You are saying that Hegel’s work is not philosophy? — Joshs

Very much so. It is an attempt at philosophy by a theosopher.

You seem to be entirely resistant to sense, empirical data and being confronted with the incredibly obvious failings in your writing. I do not mean to be rude, but it has become impossible not to be on-the-nose about how utterly bereft of coherence your side of this exchange has been.

I do not know why you are doing this. You have been presented with detailed, exact (with receipts) evidence to the contrary of your claims* - and you're continuing to essentially:

1. Lie about acupuncture* and Qi;
2. Make up new points that don't related to our actual discussion and pretend they are relevant***;
3. Continually posit empirical false claims, in the face of contrary evidence, and pretend to be tryign to be 'open minded'.
4. Provide links that are not in any way helpful. The most recent being an inaccurate and dishonest overview of work done in Korea, and a massaging terms to make it seem, extremely dishonestly, as if there is some support for supernatural crap from cultures(meaning ancient) that do not understand how to overcome bad practice and Mysticism, with no references or links to anything in support of it.

If you take 'evidence' be purely some horse crap posted on a website selling shit to you, I can only laugh and hope you get over your extremely deficiency in credulity.

*your own link directly contradicted the incredibly dishonest quoting you did from it....
**in what delusional world do you live, where we do not consider Christians superstitious? Are you literally fucking with me?

Given that we're no longer discussing the original issue, It seems fairly reasonable for me to point these things out. These failings will make it impossible to have productive conversations with anyone who doesn't share your peculiar distortions of logic, evidence and grammar.

Most historians agree that Jesus was a historical person (this is a claim that is unfounded, but let's say it is true) because most historians who even engage with the topic are those that have skin in the game. — Lionino

Im unsure that's true. Bart Erhmann is a prime example of someone who would rather Jesus didn't exist as it would be a smoking gun for his career succeeding.

But he accepts, on the historical evidence, that it's most likely Jesus existed as a human person. It would be a little cynical to conclude the opposite for a lack of photographs ;)

Hegel — Lionino

Who could easily, and often is, termed a Mystic. After going through the first 15 episodes of the Cunning Of Geist and scanning all of Spirit in hte last three months, I have to agree. Whether its philosophy is debatable, at best.

My take on humour is that is essentially represents some degree of 'short cut'. This might only apply to certain types of humour - But i'll address others a bit further in this post.

Generally, I consider 'humour' to stem from somethign unexpectedly concluding. Think:

Man up a ladder, painting a house. Two possible bits of humour could stem here, immediately:

1. A can of paint falls/tips covering the painter in paint - without going through the boring process of gradually accruing rogue paint from the actual job of painting.
2. The painter could fall down the ladder, to the ground, skipping the boring step of actually using hte ladder.

A second 'issue' i've noted is that there are kind of humour well-represented in a few examples: Monty Python, The Mighty Boosh, Tim & Eric... Hopefully this gets the picture across. These, in contrast, to something like Kevin Hart/Jim Carrey/Michael McIntyre type of comedy.

The former case presents metaphysical jokes. Propositions that cannot be true. "A motorbike made out of jealousy" as an example. Its funny because of its absolute absurdity.

The latter case/s don't present this kind of situation. They present entirely corporeal/physical/psychologically standard situations and inject some unexpected element (as above, around the 'short-cut' idea). Frankie Boyle once stated his style of comedy as "thinking of interesting ways for sentences to end" and that perfectly encapsulates the latter style. The former takes a far higher-level organisational acuity to pick out what was meant to be funny in a sentence that, from word one, made no sense, but did appear to. The joke, it seems, is that you were grammatically/visually/aurally tricked into taking a metaphysical impossibility as possible. It's a 'cosmic joke' type of thing.

Trying to get people who enjoy the latter, to enjoy the former is like pulling teeth. The opposite direction is usually fairly easy to do, in my experience.

However, as an ex-professional comedian, I am likely the nerd on this one and will likely suck the life out of hte concept.

Percy Jackson and The Olympians.

Weirdly compelling watch, for what it is - pre-teen mythical drama.

Prior to any further search, it would depend what you mean. 'Dynamic movement' is pretty vague and could be thought to be involved in the initiation of rock climbing up to 200,000 YA. But then, John Gill is fairly globally considered 'the pioneer' in the 50s.

If you mean the 'dyno', this originated most likely in California in the 70s where some of the newer boulders at the time required these dyno moves. In sport climbing, Patrick Edlinger is generally considered the originator of 'dynamic movement', though, through the 80s. DeepAI confirms this, for completeness ;)

Was there another inference you meant to ... infer?

and I know that from my own ample stock of such experiences. — Janus

:wink:

he point about these states is that they do not yield determinate knowledge of anything — Janus

*yet. We may be merely embarking on an arena for which we have no handbook. Definitely less likely though.

"Could care less" is both wrong and incorrect.

I would do 15 consecutive muscle-ups as practice for that explosive power (dynamics, which I eventually introduced to rock climbing). — jgill

Very good call. I got my 'athletic start' with Rock Climbing. The explosive power there is absolutely immense (bouldering particularly). It has translated into Gymnastics, parkour and Jiu Jitsu very, very well and we essentially did rope climbs as warm ups for rock climbing when i was a kid :) Unsure of the length but my guess is 20' as it was a warehouse building.

tangentially, RC is now in the Olympics :) Very much hoping Adam Ondra doesn't drop the ball this time around.

