My general reaction to the paper was that I didn't see why one must commit to the idea that cognition occurred outside the mind simply because a problem could be more easily solved by reorganizing it in a more solvable way.

For example, I can determine that a particular Tetris piece will fit into the larger puzzle by manipulating the piece on the screen. I'm not thinking through the screen; I'm just simplifying the problem by moving the piece in a way that visibly and more obviously fits.

We might have to think they're real not to be worried, but they don't have to be real for us to worry about them, which means there might not be anything real, even though we're worried about things.

Real things we take seriously, unreal things we do not take seriously, because of how they may effect us, or their significance. — Wosret

No, things we think are real we take seriously, not "real things we take seriously." It doesn't matter whether it's real or not real; it only matters if we think it's real.

Why can't you be worried about an unreal threat, like when you're afraid of something that really will never happen, like being afraid a bear is going to eat you when you go camping when really there aren't any bears. Also, you could not be worried about a real threat, like when you go camping in the woods in a cave with a bunch of bears, but you thought they were all really nice, but it turns out that they were sons of bitches.

I thought I'd use bears and caves as my example because that's something that we've all come across.

I would love to give the face of this forum to somebody who represents an oppressed minority [however much Hanover may protest ;)] like bell hooks? — Moliere

My suggestion:

But is it possible for this to function as a boycott to the original website and force them run the forum properly? It'll be difficult to produce a platform as good as the one Paul built up. Or is that too much of a stretch (because they're just pure scammers or something along those lines) — Saphsin

You have a lot of quit in you.

No, this is not a protest site. It's not a temporary port in the storm. It's not a cheap imitation. It's not the junior varsity team.

This is a kick ass replacement of a noble effort that miserably failed due to poor financial management. Instead of sitting by our bedside waiting for us to die, weep for the others who have yet to realize their captain has failed them and their ship is sinking.

This is our site, our reality, so we get to write the history. That's how it works.

Someone give me a flag damnit. I need to wave something. I'm feeling all inspired.

Yes, I'm making a distinction now though because Nik seems to be saying and doing all the right things over there (not that I trust him at all) while Porat is kindly doing his best to drive people out of his hands and into our warm embrace. — Baden

It didn't take Porat to force me into your warm embrace.

Is that I can't know everything about real things? For instance, I can't know everything about the Eiffel tower. It's real. If there's a tower of which I know every true statement, that has to be a tower I made up. It's imaginary. — Mongrel

Most times I can't recall my dreams, meaning that I'm not even an expert of my own imagination. Other times my dreams have been crushed, which has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but it's a melancholy aside.

The difference between the real and the unreal is that the real is out there and the unreal in here. I know, very simple, but sometimes we have to accept that everything we learned in kindergarten (and even before) is true.

Secondly it suggests that it's impossible to talk about things which aren't mind-independent things (like Frodo, or Hitler winning World War II). — Yahadreas

It suggests only that it's impossible to talk about things that have no correlation to a previous experience of a mind independent thing. That is, I cannot talk about winning, unless you can point me to some prior experience of an occurence that you can compare to winning. We can form new thoughts about prior interactions with the real, but that doesn't equate to me being able to have knowlege without experience of the real.

It is far simpler to accept that to talk about a thing only requires talk and understanding (which requires recognising the relationship between words and either other words or empirical situations). — Yahadreas

An empirical situation is a mind independent thing, so I don't know how that fits into what you're saying.

On the most fundamental level I don't know how we can deny realism if we accept that language exists as a communicative tool. How is it that I hear your utterances if they don't exist apart from me? What am I hearing if there is nothing real outside me other than the echos of my mind?

I downloaded it and will read it tonight.

Xyzjoel wasn't mentioned.

Rumor has it that TGW is here by another name.

Looks like we've all forgotten Banno. Should I send a PM? I thought someone else would have gotten him by now... — Moliere

I PM'd him and it indicates it was read, but I've not seen him here or there.

Er... how do I send a PM to multiple members at once? I must be doing it wrong? — Sapientia

The quickest way is just to make a new post so everyone can see it. The shout box also works. There's this program called Tor that might be helpful.

Some of those mentioned would pop in and out, so they may not even know anything has changed.

What about Maia and Jessica17 or whatever her name was?

So who are we missing over here among the regulars? The only one I can think of is Banno, but maybe there's someone else I've forgotten.

So very glad you're here.

I'm confused by your post. Are you saying Paul sold something else?

