This is not a question, Paine.

*sigh* i've just gone back through our entire interaction, and it's its literally just you being a dummie.

If you have a serious question, direct me to it.

Please note hte sarcasm with whcih someone who doesn't take you seriously might apologise for not taking you seriously.

Another notch on the belt, i guess.

Just so.

I am already aware of the vast majority of those quotes. I'm really quite unsure what you wanted me to gain from them, other than that mathematicians can sometimes be poetical.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
— Albert Einstein

This one seems to support my notion :P

I was mostly — Paine

making wild assumptions, counter to that which i've actually stated and proceeding on the same basis a first-year political student who's found Twitter would do. I just can't take that type of snip-ish hang-wringing seriously, sorry.

I shall do my best! Perhaps there will another poll about what time it would be (i'd take one timezone, pick a time, list what that is in some other timezones for each option).

a lot of waiting — Christoffer

80% of my time on sets has been waiting lol.

I've not listened as yet, but as noted, It definitely seems an impossibility that its impartial. The opening five minutes seemed to make it quite clear the guest was on a high-horse and it wasn't going to be a discussion. Ill see how i feel shortly after listening.

20 mins in: Weirdly for this particular Podcast, this entire conversation hinges on empirical facts.
25 mins in: She is utterly lost in her own mind. Her take on proportionality isn't academic. Its racist. The only word that mattered in her take was "jews".
40 mins in: She seems to be the exact stereotype she takes issue with. It's actually getting difficult to continue listening - and the hosts inability to push back seems extremely out of character, and honestly a red flag in itself. So much emotive nonsense pretending to be argumentation.

End: She is insane. She literally accounts for the anti-semitism as a result of moving to Scientism as a 'new religious movement'. What the hell... As notedd, the hosts entirely fail to challenge her in any way. This wasn't their usual podcast. This was just a platform for Natasha to rant.

Natasha's take on the facts seems to be "true everything Israel ever says" and if you don't take that line, she cannot believe it. Can't really understand that.
Do you have any sources for why she might be wrong, though? If her facts are correct, then I can only disagree as a matter of taste really.

I note it would be wonderful to see a conversation between Natasha and Jeff McMahon.

Fair enough; makes sense. What's the implication for what i said?

I was just pointing out that the 'uncaused caused' is obviously limited in concept to be that which is not caused - eliminating everything we know, was the implication.

Why Israel's Response to Hamas was Justified

Brain In A Vat episode just released - they speak with a London-based International Rights rights Lawyer.

However, she is Natasha Hausdorff, the Director of UK Lawyers For Israel. One can tell this is not a particularly impartial conversation (all three are Jewish, i believe).

I think that you're on the right track, but I think that this is a form of anti-realism, not realism. — Michael

I am exactly in this camp, in terms of Bob's system here.

It’s not hard to find enthusiasts for any kind of therapy or pseudo scientific practice, from crystal channeling to psychic healing. — Tom Storm

100%. I used to be all in on 'telepathine' (its a can of worms) and various other really discreet modes of supernatural activity. I used to be 100% convinced you can think your way out of a broken arm. I took crystals seriously, at least as conduits, if not tools in themselves. Its attractive, and the less you're incline to seek 'the truth' the easier it is to seek 'the most fun' stuff and convince yourself otherwise.

Nice. Did you mean ‘next to no’ ? — Tom Storm

Yes, will go edit that LOL thanks

Probably a little of both, But i'm resistant to the former as a fairly involved and directive (as an attribute) father. I must have some level of udnerstanding that I could know better than others. Maybe I'm overcautious, so unless its patent (i.e you're bloody 12 - sit down) I refuse to engage.

That said, my understanding is that I cannot formulate a rule that accounts for my moral view on any given thing that I could universalise intellectually. I just can't understand how it's possible that my intuitions aren't entirely fallible and apply only to me as their source.

Ah, I get it. Ebonics. — Outlander

Oh. I hadn't even considered this. Maybe its a Rorsach :wink:

I think your mistake here was including the option for NO in the poll. If they are not interested why should they be allowed a say in the activities — Sir2u

Point was more that if four people are interested, and 25 are not, perhaps 'the forum has spoken' and we must remain but abstract avatars to one another :) That said, I'm happy to just take the four and have the damn conference - if that's what you're getting at :)

But none of us looks as good as you, all spiffed up in shirt, tie and vest. Most of us look like Lionino's avatar with a little hair. :gasp: — jgill

:yikes: Haha, well I appreciate that. I figured it would be a negative, having me appear pretentious and likely not that sensible haha.