Back on the topic, though, I just cannot see how its possibly fair to pit females who are at a considerable disadvantage, against males at a significant advantage, in any athletic sports beyond social/grassroots sports.

I've been told to use Discord, thus far. I've also been working 16 hr days :P

uneven bars, — jgill

Uneven bars - different set of skills imo, rather than just two high bars. Very different, imo. Though, I would personally assume females would clean up on UEB against males at least half the time. High bar, though? Requires far too much explosive power to be compared, imo.

I was astounded at the strength moves the Canadian female gymnast did on the balance beam. — jgill

Absolutely. I have never intended, and should not be taken as, in any way knocking elite female skills per se. But the average strength of an elite female gymnastic is just not on the same level of an elite male. They just aren't at all comparable pound-for-pound. My point has more to do with disparity than anything else. They are all incredible athletes.

Though, as you say - never say never. But, until the time its not obviously an extreme disadvantage to females, I'm going to probably be fairly hard-line on this i'd say.

Up top, let me point out, as i tend to do at roughly this point, I am new to figuring out 'what I think' as such. A lot of my language may be imprecise, or necessarily under-developed. I apologise for that. I do understand basic sense and internal consistency though.

because this is a really odd thing to say about Kant — Jamal

It seems so. But i find that very odd. It seems like some kind of idolatry to think he did this. Though, that may not be far off - he appears to inspire as much stupidity as insight.

You are most definitely arguing against me too. We are animals in direct sensorimotor engagement with the environment. To deny this like a 17th century philosopher is perverse. — Jamal

So you say. But you have no addressed anything I've put forward as reasons for my position, so far. The tide example is a really good one, to my mind because (to the bolded) that isn't access to external objects. And your formulation earlier in this same comment seems to agree with that.
To the underlined: This seems to be an extremely restricted way of considering different view points. It's not idealism to contend that while we're able to reliably infer external objects (and take them as 'given' in some noumenal sense), we cannot access them. In fact, as best i can tell, that is exactly what 'transcendental idealism' amounts to. Again, why I think Kant's intention was never to pretend to overcome the mitigatory fact of sensory organs producing experience 'of the world'.

external objects, which we do have access to, are mere phenomena — Jamal

This is fully self-contradictory to my mind. If they are "mere phenomena", they are not external objects(this seems as simple as "cold is not heat"). This is why I am pretty hard-up in accepting Kant intended to establish that. It is nonsensical in his language, and his own claims. Also, why i've asked for passages. Having very recently finished (in a three-month go) the CPR, it is incongruous with even the most basic reading of hte overall thesis to think he's trying to, or has established that necessarily internal phenomenal representations could possibly be external objects, rather than the result, we know not how, of external objects. He seems to explicitly acknowledge that we have no access, and require reason to infer anything about hte external world. Is he not illustrating hat the upper limits of pure reason are within? It seems unavoidable... as an eg Kant relies in many places on the concept of mathematical a priori to ground the limits of his own system in cognition of intuitions, not objects "as they are":

"Mathematics gives us a splendid example of how far we can go with a priori cognition independently of experience. Now it is occupied, to be sure, with objects and cognitions only so far as these can be exhibited in intuition"

It's funny - you're, I think, the third poster with what I take to be some serious understanding of these things to deny this denial (my denial of Kant's either project, or success in it) and yet none have proposed any possible solution to the mitigation depriving us of access to the external world. Only externalities. I am, in my 'heart', as they say, fairly sure I must be wrong. Yet, I take up the horn, and nothing comes of it...

Again, if the argument is that synthetic a priori's give us access, my response is "No, they very, very clearly do not and that would, to my mind, make the mistake Kant spends his entire introduction trying to avoid".

I know I said enough Kant — Jamal

This is all Kant :)

“inner experience is itself only indirect and is possible only through outer experience.” (B277) — Jamal

This seems to be a fairly direct explication of what i'm positing - we can be 'sure' that intuition is 'caused by' external objects of whatever, unknowable, kind. But our experience is indirect and we do not have access to those objects.

Whether he carries the argument from the existence of external things to the experience of those things, it’s obvious that he thinks the latter is possible. — Jamal

For sure. But its a mediation which necessarily precludes us, as thinking beings, access to the 'cause' of our intuitions.

you are not precise enough in saying what you object to — Jamal

I'm unsure that's true - I'm wanting something from Kant that indicates he thinks we have an access to things-in-themselves.
Would be weird if there was such a passage, right?

Very basically, a diletante.
More complex-ly, a well-meaning moron with low filtering skills. Though, that last one is a virtue, in my mind.

We do what, perceive and think? Sure.

But if it's a miracle (meaning, minds are not part of world-stuff), then maybe it happens once ever, in the whole history of the universe.

But if it happens several billion times, as is the case with our species, it can't be a miracle and thus our minds are a property of the world.

