All true, but then you have your Brexit geniuses. Colossal stupidity. — Bitter Crank

Time will tell about Brexit. But I can't think what this has to do with me, or my observations about Trump.
But any nation who elects a president who got fewer votes than his competitor needs it's fucking head examined.

not really.

If anything it would be an ad gentum, or ad populem.
For it to be a fallacy type, I'd have to be reacting against a specific argument. The full phrase of ad hom is fallacies argumentum ad hominem.
But basically it's just an out an out insult of a nation.

I read about a guy who thought workers who were about to lose their jobs because their factory was shutting down shouldn’t be allowed to get together, buy the factory, and run it themselves because it was “communism. — T Clark

Sadly Americans exist whether you believe in them or not. They stand as a warning against stupidity for the rest of the world. Now they have their God. Trump is without a shadow of doubt the single most stupid leader of any country since the dawn of history. He can't read, he can barely write. He's a narcissistic fantasist. ... sorry went off on one there.

Students who come on the forum to try to get us to do their homework for them. — T Clark

If you hate this one tale a look at https://www.quora.com
If you want some fun answer their questions with a set of common misconceptions.

People who accuse me of an ad hominem attack because I’m mean to their ideas or a bit rough with my language. Hey you, yes you… asshole - an ad hominem attack is an attack directly on your person – your intelligence or personal hygiene. If I say “this is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard,” it may be uncivil, it may be bad philosophy, but it’s not an ad hominem attack. If I say “why should I even consider the stupid ideas of someone as butt ugly as you are,” that is. — T Clark

This is total bullshit. And one of my pet peeves.

What they, and you are talking about is INSULTS.
An ad hominem is something entirely different.

Allow me to explain.
A makes an argument
B says that argument cannot be rightbecause you are not qualified, are inadequate, are always wrong,,, etc....

For example.
"The chemical symbol for salt is NaCl."
"Rubbish. That can't be correct because you are not a chemist, but a road sweeper"

I think the difference is that computers do not access memories of factors simultaneously to the interaction of that factor — Tyler

What do you mean.?

also continuous sensory input too, not just internal access of brain states.
— charleton
Why do you assume continuous sensory input is required? I think any human could still be conscious for some time (even if minimal), with complete sensory deprival. As long as they are still accessing memories of concepts involved in their own existence relative to their surrounding. — Tyler

What a wretched existence. Imagine a child born without any sensation. What would they be conscious or? Nothing. Their brain would never form from the blob that nature gave them. All that we are is structured by our experience. Without any sensation we would have nothing; nothing to think about, nothing to react to; nothing to be conscious of.
Were we to chose to go into a sensory deprivation chamber we are still have the sensation of breathing, and heart beat. We have proprioperception, hunger, and a range of other senses way beyond the classical Big Five.

Maybe this is how some resessive traits can become dominant. — Cavacava

Dominance and recessiveness are misunderstood, and not particularly relevant. This has to do with the presentation of traits and how the phenotype differs from the genotype. It's a common misconception. Evolution is all about the phenotype whether that is the result of a recessive gene or a dominant one,
make no difference.

it would seem that the ability to adapt becomes critical — Cavacava

No individual has the 'ability to adapt'. We die with the genes we were born with. The point I was making that you seem to have missed is that, all traitspreexist their selection, and are only considered adaptations after some period of natural selection.

Isolation lowers the potential for variation, and gives the opportunity for divergence, from the ancestor. This because the isolated variant evolves at a lower rate. Smaller gene pools tend to homogenise. And if, when isolated, the environment is static the potential for adaptation is less necessary; but more vulnerable to change. Hence the Moa and the Dodo.

Charleton: The real question is how are you any different from Icke, and the answer is you aren't. Where Icke is unable to understand basic mathematics, neither are you able to understand basic math. Whereas Icke is a God-believer and thinks such beliefs are rational, you think two Popes are intellectuals for essentially arguing over matters no more significant than arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'll stick to reality, and you can continue worshipping the Popes, the very people dedicated to nonsense, and child molestation. — LD Saunders

Nothing you say here is relevant. Being an intellectual, or being seen as intellectual (which is what the thread is actually about) does not entail maths, not even cuckoo maths.
You sound like a total idiot. For one I am not Catholic. Not even a Christian. I'm an atheist.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making.
You can't even master the quote system. I nearly missed your fascinating post.

