Those words do not imply rules have been broken. You’re starting to spread disinfo now. — NOS4A2

To rig:
"Manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person."

To cheat:
"act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage"

So we need some fraud, some dishonesty, or unfair dealings. It appears none of that exists.

Where is the rigging and cheating? Those words imply rules that have been broken. There's no cheating.

Not purposefully. Can you give me an example? — NOS4A2

Well, you said this:

I know they’re going to win the election. The rigging and cheating has already begun. Not a single person has voted for Harris and she’s already the nominee. — NOS4A2

What rigging and cheating?

Like what, for example? — NOS4A2

So you're saying you never intentionally post stuff that's wrong? You'd have to be delusional if that's true. C'mon.

What have I posted that is wrong? — NOS4A2

You do it all the time. I thought you were doing it on purpose. No?

The judge’s daughter owns a company that helps Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win elections. The judge donated to democrats against ethics code. The DA ran on prosecuting Trump. The prosecutor was Biden’s top 3rd man in the Department of Justice. Are you just ignorant of all these things? — NOS4A2

This is the effect of misinformation: you post so much stuff that's obviously wrong that I don't make any assessment of your posts. Does freedom of speech require this sacrifice? That your communication approaches meaninglessness because its truth is dubious? I'm just asking.

His campaign specifically wanted to increase his support among blacks from 12% to 20%. I don't think he accomplished that.

At a certain point on the spectrum, red starts to become orange looking. It becomes more and more orange, eventually becoming a shade of “orange” rather than a shade of “red.” What draws that line? — Mp202020

We do, don't we? I agree with you that it's ok that "red" refers to a range of frequencies (that might vary per setting.). But when it starts changing to reddish orange, or purple (bluish red) or burnt sienna (reddish brown), these terms come from shared human experience, right?

More great news for the climate:

New 4th generation nuclear power plant goes into construction in Tennessee

You're right on both counts. It highlights the way Harris is normal compared to Trump and Vance. And it's catchy. Trump is probably secretly applauding it. It's something he'd be proud of.

went with calling their opponents “weird” — NOS4A2

I think that one works. It doesn't come off as bullying because Trump is such a bully himself. Plus it's true, Trump and JD are weird.

Did you know the eye has evolved independently about 50 times on earth? Crazy.

Another example of how colours are social conventions. — javi2541997

I mean, the name is a social convention and being able to pick it out might be a matter of cultural norms, but the color itself probably has to do with our biology, right?

It is probably the other way around. The main threat to good healthcare is the lack of religion. If you are not motivated, if you are depressed, if you are in fact in your own mind already a lost case, the best healthcare in the world won't make a difference. The doctor will simply say, "The patient is not fighting. He has given up already." You need motivation to succeed. You need it even when trying to get better. Good healthcare is simply wasted on people who actually don't want to live. — Tarskian

Some religions foster resignation and acceptance, though.

Nothingness was abhorrent — jgill

Yea.

That’s a good take, thanks. — NOS4A2

Could you explain how misinformation works? Is it supposed to be picked up by bots? Is it supposed to become part of a cloud of misinformation so that people don't trust anything anymore?

:grin: Do you know why the ancient Greeks never developed the idea of zero? (Without asking an AI) :lol:

I’m just kidding, frank. What do you think about Biden’s proposal? — NOS4A2

Well, having no term limits on the SCOTUS means that it reflects the way Americans have been voting over the span of a generation or so. That's the reason the Court is now so conservative, because Americans have leaned conservative for several decades. Historically, it works for us to have that temporal anchor. Democracy can be flighty, so it's nice to have built-in drags on the mob.

I wouldn't change it just because we're irritated by where we landed with the court. For democracy to work, you need to have a little faith in it.

That's also true with trading. Once you settle on a strategy, you need to have the discipline to let your strategy work. Sometimes you lose, even with a good strategy. You have to accept that and think about the long term

t means you’re approaching stalker territory. — NOS4A2

Sorry. I was just bored.

I have no idea what that means

Cat lady.

Still, just because one field of study uses another field of study doesn't mean the first field always "describes" the second field, does it? — flannel jesus

I guess not. But if a field is bound to logic, it will be a demonstration of logic, won't it? Couldn't describing and demonstrating both be kinds of showing?

I was not expecting this reply. I thank you for humbling me. — flannel jesus

Didn't mean to!