I don't see an alternative between these two options — Manuel

I'm unsure why - this seems to define miracle as rare. As i understand, we could get a miracle per moment; as long as it's something which requires the suspension of established natural law, it would just be a lot of miracles. Though, this does go to the origin of those laws - and a force which overcame them. I don't think I either know enough, or care enough, to go further but 'being common' doesn't seem a defeater, to me. Might be misunderstanding!

I do, though, presuppose that if mind-at-large is a thing (in mind of panpsychism, lets say) then there will be natural laws regulating its behaviour and so there's no miracle in it. If it is somehow totally inexplicable, then yeah, it would have to be an ingression to reality, rather than some discreet aspect of reality.

Which formulation, exactly? — Jamal

Of Kant's project (though, i refer to success./failure rather than intention) establishing access to the external world. I just can't get that from anything in the CPR, as my understanding currently sits. It seems patently., inarguably clear that Kant does nothing but outline teh exact problem with the claim that we have access to the external world. This said, I also think his intention was not to establish that, but to remove the basic scepticism of Hume in the sense that Kant's system allows us to not doubt external existence, but still remain totally out of touch with it. I do not think he intended, and absolutely reject that he succeeding, in establishing any way to access external objects.

in a certain way, or expressed more generally, as phenomena, it does not follow that we do not perceive external things. Kant is explicit that external things are things we can possibly experience. External = empirical, and Kant is an empirical realist. — Jamal

Again, I would need passages. This is alien to my reading, and through conversations with Mww, seems to contradict the practical use drawn from the synthetic apriori. It seems to be that the synthetic apriori is the only possible way to gain reliable information about external objects to which we have no access - logical consistency derived from inferential experience. I do not see Kant anywhere inferring, much less stating, that this consistency traces up access to those objects. Quite hte opposite, to my mind.

in which he argues that perceiving your own inner states is dependent on the existence of objects in space — Jamal

Absolutely. And again, we have no access to those objects (on my, and I am weakly confident, Kant's account).
Edited after Jamal replied (and I haven't read it): "in space" is the giveaway here. That means he's definitely not referring to the external world, in which he seems to believe time and space are incoherent.

And If I am wrong, then I am arguing against Kant, not you. But I maintain that we do not have that access. As noted earlier with, i think Janus, You absolutely cannot access an empty bay in Bengal by experiencing a tidal wave in Chile.

I am likely an outlier in this conversation. — EricH

We're fellow travelers. I just enjoy pressing people on their views here.

But maybe that’s not what you mean. — Jamal

Suffice to say it isn't - But i also am entirely unsure how you got there, so I'll refrain from going further.

This is the reliable access you seek — Jamal

It's not access at all. This is why I'm asking for passages - I recall, and can find, nothing to support this formulation.

our sensibility provides the direct access to things about which we can have this knowledge. — Jamal

Which things are not 'in-themselves' or external. They are, themselves, representations. Degree of separation (or several) remains.

As I pretty much said, if you are instead seeking access to things that cannot be accessed (things as they are in themselves) you will struggle. — Jamal

Perhaps you're not quite understanding me. You seem to be admitting we have no access to external objects - because those objects are things in themselves. Representations are necessarily internal. They could not appear to us otherwise. So i'm really not seeing anything here that changes my position..?

Note that everything I said was standard and uncontroversial — Jamal

Perhaps - but with recourse to the response immediate above this (within this comment, I mean) I don't think you're arguing against my position.

Then, with adoption of Title IX, that changed. Nowadays there are perhaps 15 men's teams and around 80 women's teams. — jgill

I'm not seeing any irony lol

And this is a sport where it is conceivable women could compete equally with men on some apparatuses, like the high bar, parallel bars, floor exercise, and side horse and vaulting horse. The still rings would not be feasible for women. — jgill

It is not particularly conceivable, imo, having done Gymnastics for some years and continue to do fairly high-level calisthenics. There is absolutely no comparison.

grading policies are altered a little to diminish the value of pure upper body strength. — jgill

Would that be one where there's a handicap for doing well? I ask as there is no possible way women are doing the same skills men are in on pommel horse, floor routines, high bar.

There is also the issue of team results. The fact a team has no born males shouldn't handicap them. But it will.

males vs females in physical sports would result in a top 500 of males and hten some females in the next couple hundred and parity only appearing through either misuse of hte word 'female' to denote trans women, or around the 1000 mark. This seems clear in almost every sport ever looked at. High school males destroy most world-level female athletes.

Even if you are brain surgeon, there is a lot you do not know. We rely on the experts and what each of them knows is very limited. Our brains are very limited when it comes to knowing a lot. That is a lot is not very much, but if we want we can google for information and maybe we will learn something or maybe not. Sometimes we put a whole team of people onto the task of learning something, like how to get to the moon. Or think historically before there was science. Not even the smartest people could know what we know today. — Athena

You're not really reading what i'm asking here, it seems.

I have asked you, if something is unknowable, how could you possibly learn it? It is impossible, was my point. I wondered how you dealt with it. You didn't :P

Until you understand how little we can know, it might pointless to argue what is beyond our comprehension. — Athena

This makes absolutely no sense. No one would ever, in their right mind, attempt to debate something incomprehensible. What I am trying to ask is why are you talking about hte possibility of knowing things which are, by your use of hte words, impossible to know? Seems like a pointless starting block to a pointless exercise in mystic thinking (nothing wrong with that, but it's not philosophy imo).