I'm Jewish, which according to some (racists), means my IQ must dwell within to the Empyrean — Maw

It may well be true that "jewish" people score higher (on average) on IQ tests. But you can't predict a person's IQ by their "ethnicity".

Race is a social category, not a real scientific one. Grouping characteristic are the result of a social process of history, and are not bourn out by genetics. Humans of all types are reproductively compatible and have been 'mixing' since the beginning of our species (if such a point can ever be truly said to have existed). However to sunder the appearance of human variety (and it is mosty by appearance) there are multiple individuals who can never conform to the type. These are rendered 'half breed', octeroon, 'mixed race' or some such insult. Yet for each of us, all mixed as we must be cannot perfectly conform to any set type. And those that are close to a type can easily confound the nomenclature by having a child with another 'type'.

I know black people, jews, asians who have more in common with me upon things that matter, than many so-called 'white people' I could name.

Ethnicity is a dangerous myth. A myth that is tearing the world apart. And is about as scientific as supporting a football team.

Whenever I answer a form with the ethnic question. I always cross out all the choice, and put other: And write "Homo Sapiens" into the box. That is my only ethnicity.

Yes. One thing has to be the consequence of natural selection; the sheer infinite variety. Variety is explicable in terms of the process but simply cannot be REDUCED to survival.
ALL variations, all traits must precede adaptations. For the natural process to work towards the resultant evolution the variation must be there to select. Nature does not and cannot pre choose, predict, or prepare. Thus characteristic are not explained by their evolved states; characteristics explain evolution.

As far as the math goes, any proof that I am wrong about the impossibility of traveling among interdimensions? — LD Saunders

oh PLEEEEEESE!
How are you differnt from Icke?

Right, Charleton, laughing is just such a persuasive argument. Let's see? You claim that two Popes, at least one of whom has a serious baggage problem of Nazism and child-molestation are intellectuals? So, name some scholarly work either has done outside of theology which involves superstitious claims and hardly counts as intellectual achievement. — LD Saunders

