Good questions. Wiki claims it was late 17th century for the term modern use of white, but I suppose you would want a more substantial source.

Also, what meaning is given to calling someone "Asian". It's a vast continent. What does a Mongolian have in common with a Pakistani, besides being human? Europe is just smaller, and it doesn't have a major desert separating populations like Africa does. But it's notable to consider how the British Isles have had their own ethnic struggles amongst the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish, just in that little small area. There was certainly a time when they didn't all consider themselves to belong to the same race.

Postmodernism alert! — Thorongil

Well, some things are "socially constructed". Maybe there is a better way of saying it. How about, people have considered themselves and others to belong to varying groups over time, and being white is no exception to this. In the European past, it could have been Roman, or Spartan, or Scottish, or Jewish (which isn't always accepted as white).

So Romans considered various non-Roman groups to be barbarians. Jews called the non-Jewish Gentile. Various Germanic tribes would have had their own naming for the other. The point is that all of this made up by culture. Who is part of a group and who is an outsider, and how you think about that outsider, whether they are to be feared or conquered, or treated as savages.

People were white before and after slavery, and being white isn't defined in terms of being evil. — The Great Whatever

There was no such thing as being "white" or being "black" before a certain time. There were various ethnic groups competing and sometimes allying with one another. They didn't consider themselves to be all one race.

And anyway, unless you are an albino, nobody actually has white skin. So it's a false categorization to begin with.

Yes, Europeans are different from each other, but they are more different from Africans. — The Great Whatever

Particularly with the Neanderthal genes, but at any rate, the history of being in the white or black race is one of slavery and then deep discrimination, so it's something a bit more than just noticing that people descendended from different geographic locations tending to look different. Also, it includes a history of which Europeans groups got to be considered white, and which weren't, depending on the time period.

I mean, you understand that people who originate from different parts of the world look different, right? — The Great Whatever

You mean like how Northern Europeans look different than Southern Europeans? What about red head, freckled Irish people with their light skin? Are they more white than someone from Romania?

Yes Europeans are made up of many ethnic groups, but each of these are more closely related than sub-Saharan African ethnic subgroups, and so on — The Great Whatever

Yes, but why lump them into one category called "white", "black" or "red"? The reason this happend is because of racism during the colonial era to justify the economics of slavery, and driving natives off their land.

]There's some serious metaphysical juju going on in trying to transmogrify your very genes into pure evil."

Which I never said. I stated that being white or black (or Asian, etc) is a social construction.

Europeans are made up of many ethnic groups, just as Africans are. The idea of a single white race to which various ethnic groups may or may not be included in is based on a history of thinking there were superior and inferior groups of humanity based on some racial characteristics, with skin color being predominant.

So do we consider Persians to be white? They're not European, but they don't identify as Arabs. What about Aborigines? Are they black? South Asians with very dark skin, what are they?

But the idea of being white was invented to justify colonialism and slavery. Before that, people were French, German, English, Polish, etc.

Some argue that the notion of whiteness is itself racist and privileged, and that the solution to racism (at least in the West), is to abolish "whiteness" (blackness is tied to the definition of whiteness).

This doesn't mean that the people we currently identify as "white" don't get to participate in their unique ethnicity, unlike everyone else. It just means that we stop treating people descended from a continent as belonging to one race, be it white, black or otherwise.

The insight being -- it's not that the trick of remembering good times is especially good. It's that the practice of philosophy is so good that all you need is a simple mental trick to endure any pain. — Moliere

Sounds like bullshit, with all due respect to Epicurus. But, some people are more disciplined in what they can endure. I'm skeptical that any kind of suffering can be endured in such a fashion.

Sociopaths certainly exist. I wasn't aware that psychology denied this. But it is on a continuum, as has been pointed out. Most sociopaths aren't serial killers, where the term "psychopath" probably came from. And the majority aren't anti-social. What they are is different, emotionally, but varying by degree. They tend to be cold and calculating, instead of empathic. But they're good at faking it. This does have advantages in some arenas. The disadvantages to others is when a sociopath is manipulative and exploitative. They can use their superficial charm and lack of empathy to fool others for personal gain or for the fun of it.

This is different from being a jerk. The truth is we all probably have a bit it of sociopathy at times, just like we can all be a bit narcissistic. And that's probably healthy, because you wouldn't be able to function if you were always feeling altruistic.

I find it hard to believe that Hillary could or would let down - and even damage - the left to the extent that Obama did. — photographer

LOL. What makes a Clinton that much different than Obama? Please.

And

Hillary hate is misogyny, pure and simple: — photographer

Or maybe some people just don't like here as a presidential candidate. There's no such thing as pure and simple when it comes to human motives.

Interesting. Lakoff and Johnson wrote a book called Philosophy in the Flesh in which they see the bewitchment of language for philosophers as one of taking metaphor literally, or failing to recognize how much of our thinking is based on metaphor.

They probably go a bit overboard with that, but it does make me wonder what it really means to understand. Do we primarily understand the world by creating all sorts of metaphors? If so, then the majority of our understanding is non-literal. It's more noticing similarities between different domains and using that to 'grasp' concepts in a new way.

If the word "horse" denotes properties A, B, and C (or the things that have them) then to be a horse is to have properties A, B, and C. I can't make sense of it any other way. — Michael

But horses had properties A, B, and C before we called them horses. And that's why we know them as horses and not rabbits or any other animal.