If you think you know God, you know not God. You wrongly think you know God and this is why we should not name Him or make images of Him. We should stop deluding ourselves with the notion we know God. — Athena

This is, again, an absolutely pointless statement designed to sidestep the incredible holes in previous statements. You can't make statements about Gods (for which we have all the receipts) and then pretend its some mystical concept that can't be talked about. Bit of a tautological way of ducking out..

Scientific explanations of the beginning of the universe sound magical to you why? Logos is about empirical knowledge, not magic. You have me very confused. Is there any information that is not magical to you? I think you giving a good demonstration of the problem religion has caused. — Athena

I think its possible you aren't really parsing the sentences you're reading very well. Nothing you've said here responds to what i've said in any reasonable way. That said, I disagree with everything in this passage and have no clue why you'd think my rejection of an explicitly Christian concept (Logos, as I noted, exists as a Christian concept - and that's what I asked you about and quoted in the above.... The fact that you then didn't respond to that is not going to deter me. It's what I asked about) has anything whatsoever to do with empirical anything - particularly at the birth of the universe - is quite strange given you're bothering to try to converse on these exact topics.

I did not say those gases existed before the universe was manifested. — Athena

How did those gasses lead to — Athena

Yes you did. Whether that was on purpose or not. This is kind of why I'm pushing back - you seem to contradict yourself quite a lot and I just want clear thoughts to be able to respond to. If you're not on that vibe, no worries. It may well just be that these are early formulations of your thoughts on these topics. That's fine too. Just wanting to be clear that I am not doing those two things, and that might be a bit of daylight between us. We're trying to do different things, it seems.

You will have to explain those supernatural properties before I can respond to what you are thinking. However this morning in the pool I was pondering why you are so resistant to the notion of Chi. How can you imagine a nervous system that connects the body with the brain and not Chi? What makes it different?

No, I wont, because they are not things I have come up with or supported. These are tenets of TCM practice and Qi as a concept. Have a two-minute read of this most basic explication of Qi. I quote from it:

"Qi is a mythical concept in traditional Chinese medicine and in Chinese martial arts."

"The Chinese Gods, especially anthropomorphic gods, are sometimes thought to have qi and be a reflection of the microcosm of qi in humans, both having qi that can concentrate in certain body parts."

We are operating in different dimensions if you do not read the above as Supernatural. I don't think its worthy continuing about Qi if you do not understand its most basic properties and bases for belief in it.

Yes it is obvious you are not getting what I am saying and I am not getting what you are saying.

This is not at all obvious, Athena. But that's why I left it there. It'll get prickly. No one likes to be told they are flat-out ignoring hte most crucial parts of an exchange.

I have to hurry this along as I have to get to work. From my point of view you are not thinking anything through. — Athena

The problem is, your point of view is clearly under-educated on these specific fields of enquiry and not partial to being confront with opposing evidence or concepts. A large swathe of what you're positing throughout this fairly varied exchange is illogical, internally inconsistent, historically inaccurate and incoherent. I find it quite hard to take your positions here seriously, in light of that. Cest la vie.

That was made perfectly clear and the demonstrations of Chi are very real. — Athena

They are not. You have provided no evidence for such, and more than a century of empirical research has provided absolutely nothing to substantiate the claims around Qi. I am not on the wrong side of this one, unless you're claiming that your faith in this concept is evidence. If that's the case, it is definitely time to quit.

You can not understand anything if you are unwilling to do the thinking. Denying what is scientifically accepted such as proof of acupuncture brings us to a dead end. — Athena

You are empirically wrong. I quoted from the link you provided squarely dismissing hte misleading and false inference you tried to make. I'm not going to play this game - you were factually wrong and didn't even read the study you provided. Your response is to claim that i'm somehow ignorant of 'the facts'. Bizarre.

My next thought is to get an aura reading to determine where my aura is weak and strong. — Athena

It is possible we have absolutely nothing more to discuss.

Can you direct me to that outline of what is supernatural about chi? To me what you said in the above quote, is like saying gravity has supernatural properties. Chi is simply a life force energy. That life force may be mitochondria. — Athena

This is absolutely not what Qi relates to at all, in any way, unless you're just making stuff up and claiming its Qi. The absolutely fact is that in TCM and Chinese Martial Arts Qi is a supernatural manifesting force. Rationalizing it into some medical explanation is just plainly stealing a Chinese concept and messing with it.

My line of reasoning is cause and effect, not supernatural. — Athena

That link has nothing to do with the disagreement we're having.

While I thank you for your time, I find you to be an obtuse and uninteresting interlocutor at this stage. Take care Athena :)

So, any correlation with those expectations would be baseless without that assumption. — Janus

Do not agree. If you replace 'assumption' with 'inference' then, yes, that is where i stand. I think this is where science actually stands. I do not think 'evidence for evolution' is the factual, undebatable schema it is claimed to be outside its competition with other theories. I'm just unsure why the failure of theory is a problem for the underlying fact (if so) that we can't access the external world at all. I understand the problems you're bringing up, but they're straws being clutched at if my position holds any weight, and not arguments against it. Just ... results of it.