Theological Highlights of Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press. 1966 [1963]. ISBN 978-0-8091-4610-9.[N 1]
Introduction to Christianity. London: Burns & Oats. 1968 [1968]. ISBN 978-0-223-97705-1.
Faith and Future. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1971 [1970]. ISBN 978-1-58617-219-0.
The God of Jesus Christ: Meditations on the Triune God. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1978 [1977]. ISBN 978-1-58617-184-1.
Daughter Zion: Meditations on the Church's Marian Belief. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1983 [1977]. ISBN 978-0-89870-026-8.
Dogma and Preaching. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1985 [1973]. ISBN 978-1-58617-327-2.
Principles of Christian Morality. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1975]. ISBN 978-0-89870-086-2.
Feast of Faith: Approaches to a Theology of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1981]. ISBN 978-0-89870-056-5.
The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1985]. ISBN 978-0-89870-080-0.
Seek That Which Is Above: Meditations through the Year. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1985]. ISBN 978-1-58617-187-2.
Behold the Pierced One: An Approach to a Spiritual Christology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986 [1984]. ISBN 978-0-89870-087-9.
The Blessing of Christmas: Meditations for the Season. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1986. ISBN 978-1-58617-172-8.
Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1987 [1982]. ISBN 978-0-89870-215-6.
Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press. 1988 [1977]. ISBN 978-0-8132-1516-7.
Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology. New York: Crossroad. 1988 [1987]. ISBN 978-1-58617-217-6.
Ministers of Your Joy: Scriptural Meditations on Priestly Spirituality. Ann Arbor: Redeemer Books. 1989 [1988]. ISBN 978-0-89283-654-3.
The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1989 [1959]. ISBN 978-0-8199-0415-7.
To Look on Christ: Exercises in Faith, Hope, and Love. New York: Crossroad. 1991 [1989]. ISBN 978-0-8245-1064-0.
A Turning Point for Europe?. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1994 [1991]. ISBN 978-1-58617-349-4.
The Nature and Mission of Theology: Essays to Orient Theology in Today's Debates. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1995 [1993]. ISBN 978-0-89870-538-6.
In the Beginning...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. 1995 [1986]. ISBN 978-0-8028-4106-3.
Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1996 [1991]. ISBN 978-0-89870-578-2.
A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ in Liturgy Today. New York: Crossroad. 1997 [1995]. ISBN 978-0-8245-1536-2.
Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1997 [1996]. ISBN 978-0-89870-640-6.
Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1998 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-702-1.
Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church, and the World. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1999 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-753-3.
The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2000 [2000]. ISBN 978-0-89870-784-7.
God and the World. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2002 [2000]. ISBN 978-0-89870-868-4.
God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2003 [2001]. ISBN 978-0-89870-962-9.
Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2004 [2003]. ISBN 978-1-58617-035-6.
Introduction to Christianity (revised edition). San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2004 [1968]. ISBN 978-1-58617-029-5.
Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005 [2002]. ISBN 978-0-89870-963-6.
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2005. ISBN 978-1-57455-720-6.
Mary: The Church at the Source. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005 [1997]. ISBN 978-1-58617-018-9.
Way of the Cross. Boston: Pauline Books & Media. 2005. ISBN 978-0-8198-8308-7.
On the Way to Jesus Christ. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2005. ISBN 978-1-58617-124-7.
Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2005]. ISBN 978-1-58617-142-1.
Handing on the Faith in an Age of Disbelief. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1983]. ISBN 978-1-58617-143-8.
Images of Hope: Meditations on Major Feasts. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1997]. ISBN 978-0-89870-964-3.
God's Revolution: Pope Benedict XVI's Cologne Talks. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2004]. ISBN 978-1-58617-145-2.
Values in a Time of Upheaval. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2004]. ISBN 978-0-8245-2373-2.
God Is Love: Deus Caritas Est. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [2006]. ISBN 978-1-58617-163-6.
What It Means to Be a Christian. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2006 [1965]. ISBN 978-1-58617-133-9.
Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. San Francisco: Basic Books. 2006. ISBN 978-0-465-00627-4.
On Conscience. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [1984]. ISBN 978-1-58617-160-5.
Europe: Today and Tomorrow. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [2004]. ISBN 978-1-58617-134-6.
New Outpourings of the Spirit. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007 [2006]. ISBN 978-1-58617-181-0.
Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Doubleday. 2007 [2007]. ISBN 978-0-385-52341-7.
Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007. ISBN 978-1-58617-220-6.
God's Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008 [2005]. ISBN 978-1-58617-179-7.
Saved in Hope: Spe Salvi. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008 [2007]. ISBN 978-1-58617-251-0.
The Fathers. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2008. ISBN 978-1-59276-440-2.
Church Fathers: From Clement of Rome to Augustine. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2008. ISBN 978-1-58617-245-9.
Charity in Truth: Caritas in Veritate. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2009 [2009]. ISBN 978-1-58617-280-0.
Saint Paul. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2009 [2009]. ISBN 978-1-58617-367-8.
The Joy of Knowing Christ: Meditations on the Gospels. Frederick: Word Among Us Press. 2009. ISBN 978-1-59325-151-2.
Light of the World: The Pope, The Church, and the Signs of the Times. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2010. ISBN 978-1-58617-606-8.
The Fathers, Volume II. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-783-0.
The Apostles. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-799-1.
The Virtues. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2010. ISBN 978-1-59276-794-6.
Great Teachers. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-59276-536-2.
Holiness Is Always in Season. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2011. ISBN 978-1-58617-444-6.
Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-58617-500-9.
Holy Women. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-61278-510-3.
Doctors of the Church. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2011. ISBN 978-1-61278-576-9.
Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. Colorado Springs: Image Books. 2012. ISBN 978-0385346405.
The Faith. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2013. ISBN 978-1612786674.
Prayer. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 2013. ISBN 978-1612787091.

