Could it be the other way round too - because we're watching, the world pretends to be something it's not? :chin: Hmmmm. — TheMadFool

I mean I'm at least two assertions deep in some speculation about material. My basis is that Wittgenstein was right, but there's easier ways to demonstrate ideas. Maybe, professional philosophers are so given to the assumption of the validity of it in itself statements they need a long leash to drag them through it at the time.

To your question; I think I subscribe to a type of participatory realism. The world's real and reality results from our interactions with it. If I were you then perhaps I might participate differently, but the parts that don't change are common for a reason. If the world chooses it's participation as well, then there could be more going on than we know. Which we already knew.

It's all the same perspective at the end of the day. We pretend what we must look like to the mirror as the mirror. But, there's no real other view to be described regardless of how many qualifications you stack on it.

Exactly.

perhaps my knowledge/perception is the thing in myself, and and the object thereof is the thing outside myself. As if I contain a map, but the territory contains me. How's that for a radical philosophy? :cool: — unenlightened

It seems consistent with my experience of the world. I can imagine the things I can see and places I can be. I can also differentiate between the memory and experience.

In the moment one looks the other direction and simply doesn't feel anything. Needle tech has come a long way in 20yrs. There isn't even a pinching sensation anymore; one would have to be trying to feel it.

What can I do for you?

I see no reason to believe that for an instant. I know what a goldfish is when I see one. A goldfish has no idea of what I am. — Wayfarer

You'd have to base that belief on knowing what it is to see a goldfish when you see one as you imagine what it sees.

This may appear to be the case, but our knowing in itself may be quite different from our knowing as it appears to us.. — unenlightened

Yes, that's better than I imagined. I was thinking their was merit to challenging itself validity, but I wasn't sure how to demonstrate it properly. Well done.

I successfully identified several objects correctly.

Try it.

If you want to see an object, you can’t see it if your face is pressed against it. — Wayfarer

How could you miss it? Yes, stepping back a bit helps. But, it isn't exclusive.

I'm not sure that specifing mathematical proofs as the subject captures the intention of the discussion. Maybe, The way you see a being see you the way it sees you see it.

Things don’t have views. Beings have views. — Wayfarer

Technically, it's an observation that the thing doesn't see us.

The point of Kant’s idea of the thing in itself is simply that perspective is inextricable from the knowledge of appearances, that we can only know things as they appear to us. I’m generally bemused by the amount of controversy this seems to cause as it seems mere common sense as far as I’m concerned. — Wayfarer

I can agree that it seems common sense. I think that is because we know what it's like to imagine a different point of view. But, in this case we are imagining a point of view that doesn't exist by definition. When is the case we'll be seeing something without a perspective and how will it compare to when we do have one?

Nah, you can get at it with audio. That's why you can drive and listen to music or have a conversation. It's two different processing centers.

Does the implication of infinite regression hold?

Interesting test; propose a nonsense term and find a catalog of reference material is already available.

:up:

What about a thing outside the inside of itself. The way it sees me trying to see it as if it were me.

Need to start a thread called : Vaccines, the moral compulsory certainty for which consensus remains absolute?

No. My 'position' has nothing to do with the term 'anti-vaccine', it just happens to have arisen in a thread of that title (threads are like that sometimes) and then you asked me about the term. Gods! Who's arguing for arguing's sake now? — Isaac

Oh, I thought this discussion was taking place in a context. Yes, there's lots of things spooky about vaccines. Immune responses can swell your brain and kill you. So, doing what's it's designed to do is still a threat. And your right, corporations are in business to make money. Setting objective welfare in opposition to profit brought us the Pinto. An exploding American vehicle. All that's well and good. And none of it is reason to oppose vaccinations; merely question them. You are not anti-vaccine. Glad we agree.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/pandemic-has-never-been-worse-in-mississippi-top-doctor-says-as-20000-students-are-quarantined/

As I said. It's a term I've heard applied in those cases, yes. — Isaac

So, in order to maintain your position you have to argue the prefix -anti (in this novel case) does not imply opposition, but merely the capability for balanced inquiry. I don't think that's representative of the case.

Language users I suppose. I've heard some of the academics I've cited called anti-vaxxers. If you want to talk only about some particular homogeneous group then the conversation might be different, but that's not the terms in which I first engaged. — Isaac

I can doubt a vaccine, am I an antivaxxer?

I don't think anti-vaccination as a sentiment is that homogeneous. — Isaac

What defines the set? If not a person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.

I think the evidence is quite compelling that vaccination lowers transmission on average and so is a good public policy, but we're questioning moral duty here, not public policy. The two are different and operate under different assumptions. — Isaac

Antivaccination as it's understood would not consider vaccination a good public policy.

Based on this analysis what should everyone do? Antivaccination is a stance that suggest people should not get vaccinated. Are the resources available to make a risk/benefit analysis on an individual basis prior to being over taken by the pandemic- read defeating our own purpose in creating a vaccine?

Increasingly cryptic, I like it. The 'matter at hand' being? The thread? My argument? Your response? My job? Your most recent aphorism?... — Isaac

The thread. What's the take away?

Probably because I don't know your position on the matter at hand.

I'm a consultant in psychology, I advise (among other clients) long-term risk analysts. They usually have a team of academics from all sorts of fields so there's considerable debate. None of it goes like this! — Isaac

Interesting. Totally off topic, but I keep running into seemingly undiagnosed cases of DID on Facebook. When I ask if they told a professional the answer is always that the executive control prevents verbalizing the condition. Anyway, I'm sure you are good at it.

