Beliefs are potentially either true or false. Propositions are the bearers of these truth values. The perceptual non-linguistic beliefs you describe have no capacity for truth or falsity, unless there exist non-linguistic propositions. I don't know if I agree about the language acquisition. Been a long time since I learned mine.

Yes and those would be propositional statements. Your proposed pre-rendered belief states are impossible to communicate without language. So can they even be determined as such?

What exactly do you believe your cat to be believing when it's staring at the window?

You obviously don't have children.

I dare you to try and actually engage in philosophical discussion with your next account. Pathetic troll.

Ah the old rubber duck method. It's effective.

I recommend reading through SEP (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy) articles relevant to your interests.

For example

If you subscribe to the idea of love... — Benj96

People don't love others because they subscribe to the idea of it, they love because it's something they feel. You make it sound like an abstraction one either believes or doesn't.

Do you subscribe to the idea of pain? There are times when you have no choice but to feel it, same with love.

Sure.

Who then are the undertakers? — Prishon

The LP's of course.

Metaphysics was dismissed as non-sense, not worthy of serious philosophical debate, because all metaphysical topics are not able to engage in meaningful arguments therefore unable to come to conclusions via detailed analysis of logic or verification. — Corvus

Those that have attempted to bury philosophy (undertakers) by proclaiming it's death or irrelevance (particularly with regard to metaphysics), have been proven wrong (buried) by the fact that philosophy has continued to be practiced.

Et voilà

Never having the option not to opt makes the option to opt a superfluos option to opt for for the option not to opt for an option to opt for no options unless you always wanna have the option to opt for options you wanna make options to opt about. — Prishon

Please stop spamming inane shit

So, you mean to say that if plants could think like humans and they eat animals, we should give the nod of approval to the tit-for-tat strategy and eat them? — TheMadFool

I already said that tit-for-tat doesn't apply in this situation because humans tend to operate on a higher level of cognition than our vegetative friends (although maybe that's debatable).

What you're describing is akin to taking anger out on an inanimate object. "That curb stubbed my toe so I'm going to destroy it. Tit-for-tat!". More like twit-for-twat.

Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory and while non-humans may exhibit that behavior e.g. herbivores eating plants and then plants evolving toxins/thorns/etc., strategies fall in the domain of reason i.e. humans would/have approve/approved it as a legitimate way of dealing with each other and with the world at large. — TheMadFool

Is photosynthesis also a form of reason? Stretching the definition of reason thin here. Plants do not make a conscious decision about what to eat. Or so it seems.

Since everything is a thing in itself, the 'thing outside of itself' is simply Being experiencing the being of being-for-it. Make sense? Good.

I wouldn't say it's tit-for-tat. Humans have the capacity to reason about their diet. Plants do not. Nor animals.

There is no such thing as a steady state system in computing. What exactly are you talking about? Non-volatile memory? Give an example of a 'steady state system'.

Yes Debian, and every other linux distro (all OS's period), must allow certain processes constant access to root to even be able to function correctly.

If some processes need to have access to root, then I don't see the issue with making exemptions for TimeShift not to alter the directory or file class they would need to operate in — Shawn

Alternatively, simply use a dedicated IDS rather than software designed for a completely different purpose (rollback functionality).

That doesn't even make sense. ’Normal processes' with the appropriate privilege level must and do have constant read/write access to root. What you are describing would completely fubar basic functionality of the OS.

You want to create a system that is completely useless and crippled, because the second any changes are made it reverts back to some previous state? Is that what you're asking? Have you heard of read only?

Edit: btw modern computers are already Turing complete.

Par for the course

You make the rules

Only those aged over 100 years old may continue this game

Fair enough and good point.

Yeah Yeah. Maybe I am just a westerner but that quote merely describes yet another religion; replete with a hierarchy, a caste system, rules to obey, dogma to believe, sin to avoid... That's what happens to Zen when man gets involved.

ha! That is the past though. Surely a correct response to the Zen master would be that there is no umbrella in this present moment. It's only me and you, Zen master...

Wild stare intensifies

Sounds like a course in OCD to me.

Depends where you are on the planet. Having less money in Europe may be fine, but Africa.. then it's a tough and shitty life. And by shitty, I mean slaving away on a rubbish dump to earn a few pence a week kinda shitty

Humans have it especially bad because they have the capacity to philosophize. The key to happiness is to lead an unexamined life.

I do not 'like' the like system.

I think most ppl nowadays, especially philosophers, are conformists — Todd Martin

There are plenty of philosophy professors in academics, but not many philosophers.

No, because the EU isn't a country. The UK is. — Michael

No, the UK is a political union comprised of 4 sovereign countries.

That doesn't answer my question. Would you be OK if the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish voted to leave the United Kingdom and form their own country? — Michael

This idea about some hypothetical pact between nations is irrelevant. The actual circumstances are about one nations right to its independence.

Ultimately, the people of Scotland are the only people who should be allowed to determine their independence. Why should it be in the hands of others?

Your logic implies that the people in non-uk EU countries should've had a vote to determine brexit.

I'm Scottish (living in France) and I respectfully disagree. :joke:

Anyway, it's not your country that would break up, but the union.

The SNP has boobed. The election was effectively a 2nd referendum. And the combined vote shares were 51/49 in favour of the Unionist parties. How is a 2nd ref now justified? I suspect the Sturgeon/Salmond infighting has turned just enough people off to lose the nationalist majority. Maybe voters suspect the SNP aren't quite the knights in shining armour they seemed.. — Tim3003

What is your logic here? SNP were 1 seat away from a majority. The fact that the whole SNP campaign revolved around a 2nd referendum and that the green party are also pushing for the indy ref clearly shows that the majority want it to happen. And a coalition between SNP and greens will be an implementation of that. Scotland voted to stay in the EU almost unanimously. So I don't see how it wouldn't be justified now that the conditions have changed.

Plenty of solutions. Little consensus

No, people are dogmatic.

As to free will, I believe I am free, because I experience myself (within obvious limits) as being so, and I see insufficient reasons from science to believe otherwise. — Janus

Experience is tricky. You don't know what direction your thoughts will take 10 mins from now, and you didn't choose to have the thoughts you had 10 mins previously. Infact, if someone asked you to think of a book, any book, there is no experience of choice. Rather, from the pov of experience, the book titles that appear in your conscious awareness seem arbitrary (of course, once you have a few titles in mind you are apparently free to select one, but it's not clear how free that 'choice' is, if at all).

You have a good motto.

Dunning-Krugerism