Reading about Jew conspiracies eh? No surprise. — Wosret

Also, just to clarify, the book is about how the Jewish Orthodox community characterizes its own history within the realm of Judaism, not how it attempts to misstate its significance to the world at large. The community is very insular, so it would have no interest in tooting its own horn and being noticed generally. Actually, it often takes the opposite approach, trying to downplay significant differences when dealing with the non-Jewish culture due to fears of being noticed. Historically being noticed was not an advantage.

The book is written from a secular perspective, but draws interesting parallels about communities create their histories.

Don't eh me, you Canadian.

I'm currently reading "Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History," which is really on point to this question. It distinguishes between heritage and history, with the former being an unapologetic factually inaccurate view of the past, reciting past events purposefully designed to inspire and elevate. We see the same in our own domains, whether it be a glorification of the Old South ignoring mistreatment of blacks or American history overlooking its treatment of native peoples.

My own view is that the distinction between history and heritage is one of degree and not black and white. What happened is always seen through the lens of what you want to have been, regardless of your best efforts at neutral journalism. This may explain why diametrically opposed political ideologues can never agree on whether a news report has been fairly reported.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the view of characterizing events as meaningful in some higher sense, as opposed to even attempting to portraying black and white facts neutrally, as I question whether it can be done, especially in areas where the stakes are high.

Using the bullshit du jour we just went through as an example, I could just enumerate the facts, or I could tell you what it meant, highlighting the critical issues for effect and downplaying areas where I may wish to protect someone or something, and sticking to those facts that are thematic.

For example, we've all been extremely careful not to question Paul's motives, and even as I bring it up now, there are likely those who feel a sacred cow is being mishandled. Am I right, or am I right? We have our heritage to protect.

We're in a heated battle for most likes, so I played the odds and criticized Rand.

He didn't make diddly squat for 12 years of work.

I am encouraged by the folly of our competitor.

The Rand analysis is nonsense. An entrepreneur bought a site and alienated some of his core customers. They left and started their own competing business. That's the free market in action. Time will tell who prevails, and it may be both.

Their PR was handled miserably. A timely and transparent transition would have eliminated any problem or a competitor.

The motivation for this site is just too make something better.

My post "New Owners" was deleted by SuperAdmin for low post quality. Interesting how no other admin felt that way prior to SuperAdmin.

Paul never deleted critical posts. Criticism is sort of what philosophy is all about.

Personally, if someone accused me of being a lying thief, I'd either deny it or own it and then explain my F up, but I wouldn't ignore it.

Anyway, we've moved on. Let's make this thing work.

Great idea Tiff! I say run with it, but I'm not in charge.

I was thinking the exact thing. I even googled the question, and it gave some ideas. It would seem that if you Google "philosophy," you'd want the name of this site to appear on those sites somewhere. PF has 12 years of building itself up, but we'll get there.

So, if you've seen there's a welcome from the new owners posted on PF. Paul is an admin. One of the new owners (Nik) explains he has an undergraduate and graduate degree in philosophy and that was why he choose to purchase the site. He also said they would sell ads. There are a few pieces of this puzzle that don't make complete sense, but I've spent way too much time thinking about it.

Which is to ignore my post and the question of the OP entirely, which is how to handle the crisis. So, let us tell the Dutch that there is a critical difference between an immigrant and a refugee; therefore all their concerns about maintaining their way of life don't apply, and offering consolation about the minimal numbers is unnecessary. Yes, they are ethically bound. Just tell them that and all will be well and there won't be any political opposition because even if the nation is overrun and forever negatively changed, ethics demanded the acceptance of the refugees.

Immigration is always a scary proposition because it upsets the democratic balance, especially when the immigrants have differing ideologies. The response from the current residents is usually aimed at preserving that balance, either through limiting the immigration or enforcing some sort of assimilation mechanism, like language, dress, or behavior enforcement. There's no question that each side misstates the consequences, with one side screaming the world is coming to an end and the other side screaming it's just racism. The truth is that the significance of the immigration will depend upon the actual number and how prevalent they'll be in the specific area where you live. There's no question that concentrated areas of immigrants have changed the socioeconomic and political structure of certain areas, leading to migrations within the country.

If you are the US, with a population exceeding 100 million where mobility is fairly easy, and a history of immigration since its founding, it might be easier to deal with than in smaller, more homogenous countries.

A significant part of the OP relates to the overstatement of the number of refugees, which seems to tacitly accept the fact that the raw number of immigrants is relevant in terms of maintaining a certain way of life. That is, it concedes (at least to some extent) that immigrants are bad, but then offers consolation by saying that the nation is big enough to absorb it, so stop worrying.