I would say "people already decide what is good on their own and pretend that is God's will" — dimosthenis9

I'm going a step further and suggesting it is a wide spread phenomena. I haven't found a theist that is in disagreement with God. The day God wants you to do something, you don't want to do is a new experience.

Guessing at the professional most suited to produce your argumentation.

Insurance adjuster?

More dubious than rejecting it without citing any evidence from anywhere? — Isaac

Nope, that's what in principle means. So, I guess, yes?

How? This argument seems to be lacking any structure. How does the fact that it's transmissible alter the proportion by which it is responsible for occupying healthcare resources? — Isaac

You know exactly what I'm saying.

No. I don't think that would be morally responsible. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion. — Isaac

Read back slowly the title of the thread.

↪Cheshire Socrates had a rough life because his wife bossed him around all the time, so I guess we should have empathy? — frank

Yeah, I recall the auto-oppositional dynamic. It would be easier if he was just a loon. But, being able to produce complex arguments for bad ideas is dangerous. Too many people looking for confirmation bias for their fears and this seems like the El Dorado of misplaced intellectual weight.

I think you do engage in a little bad faith argumentation becuse you just like arguing. Others on the forum do it. It's subtle Putinesque agression that rubs me the wrong way because of Trumpism. I realize I may be misunderstanding, tho. — frank

It's like, if Socrates hates you and has a database of unrelated facts.

But first I doubt that vast majority of people will ever come to that level and second even if they do, thinking Logically maybe isn't enough at the end at all for convincing someone to be "good". So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow?? — dimosthenis9

You'll notice no people are in constant conflict with their religion's ethical beliefs unless said religion is imposed on them by an authority. People already decide what is good and pretend God agrees with them. It works in reverse as well. If some one dislikes what others are doing, then their God dislikes it as well. It's a trick of the minds executive function to believe we are regularly communicating with anyone outside of our own mind; regarding a super being with a culturally specific ethical agenda.

All conflicts that fall along religious lines would require new basis. People can always find ways to draw lines around their tribe, but the lack of long standing perceived differences would make it that much harder to see others as less or different than oneself. Which is the truth I think the world is missing. 5 minutes before we all fall asleep, we all want the same things.

I have a meeting to get to anyway so glad of the break...A meeting in which people will be discussing matters by presenting and interrogating evidence. Crazy, huh? — Isaac

Is the evidence particular to a single event? Which is what we are discussing, whether a single person should refuse a vaccine. The area under the curve for a single event is zero by nature of the variable. The inability to predict idiosyncratic outcomes doesn't inform the decision, but does make for plenty of illusionary doubt. Or would you suggest that recommending others avoid a vaccine during a pandemic, because that is the decision made for oneself is morally responsible?

Incase anyone is wondering the composition of the wall they intend to bang their head against.
Take warning all ye that enter here

I don't believe the data supporting your claims is publicly available. I don't believe it's privately available. I have my doubts about it being transcendently available too... — Isaac

The figure I quoted was for one state in the US. I couldn't find any figures for the US as a whole - Cheshire was trying to claim (without any evidence) that the situation in the UK was not comparable in terms of the risk one took of putting pressure on hospital services compared to other lifestyle choices. — Isaac

I think this probably deserves at least two clarifications. The first being a general complaint that citing the conditions in England as evidence for conditions elsewhere is in principle a dubious approach to a data supported argument. The second is the increased marginal rate of patients is novel to a hyper transmittable virus making the argument that other conditions are equally as responsible for over loading a medical system misleading at best.

To make a lot of something fast requires many something makers.
— Cheshire
Does it? — Isaac

You asked why a large corporation is necessary for the production of a large quantity of vaccine in a short time frame; by implication of suggesting a vaccine is a proper response to a pandemic.

You brought it up. — Isaac

You did. It's essentially a child asking to mail his vegetables to Africa in regards to how it relates to this discussion.

I wish. — Isaac

Granted.

To a pandemic?
— Cheshire

Yes. — Isaac

Fin

And we'll have to use a business with access to vast resources.
— Cheshire
Why? — Isaac

But, that requires quick production of a vaccine. — Cheshire

To make a lot of something fast requires many something makers.

Pretty evil, yes. I'd call restricting access to a life-saving vaccine and thereby leading to thousands of deaths evil. The head of the WHO seems to agree likening it to "apartheid". Why, do you think that's just OK behaviour? — Isaac

This is a different thread.

I think vaccination is an excellent public policy response in general. — Isaac

To a pandemic? But, that requires quick production of a vaccine. If there's not enough data about something that was produced just recently; people will pretend it's deficient. And we'll have to use a business with access to vast resources. All of them are evil for some reason.

Besides, as Cheshire was so delighted to pretend I didn't say, I'm not suggesting a need to double normal capacity (though we could), increasing capacity is one of a number of things which need going, including better community healthcare, hygiene, lockdowns and vaccines. — Isaac

It turns out people have to actually take the vaccines.

Tell me why your quoting British figures and trying to tell me something.
— Cheshire
They're American figures there. Read first, comment second — Isaac

They weren't initially; nor is the one posted to support the claim. Which isn't quoted here.

Oh, and England in the 80s had double the hospital capacity we have now. It's not hard. — Isaac