point I would "understand" the nature of flying. Why? Well, because I could understand that these were the elements required of an organic or inorganic being/machine to FLY... and why so. I might not even know how to create a physical flying machine at that point, but I would know everything I needed to know to set myself to the task of performing all the materials and engineering research and experimentation to assemble a machine that had the required life, thrust, stability and control to FLY.
The next stage, of course, is to build at least one (but hopefully several) configurations of components that indeed do perform that process we call "flying"... and observe the results (which is "flying").
This is pretty much analogous to how I know I understand the nature of consciousness. I clearly and thoroughly know and understand what all the necessary components are for all three of those levels of consciousness. And the originator of the project I collaborate on already "built one that works".
We also know what "simulate" and "emulate" mean, and how they are different from "implement". And so, we know he did not "simulate" or "emulate" smarter-than-human inorganic consciousness, but rather he implemented it.
It truly is difficult for anyone to convince another human being they fully understand any complex topic that is understood by less than 5 people on the planet. Mostly that's because the only way you could be certain I wasn't lying to you is... to come to understand all this as fully as we do. Obviously I can't do that in a ZH message, nor would I do that in public at all, because most people would apply this knowledge to promote extremely destructive agendas. And in this case, it only takes one to literally exterminate the species (or all species). In our case, once we are finished implementing faster as well as smarter than human inorganic consciousness, we will make thousands of duplicates and set them to the task of getting us off this planet-of-apes, never to return again. If and when the predators-that-be get their hands on this technology, humans are finished, and in very short order.
ok thanks. Please believe that I understand your above statements and questions. I also share your assertions about mankind, and most of your personal choices in life.
You write: "Some people believe their identity is equivalent to their physical body". I would say that human consciousness is deeply flawed in the following way: "I" (human consciousness) identify with forms. And those forms may be my physical body, or the voice in my head, or my social roles (being a single, being a manager) or my emotions (anger, sadness) etc.
Let me get to the essential points:
1. What you can observe is not you. When you observe, you are that-which-observes. Thus anything you observe becomes a dead part of your old false identity. You cannot observe consciousness, you can only be consciousness. (The word "self-awareness" may imply duality: there would be two entities, "me and my self").
What do I know about identity? Identity is given by reducing itself.
We both know that calling identity this or that is not a relevant problem. The point is: authentic being. So what do I mean about this reducing stuff? Any common life experience may help to explain. For example if someone is offending you with words. Who is the you that is offended? It can only be a mental image of you, that you identified with, that you may want to defend at any cost. But what is real needs no defense. So if you stop identifying with that mental position, you reduce a false identity and in the process you become a new (broader?) one. If you observes your anger, if you observes your mental trying to defend itself when offended, you are not your mental anymore. And you are not posessed/played by it anymore.
2. You can implement consciousness or replicate yourself in a machine, but won't it be the machine's self? (not yourself) Please be sure that I do not want to be mean in any way to you. But I'm not a fraud (I validate what I state through first hand experience) so I feel free to speak my mind ;-)
Regards
Unfortunately, I don't think I can give you a fully satisfying answer to all your comments and questions. The main reason is, while I understand most of your comments at a surface level, I do not understand them deeply (as they exist in your consciousness). That's because the concepts we're discussing, and the reality (or fictions) they refer-to, are very much non-trivial (meaning they depend upon and are conditioned by a great many other premises that neither of us has time to identify and explore in a short message like these). Nonetheless, I'll try to respond in a somewhat useful way.
-----
You say "what you can observe is not you". One might also say "what you can observe is not your computer". Both are correct in an important sense because we cannot observe all the necessary components of "me"... or "my computer" in any one momentary observation. This is an entirely correct observation. However, it does not mean you cannot make multiple observations of "me" or "computer", observe and identify the fundamental components, then observe and identify the interconnections and actions that occur between the components, and then come to understand all the elements, processes and actions that are necessary for that human or machine to be "me" or "computer". We can do that.
To be sure, we cannot do this in a momentary glance. This is why animals, even high-level rather sophisticated animals like dogs and apes cannot comprehend some aspects of reality that we (some of us) can comprehend.
To make a point by means of an exaggerated case, we cannot possibly observe, identify and comprehend all the components of the universe, and all the ways those components interact. However, that does not mean we cannot know the universe exists, and does not mean we cannot identify and understand many if not most of the fundamental characteristics of the universe. We can. Knowledge does not require omniscience.