Let's simply admit that not all immigrants offer something positive for a nation and that a nation is not being racist or nationalistic when it protects its borders. A basic tenant of being a sovereign nation is that it be able to protect its borders. There is no reason to be apologetic about that as long as the prosperity of the nation is truly being considered, as opposed to simply eliminating people based upon ethnicity or another irrelevant consideration.

The Netherlands, for example, is more prosperous, more fair, more progressive, and more enlightened than pre-ISIS Syria, and it has every reason not to want many of those Syrian values carried over by the immigrants made part of the fabric of the Netherlands. That's not racist or nationalistic. That's just trying to protect the good thing you have. You will control the fears of the current residents by accepting that some of their concerns are valid and offering them assurance (through the passage of laws if necessary) that they and their children will be able to continue to live in the same comfortable, safe environment. Telling them that they're over-reacting will only identify you as a political opponent who they will feel motivated to weaken in the next political election.

I was thinking the same thing. Let's not spoil the suspense though. We'll know soon enough when Banno joins up and there's a cat fight. — Baden

I sent Banno a PM to come on over. I didn't put an @ sign on it or a hash tag, so it may not work. I think if I hit Ctrl-X on his avatar over there and do a Ctrl-V over here, it will copy and paste him here. That's how I get to work every morning anyway.

Oh, yeah, sorry @baden

Doesn't it still pop up under "mentions" even without the @ symbol? When do I use a hashtag? I've heard tale of them, but when I was growing up we just had stamps and envelopes.

It is my humility and self-deprecating sense of humor that endears me to my inferiors. As a result, I post occasional comments like the one above, only to have it used maliciously against me. An ordinary person would protest, but I sit back content, appreciating how my comments have elevated the self worth of those who have so little.

4

I've known you for some time Tiff, I couldn't remember you saying anything of philosophical interest, but I thought I'd check the records.

I wasn't suggesting you should leave, I was suggesting you should stay and make more appropriate contributions. — Human

I'm here for the piss and vinegar.

Also, I'm here for Baden, especially with his new avatar. It sort of gets me going.

we should get KwalishKid back too — Benkei
Yes. Hell, get TGW over here too. — Baden

You're an admin over there. Why don't you just unban everyone and let the inmates run free?

I personally don't think anything is wrong with advertisement generating some income for this site. I think a skyscraper add on the left or right would work fine without interfering with the user experience. — Benkei
No way. That's just what we're trying to get away from here. The donations route should be fine. At $49 a month, we only need to pay a couple of bucks each per month to cover the fees. By the time we need to expand and pay more, we'll have more members to pay it. — Baden

I didn't leave because of the fear of advertisements. I left because the new owner had some issues he wouldn't discuss and I was getting less than stellar customer service over there from the absentee owner. I think if Paul would have brought up ads to save the site, we'd have all gotten aboard. It was a reality we needed to deal with.

Having said that, since it seems some really hate ads, what I think we need is a suggested donation amount based upon what we need to continue operating without putting too much stress on any one person (i.e. Jamalrob). Financial situations change, and we don't want to repeat what just happened by just assuming someone is picking up the tab. We also don't want to put anyone in the position of having to beg, borrow, or steal when things get tough, so let's come up with a way to assure financial security. If that means ads for everyone, ads for nonmembers only, membership fees, suggested donations, or whatever will work, I'm in favor of it. But the "it'll work itself out" idea works until it doesn't.

I'm definitely in favor of some sort of plan where we can donate, preferably with a set annual fee (or at least a suggested donation) based upon what is needed to keep the site up. As we've learned, it's a wonderful concept to make the site completely free to all comers, but it poses a real hazard when the financial demands aren't being met. I think if we'd have all learned of the financial issues at PF earlier, we'd have likely met those challenges and could have avoided all this.

Oh, and we need a shout box if possible. I think we're getting clutter in the general sections where a shout would have been all that is required. Of course, if the software doesn't allow for shouts, then no shouts.

Yes, this is the real party. Tell all your friends and get everyone over here!

The "comments" shows my comments and not the comments others have made to my comments. I do like having a quick listing of everything I have previosly said just to admire. I would like a button that says "Hanover's Comments" available to everyone so that everyone else can admire my comments on demand like I can. That would be helpful to everyone, but especially to Wosret and other stupid people in need of wisdom.