"it" is the mother of all confusion.

Sorry there, Charleton, but those two Popes are not intellectuals at all. How could that possibly be? Because they wear silly hats and expect people to bow down to them because they have a silly hat? How is that being smart?

As far as my proof about inter-dimensional beings being impossible in our dimensional spacetime, I don't need in any way to prove that any such beings actually exist. The math tells us that even if they did exist, they could not exist here, among us, as Icke claims. So, please stop personally insulting me while failing to grasp the basic math. — LD Saunders

ROTFLMHO

I have often heard it repeated that the problem of the existence of evil is explained in the following way.
God is good, but were the entire universe to be thoroughly good the goodness would go unnoticed. Some evil is put into the world as this gives the good something to occupy them. They can do more good by good works; when pain is alleviated the goodness of the world is revealed to them. People can be happy for a time and appreciate that happiness in the face of evil.

However.....
Why not turn that on its head?

God is evil, but were the entire universe to be thoroughly evil the suffering would be diminished in the absence of a contrast. Some goodness is put into the world as this gives hope that there might be something more than just suffering to occupy them. People may strive for good times, only to have that goodness damned, all hope abandoned. In the end all their efforts are for nought as all shall perish and suffer death. People can be happy for a time and appreciate that happiness in the face of evil which is dominant.

For what it's worth, my good friend's 25 year old daughter got her bachelors in fine arts, worked for a year, and then went to a 6-month computer coding program. She made $85,000 to start. — T Clark

That is £61k in real money. Since an average house is between £450k and £1.2M

Lets break that down a little.
£61k per year
With a student loan tax and NI this will leave you with £3300 per month
Rent in London £1000 + for something basic.
Rates, and basics £800
Leaving £1500 to spend.

Is good, but not unbelievable.

Is consciousness nothing more than a particular method of memory access? — Tyler

I think that this is fundamentally what the process is that gives us that feeling of consciousness, yes. But not just that, also continuous sensory input too, not just internal access of brain states.

This, however, is not a full explanation since a computer can also have inputs and also access memory.
I do no think the computer has feelings, of consciousness or anything else for that matter.

Charleton: How are the followers of people like David Icke not against those who think? After all, a basic understanding of physics would have made him aware that no higher-dimensional beings could come to our four-dimensional spacetime, — LD Saunders

Tell that to Pope Francis and Ratzinger, both well known intellectuals.

higher-dimensional beings could come to our four-dimensional spacetime, without losing all higher-dimensional aspects. It would be like a person trying to live in a two-dimensional physical space. We would simply die in an instant. — LD Saunders

Pooof!!!

LOL. Since there is no evidence of higher dimensional beings, a little thought will tell you that what you just said is nonsense.

I would agree with you, but the problem is he has millions of fans and can fill up sizeable venues when he gives a public talk. — LD Saunders

I think you might need a multidimensional venue to squeeze in "millions". People come to see him because they seem him as an intellectual.

Having a rough day? You seem unusually cantankerous and unhelpful today... — CasKev

Figments are often unpredictable and capricious.

I agree. Our passions lie at the heart of everything we do. It's what motivates us.

I do not think there is necessarily a 'reason' for all this.
I do not think these facts are especially human. In fact it is a complete no-brainer that we have evolved from mammal all of who have an emotional life which includes pain and pleasure.
If you want a 'reason', then one only has to ask how long would an individual last if food gave them pain or fatal dangers gave them pleasure. This is how evolution works. It's clumsy but effective.

↪charleton This is metaphysical based upon my observations of life. No need to make up stories about what happened 1 billion years ago. By the way, most current cosmological research is centered around a holographic view of the universe because it fits current observations. — Rich

It's rubbish.