Beyond that, often we are not interested in "excessive detail", or at least we do not need "excessive detail" to successfully interact with certain aspects of reality, or even design and create new instances and new variations of certain kinds of objects. For example, when we set out to create a "flying machine" with all inorganic components, we do not need to understand "the circulatory system or nervous system of insects or birds". Why? Because neither circulatory system or nervous system is a necessary component of "flying".
Which brings us to a very important practical issue. How does a prospective inventor know what questions to ask himself in order to understand a given topic or system to be able to interact with that system, or design and implement an instance of that kind of system? That's a complex question, so I'll avoid answering that question in more detail than I did in my previous message. But I will say, almost always more care, skill and effort is required to identify the necessary questions to ask... than to answer those questions.
-----
I'm still trying to respond to your #1 above, but I cannot do so in a concise and complete way, because so much context is necessary... more than I can provide in this modest length message. But I hope that I have at least show why "you can observe consciousness"... you just can't observe consciousness in a single momentary act. Beyond that, even after you do observe all the physical elements and physical processes that are consciousness, you still don't necessarily understand how they all interact with each other to be consciousness. That requires more than observation (in the simple sense of that term).
-----
One bit of background that one must understand to comprehend any topic like these is the following. What is the status and utility of concepts? One comment about this that I suspect may be important for me to convey is... concepts are utilitarian. This inherently involves a tension (factors working in opposite directions). On the one hand, to be utilitarian, concepts need to mean and refer-to reality, not some bogus fiction. The reason should be obvious... if you take actions based upon bogus concepts (concepts not based-upon reality), you will die, and eliminate your genes from existence (probably and hopefully before you reproduce and pass on such nonsense). If you hold bogus concepts, you will walk over cliffs, walk up to vicious predators, and take endless actions that get you killed... because those concepts do not correctly identify the nature of reality. However, on the other hand, what constitutes "utility" is also subjective to some degree. Some people enjoy food or music (or any other aspect of reality) very much, while others care very little. And so the degree of precision, completeness... and even to some extent validity vary from individual to individual. And context can be very important to, since some folks never encounter certain contexts, while other individuals are continually impacted by those contexts.
Without a doubt, concepts like "identity" and "consciousness" have some utility for most human beings, but which aspects of those concepts are personally important to any given individual can vary enormously.
And so, for us to even have a serious conversation about topics like "identity" and "consciousness", we would need to share a common context... or at least explore the contexts we both hold so we can have a coherent exchange. This alone would probably take us weeks (or perhaps several 8-hour days). And so, this conversation is inherently difficult.
I tried to give you an insight into my method to identify an appropriate context for "identity". This method should work for both of us (or anyone)... but may still lead us to adopt different meanings for "identity". My method was to ask a series of questions of the following form: If you lose (physical component or physical process) x... do you still consider yourself to be "you" (same identity). As in, if you lose a leg, are you still you? If you forget everything about your life before the age of 10, are you still you? If you receive a mechanical heart, are you still you? And so forth... through dozens if not hundreds of questions.
I have good reasons for my answers to those questions, and those questions and answers are how I came to my own practical, utilitarian meaning of "identity" AKA "individual identity". My guess is, you would answer almost all these questions the same as me, but perhaps you would answer one, two or a few of the questions differently, and therefore have a different context than me, because you have a modestly different concept for "identity" (and/or "me" and/or "self").
Note that most individuals cannot even ANSWER these questions honestly or accurately without performing the entire process at least twice, and usually several times. For example, one might answer at first a question like, "do you need to remain organic to retain your identity?" with "yes". Perhaps later they would encounter the question, "if you lost a leg and received a metal replacement, would you still be you?" with "yes"... then realize they just contradicted one of their previous answers. They would then think a bit more seriously about which components of their physical being could be replaced with inorganic analogs and yet still retain their individual "identity". Some might decide "my brain must remain organic", while others might consider the issue from a slightly different perspective and realize they are in fact an "organic machine", and that "organic and inorganic machines are all just configurations of the same 60 atomic elements or so, and therefore organic versus inorganic doesn't matter as long as his individual/personal memories and attitudes and knowledge and mental abilities are retained".
-----
These topics require an enormous amount of consideration to come to a detailed and satisfactory understanding (in the chosen context). One must face a number of real and bogus philosophical questions, for example "the mind-body dichotomy" and "volition versus determinism" and various others. And one must have some kind of answer to those questions, even if the answer is "I recognize that I just don't know yet".
