holy fucking shit

[BigBallinStalin]

So I guess, like markets and common law, our governments are actually just emergent orders created by our pooled consciousness.

'It is not government you are fighting; it is human nature.' - Moriarty (paraphrased)

Government is an imposed order. It's central planning. No single organization runs the market; it's 'automatic'. The order doesn't originate nor is maintained by a central organization; the order emerges or is spontaneous.

So, the collective consciousness comparison only goes so far... it's a bit vague too.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Just curious. I often wonder at the character of a person who believes that an invisible, incorporeal animating force somehow, in its intangibility, is able to direct our thoughts and actions. Especially when proof against a soul is so prominent.

-TG

Yet, if you truly don't believe in such imaginary things, why bother feigning interest? "Soul" was your term, mine is "energy". Which one is the "imaginary" term? And as far as I know, you have control of your thoughts and actions.

Um, soul is more appropriate. Don't beat around the bush. Using the term "energy" is this nebulous, new-agey way just indicates that one doesn't understand what energy really is. Using "energy" as a stand-in for some vague concept of life after death (instead of immortal soul) is akin to the young earthers/creationists who attempt to use science-y terms to validate their beliefs. A god-of-the-gaps type argument, if you will.

Let me put it to you this way. If indeed we can posit that energy (what energy?) is responsible for consciousness, then where is it? How can it be measured? Do you mean the electrochemical energy potentials of the brain? Because that ceases to exist upon the death of the brain.

Think of it like this. If you have two electrodes next to each other, you can measure a voltage potential, and sometimes you'll get arcing if the potential is great enough. A reasonable enough approximation of neural functioning. What happens to the potential when the electrodes are placed farther apart? The potential decreases. Move them far enough apart and you can't measure any potential.

What, in all the hubris of consciousness, makes you think that your mystery energy is any different than all other forms of observed energy? The brain dies, the energy ceases to function in a way to support consciousness. Your neurons rot and are eaten by various microbes. A single electrode doesn't interact with some non-charged particle (hue hue don't try and point out van der Waals forces).

-TG

p.s. re: control

Control over your thoughts and actions is a tough one to prove. First, intrusive thoughts would be an example of something you don't control. In a deterministic universe I'm not sure you really do have free will. Just the illusion.

Oh man how I want to get in and make it all weird with concept and ideas and shit.

But I'm going to pass, this would be endless lol.

I think I understand perfectly DaGip's ideas, I'm very familiar with similar theories. I think you are not familiar with them, except for perhaps critiques of it.

I like how whenever I post a general critique against dualism or spiritualism or any other fanciful whimsy(ism), you say I don't understand it. It's not like it's some high level abstract concept that requires years of study. I understood DaGip's argument perfectly.

As I pointed out, DaGip's position is a new age reimagining of spiritualism. It doesn't matter that he doesn't say soul, or God, or what have you. The crux of his position is that there survives some part of us after our physical death, that our essence is not generated by our body (which includes the mind), but is predicated by some, idk, aether that transcends our understanding. In this particular instance I don't think he mentioned a spirit world, but in others I recall he's mentioned alternate dimensions or something like that. It doesn't really matter. Saying that an energy reforms somehow after somehow possessing us and being dissipated by our deaths is pretty absurd. So absurd that there's no way to test it, and therefore no way it would even be attainable as knowledge. How would he know this? How would he have access to that kind of information, in a very epistemical kind of way?

This kind of behavior is a rationalization of death (see Dr. Aubrey de Grey's Ending Aging for a small exploration of this). He (or anyone who chooses to believe in any form of dualism) attempts to explain away their death rather than accepting it is the end. It's very hard to actually accept and come to terms with that.

-TG

[nietzsche]

Just curious. I often wonder at the character of a person who believes that an invisible, incorporeal animating force somehow, in its intangibility, is able to direct our thoughts and actions. Especially when proof against a soul is so prominent.

-TG

Yet, if you truly don't believe in such imaginary things, why bother feigning interest? "Soul" was your term, mine is "energy". Which one is the "imaginary" term? And as far as I know, you have control of your thoughts and actions.

Um, soul is more appropriate. Don't beat around the bush. Using the term "energy" is this nebulous, new-agey way just indicates that one doesn't understand what energy really is. Using "energy" as a stand-in for some vague concept of life after death (instead of immortal soul) is akin to the young earthers/creationists who attempt to use science-y terms to validate their beliefs. A god-of-the-gaps type argument, if you will.