Funzies. That's about it.

Which, to be fair, is a good reason to do things among us creatures. — Moliere

Yeah, that's about it. Funzies. Also, as someone who is definitely ADHD, and my wife suspects on the spectrum (my dad is), this type of thing is a really neat way for me to interact with like minded people without risking too much embarrassment. You all already know I'm basically stupid :lol:

Problems with child actor seem to be more prominent when they become celebrities and act as a "career." In general though, I think drama programs are excellent for young children. It teaches public speaking and the ability to take on roles based on context. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Agree with all the prior and just wanted to comment here - Yep, that seems to be when the parent's intentions become clear and get in the way.

Unless a clear, non-debatable physical example arises the things uncaused may be the empty set. — jgill

Just to avoid putting my foot in it, is there some punctuation you could add to make this a little clearer?

On it's face I want to say, I don't know what 'the empty set' is to talk about, so am out of my depth.

If I push down your hand and see your cards, would you say I've violated a rule that applies to someone other than you, or are we always playing different games, free to do as we will, living in the fray of free expression? — Hanover

That's a totally different question. You're asking about something which (I presume, but could be wrong) has set (yet, arbitrary) rules which are 'the rules of the game'. We have no such for morality - or at least, that's my contention. I've never seen anyone lay out some kind of rule that can just be rejected without any certain objection - If we're playing five-card stud and you get up from your chair and press my cards down to see them, you not only break the arbitrary and pre-ordained rules, you actually get thrown out of the game.

No such deserts exist for moral acts, Imo. Rape makes me really uncomfortable, in many, many ways. It is not my place to say if someone does not share that intuition that they are morally 'wrong'. I don't know what that would consist in. I don't think anyone does. They just are uncomfortable to a degree that they cannot justify telling themselves they made it up.

are we always playing different games, free to do as we will, living in the fray of free expression? — Hanover

Society is a game, in this conception, but otherwise, yeah. I don't see an obstacle. Well, other than one's discomfort.

Chinese medical philosophy views spirit, mind, and body as interconnected, — YiRu Li

Which is exactly why it is not a medical practice. It's closer to a soft version of Shamanism. Which i have no issue with, but it should probably be delineated correctly, rather than pretend to medical effectiveness in teh same way as say cardiology does/can.

'The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Medicine,' mentioned in our OP, is a prophetic book with a writing style similar to Laozi, Zhuangzi, and the Bible. Prophetical works require a master to teach the disciple for proper understanding. — YiRu Li

This is, to my mind, an extreme red flag. Prophecy as a part of medicine is ... let's say not got a good history.

I find it puzzling that when people hear about 'Medicine,' they automatically associate it with 'Western Science' and demand scientific proof. Why can't it be considered a 'Philosophy' classic book, similar to Plato's Dialogues, inspiring new modern thinking? — YiRu Li

It can. But then it can't be considered a medical book. Medico-religious perhaps? In the same vein as Shamanism. No issues - But again, the pretense that you're in the same arena as Western medicine beggars belief to my mind.

Where is the Western medical philosophy book? — YiRu Li

Why do you want one?

Like I said, I have no objection to protecting your cultural rituals and holding them in proper regard (as I, no doubt, have my own), but I'm not going to pretend your medical claims are valid just to be accomodating. — Hanover

:ok:

FTR, I have consulted Chinese medical practioners a fair bit. I went through about eight years of being entirely ensconsed in a new-agey, "traditional" mindset that had my thinking pulse diagnosis was better than a thermometer. My experience confirms my conceptual understanding that it is a placebo-based psychological practice with some efficacy around stress and self-understanding but has next-to-no medical efficacy beyond what has been developed along side Western concepts (such as diet and exercise - minus the Qi concept. As metaphor, perhaps).

I have not defined medical practice — Tom Storm

I think the comment may have been aimed at me - but im unsure i did either lol.

Overall, the history is really interesting and as a 'practice' as it were, Chinese medicine is a cool practice and generally characterized by social cohesion of inter-personal understanding.

But this seems, as with most religions, to entirely fail if one is not an adherent. When something begins to fail in absence of a belief, I tend to get off the train.

Bill Graham did such a great Christmas about how God wants us to send our sons and daughters to fight in Iraq that I almost enlisted myself and I am strongly opposed to that military action and Christianity. — Athena

Interesting.