Appreciate the pov.

I have to say, I cannot grasp this in Kant at all.

It seems he is deeply committed, whether he states it or not, to a barrier between the world and our ability to intuit.. anything. However, it is clear Kant provides for various interpretations. Would you mind pulling out any passages you think speak to this? Your formulation doesn't strike me as particularly workable - where's the access, if the system necessarily precludes it? If you mean to say that Kant advises us that the access we do have, as indirect and unreliable as it is, is in fact access, i would reject it even if i read that into Kant.

But since that's how we access things, only some logically possible non-sensible intuition (like a God-like perception) could access them otherwise, whereby they would be noumena, not phenomena--and that's not a talent that creatures like us happen to have. — Jamal

Which is exactly why he is committed to the above, imo. Happy to read anything you think does not require this in Kant :)

If that's not true, then minds are literal miracles, and I don't think we need to go that far. — Manuel

Well, if it's true, we do :)

Yeah, good, very good question.

Correlation, I suppose, would be the only way. Do the things we're experiencing correlate with the expectations Evolutionary Theory posits?

But, I get the feeling I am committed to basically say "its an inference" and im fairly comfortable with that.

I shall be ducking out now. I really appreciate your commitment and exchanging with me in great spirits :)

apparently pissed off a Kiwi. — Banno

I'm Irish - but you should be so lucky. Hehe. However, that does explain your comportment :sweat: Aiming to piss people off sits well with it.

Banno is uniquely immune to caring about anything but destructive (in the literary sense) critique "hereabouts" (not sure he knows "here" is adequate). I don't think he's going to be partial to this kind of appeal.
I'd leave him to it.

https://amnesty.org.nz/unlawful-israeli-strikes-kill-civilians

Just going to leave this here to stoke discussion.

I don't take either side's claims (akin to BitconnectCarlos' take there) seriously, but i'm seeing far less vivacious posting around Israel's war crimes.

That's not what im saying.

What I'm saying is that raising the potential of not killing five people from 0% to 10% seems worthy of of ethical consideration, regardless of the increased risk to the Fatman. Not because he is worth less, but because the other side of the equation is an increase in the potential for saving five who are destined to die, otherwise. This may require me to consider that five people surviving at 10% potential is worth more than the 90% potential they all die. I understand your point and ultimately you might be right, but im trying to muddle through my intuitive position.

(edited in an hour later)It is worth noting I do not think life confers any intrinsic value. I am unsure why or how people understand that to be the case.

I said to rationally believe X — Hallucinogen

If i missed this in my responses, that changes my position to 'yes, they do' and i retract all previous objections.

That would be a very strictly consequentialist bit of calculation.

I think the correct assessment is that you're increasing the potential survival rate of the five destined to die by at least 10%. That, to me, is what's reasonable as a motivating factor.

The fact that you are also increasing (from zero) the chance of ht Fat man dying doesn't seem to play into my thinking. But that may be me on a different ethical consideration.

You're repeating the same untrue claims you've repeated the entire time.

Suffice to say I think your position is devoid of anything resembling evidence or support (and I've been through the lit. on acupuncture - it has also been explicated in this thread to your position on that is false).

Perhaps we should stop here. I'm beginning to feel the need to use words like 'stupid' and 'stubborn' and 'inept' and 'uneducated' and 'ideologically posessed'.

I don't want to be responding to you negatively, but you have painted yourself into a corner that requires it.

Our minds are not capable of knowing all that could be known — Athena

Then what is capable of knowing things our minds are not able to know? It seems to me this is a bit backwards - If we can't know it, how can it be knowable?

For me, that is a God beyond comprehension. — Athena

I just can't understand why you're invoking 'God' as a gap-filler in your knowledge. It seems to illustrate the very basic misstep almost all religious thinking requires. "I don't know, therefore God". I understand you don't ascribe (from what i can tell) any Abrahamic notion of God, to that issue but you're using it as a proper noun so its hard to ignore :P

The purpose is to keep ourselves humble and preferably out of holy wars. — Athena

The purpose of what?

That notion of God has closed people's minds to anything else. — Athena

Then what, in your view, is the use of the term? It seems that the Ancients as you're positing, were extremely misguided in their use of the concepts they pretended to. Calling the Sun a personal God is... wild... which is what Apollo is, essentially.

I do not know enough about physics to answer your question. Somehow there was an energy and that energy became manifest. This is the kind of thinking that goes with understanding the controlling force of the universe... — Athena

Huh. Fair enough. This appears to be magical thinking to me and is logically followed by "in the beginning there was the word, and the word was made flesh' type of stuff. Not my bag.

How did those gasses lead to the manifest universe? — Athena

They didn't. They are included in the manifest universe, not prior to it. So, i think this and the next response are a bit out of step with reality, to my mind.

What is supernatural about chi? — Athena

The entire concept is beyond natural laws. It is posited, as i've noted, that Qi carries multiple supernatural properties and exerts its force, supernaturally, upon the body and mind. I've outlined that, and your quotes don't approach those outlines.

There is connection with mitochondria and our breath that is also related to chi. — Athena

I cannot see any connection between any of these things in your comments and quotes, so i'll leave that part - I reject the notion still, though.