Let me put it to you this way. If indeed we can posit that energy (what energy?) is responsible for consciousness, then where is it? How can it be measured? Do you mean the electrochemical energy potentials of the brain? Because that ceases to exist upon the death of the brain.

Think of it like this. If you have two electrodes next to each other, you can measure a voltage potential, and sometimes you'll get arcing if the potential is great enough. A reasonable enough approximation of neural functioning. What happens to the potential when the electrodes are placed farther apart? The potential decreases. Move them far enough apart and you can't measure any potential.

What, in all the hubris of consciousness, makes you think that your mystery energy is any different than all other forms of observed energy? The brain dies, the energy ceases to function in a way to support consciousness. Your neurons rot and are eaten by various microbes. A single electrode doesn't interact with some non-charged particle (hue hue don't try and point out van der Waals forces).

-TG

p.s. re: control

Control over your thoughts and actions is a tough one to prove. First, intrusive thoughts would be an example of something you don't control. In a deterministic universe I'm not sure you really do have free will. Just the illusion.

Oh man how I want to get in and make it all weird with concept and ideas and shit.

But I'm going to pass, this would be endless lol.

I think I understand perfectly DaGip's ideas, I'm very familiar with similar theories. I think you are not familiar with them, except for perhaps critiques of it.

I like how whenever I post a general critique against dualism or spiritualism or any other fanciful whimsy(ism), you say I don't understand it. It's not like it's some high level abstract concept that requires years of study. I understood DaGip's argument perfectly.

As I pointed out, DaGip's position is a new age reimagining of spiritualism. It doesn't matter that he doesn't say soul, or God, or what have you. The crux of his position is that there survives some part of us after our physical death, that our essence is not generated by our body (which includes the mind), but is predicated by some, idk, aether that transcends our understanding. In this particular instance I don't think he mentioned a spirit world, but in others I recall he's mentioned alternate dimensions or something like that. It doesn't really matter. Saying that an energy reforms somehow after somehow possessing us and being dissipated by our deaths is pretty absurd. So absurd that there's no way to test it, and therefore no way it would even be attainable as knowledge. How would he know this? How would he have access to that kind of information, in a very epistemical kind of way?

This kind of behavior is a rationalization of death (see Dr. Aubrey de Grey's Ending Aging for a small exploration of this). He (or anyone who chooses to believe in any form of dualism) attempts to explain away their death rather than accepting it is the end. It's very hard to actually accept and come to terms with that.

-TG

I say you're not familiar with it because you are using a rational approach towards it. It's too easy to research about a topic, read all about it, come up with some arguments against it, borrow others.

I've stated here many times my opinion on the value western culture have of logic. Logic isn't all there is. Consciousness is much more vast, our mental world includes much more, but we set limits to it by imposing the belief that only the logical is true.

What about intuition? We call a person intuitive if she can make quick decisions that turn out to be good ones, but ask this person how she came up with that and all she will say is that she just knew.

In a similar manner, a person without limiting beliefs and with practice can bring information from her "altered" mental states.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Altered mental states are still mental states. Mental states are still just patterns of electrochemical stimulation of various parts of the brain.

It's funny that you use intuition as a critique against my method. I've always been a very intuitive person. Whenever it came to life or school pre-college I just understood how something worked, and in fact I struggle with the higher order mathematics required of my degree that are highly abstract because my intuition does not extend there. I have to work out the math in a method that I can associate with something tangible, which is something I never had to do before (because things like chemistry are not phenomena one experiences on a daily basis or interaction). For example, I was pretty good at vector calc but rubbish at series stuff because shapes and fields make sense.

Intuition is not a magic card. In fact intuition would be a highly advantageous evolutionary trait, and that's why it's so prevalent in humans. It's a way to make quick decisions that mean all the difference in a harsh environment.

Anyway, I think you're trying to ascribe too much mysticism to consciousness simply because you don't understand it. If I don't understand how something works, like gravity, it doesn't mean i can just attribute it to something outside the physical realm.

-TG

[nietzsche]

Altered mental states are still mental states. Mental states are still just patterns of electrochemical stimulation of various parts of the brain.

