A pigeon or human who is deprived from knowledge of how the food is delivered can only speculate, or test whether the delivery of food might have something to do with their behaviour. Is that superstitious belief? No, it's abductive reasoning.

Superstition does not arise from a lack of knowledge alone but from an indifference to knowledge. Superstition satisfies a will to power over matters of fact.

Like radical relativism, superstition provides us with an implied promise that nothing here on earth is absolute, e.g. we don't have to accept mortality, poverty, inequality etc. as absolute determined facts as long as we can mistrust our intellect, or believe in supernatural intervention. Hence the popularity of superstition (as well as relativism).

A democratic military with the capability of separating and fighting our government if need be. — MonfortS26

Who would appoint your "democratic" military if not the citizens or their representatives, i.e. the federal government?

Moreover, without a shared commander of the military you'd have different independent commanders, and the mightiest of them would get to rule what is "right", like a puppet master of the government and the citizens. That's a dictatorship.

They are no longer called proofs. — Frederick KOH

That's because they are not proofs. A proof is sufficient evidence, or sufficient argument, for the truth of a proposition. But the "proofs" you refer to are not sufficient arguments. They are just arguments, hence called arguments.

What makes an argument sufficient for the truth of a proposition is that the argument is valid and sound. Valid means that the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion, and sound means that the argument is valid and all of its premises are true.

Many arguments for the existence of God are valid. But none of them are sound. You don't get to prove anything with an argument that is valid but contains a premise which is false, nonsensical or unknown whether it is true or false.

If the purpose of the military is to protect its citizens, ... — MonfortS26

:-} The military is also used for attack, conquest, or invasion, recall, which has little to do with protection. The US-led invasion of Iraq, for instance, served special interests far more than it protected citizens against alleged "weapons of mass destruction". The idea of protection was misused to mislead the citizens.

By leaving our military under the ultimate control of the federal government aren't we putting ourselves in the likely position of losing our freedoms? Shouldn't military power be divided? — MonfortS26

A federal government is, by definition, a mixed or compound mode of government, and that's how power should be divided in a democracy.

A democracy without government merely amounts to "might makes right", in which case all citizens lose their freedoms because (like what Bitter Crank says about "eternal vigilance") they end up being on guard against each other all the time and everywhere.

One might add that the meaning of 'red' is causally constrained by speakers' interaction with things that emit or reflect em-radiation at 620–740 nm.

There are many more creator-candidates beside god, such as in various pagan myths (nordic, aztec etc.), or the flying spaghetti monster, or some natural phenomenon which caused itself from nothing and became the big bang, and so on. One might also add varieties of non-created universes, such as eternal without beginning, or eternally recurring etc.. Is the probability for god still 50/50? I don't think so.

..they are more interested in creating a problem of meaningless than what is being argued about consciousness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree. It is as if consciousness would have to remain beyond explanation and current scientific principles, no matter what. No reconception, clarification, nor scientific discovery under currently accepted principles would be enough. But who are they to know?

I get criticized a lot for 'obsessing' about Dennett, but it's because he the most prominent advocate of philosophical materialism in modern culture. — Wayfarer

He does not advocate, say, Searle's materialism.

He is, in Aristotle’s words, “maintaining a thesis at all costs.” — Thomas Nagel

Likewise, Nagel seems to maintain the question as unanswerable (or as if it would take some future science).

Therapeutic is not so passive. To do philosophy is a form of training, like physical training in sports. It can make you more fit and qualified to change the world.

... ..is the complex and subtle love experienced by intelligent humans, in some way a real expression of something universal in nature, or of divinity? — Punshhh

Qualities are universal, including qualities we may love. But love is an experience, not a quality, an experience doesn't express anything, rather it makes us express it.

Some of our expressions of love might have universal qualities, as described in love songs, poems, plays and so on. But divine? Why would you muddle the philosophical question with religion?

It became relatively easy to find others to validate shared views already in the 19th century, when a lot of people moved into the cities. Now, would the way contemporary social media propagates opinions have a greater impact, and somehow reduce people's respect for truth? I don't think so. Most people respect truth, especially when they depend on it, e.g. at the doctor's, when buying groceries, or when they agree to do work for a certain salary, and so on.

???

I am not speaking of idealism — Calimero

I don't think this issue has anything to do with idealism.

On the contrary, meaning is completely 'in the head'. — Calimero

Ah. That old subjectivist dogma was decisively refuted in 1976, 1982 etc. by Putnam.

Nobody says there would be a universal cat. The cat is whatever it is that we interact with and thereby refer to as 'cat', a 'feline animal' etc. (the words are arbitrary, not their meaning).

Trump began to fall for that melancholia disguised as Christian mysticism so typical of Slavs. — Mongrel

Really? Trump does not seem melancholic, just hilarious.

Is this not a world where powerful reign? — Calimero

No, because in ordinary speech a word such as 'cat' truly means the feline animal, regardless of your power. If some mad military who happens to hate cats would, by force, manage to change all speakers' use of the word's meaning, there would still be other words that mean the same feline animal. The meaning ain't in the word, nor in people's heads, nor in what they're told to think about, but in what they actually interact with: the feline animal.

Meaning is truly unique and perspectival. — Calimero

Truly? :-}

In a world where nobody believes in shared truths only the powerful reign, and the wise with uncomfortable truths are easily dismissed as having inferior perspectives. Perspectivism has become an ideology in favour of the powerful, ignorant, and careless; their actions would never be wrong, their statements never false, at least not in any way that would make them change their actions or statements.

