I have a pixel 6 pro. I won't be upgrading for a couple of years unless the battery goes to crap.

The regulations against hate speech result from media outlets refusing to publish it because publication will damage the publisher's profitability. — Hanover

I think you're taking the present social climate for granted. We just happen to live at a time when it's not ok to talk crap about Jews. This in turn produces the regulation you're talking about.

If, for instance, it came to light that the social sphere was being manipulated to the detriment of the health of the country, it would be reasonable for the government to intervene. Mistakes could be made there, but it would still make sense to try.

Therefore, how can I achieve satisfaction is through maintaining myself just as I am. — Shawn

That's your business, not ours.

Why lie about who we are? Why become something we are not? — Shawn

Because it's so hard to face the ways you've failed to be the person you wanted to be. This is the topic of Sickness unto Death, by Kierkegaard.

A little delusion goes a long way.

Sounds like a good time Frank. Send pics of the beautiful ice sculptures haha. Perhaps you could do all those things simultaneously? — Benj96

You have to maintain limits so you still have pleasure and pain. You have to do stuff that's annoying every now and then to keep the old psyche from blurring into oblivion. I'll probably get a job at Starbucks to keep myself on my toes.

Russia's response to Ukraine joining NATO has been to invade Ukraine and annex parts of land. — Tzeentch

And the West's response to that invasion was to help defend Ukraine. :up:

I would fly down into Mauna Loa, the world's biggest volcano. Then hang out at the north pole building ice sculptures. Then fly away and explore the rest of the universe.

Harry Houdini was Jewish. Does that help?

Quine's stuff on reference is not dissimilar to Wittgenstein's stuff on silence. — Banno

I think it's fairly dissimilar unless you take all of Witt's ideas and dump them into a blender with some Tequila.

That, indeed, seems to be what ↪Janus is claiming... or reporting. He is trying to tell us of something of which he cannot tell us. And like the beetle it must drop out of the conversation. — Banno

I was talking about Quine. I'm afraid there's a field of incomprehensibility surrounding him. You've been deflected by it and stumbled into Janus. :sad:

Now that's not so far from Wittgenstein, except that the phenomenologists seem to insist on continuing the impossible conversation were Wittgenstein would be silent, choosing instead to enact, and perhaps show by enacting. — Banno

Witt did say that Heidegger was trying to do the impossible, but that had nothing to do with enacting anything. That's your bugaboo resulting from your immense laziness. Probably.

Really? I had no idea. Perhaps he wasn't a philosopher, then. — Ciceronianus

I think you'd like his Wisdom of the West. Lots of laughs, although the purpose of the book is serious.

Bertrand Russell was hilarious.

It occurs to me that if reference is inscrutable, and one takes all of meaning to be referential, then Quine pretty much renders language inscrutable.

I'd been taking Quine as a criticism of the referential theory of meaning. But if one supposes that meaning just is reference, then he shows that language can't work.

Is that what you are suggesting? — Banno

I think he means that it's just a folk theory that language refers. It's a theory that ignores the limits of knowledge vis-a-vis beetles in boxes.

I don't know what you're thinking about. All I know is the way you behave. So Quine is arguing against meaning internalism, and for some sort of behaviorism.

In a behaviorist context, ineffability doesn't mean much. There is no aboutness to language in the first place. To cling to ineffability is to cling to some kind of internalism.

What this whole discussion misses is the interplay between the words and the world; it's not that the tacit knowledge is off by itself somewhere, but is there in the "a bit more gain, and a little reverb", said or done. — Banno

I think Quine's point was that there's nothing in your knob twiddling that stands as evidence that what you mean by 'gain' coincides with what the engineer who designed the amp meant by it.

It's not a matter of imprecision. It's that everything is actually ineffable. Speech with a lack of clear reference is never about anything in particular.

I've spent a few days trying to get the lick for Mannish Boy right. I'm after something like the the Johnny Winter sound, but have a Gretch semi rather than a Fender. Playing with the gain I can get a satisfactory sound, but it's missing something, which I think is an overdub of a bass run. Or it might be keys. — Banno

Don't hurt me, don't hurt me now.

It just seems like if one acknowledges that meaning is use, one would want to downplay the aboutness of language. Why even care about reference if it's just action that matters?

Actually, what makes the Hebrew Bible unusual is that argument with God is acceptable and even shown to be effective. — Hanover

Proto civil rights

Thing is, it ain't as different now as people like to believe. At least in my estimation. — Moliere

Human nature probably hasn't changed, but the need to write down moral principles would be much more important during a relatively chaotic time like the Iron Age. We take the stability of the global political scene for granted. We need no cultural anchor in the form of an arch of the covenant.