It's funny that you use intuition as a critique against my method. I've always been a very intuitive person. Whenever it came to life or school pre-college I just understood how something worked, and in fact I struggle with the higher order mathematics required of my degree that are highly abstract because my intuition does not extend there. I have to work out the math in a method that I can associate with something tangible, which is something I never had to do before (because things like chemistry are not phenomena one experiences on a daily basis or interaction). For example, I was pretty good at vector calc but rubbish at series stuff because shapes and fields make sense.

Intuition is not a magic card. In fact intuition would be a highly advantageous evolutionary trait, and that's why it's so prevalent in humans. It's a way to make quick decisions that mean all the difference in a harsh environment.

Anyway, I think you're trying to ascribe too much mysticism to consciousness simply because you don't understand it. If I don't understand how something works, like gravity, it doesn't mean i can just attribute it to something outside the physical realm.

-TG

By intuition i was referring to events such as people knowing who is calling even before the phone rings, or twins knowing when the other is in trouble miles away.

It has been my intent to understand consciousness that has led me to the mystical approaches. I've been thru the scientifical and western philosophical attempts of explaining it and it's not enough for me.

And i still dont see how the positivistic approach can come up with an explanation, since in my understanding consciousness precedes it. That's the impass you and I reach and will continue reaching until you are first hand familiar with eastern culture meditation practices.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Altered mental states are still mental states. Mental states are still just patterns of electrochemical stimulation of various parts of the brain.

It's funny that you use intuition as a critique against my method. I've always been a very intuitive person. Whenever it came to life or school pre-college I just understood how something worked, and in fact I struggle with the higher order mathematics required of my degree that are highly abstract because my intuition does not extend there. I have to work out the math in a method that I can associate with something tangible, which is something I never had to do before (because things like chemistry are not phenomena one experiences on a daily basis or interaction). For example, I was pretty good at vector calc but rubbish at series stuff because shapes and fields make sense.

Intuition is not a magic card. In fact intuition would be a highly advantageous evolutionary trait, and that's why it's so prevalent in humans. It's a way to make quick decisions that mean all the difference in a harsh environment.

Anyway, I think you're trying to ascribe too much mysticism to consciousness simply because you don't understand it. If I don't understand how something works, like gravity, it doesn't mean i can just attribute it to something outside the physical realm.

-TG

By intuition i was referring to events such as people knowing who is calling even before the phone rings, or twins knowing when the other is in trouble miles away.

It has been my intent to understand consciousness that has led me to the mystical approaches. I've been thru the scientifical and western philosophical attempts of explaining it and it's not enough for me.

And i still dont see how the positivistic approach can come up with an explanation, since in my understanding consciousness precedes it. That's the impass you and I reach and will continue reaching until you are first hand familiar with eastern culture meditation practices.

Meditation or eastern philosophy does not affirm mysticism any more than belief in it affirms god or ufos or Bigfoot.

Your examples of intuition are similar to déjà vu. They are a form of a normal thought or projection being confirmed by a similar incident happening.

Anyway, until you can disprove causality, I don't think you much of a leg to stand on.

-TG

[nietzsche]

Altered mental states are still mental states. Mental states are still just patterns of electrochemical stimulation of various parts of the brain.

It's funny that you use intuition as a critique against my method. I've always been a very intuitive person. Whenever it came to life or school pre-college I just understood how something worked, and in fact I struggle with the higher order mathematics required of my degree that are highly abstract because my intuition does not extend there. I have to work out the math in a method that I can associate with something tangible, which is something I never had to do before (because things like chemistry are not phenomena one experiences on a daily basis or interaction). For example, I was pretty good at vector calc but rubbish at series stuff because shapes and fields make sense.

Intuition is not a magic card. In fact intuition would be a highly advantageous evolutionary trait, and that's why it's so prevalent in humans. It's a way to make quick decisions that mean all the difference in a harsh environment.

Anyway, I think you're trying to ascribe too much mysticism to consciousness simply because you don't understand it. If I don't understand how something works, like gravity, it doesn't mean i can just attribute it to something outside the physical realm.

-TG

By intuition i was referring to events such as people knowing who is calling even before the phone rings, or twins knowing when the other is in trouble miles away.

It has been my intent to understand consciousness that has led me to the mystical approaches. I've been thru the scientifical and western philosophical attempts of explaining it and it's not enough for me.

And i still dont see how the positivistic approach can come up with an explanation, since in my understanding consciousness precedes it. That's the impass you and I reach and will continue reaching until you are first hand familiar with eastern culture meditation practices.