This sounds like something a cat lady would say. Do you have a cat?

But why would that justify thinking physics should "describe logic"? — flannel jesus

Yea, I guess I'm using to describe and to express to mean the same thing. Maybe it's more that if you've seen the expression, the description has been conveyed to you? Like if you see a model of the earth's electromagnetic dynamo, you're seeing the principles involved in making the model expressed, so you're also receiving a description of those principles. Or you could pull a description out of the expression. Is that not true?

Accounting uses math, does the study of accountancy "describe math"? — flannel jesus

Math originally came from accounting, believe it or not. The number zero came from a Babylonian device that was kind of like an abacus. Writing down the configuration on the abacus is where a symbol for zero came from. Zero's place in the human mind was cemented by practical issues surrounding trade. Math as an abstract domain comes from the invention of non-commodity money. Wherever the use of money spread, a tendency to think in mathematical abstraction followed.

Sorry, favorite topic. :grimace:

One of those possibly pseudo-questions which may be sophistry; but, in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn

Yes. Since physicists insist on using logic, the whole of physics is an expression of logic.

but our personal experience of the color red may very well differ from the actual experience of the same light wavelength another may have, which we’ve all agreed to call “red.” I am speaking solely on the subjective experience of “redness.” — Mp202020

This is interesting because this issue generalizes. It may be that there is no such thing as agreement in anything. Yes, we assume that there is, but what if we're wrong? What if the thing we're calling agreement is really just a matter of behavior and speech?

On the one hand, this lays the whole issue of abstract objects to rest, because that idea emerges from a foundation of supposed agreement between thinkers. We're thinking of the same number, or the same proposition. That's where the idea of abstract objects comes from. But what if there's nothing but utterances programmed by biology? Like birds in a yard, if you hear a certain tonal sequence, you respond with another to address the problem, whatever that may be.

At first glance, it looks like the intellect itself becomes an odd sort of... illusion. You can't even agree with yourself from one moment to the next. There's no continuity that would allow for concepts or universals. Food for pondering would be: is that even possible?

I think some of the misinformation is collected from people going through psychosis.

True

I was only hoping for a serious answer. I've spent enough time in lectures and presentations on the matter. — apokrisis

You want a serious answer about how the telephone system is run by a computer? What's your background in electronic engineering?

In what sense is it "run" by a computer. — apokrisis

Do you want a schematic?

Surely you can see what a bad example that is. When is information actually information in any normal sense? When it is in the post or when it is being written and read? — apokrisis

? The telephone system is run by a computer. What I described is the way representation is understood in the computational theory of mind.

I think we just have a terminology issue. For you, the word "representation" means Descartes. That's confusing to me because most theories about cognition are representational, but not Cartesian.

The telephone system is an example of that. When you speak into a phone, an electric signal is generated by the microphone. That signal is sampled to create a digital stream. That stream is transmitted and then used to generate an audio signal that's sent to a speaker. This is a representational system, in fact it involves three different representations, but there's nothing Cartesian about it. See what I mean?

I see no evidence of wanting a dictator — AmadeusD

I think that's because where you are everything is upside down.

It's in the SEP article on embodied cognition. Look at the paragraph on phenomenology. I guess it's an extreme version of the idea?

A lot of his supporters do want a dictator. His running mate believes democracy should be replaced with monarchy.

"Surprise rests on predictions about sensations, which depend on an internal generative model
of the world."

"Perception optimizes predictions by minimizing free energy with respect to synaptic activity (perceptual inference), efficacy (learning and memory) and gain (attention and salience). This furnishes Bayes-optimal (probabilistic) representations of what caused sensations (providing a link to the Bayesian brain hypothesis)."

BBH is a representational hypothesis. I think we must be talking about two different embodied approaches. The one I'm familiar with is a descendant of Heidegger. It's not something a scientist would know what to do with.

But cognitive science has moved away from representationalism itself in recent times, thankfully. A more suitably enactive or embodied approach is being taken again. — apokrisis

Is there an article in Nature about the that?

I'm not all that interested in Trump. I'm more interested in what his popularity means for the future. When asked about his authoritarian language, he commented that a lot of people like it. Where a lot of people favor dictatorship, one is likely to develop.

For testing religions for truth. For following a religious path at all. I was just listing some benefits of this. — Igitur

I see. :up:

Even the value of a religious community could be an incentive. — Igitur

Incentive for what?