What keeps our heart in rhythm? — Athena

Its own electronic impulse - the cardiac conduction system. It is separate from the rest of the body's electric system as far as I know.

Some people may think that is a spiritual explanation. — Athena

They would be mistaken. Music's ability to 'heal' is squarely psychological, as opposed to medical (though, I agree both are essentially physical issues). It does not have any effect on specific functions of cells or healing properties of the body itself. It is like rest increasing your ability to heal..

Logos is a Greek concept, along with the notion of a God having 3 aspects, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one god, not 3 gods. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. The concept of logos is Greek, not Hebrew. — Athena

This doesn't answer either part of my question - but ftr, I am aware. I did not posit it was anything else.

But I want to defend the good of a man supporting the family financially while the woman supports the family emotionally and socially in many very important ways. — Athena

Agreed. my family works this way. But the idea that your dad actively discouraged you from education is wildly shitty to my mind.

then post a link that does — Athena

No. That is not what this link does. I does what I outlined immediately before posting it, funnily enough.

There is evidence that acupuncture may — Athena

Whenever you read this, the fact is there's no evidence. It just hasn't harmed anyone.

What is the success rate of acupuncture to quit smoking? — Yonsei Med J.

This quote contradicts itself. Reducing your smoking rate isn't quitting so they've counted people who didn't quit in their 'quit' number. Other thing to note is that expectation bias accounts for most results in open studies of that kind. Placebo-contrlled double blind is the standard here. It would also have been helpful to cite more than a weakly-supportive line. See further:

"Several researchers have conducted case control studies on smoking cessation acupuncture. He et al.19 reported that acupuncture treatment showed significant effectiveness in a case-control study, but most other researchers, including Parker et al.20 and Steiner et al.,21 reported that there was no apparent difference between the control and acupuncture treatment groups."

"Results of a meta-analysis of controlled trials were also negative.23"

"In this study, the smoking cessation success was only 1 case (0.6%) in the case group and none in the control group after 4 weeks."

"While the samples in this study could not be generalized because the subjects were limited in a certain area, this study suggests that smoking cessation acupuncture has no effect on the smoking cessation rate."

That's why placebo-control is so important. This paper is mostly outlining how bad the methodology is that has garnered positive outcomes. I have a feeling its possible you're not quite delving deep enough to make the types of claims you're making.

Something is happening and because this is proven insurance now pays for acupuncture treatments. — Athena

This is the result of pressure groups, not veracity, as shown above.

I do not understand why you speak of "the spiritual aspect"? What do you mean by spiritual? Is this in line with believing in angels and demons? — Athena

I am speaking directly about TCM. Consult TCM outlets for their take on it. I am using their terminology. I can't quite make sense of some of your questions. They seem to come from a genuine, but very much defensive place not quite in touch with teh subject matter. But I'm having fun..

There seems to be a gap between my consideration of energy and your consideration of the spiritual realm. — Athena

I don't know why you'd say this or what relevance it has. I've never tried to parallel them or outline my 'consideration'. Of course theres a gap between them - they are not related.

You seem to talk about the concepts you want to talk about regardless of the conversation. It makes it difficult to understand whether you understand what I'm saying. It appears not, a lot of the time.

The veracity of evolution itself is based on the assumption that we have access to external reality — Janus

I am fairly sure understand your position and am not missing it(that is obviously possibly wrong)... But, my position is still no, it isn't, and that this is the one of the cruxes. It can absolutely be restricted to evolution of our illusions. Direct access to the "outside world" isn't necessary to explain that illusion beyond inferring that those objects just must be there as brute fact. I suppose i take the Kantian position here that I am allowed to infer these Objects while not saying (nay, not able to say ) anything about them. Maybe that's a sidestep. Will need to think on it.

How do you know that is the case? I don't deny that it might be an illusion, but I also think it might not be an illusion. — Janus

Sure - but it seems highly, highly unlikely that a mitigated data stream is going to result in a 1:1 match when decoded by wetware into an experience. You're right to try to pin me down here though - I do not 'know'. But, my response (as it has been) would be to ask by what method/mechanics would you posit we are literally in touch with those objects? I cannot see one.

the 'for us' nature of things — Janus

is sense-data (on my account, and I believe Kant's). This is confusing terminology though. The "nature of things" is different for phenomena versus things in themselves. Its not like its one thing with two natures, applicable to different arenas. They are two separate sets of objects, interrelated we know not how, other than the inference that one causes the other.

the "in itself' nature of things — Janus

Hmm..I think this is a little misleading. Kant's position (I think) is that we have no access whatsoever to those objects. No nature, no object, no nothing. It is unspeakaboutable. We can't even conceptualise them because we have absolutely zero phenomena on which to ascertain anything about them whatsoever. But, as noted, I do think this is a little bit of a cop-out in the sense that it just ends up saying "Well, idk, but it sure looks like it!". I just can't see a better answer :sweat:

Kant does not, anywhere I've seen, intimate we have any access whatsoever to the things-in-themselves. The objects he discusses are those of the mind, as a result of perception and understanding arranging sense-data into a lil movie for us to watch via the internal projection system of the visual cortex. It seems fairly clear to me he uses this basic conception

1.Thing in itself: unknowable ->
2. Noumena: knowable, but not to human sense->
3. Phenomena: the internal representations of sense data necessarily imparted by interaction with (1.)