Meditation or eastern philosophy does not affirm mysticism any more than belief in it affirms god or ufos or Bigfoot.

Your examples of intuition are similar to déjà vu. They are a form of a normal thought or projection being confirmed by a similar incident happening.

Anyway, until you can disprove causality, I don't think you much of a leg to stand on.

-TG

I never said I could prove it. It's in the realm of ideas, all this, and that's why it fascinates me. I like talking about it but in an open minded kind of way. It's difficult to convey the whole idea on a post. I have more of a spatial mind, i'd need drawings and to speak my own language.

About the deja vu theory you just mentioned. How do you think the person from who you got the idea came up with it? "It must be that way, because I wouldnt accept it any other way". Truth is they cant have any proof of it being that way. They just write a journal article, are from certain university and you buy it because its in accord with your positivistic framework.

There's absolutly no proof that their description of the dejavu phenomenom is actually right. (I myself claim no different theory for it, im just using your example).

If you settle for the beliefs shared by conservative ( i didnt know which other word to use) understandings of consciousness youll find yourself limiting your own consciousness. That is a lot to say because you are consciousness. Going even further, i found that when i was adept to those ideas (not long ago) i accompanied them with a deterministic view of the world. Being a person that would follow take his ideas to the real world, the deterministic pov was confusing and incapacitating. Not saying it is your case, it might be only a hobby for you.

On the contrary, when you start giving permission to your consciousness to discover more of what it is, you start finding more. How do you go about this? In a meditative state, you find your limiting beliefs, or simply beliefs if you dont want to pass judgement, and simply state that you will give chance to a different belief, at least for a while while you are exploring. Thats all its needed. If you are lucky, you'll experience right away changes in your body, like your dick growing bigger ( you wish)... Like the releasing of tensions in certain parts of the body, awareness of certain parts of your body and how they are related to certain states of mind, etc.

[mrswdk]

So I guess, like markets and common law, our governments are actually just emergent orders created by our pooled consciousness.

'It is not government you are fighting; it is human nature.' - Moriarty (paraphrased)

Government is an imposed order. It's central planning. No single organization runs the market; it's 'automatic'. The order doesn't originate nor is maintained by a central organization; the order emerges or is spontaneous.

So, the collective consciousness comparison only goes so far... it's a bit vague too.

1 - common law is also an imposed order
2 - when you say 'market' do you really mean 'everyone doing whatever they please'? Because a market operates within certain boundaries and is regulated - whether by a single authority or by collective action - to ensure it stays within those boundaries

[Army of GOD]

I agree with TG for the most part (we don't understand death so we attempt to rationalize it) but I've always kind of had a personal theory with what DaGip said about "our last emotions before death". I have no idea if this has been scientifically tested but I've read a few times that at death, our body releases a cockton of DMT (I'm sure you guys have heard of it) the shit that makes you hallucinate and is released during dreams. I feel (well, ok, I hope because honestly it sounds better than darkness and emptiness) that this will essentially cause us to be in a dream-like state for the rest of eternity after we die.

Also, DaGip, I'm very familiar with Buddhism, especially zen. To be honest, if at some point in my life I return to religion, I say I'd more than likely become a Buddhist over any other religion. It seems to make more sense for an agnostic atheist than other religions.

[BigBallinStalin]

So I guess, like markets and common law, our governments are actually just emergent orders created by our pooled consciousness.

'It is not government you are fighting; it is human nature.' - Moriarty (paraphrased)

Government is an imposed order. It's central planning. No single organization runs the market; it's 'automatic'. The order doesn't originate nor is maintained by a central organization; the order emerges or is spontaneous.

So, the collective consciousness comparison only goes so far... it's a bit vague too.

1 - common law is also an imposed order
2 - when you say 'market' do you really mean 'everyone doing whatever they please'? Because a market operates within certain boundaries and is regulated - whether by a single authority or by collective action - to ensure it stays within those boundaries

Admittedly, common law wasn't the best example because a government tends to enforce its will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order

That helps and saves me time.

(Yes, I'm dodging, but after you read the wiki article, I'll respond in more detail).

[mrswdk]

IF YOU CAN DODGE AN ARGUMENT, YOU CAN DODGE A BALL!