This ties in with what @Hanover pointed out in his thread on freedom of speech. Moses and God fiercely punish Hebrews for exercising religious freedom and freedom of speech. Moses has to control the narrative for the sake of the survival his adopted culture.

All those years of seminary paying off... :D — Moliere

Did you actually go to a seminary? But yeah, as Christopher Walken said in that movie, "It was the iron age. You had to do a lot of bad stuff just to survive."

And, after Moses found his wisdom, he came back from the mountain and condemned the people for doing what they had been doing to the point of recruiting one of the tribes to kill them all. "Thou shalt not kill... well after this" so saith the lord. — Moliere

I missed that. Where in the text does this transpire?

Despite protestations to the contrary, the commandments were not a highpoint for meta-ethics. — Banno

It was the fucking iron age.

I don't think Wittgenstein's point is that we know ethical principles, but we just can't put them into words (ineffable).
— frank

Putting them into words is irrelevant. What counts in "ethical principles" is enacting them. — Banno

According to Moses, God thought very highly of putting them into words. What did you name your religion?

I'm going to midrash traffic signs. For real.

Like much of Wittgenstein, it's ineffable, understandable only through midrash. — Hanover

I hadn't heard of midrash. Can you midrash anything? Or does it have to be scripture?

A difficult sentence. For Wittgenstein, ethics is not transcendent, but done. — Banno

I think that's your own personal Wittgenstein.

Ethics is transcendental. — Constance

Where ethics is statements that transcend all times and places, to speak these statements would require a vantage point that's unavailable. People still go on and on as if they do have this vantage point, though.

I don't think Wittgenstein's point is that we know ethical principles, but we just can't put them into words (ineffable). It's that we can't know these transcendent facts to begin with. That's the problem with ethical discourse.

But imagine you saw that in a gallery and then noticed the name of the painting. You'd be like, "That's cool!"

But for AI software, it doesn't mean anything. That's weird. Mine also has trouble with hands. Not sure why.

"girl carved from wood with smoky background"

The science of perception is built on confidence in our knowledge of the external world.

We can only speculate about why that confidence is so easy to come by, but we can't explain it by empirical or logical means.

"gravity's rainbow book cover"

"Russian soldier hugging a raccoon"

Nice!

"mushroom cloud made out of pumpkins"

This is "fish in Japanese clothing on a sea of catsup"

Your quote...

f you're claiming we don't have experiences of red and pain — Isaac

See I knew you weren't denying that. You're too smart for that.

If you're claiming we don't have experiences of red and pain, you're making a strong claim and you'll need a strong argument for it.
— frank

It's a 'strong' claim because you said so?

Hers' my 'strong' argument for it. There's absolutely no evidence for it. No one can describe such an experience, no-one can pin down such an experience, there are no tests for it, there's no mechanism in the brain which could account for it, there's no cortex in the brain which could process it, and every test that's ever been done to try and identify such a thing has failed utterly. — Isaac

It's a strong claim that we don't have experiences because it's counter to common sense. If you don't have that, you wouldn't notice.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Try again.

For some things yeah, you can do that, for others its much harder. I mean you have to consider military personal, construction workers, tax payers. Automation can only do so much. Maybe some radical new AI discovery will render people obsolete in most things, but we are far from reaching that point. — Manuel

Yes, we need humans for some things. China's progress toward great power status won't be hindered by having a slightly smaller population.

In any case, whatever happens in Ukraine in terms of winning or losing, has no consequence for us in terms of who will lead us. It's not a serious issue for people who don't border Russia. — Manuel

The war has weakened Russia's international standing and has positioned Russia as a client of China.

First of all, this overlooks a crucial problem for China: drastic declining population numbers. This is going to severely impact economic output. — Manuel

Like the Chinese don't know how to automate?

OK, well let's explore one. When was the last time you had an experience of red and how did you know that that's what you were having at the time? — Isaac

If you're claiming we don't have experiences of red and pain, you're making a strong claim and you'll need a strong argument for it.

But you wouldn't be so silly as to claim that, would you? :razz:

Really? That surprises me. I associate with folk in the general disability community, where the implication that blind folk cannot understand colour words would be treated as offensive ableist crap, and suitably mocked. — Banno

If you stopped equivocating, they would say, "Yes, of course."

I understand your argument. I think most blind people would disagree with you.

As a child I would pretend to be blind, walking around with my eyes closed. To me, blind people are silent super heroes.