People now use words to describe whatever they decide they mean, accepting no authority over their own opinion. It has got so bad, it is impossible to communicate any more, ... — ernestm

Those people are not describing anything, they're prescribing or pushing their own arbitrary meanings, typically whenever it suits them. For example, when a redefinition of a word saves them from having to admit a lie, or from changing their opinion or ideology.

Throughout history ideologues or liars have relied on the possibility to define or redefine the meanings of words as it suits them.

So, this phenomenon that some call "post-truth" is probably as old as our language, or older even considering the fact that also some animals who don't speak a language can act deceptively as a means to benefit from it.

What's this talk about inevitable misunderstandings?

Both author and interpreter are obliged to comply to the rules and vocabulary of the language that they use.

An interpretation is proper or acceptable when it complies to what is actually there to read, regardless of whether it deviates from the author's alleged intent.

An interpretation is improper or unacceptable when it does not comply to what is there to read, and regardless of whether it would comply to the author's alleged intent.

Likewise, the author's published text can be either proper or improper, acceptable or unacceptable, depending on whether it complies to the rules and vocabulary of the language s/he is using.

Misunderstandings happen, of course, because of mistakes, insufficient language skills, or egocentrics, relativists, or ideologues who might attempt to redefine our language as it suits them.

What should the focus of a government be? How much power should it have? — MonfortS26

A government should focus on fulfilling its function, of course, which is to determine and enforce state policy. Obviously it should have as much power as it takes, neither more nor less.

You can do both: get sufficiently educated for a job you don't hate, and which leaves you with enough time and energy to pursue your own projects on the side. Doing what you like can make you good at it, and being good may increase your chances of doing it full time.

What is 'Snoopy'? Is a concept of the fictional dog atomic, or a composition?

The most valuable thing in life is its variety of values.

Scientifically, a generalised theory of signs - that is, semiotics - is going to have to be the best way of making sense of phenomenal experience. — apokrisis

What have semiotic theories achieved so far in that respect?

On the average I see that good people create a good world for themselves, and bad ones get surrounded by bad things. — Ashwin Poonawala

Good people in bad surroundings become lonely, whereas bad people in good surroundings become famous.

elucidate how I think about images and why, in general, I'd say they are different than what they are made up of. Our experience and perception of an image is sort of bound up in what said image is, if not entirely. — Moliere

What does it mean to say [1] that an image is different from what it is made up of, and [2] that experience and perception are bound up in what an image is made of? Where does that leave the image we see? It makes no sense to me.

Clearly there are individual molecules, which could be sensed, but we didn't develop the means to do this. So our eyes interpret things in that particular way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Prior to seeing something you don't know whether something is present and subject for interpretation. You don't get to sneak in knowledge of its presence and constituents just to say that seeing it as a whole would be an interpretation of, or one of many ways to interpret, its individual constituents.

Furthermore, the individual constituents of a coin are not so individual when they're bound by force into a material compound called metal. The metal has a light-reflecting surface with recognizable properties. So we see a silver oval, because that's what there is for us to see, and which we then can interpret as a coin.

. . you don't see the individual molecules, because your sensing system is interpreting what's there as one object. . . — Metaphysician Undercover

Look, Sherlock, an individual molecule is insufficient for reflecting or emitting light, it lacks electrical charge etc. We'd need a powerful microscope to identify it, because our biological sensing system cannot do it on its own; it does not identify molecules, so it has no individual molecules to interpret as one object. You must be bullshitting.

our interpretation via sensory perception of external stimuli must by definition inescapably involve an interplay between such stimuli and our internal neural processes and so by reduction must necessarily be subjective. — Robert Lockhart

Experience is subjective, not interpretation. What could be subjective about the use of public words?

Instead of sensing the coin as one oval shaped object, it could be sensed as many individual molecules. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't see them. — Metaphysician Undercover

:-}

Since we know that it exists as molecules, and as atoms, then these are real possibilities, alternative ways, for how it could be sensed — Metaphysician Undercover

That makes no sense at all. How could the projection of an oval that you see be just an alternative way for how it could be seen? Could you see an oval with corners perhaps? Seems like relativist ideology.

You said:

If you consider that the coin consists of atoms and molecules, then ask yourself why do you see it as the presence of a single, coloured, shape, instead of individual molecules, or atoms. Interpretation is inherent within seeing.

I replied: ...

I don't think you see the atoms and molecules...

The argument should be obvious: we don't see the atoms and molechules of a coin, so there is nothing to interpret as a coin prior seeing its coloured shape. Therefore, seeing precedes interpretation.

You don't see them — Metaphysician Undercover

So I said. :-}

isn't it objective fact that seeing is interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Hence my argument, which you seem to evade.

we've been fooled by our very fallable perception. — Benkei

Our belief of what it is that we perceive is fallable, not perception, because belief is representational.

.

If you consider that the coin consists of atoms and molecules, then ask yourself why do you see it as the presence of a single, coloured, shape, instead of individual molecules, or atoms. Interpretation is inherent within seeing. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what would seeing its atoms and molecules be an interpretation of? :-}

I don't think you see the atoms and molecules; it is not your interpretation of some undifferentiated swarm of individual particles which sets the visual features of the object that you see but the parts of the object which are present in your visual field and the optics and biology of seeing. The presence of a single, coloured shape is set by the objective facts of seeing. Hence seeing precedes interpretation.

Seeing is a mode of interpretation as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is interpreted? We might interpret the presence of a silver oval in our visual field as a round coin. But we don't get to interpret its presence, nor the coloured shape. In this sense seeing precedes interpretation.

"If We Are Not Just Animals, What Are We?" is the title of a current article in NYTimes.

it is amazing how much that is misunderstood even now. — ernestm

Indeed, especially scientific accounts based on arguments from illusion, according to which you'd never see a real colour, only your own hallucination of something unseen. :-}