The only problem with your line of argument is that it only applies to the lowest level, individual interactions. People who want to do anything more than grow potatoes and trade them for eggs will need to organize something at some point or another, but this organization* will require some degree of planning and the implementation of bigger systems and the market would then cease to be an example of 'spontaneous order' (unless you count the systems that emerge from the chaos (such as governance ) to be part of the spontaneous order).

*for example, forming enterprises or creating forums where better information can be sought

[warmonger1981]

Sleep is the cousin of death. Where does the consciousness go? Or where does the consciousness go during anesthesia?

[BigBallinStalin]

IF YOU CAN DODGE AN ARGUMENT, YOU CAN DODGE A BALL!

The only problem with your line of argument is that it only applies to the lowest level, individual interactions. People who want to do anything more than grow potatoes and trade them for eggs will need to organize something at some point or another, but this organization* will require some degree of planning and the implementation of bigger systems and the market would then cease to be an example of 'spontaneous order' (unless you count the systems that emerge from the chaos (such as governance ) to be part of the spontaneous order).

*for example, forming enterprises or creating forums where better information can be sought

Sure, within markets, there are little pockets of socialism called "firms." The existence of firms and commercial associations doesn't mean that the overall order is imposed, thus not spontaneous. There's no central planner within markets. Although governments tend to monopolize courts and the enforcement of laws, that doesn't reject the possibility that markets have provided their own means of order--e.g. the Hanseatic Association/League.

Even if there is government interference, it's not like the prices occur because the central planner says that the prices must be X. The order which prices bring is not just at the individual level because with micro interactions you can get macro outcomes.

[mrswdk]

Except a government cannot and does not control every part of its society, even in countries where the governments have relatively high levels of societal penetration. A government operates within a society just as a firm, enterprise or association operates within a market, even if governments tend to do so on a slightly larger scale.

[Gweeedo]

"Soul" is a pointless construct. Like most religious ideas, it just ends up into an endlessly recursive tought-wank...

However, I find the concept of a collective consciousness fascinating on an intellectual level. It's at least something that could conceivably exist: If we accept that our brains are just biological computers, and consider human consciousness as the software running on those computers, then it could conceivably be that the unconscious communication between all these consciousnesses facilitates a sort of network, a computing grid of human consciousness.

In this scenario, one could think of the cessation of thought in the same way as one would think of the decay of the body: nothing is really lost - the matter that your body is formed of is still there, it just changes form, the pattern collapses and the particles that form your body scatter into the universe. It could also be that your consciousness simply merges back into the collective. To continue the analogy with computers, when you close a program, the resources allocated to it get released back to the operating system...

Or it could all be a huge load of bullshit, but still, I think it's at least a cool idea to consider.

Collective consciousness; believers in Jesus (aka Messiah)?
Take all the believers in word and deed from the beginning of time, what do you have?
The patriarchs of old, having ''seen'' by faith, the coming of the Messiah...bringing about the coming Messiah.

The Old testament is the same as the New testament...Jesus, from beginning to end.
Believers ''know'' (died, born again) death; nonbelievers believe ''(in)'' death.

For those who go through life with a care free attitude (hurrah for me f*ck everybody else) there is nothing else, but death.
The Word is ''life'', the ''living'' Word, the Word became ''Flesh''...nothing left but Jesus (''Word''), all we have or ever going to have is in Jesus.
I got to admit, that does not sound too exciting.
God says if we only knew what was in store for us...we would hasten towered the finish line.

To live according to the Flesh (physical), is to believe death reins supreme...nothing but death, all is death...good luck coming out of that.

Doesn't have to be that way.
Know life...not death!

[BigBallinStalin]

Except a government cannot and does not control every part of its society, even in countries where the governments have relatively high levels of societal penetration. A government operates within a society just as a firm, enterprise or association operates within a market, even if governments tend to do so on a slightly larger scale.

"Controlling everything" isn't the necessary criterion for central planning.

Governments don't have to rely on profit-and-loss accounting. Has the Department of Defense ever gone bankrupt? Are Wal-Mart thugs knocking on peoples' doors and demanding to pay up for something they didn't choose to purchase? No. Governments are a whole different beast, with different incentives and constraints.

On a meta-level, there is an emergent order from governments (and markets, and social organizations) which interact internationally. You have your 'global order' at this level. Within some political boundary, you'll have an imposed order (government; it's the central planner). And you'll have spontaneous order (markets; no central authority).