How horrifying that humans can think a God wants them to fight wars, so they engage in war. — Athena

It doesn't really shock me. Consider: If any of those theories are true, ignoring them is the highest possible level of failure in life. That potential failure scares a lot of people into action. Best i can tell, large amounts of religious conversion (i include childhood indoctrination here) is scare-tactic.

Believing it is a god of war we should follow is a bit horrifying isn't it? — Athena

I would be horrified if it weren't so normalised :grimace: . It also seems to not quite require the intensity i outlined above. It seems that just some charismatic guy can have the same effort on people I would consider perhaps slightly of weaker mind (than what, i'm unsure.. It just can't find a better phrase).

No man can win a war alone, but if they are charismatic the people are superstitious enough to believe their leader is a god or chosen by God, this leader can lead his people to war and win. — Athena

Bingo. And fear of failure, and the comfort of a leader who is 'sure to win' is extremely attractive, I think.

Believing we do terrible things because it is our evil nature instead of believing a false belief is the problem, distresses me a lot! What do you think? — Athena

Well, I think it's going to be a mixture of many, many, many things. A somewhat uneducated population being charmed by a very aggressive but eloquent leader may result in society-wide acts you'd consider Evil, but it's hard to consider those people evil.
In war, though, it's hard not to think they're evil. Im unsure why. That said, though, I do think a 'false belief', though not necessarily cosmic, is probably the reason for almost all purposefully-harmful behaviour (i.e not contingently, or accidentally harmful).

algebra, or math in general, is relevant to this discussion. — Athena

I vehemently disagree.

Math is at the foundation of empirical thinking and proofs. — Athena

Imo, false. Math is at the basis of mathematical proofs. Empirical proofs come from observation alone. That seems to be within the definitions. Feel free to parse out what you're meaning here...

It is all about math, the whole universe, and everything we do. Just because people don't know, does not mean it is not so. — Athena

That you see it so, doesn't make it so either :snicker: I am just reaching the end of The Critique of Pure Reason and so these things are very much in my thought right now so perhaps im unusually resistant.

Thinking something, as an idea, under certain concepts. concept-ualise. I take this to mean a something made into an intellectual intuition by way of concepts.

I think I’m right in saying that you mean we cannot experience ALL of the universe. — Beverley

Yes, but that is actually the same thing as 'we don't experience the Universe'. The universe is a single entity, which we do not experience in any sensuous way. I'm unsure whether noting that it's a statement about the 'whole' universe changes much, but ready to be corrected there.

a different experience than someone else. — Beverley

No one, ever, has experienced the universe. There aren't different experiences of it. So im unsure this analogy holds, though i saw/see where you're taking it. Onward...

But, well, if we are going to be really literal, then perhaps not because wouldn’t your experience of that room depend on what was in it, or perhaps how it was decorated, wall colour, curtains, flooring etc? What if someone redecorated the room and put in new furniture? Then to experience ALL of that room, you would have to experience all of every possible way and form that room could exist in. — Beverley

Different to the 'The Universe', the room only consists in it's actual dimensions. The universe, as an experience, to my mind, must contain all of manifold experience within it (at a given moment - which is partially why it's impossible). The experience of the room is extremely delineated in comparison - it has some extremely limitations in time and space that 'the universe' encompasses all of. You bring up a good point, and I've not much else to say ehre other than that i see a very bold, underlined distinction between a room, which is an extreme carve-out from 'the universe'. It isn't a different thing. It's one of the manifold experiences that must have been present to someone at that given moment to experience 'the universe'.

Then to experience ALL of that room, you would have to experience all of every possible way and form that room could exist in. — Beverley

I suppose this particular position (which i don't take) resists time as a meaningful dimension to experience. At any given moment (as above) one would need to experience the room, as it is, in its totality. However, the next moment is irrelevant. All 'other times' are another experience. So it seems someone a needless extension to my idea.

From my point of view, I would definitely say that I have a relationship with the universe. I care about it, I want it to continue, I want it to be ‘healthy’, just as the environmentalists want our world to be ‘healthy’. — Beverley

I think they are misguided int eh same sense, but obviously on a much smaller scale. Though, we can at least grasp at information about our world. The universe is.. elusive, to say the least.