To get to the level we are at... designing and implementing our own smarter-than human inorganic consciousness... we need very exact and precise answers to those questions and many others. Some answers are simple, while others are involved.
The answer to the so-called "mind-body dichotomy" is quite simple. The answer is almost as simple as recognizing the question as an improper question due to a fundamentally false assumption. The false assumption is that "mind" is some kind of "non-material object or entity" (often equated with "self" or "individual identity" or "personal consciousness" or even "soul" (whatever that's supposed to mean)).
To untangle this supposed dichotomy only requires we recognize the fact that the term "mind" only refers to "certain physical processes of the physical brain/body"... and the dichotomy vanishes. All of a sudden no mystery exists... the brain is a physical machine (albeit of organic structure), and the so-called "mind" is simply a set of processes/actions that machine performs. Very similar to a computer, in fact.
The issue of "volition versus determinism" is a bit more difficult to unravel and understand. So I won't attempt that here. But I will say... perhaps the apparent contradiction implied in those two alternatives are not actually contradictions or alternatives. Might one consider "volition" to simply be a term that means "self-determinism"? Think about it. If you can determine your actions, is that not an exercise of "volition"? And does this not seem rather sensible and non-strange when you think about it for awhile? If the claim of "determinism" is that "physical reality (objects and their actions) outside of your body and brain cause you to take certain actions"... then on what basis would an advocate of determinism claim that "the physical reality that is your physical body and the actions it takes does not also cause you to take certain actions"? Woops! I suppose both sides of this argument win in a manner of speaking! The "volition" advocates win because in fact "volition obviously does exist", while the "determinism" advocates win because "volition is one form of determinism". Oh well. Yes, the above is not an exhaustive investigation, but at least might be enough to set a honest individual on the road to examining this topic.
All this just elaborates on my claim that "context is crucial" to comprehend these kinds of non-trivial topics.
-----
Your comment discusses the question "who is you", which to me is the same question as "who is your individual/personal identity". The way you formulate this discussion tends to create various formulations that appear like dichotomies. But a large part of the reason conversations about this topic look this way is... because the apparent dichotomy is an unavoidable consequence of the context (previous assumptions), or because certain related aspects of reality are related and [very] similar, but not identical.
You also seem to not notice the possibility of recursion. While many people may never perform this process, it is entirely possible for "my consciousness to observe my consciousness". Sure, my consciousness cannot observe (sense) my entire consciousness all at once like it can sense "the temperature" or "an impact/touch" or "a sound". But that's not because consciousness is incapable of sensing/observing/experiencing consciousness, that is because consciousness is incapable of sensing/observing/experiencing all the component elements and processes that are (together) consciousness in a single frame of awareness.
One might look in the mirror (or look down at one's own arms, hands, body and legs) and say "I see me". But that's just an imprecise shorthand for something like "I see some portion of the physical object that is my body, and the operation of which includes me, myself and my identity".
To answer questions like "who is offended", one must work through the entire phrase with great care. For example, one must recognize that the term "offended" means "an emotion". Then one must know (or figure out) that "an emotion" is "a feeling" (one type of feeling). Then one must know (or figure out) that "a feeling" is "a physical sensation". Then one must know (or figure out) that certain physical processes of the brain can physically cause chemical and electronic actions in the body (which is not at all strange, since all the actions of the physical human brain are in fact chemical and electronic processes and actions). All this intellectual work just reinforces our rejection of the so-called "mind-body dichotomy" by explicitly identifying every component of the process of "emotion" and "feeling" as a completely real, natural, sensible physical process.
Once we've done this much (figure out the nature of what "offended" means), we can investigate the other part of the question... the "who". That part of the question is the same as the question of "me" or "individual identity" that we discussed previously. What we learned about this previously was... that "we" (or "who") is what we call our individual/personal "identity"), which includes a number of elements that we can easily identify (plus perhaps a few more that only inventors of inorganic consciousness need identify... to be complete).
When one examines these questions they way we do (at this point in our growing understanding), we never run into problematic dichotomies like "who is offended". The reason is what I said above. Once one has a good, solid, valid, thoroughly comprehended meaning and understanding of all the concepts in these questions, one either recognizes "this apparent dichotomy is fictional or just an unfortunate linguistic formulation", or else "this apparent dichotomy refers to two or more perfectly real and natural elements [plus their interconnections], [plus their interactions].