Think of this as theory. You take two extreme concepts that are highly stylized (spontaneous order v. central planning). This helps you distinguish between different orders and different outcomes. "What kind of process led to this order? How come laptops are provided across the world without having as huge and as frequent shortages and surpluses of government-provided goods (e.g. good ol' soviet planning of its economy)? Who's planning the prices of laptops? No one, so how do prices emerge?"

[mrswdk]

At a company level, some bean counter at Acer HQ is deciding the price of all those Acer laptops.

Governments have to balance their revenues against expenditures just the same as private companies do. Maybe the Department of Defence has never gone bankrupt, but other departments or public bodies have had their budgets cut or been shut down. Taxpayers and creditors cannot be infinitely squeezed for more money to keep the government operating in exactly the same way it always has. And at a macro level, if things go too wrong then the entire government can be overthrown/forced out of power.

[mrswdk]

Okay, I'm with you now. Markets and societies are spontaneous orders, corporations and governments are imposed orders. Yah?

[mrswdk]

Anyway, I stand by my original point that governments are the products of our pooled consciousness, even if I was mistaken when I referred to them as 'emergent orders'. So WELL DONE Mr Semantics, but this lady is not for turning.

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway, I stand by my original point that governments are the products of our pooled consciousness, even if I was mistaken when I said 'emergent order'. So WELL DONE Mr Semantics, but this lady is not for turning.

1. There are no women on the internet. It's impossible. QED.

2. What do you mean by "our pooled consciousness"? How does our(?) or the(?) production process of thoughts create government?

3. How can thought alone create something? If a majority of people stopped believing in government, would government--especially the politicians and bureaucrats--suddenly disappear, or would they kindly remind us with the butt of their rifle that they still want our money?

[DaGip]

Sleep is the cousin of death. Where does the consciousness go? Or where does the consciousness go during anesthesia?

Sometimes you don't remember. Why? Does that mean that you died? No. It just means your physical brain failed to remember, but sometimes it does remember. When it does, pay close attention to as much detail as you can; because "dreams" are the way the higher dimensions create the physical realities for the lower ones. Thusly, in some cases people claim that they have ESP or precognition. All dreams are precognitive, but most often must be deciphered symbolically.

If those that disbelieve would only listen to the science of which they claim they follow:

[mrswdk]

It's not about whether you believe that the bureaucrats exist. It's about markets, societies, families, firms, forms of governance etc. being the equilibrium reached by all those who are part of the collective. Their desires and interactions, their pooled consciousness, create and shape these institutions, even replacing them where necessary. These institutions are the physical expression of our inner being, the average of our wants. A government does not impose itself on the people; people impose the government on the people. You asked me where prices come from. I ask you where governments come from.

Yin and yang, my friend.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not about whether you believe that the bureaucrats exist. It's about markets, societies, families, firms, forms of governance etc. being the equilibrium reached by all those who are part of the collective. Their desires and interactions, their pooled consciousness, create and shape these institutions, even replacing them where necessary. These institutions are the physical expression of our inner being, the average of our wants. A government does not impose itself on the people; people impose the government on the people. You asked me where prices come from. I ask you where governments come from.

Yin and yang, my friend.

When you keep saying "our," you aggregate individual means of expression, so the outcome is not exactly what each member of the group wants--nor does it guarantee an average if the process is skewed in some way (e.g. the modern democratic process with its rent-seeking of private actors and public/govt. actors).

Governments obviously impose themselves on others. People have a way with words so that they can overlook this fact, but it doesn't wash away the reality of being threatened with violence if you don't pay up.

Where do governments come from? Some subgroup of humans given some group of humans in some area. They're founded upon inherently violent interactions with others. The outcome is not guaranteed to be stable nor mutually beneficial. etc.

[mrswdk]

When you keep saying "our," you aggregate individual means of expression, so the outcome is not exactly what each member of the group wants--nor does it guarantee an average if the process is skewed in some way (e.g. the modern democratic process with its rent-seeking of private actors and public/govt. actors).

The same could be said of market equilibrium or social order.

Governments obviously impose themselves on others

Their legitimacy to impose themselves is given by their citizens. If they are roundly rejected by their citizens then they can be overthrown, as has happened throughout history and is in the process of happening in various states around the world today. Governments rule with the consent of those they rule.

The outcome is not guaranteed to be stable nor mutually beneficial. etc

You are right. And if the outcome is too unstable then that government will ultimately evolve or be replaced.