May have that wrong, and would be very much open to any passages you feel either disagree with, or elucidate this in another direction.

What you say here shows that your perspective converges on solipsism. — Janus

This seems to betray a basic understanding of what i've said...

I assume there are things out there. — AmadeusD

That includes people. But I also said:

so it's somewhat tautological to rest on that, imo. — AmadeusD

Which it is. If the position is that other people's subjective experience is evidence that they exist, that's a big ole circle of reasoning. But again, i assume there are actually people (read: objects) out there. My point was merely that the reasoning of such is always going to be based on inference. The fact that another person claims to be seeing the same tree as me doesn't prove that that's the case. It proves that I'm having that experience.

So my position is not even close to solipsism - I am convinced I am not the only person, and that there are external 'real objects - but as far as proving this, appeal to other minds is weak. That's my point there. Its tautological because those other minds suffer the exact same uncertainty mine does, in that same respect.

'The Secret History of the World', by Jonathan Black, (2007) — Jack Cummins

I thought this was a decent book - I believe he was a researcher for Graham Hancock, who is a friend of mine.

The stuff about the naming of the weekdays and its connection to social order was quite interesting to me. However, I read this in 2011 or thereabouts so don't grill me lol

Dealt with.

On the flip side, a bunch of men deciding for women something that those women don't want seems unfair as well, in case those women DO want to allow trans to compete with them — flannel jesus

That's a good point, but as mentioned, people are very finicky and likely dishonest in such a culturally tense arena. I have two female friends who have abstained from opinions on a trans woman joining their Stand-up paddle boarding team (lmao) and have just quietly exited the team insteaed, to avoid 'offending' a clearly mentally unstable male from living out some twisted delusion (that's not derogatory - that's what it is. I have sympathy).

I suppose one of hte main things we can see is that it is clearly open for manipulation. Lia Thomas seems an absolutely prime and perfect example. From 400-something in male swimming to top 5 or 1 in female. Her detractors have suffered to the point of being physically assaulted and detained by fellow citizens. This case is another example of it being far beyond 'being kind' to allow this to happen. it is, in fact, infringing on the rights of children and women that we protect in every other avenue.

We also know, as the comments subsequent show, that males are far, far, far more likely to abuse children and women sexually and otherwise. Obviously, other males are more often the victim - but then we get odd statistics that seem to show trans women are more likely than non-trans males to abuse. In the UK, the population of trans women convicted of sex crimes represents a 0.16% portion of their overall population (in and out of prison) versus 0.4% for non-trans males. We can calibrate for the obvious distinction between abuse and arrest for, lets say prostitution. Call it 50%. That's extremely generous.

That's still a 2:1 ratio. It's a tricky subject for all of these reasons. I just find it way too hard to think its 'fair' that a male who is by their very nature highly, highly likely to have immutable attributes conferring disproportionate advantage in comparison to an over-developed female can in fact compete with females.

To some degree, yes, that's the case. This is why fathers tend to be disciplinarians. But, this is changing. It's, imo, a socialisation issue. Women are far less likely to be prepared to do this. Its not necessarily a difference of immutable capacity.

Yes, I don't entirely trust men who choose to hang around with/educate kids. They should not be trusted as much as women. — RogueAI

I think that's a little unfair. I very much enjoy spending time with children because I am a father and have learned to appreciate so much of what I see in children - though, i have the added psychology of missing a lot of that in my own childhood. As a made-up analogy, 1/1000 isn't a high-enough ratio to have my ears up to every male teacher - but compared with like 1/100000 for women, it seems to be a red flag. I just don't know that it is - kind of like the Satanic Panic.

Your apparent suggestion that transgender people have some nefarious motives for being transgender is straight up transphobia. — Michael

It's not in any way 'transphobic' (though, ill be honest - i don't take that term very seriously). I noted that a 50 year old male wanting to swim with, and change with, 16 year old girls (or younger, as the case often is) is concerning. Never mentioned transness. If you don't think so - I am unsure you're in a position to have this conversation. Your response to a concern which is live in every other situation in which this occurs, other than when 'trans' is claimed is basically 'bigot'. This indicates to me you are not being honest or reasonable. I have also outlined, fairly clearly, why its concerning, with no reference to the transness. Its the maleness. If you can't see the stark difference between those two concepts, we can just stop here. You've embodied a cliche determined by stupid people trying to impress other stupid people with their virtue.

If you are someone who blindly believes that a 'claimed identity' is more important than safety, historical knowledge and statistical consideration, we plum live in separate worlds. A man claiming to be a women is incoherent to me, and a seriously indication we have other things to discuss than their identity. Call it what you will - i just don't care.

if those things arent the case, I'd appreciate not having you misread my position and then charge me with some kind of bigotry. Because that indicates the above descriptions.

There's no confusion here my friend. Anecdote just simply isn't very good evidence for much, unless it aligns with the empirical data.
The empirical data says acupuncture is a placebo, potentially releasing some muscle tension incidentally. Tom, and many others have anecdotes to this effect (or less!). So, using your logic, acupuncture is, in fact, a placebo-based practice.