↪charleton I guess the story just fits your narrative. You have a story and you just make up a narrative to fit the story, as if you have any idea what human and animal traits were 1 billion years ago. Just make something up. — Rich

These are two different views of such a hologram as reconstructed by a laser beam. The brain can be considered such an analogous source in the quantum field. The mind extends out into it and perceives it to be out there and not in here. This idea of perception of a real quantum field is the result of Stephen Robbins research utilizing Henri Bergson's metaphysics. — Rich

How do you know this???

Run along to the solipsism shop I'm not taking the bait.

Take a look at some DNA, then you won't have to worry if I exist or not.

Maybe you can account for how it is that all living things share DNA?

No more than an infant being potentially an adult or a 16 year old kid being a potential adult

So by that logic you are arguing for infanticide and overall genocide of anyone under 18. — LostThomist

Fallacy of false analogy.

We don't. The current theory is that you're a cleverly programmed AI troll. One that's very stuck on materialism. — CasKev

Is that the 'royal we"? If you don't know anyone exists then how do you pretend to speak for other people?

↪charleton I know all about theories. I just want to know how you know it? Someone v told you all about humans and animals a billion years ago? Did you ask them how do they know? — Rich

I think you are asking an epistemological question. How do you know I exist?

Yet, I see nuts like David Icke, who is British; Ken Ham is a nut in America, but he came from Australia, Jim Carey is a nutty anti-vaxxer, but he was raised and educated in Canada. — LD Saunders

I don't think these are good examples of anti-intellectualism. The existence of nutters is regrettable, but those they follow and follow them are more anti-science.
Anti-intellectualism is not about nutters who over think things without regard to facts. Anti-intellectualism is more a response against thinking at all. Anti-intellectualists are those that fear the effort needed, the labour required to properly think things through, to argue, and consider another perspective.
Icke, and Carey are not guilty of not wanting to think. They are guilty of thinking too much.

You are having a laugh mate. It's called the theory of evolution and it has been happening for billions of years. Ask any gorilla!

Or spend five minutes with by dog and try to tell me only humans have emotions.

What do you not understand by "Reality is not created by consciousness in an objective, sense, only in a subjective sense."?

Can you explain in a bit of detail how that would work in a scenario where reality is created by consciousness? — CasKev

I seriously do not think anyone is asking this question.

Reality is not created by consciousness in an objective, sense, only in a subjective sense.
Why would you ask such a question?

Can you propose a scenario involving reality arising from consciousness that supports multiple sources of consciousness? I'm having difficulty coming up with one... — CasKev

Yes, it's called parallel evolution. Different branches of the animal kingdom separately evolved.

It would not surprise me if consciousness can also be found in other places throughout the universe.
The idea that it can come from only one place is silly in the extreme.

If he had given a fuck about slaves he could have lived without them. He could have freed them, paid them.

I said humans specifically because I wanted to limit the domain of the discussion to the human experience. — MonfortS26

But since the traits are not specific to humans you can't do that. Which is very much the point I was making, obviously. You are looking for human lived experience as a way of uncovering the evolutionary reason for those traits, but humans came ready supplied with them; traits that had already been a foregone conclusion for 100s of millions of years.
These traits are the very fabric of what makes an animal an animal. Evolution does not cherry pick, and so neither can you.

The developing mammalian fetus seems to recapitulate some aspects of mammalian evolution — Bitter Crank

There was a whole branch of biology devoted to this fallacy, now fully discredited.

I think we should be allowed to abort our child up to the age of 18 — René Descartes

Obviously the vote with the caveat is the only reasonable one. Whilst it is definitively impossible to do a post-birth abortion, since abortion actually implies an aborted 'birth'; without ANY caveat we could abort at 8 months, 3 weeks and 6 days!!

It happens all the time — Dachshund

Indeed, when we have dinosaurs like you. Shit does happen and that is exactly why Trumpers like yourself need to be fought against

Edmund Burke's work, he was one of England's greatest political theorists — Dachshund

Thomas Paine owned his arse.

To me, this would also point to a singular consciousness rather than a shared reality, as having multiple creators would surely result in conflicts and inconsistencies in the shared reality, which don't seem to exist. — CasKev

Oh really?
I don't think that is supportable.