I imagine someone suddenly saying, "I know, let's get rid of the universe." If they were able to do that, I am sure there would be a fair few people who would answer, "Hold on a minute, let's not!" That would seem to indicate that the universe matters to those people. — Beverley

Neither camp know what they're talking about, to my mind. You can say whatever you want, but actually having the capability of caring about hte universe is, imo, beyond the human capacity. We want our lives to continue, and this is apparently contingent on the Universe. If we could survive without hte universe i'm sure most people would want to know what that looks like/consists in.

Hegel's target is the influence of Kant -- I believe he is targeting Kant's philosophical arguments on the limitations of knowledge because they were influential, and certainly conflicts with his project of establishing knowledge in philosophy, including metaphysical knowledge. — Moliere

Yes, I get the feeling there's a underlying "This is at you, Immanuel..." with a but of a sneer - But, i agree with unenlightened that it's taking some handwaving to get past Kant's base-level limitations of reason.

as far as I’m concerned those are practical questions.

I don’t know about any rules that I could apply to anyone else but me

I feel as if this must be a trick question.

The individual could be any ethnicity and it’s the exact same stupid joke. What’s the catch?

we don’t experience the universe, just conceptualise it. It’s hard ti see how it could matter - I also take “mattering” to be something which inheres in a relationship of some kind which we can’t have with the universe. Something “ultimate” like an overarching purpose or the state of being appreciated whole, or an ultimate value/meaning would strikes me as requiring a something other than it for that to work

yes, I’ve thought about this while reading a bit about it now. But it’s 2:30am now so maybe not the best time to be verbose - in short, yes I agree I was misapprehending (or maybe miswording) a different problem I had in mind.
Sorry about that waste of time.

Through ep 004.

I’m beginning to be convinced Hegel was an absolute moron. Interesting

I have to say this has hit the levels of entertainment already the ti didn’t think I’d get until April at least

. Yet people swear by it. — Outlander

People also swear by blessing a cup of dogs blood in the shadow of a virgin or whatver.

I hope you’re being ironic lol

sure but the overwhelming failure of Chinese Medicine to effect medical benefit in general says to me it might have some accidental application - but it’s premise is spiritual - that Qi and imbalances in it are the source of physical ills.

No, I don’t suggest that, but I am more than happy to suggest that a spiritual system around 5000 years old with no significant update is probably bunk.

Chiropractic was literally instantiated by a liar, DD Palmer. The placebo effect is strong - as is people lying about receiving benefits from treatments they would be embarrassed to admit were useless.

Fwiw my brother is chiropractor and admits readily that there’s close to zero medical benefit beyond general pressure release of joint clicking (ie bursting synovial bubbles)

I’d agree and you’ve satisfied my question very well :)

I disagree

Once again, I am aware. I am well aware. That does not made it a medical practice.

It might be worth not appealing to the fact that something exists, as evidence that it fulfills a certain function.

Chinese Medicine is not a medical practice. It is a spiritual practice. And there's nothing wrong with spiritual practice. It is only wrong when presented as a medical practice. And i believe that is the case with Chinese Medicine.

Suffice to say it does none of those things, and has nothing within it that could be aware of something like COVID or long COVID (if that's a thing).

Feel free to fee free. But i think it's a little irresponsible to pretend taht Chinese Medicine is anything remotely approaching effective with regard to the endocrine system, ANS or COVID. My 2 C worth :)

Yes, I am aware. But it was formed in a way that precludes it from being a medical practice, unfortunately. It is a spiritual practice at base, with Qi being its root.

I think it's more an indication that a society which doesn't understand cancer wont take it seriously.

My contention would be, no he does not. He is not a Doctor, but a legend.

His methods appears to approximate Ayurvedic systems of pulse diagnosis.

I can't take these sorts of things very seriously, other than as curiosities of culture.

Still not clear, but I'd like to understand what you believe I'm getting wrong. — Relativist

Well, both sides seems to think their guy is the guy, and the other guys is baffling inept. I happen to think both are. So, I could take any 'view' from either side and say i think it's inaccurate. Its not a particularly important point.

I like to think that there are some Trump supporters who could grasp why some would be pleased with Biden's accomplishments — Relativist

Do you think the same is true in reverse? Are you able to grasp Trump's accomplishments?

That appears to be a legend about cancer. Not a minor ailment at all ;)

1. The first half is relevant to the below - the latter half is my saying I don't think either your position, or theirs, is accurate to the actual state of affairs; and
2. I was making fun of Trump's supporters - I do not think they would comprehend what's at hand