Just to be clear, what you're arguing is that meaning has nothing whatsoever to do with things themselves. Before there was any words for horses, there was no horse meaning, although those animals still existed. And if we decided to change all our horse language to talk about rabbits instead, then there would no longer be any horse meaning.

Although, there would still be horses, just not as we understand. Those animals would be incomprehensible to us.

If they don't, then why are talking about horses being equine animals, regardless of whether we decide to use the word "horse" differently at some future date?

The fact that we use the terms "bachelor" and "unmarried man" to refer to the same sort of thing. — Michael

And the thing being referred to is non-linguistic. Tying this back to the Chinese Room argument, Searle's contention was that correctly outputting the right word in a given situation is not meaningful, because meaning is in the reference (to horses, rabbits, unmarried men). Meaning is about something, not when to use a symbol.

Consider that it's perfectly possible to say the right word in a conversation without knowing what it means. A person can fake knowing what a word means. So can a machine.

To be a horse is to be an equine animal only because we use the word "horse" to refer to equine animals. — Michael

No, you're mixing up the meaning with the word being used.

No, you do understand. — Michael

So when I output "horse" instead of "rabbit" at T2, not knowing a word of English, what do I mean? Do I somehow manage to mean rabbit? How?

So you agree that if I am Chinese speaker trained to output "horse" when I see "rabbit" in the appropriate situation (T2), that neither I nor the system understand the meaning of "horse" or "rabbit".

The meaning is horse, not the words "horse" or "rabbit".

So you agree that horses is what gives meaning to how we use the word "horses".

That what it means to be X depends on how we use the word "X". — Michael

But we use the word "horse" to refer to animals with certain properties, and that's where the meaning comes from. The meaning of "horses" is horses. And if we decide to use "rabbit" in the future, it will also mean horses.

It's a counterfactual argument. I'm certainly not trying to conclude that rabbits are horses. — Michael

Right, but what exactly are you trying to claim? That the meaning of rabbits or horses is contained in the word we use, such that if we use another word instead, the meaning changes?

So you agree that "rabbit" means those furry creatures with big ears, and not equines, even if we decide to use the word "horse" instead.

We can change the word "horse" such that it's a synonym for "rabbit", which means those furry creatures with big ears, regardless of what we want to call them.

We didn't change the meaning of gay, we changed the way we used the word, "gay", such that it means homosexual now. The meaning is not the in the word.

I'm saying that if we use the word "equine" to refer to horses then to be an equine is to be a horse and if we use the word "equine" to refer to rabbits then to be an equine is to be a rabbit — Michael

The word used changes, but a horse is a horse, of course. The meaning of horse remains the same. We don't mean that rabbits are now horses. We mean that horses are horses.

I think it needs to be stated the other way round; "horsexual" means "gay". So what's the problem? — Michael

Gay already means something, so I picked a meaningless word to transition to. Then you can see that meaning doesn't change when the word changes.

That depends on if we're using the word "gay" to refer to rabbits or if we're predicating homosexuality of horses. It's not clear what you're trying to sau. — Michael

I was aiming for humor there, because the conversation was starting to make me to laugh.

But I do mean gay, because "gay" now means "homosexual", and I mean "homosexual". — Michael

So let's invent a new word called horsexual, and let's say that gay now means "horsexual". Now what?

And if we coin a new word "horse" that means "rabbit" it follows that rabbits were already horses. — Michael

And if we say that rabbits were gay, we mean that horses are homosexual, right?

Just as now I call a homosexual "gay", and I still mean gay -- because "gay" means "homosexual". — Michael

You don't still mean happy, you mean homosexual now. So you don't still mean "gay".

Only according to the current meaning of "horse". But I've changed it. You might as well say that if so-and-so was gay then he'd be carefree and happy. — Michael

You haven't changed the meaning of "horse". You've exchanged the word for another. Now you call a "horse" a "rabbit", but you still mean horse.

A horse by any other name.

U. G. Krishnamurti - Mind Is a Myth — The Great Whatever

Whoa, I went and read some of that. Pretty extreme stuff. Would make for an interesting conversation.

The best and the worst.

I think C. S. Lewis wrote a story in which hell was a rather dreary, dark, dusty city absent of any feeling. — Bitter Crank

He also wrote a story of purgatory or temporary hell where everyone was completely self-absorbed or caught up in whatever issue. They still had a chance to leave and take the bus to heaven, but they wouldn't because they were unwilling to get over themselves, or whatever jealousy or hate they were clinging too.

Hell is easier to imagine than a heaven of blessedness, for some reason. — Bitter Crank

Because sometimes it feels like we're already there? And heavenly bliss is a more fleeting state.

This feels like a faulty analogy as well. The manipulation of a chess board to produce legal moves would include rules about situational moves implicit with an understanding of the object of the game (e.g., what to do when in check). In this case, we are making an intuitive judgement that knowing all the legal moves is insufficient to produce an understanding of the game, but we are doing so from a state of ignorance. The scope of knowing ALL the legal moves might in fact entail an understanding of the object of the game. — Soylent

Google had their DeepMind machine learning software learn various Atari 2600 games. For some of them, it excelled. But it struggled with others. It scored a zero on Montezuma's Revenge, because the score doesn't change unless you're able to navigate across a room with obstacles and get the key. DeepMind has no understanding of objects in any of the games. It only knows pixels and the score, which it's trying to maximize. To do well in this game, you need to know that the key is something to aim for. Any human would quickly figure that out.

But admittedly, that is different than a chess playing program. Humans labored to program chess software to play the game. It didn't learn how.