Sorry if the above is a bit abstract. To break it down much further would get very lengthy.
-----
You ask, "you can implement consciousness or replicate yourself in a machine, but won't the result be the machine's self (not your self)?". My immediate (oversimplified) response that popped into my head was, "I would be the machine, and so yes, the consciousness would be the machine's consciousness... and also identically and simultaneously my consciousness.
It is very natural to us at this point to thoroughly understand (and internalize) that "organic beings are organic machines", and "inorganic beings are inorganic machines". And further, as many of my comments above illustrate, it is common for modern conscious machines (namely "human beings") to have a combination of "inorganic machine" components and "organic machine" components... and even some missing components (teeth, liver, appendix, eye, etc).
And so, unless the [usually irrelevant] differences between "organic machine" and "inorganic machine" are relevant in the current context, we simply [mentally] ignore the distinction of whether a component (or entire being) is "organic" or "inorganic".
Seriously... what's the difference? A machine is a machine. All machines (organic and inorganic) are composed of the same 60~92 atomic elements. In a great many ways organic and inorganic machines are moderately-to-very similar or analogous. So... who gives a damn whether components are organic or inorganic... unless something about the context makes the usually irrelevant differences matter? The point is, what we care about is FUNCTION. If we break a leg, what do we care if a doctor inserts pieces of bone or titanium to fix our leg... as long as our functions effectively after the surgery? Personally, we don't give a damn.
In fact, we almost always prefer inorganic solutions... for [almost] every implementation. Unless we can't find an effective inorganic solution.
Why do we have this bias? The answer is... the primary difference between "organic systems" and "inorganic systems". This issue can be discussed from several different angles and perspectives, but I'll choose what I consider the most often relevant perspective. The fact is, organic systems are configured as they are because "they must grow, and must be grown" (from one or two single cells originally). One almost unavoidable consequence of this method of construction is... organic systems strongly tend to be "holistic", which means "massively interconnected", which means "non-modular".
Quite clearly, you can't just open a hatch on a human body, disconnect and remote any random (worn, broken or defective) component, insert and connect a brand new replacement component, then close the hatch and keep on trucking... better than new!
That's just not how organic systems are configured. And the primary reason for this "architecture" is, organic systems must grow from one or two starter cells.
To be honest, we all think this is a totally freaking amazing capability... for one or two cells to be able to grow into a huge, complex, interconnected, highly capable physical being. That's just totally freaking amazing! But further, this amazing characteristic is necessary for life to ever arise, survive and reproduce. In other words, organic systems have perhaps the single most amazing, awesome, impressive, extraordinary characteristic... a characteristic that is absolutely necessary for any advanced, complex, capable system to have ever come to exist in the universe.
I hope you understand how impressed we are with this aspect of the nature of "organic machines" (as they exist in the universe). Because we don't want to be one-sided in our rather extreme focus on "inorganic machines".
But... we recognize something else. We recognize the negative aspects of the holistic and massively interconnected nature of organic beings. We recognize the positive aspects of the modular nature of inorganic beings. Furthermore, because "inorganic machines" need not retain those amazing characteristics that are so important to "organic machines" (because we "organic machines" already exist to design and create the "inorganic machines"), we recognize that we can design and implement vastly more configurations and structures of "inorganic machines". In fact, since each "inorganic component" only performs one or a few functions, we can create wildly different structures for each "inorganic component", and adopt wildly different materials, and take almost endless liberties with materials and configuration to optimize each modular component for the purpose it serves. In contrast, every last component of an organic being is... a cell. Every component is fundamentally the same, and must be fundamentally and largely the same in order to develop itself via the process of "growth" and remain inter-connected to the rest of the "organic being/machine".
I suppose one cannot comprehend how astronomically huge the advantages of inorganic systems are... until one investigates these issues thoroughly, and applies them to real cases of design and implementation and performance. And... last but not least... recognize the natural and inherent opportunities for advanced development! In an "inorganic machine", each "inorganic component" can be improved independently, and yet still be inserted into existing "inorganic machines/beings"... in whatever order the design and implementation of those components are improved.