If doctors in Taiwan are going to Youtube charlatans for advice on how to treat patients, I would recommend never going to one. That is bizarre and unethical.

If not doing it has a 0% chance, surely the ethical thinking remains the same?

I would agree that life has no intrinsic positive value, but I also think it is nonsensical to claim that it has negative intrinsic value. — Janus

:ok: :ok: :ok:

I'm really sorry - this is becoming farcical. You are not responding to any objections put to you, and you refuse to move on from citing superstitious religious texts.

Those two passages are absolute bollocks. They betray an extremely elementary understanding of medicine, geography and logic. Leaps on leaps on leaps.

There is something to the idea that if you live right near the ocean, you will affected by it. It does not follow that the craziness in those passages results.

The more immediate experience is that you sense things, not data — Janus

I agree, that evolution has done an incredibly good job of making us think this is the case... maybe that's a distinction I'm making that you're not. In an "every day" sense, I'd agree with you - but this is not an every-day conversation. Fact is, our mind is in receipt of data only. The movie it puts together to play to our experiential faculties isn't actually relevant to that - its an illusion.

No one prior to the modern scientific era would have thought in terms of sense data, which means the idea is secondary and derivative. — Janus

This doesn't make too much sense to me, unless what you're trying to set-out is an intuitive 'take' on perception, without recourse to the actual processes going on in perception. In that case, I would agree, it doesn't make a lot of sense to be going around thinking everything is askance from your experience. But I do think that actually is the case, as will be clear. I would also say that the claim you make up-top seems a pretty broad stroke to brush. I'm sure i could find plenty of examples of thinkers relating experience to sense data (perhaps in other words) and carving out "actual objects", as it were, from the data. IN fact, that seems to be the entire thrust of Idealism (more specifically, Kant's Transcendental Idealism).

If your idea of sense data is derived from modern scientific understanding, the veracity of which in turn is based on the assumption that we have access to external objects, then your belief that you have access to sense data necessarily depends on the latter assumption. — Janus

1. It isn't. It's derived from the very clear fact that my mind is not actually in touch with any objects, yet my mind is the arena of my experience(the words here don't matter - what's being illustrated is beyond debate). They are necessarily not in touch
2. I can't see why that's the case. I fully agree science proceeds on a physicalist basis and essentially nothing more (until Panpsychism gets its day, anyhow) but I do not think it follows that, based on understanding a process by which we can assess claims empirically from first principles, that I must take on every idea that system has produced. Science itself isn't coherent enough-a-system to make that kind of leap, imo. Scientists disagree on their premises all the time. 'modern scientific understanding' isn't a dogma you can't diverge from. It is a method for understanding empirical data. Not sense data or metaphysics.

As to your idea that there is no reason to believe the tree you can see is actually there: well, there obviously is, since other people with you will see the same tree and on questioning will confirm that they see the same unique details of the tree, and even animals present will show by their behavior that they also see the tree; e.g. the dog might pee on it and the cat climb it or the bird perch in it. — Janus

Hmm, point taken, but also I disgree.. but I think you're a step back from the level of analysis i'm at in this discussion.

Yes, that is, superficially, a reason to think those things are 'out there'. Our experiences converge, as it were. But I have already noted that I assume there are things out there. But its an assumption that those people and their perceptions are also "real", so its somewhat tautological to rest on that, imo.

If it is the case that we don't directly interact with objects out in the world, we don't have access to them. Plain and simple.
If you're inferring we, in fact, do directly interact with objects out in the world, by all means elucidate that process. If its acceptable, My position will need to change.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said.

Is it possible there are language barrier issues here? I would really hate to devolve into irritation if the fact is we're not actually getting each other clearly.

What I have been asking is on what basis do you conclude that you have access to sense data? — Janus

I know. And I have answered, many times, my friend: I have experience, and I cannot understand that I have experience, other than as a result of sense data, based on the empirical fact of my experience. It is 'sensed' regardless of any external objects. I infer, from the 'sense' that there must be objects initiating the data transfer.
The emphasis is the entire answer you are after - but find unsatisfactory, I guess.

I presume that you, as we all do, experience a world of things, animals, plants and people etc., that are external to our bodies — Janus

In(ie within) my experience, yes, but i refuse to make that claim without qualification. They appear to be external, in my mind, to my body.

I'm asking how that common experience leads you to conclude that you have access only to sense data and not to the things — Janus

I really can't tell what's being missed.

1. We have sense data which is not the objects which i*t presents(to the mind);
2. Those objects are inaccessible; and
3. The sense data initiates/induces/informs/whatevers our internally-derived externally-delusional experience. — AmadeusD

There is absolutely no reason to jump from "I can see a tree" to "what im seeing is what is actually there". You are literally not looking at anything but receiving sense data and watching a mind-created movie about it (shoddy term, but should be illustrative).
I've used the examples of tidal movements and shadows to illustrate this. You cannot access the object which causes a shadow from the shadow. You cannot access an empty bay by way of the tidal wave its emptying caused elsewhere.

So what's missing?