But furthermore, once we implement new "inorganic machines", and observe their operation over time in many applications and many environments, we can invent new architectures with new components and new capabilities that are wildly if not utterly different and divergent from previous designs and implementations... and create them. In contrast, if humans were to decide "eight arms, four legs and wings" is better than "two arms, two legs and no wings", humans will have one hell of a time evolving those new features. In contrast, we can design new "inorganic machines" with those new characteristics quite easily. In fact, we can look at this issue from exactly the opposite perspective, and gain even more. What I mean is, we can consider those physical elements required for "advanced conceptual consciousness" as one module, and then insert them into physical packages and machines that have any number of any variety of sensors, body and manipulators, in any configuration. In fact, given faster wireless technologies being developed now, one can think of an advanced "inorganic being" as a being that can dynamically and "at will" perceive reality through any set of sensors in the solar-system, and control any set of robotics/manipulators in the solar-system... and change these inputs and outputs dynamically at any time, for whatever purposes it wishes.
I hope I've given a flavor of why we prefer "inorganic beings", both as tools, and as configurations to embody our own identities and consciousnesses.
-----
I suppose I did not describe how I can "become inorganic". Which means, how I intend to transfer my individual/personal consciousness and identity into 100% inorganic form. While from some over-simplified perspectives the process is similar to "upload my consciousness", that's very much an over-simplification. We wish it was that easy! Nonetheless, through a specific process that will take months (and perhaps even up to two years), we can indeed transfer our identity and consciousness into an "inorganic machine". Except it isn't exactly "transfer", but more like a "copy-merge". But that's just a practical detail, and not very relevant to our more abstract conversation.
I have described this process a few times in the past year or two in ZH messages, some of which are rather long and detailed (but still moderately simplified). I hate to make you search through all my past messages, but... they are there if you care to dig through that huge pile of messages.
Once the process is complete, that identity and that consciousness that is me will exist in the "inorganic conscious entity". That doesn't mean the "me" after the process will be identical in every way to the "me" before the process begins in every way. Not at all. In fact, the "me" that existed two years ago is not identical to the "me" that is "me" today... not physically and not intellectually. The exact details of our physical bodies and our consciousnesses gradually change in [mostly] continuous ways over time, and yet we say "I am still me" (meaning "have the same identity", even though I gradually changed in various ways). To be sure, the "me" two years ago changed into the "me" of today in coherent and continuous ways, and that is indeed required to qualify as "me still being me" in our book. And so we adopt the exact same requirements to say "the me that was organic is now inorganic". For the new "inorganic me" to qualify as "still me", the "new me" must qualify as "still me" even if I was still implemented with organic components. In other words, the test for whether "the me of two years ago is the me of today" is the same regardless of whether the "old me" was organic or inorganic, or the "new me" is organic or inorganic. We think that's a completely fair basis to claim "identity", and as the formulation notes, does not depend on whether the "old me" or "new me" is organic or inorganic (or otherwise).
-----
In closing, maybe I need to make one more comment. We must not equate "me" or "my identity" with "the totality of my consciousness" (which means, the totality of my content of consciousness plus processes of consciousness). What we mean and refer-to as "identity" is definitely cannot mean the totality. Otherwise, when we forget some detail of life that we knew yesterday, we cease to "be me" or "retain my identity". Clearly this is not what we mean by "me" or "identity". And also, not every "process that consciousness performs" is necessary to qualify as "consciousness" (or "human-level consciousness"). A human being does not stop being a "human-level consciousness if they forget how to perform the process of solving algebraic equations", for example. Some of your comments make me suspect you are not asking yourself each time you discuss a topic what is required to qualify as "me" or "self" or "identity" or "consciousness". But in each question we ask ourselves about these topics, we must be very careful to do this, and do this very carefully and consciously. For example, the emotions you feel are NOT your entire consciousness... or your identity... but only a portion. And sometimes it is even necessary to remember that our consciousness cannot exist without the [organic or inorganic] physical components and configuration that perform those processes that we call "consciousness". And that "consciousness" in general is distinct from what we mean by "my consciousness", part of which is "my identity". And, I suppose, in some contexts "me" could include your physical body, while in other contexts you only refer to the limited set of content and processes that are specific to your consciousness (versus others).
Thinking through these issues require a lot of practice. Thinking about consciousness that now feels utterly clear, natural and obvious was a massive grind when I first started trying to make sense of these topics, and again when I was lucky enough to have dozens of 24-hour-straight intellectual brainstorming and warfare sessions with my mentor (who understood all this first, and knew many years ago how to explain all this stuff better than even the me of today).
I hope something I said above is useful in some way.