You're right, I misread what you called "strange". I read it backwards, in fact, as 'processing can exist independent of its processor'. Yeah, there are examples (e.g. coma patients, chickens, fish) of mindless brains but, as far as I know, there aren't any examples of brainless minds. Infants & paraplegics have legs without walking just as there can be brains independent of minding. Why is that "strange"? — 180 Proof

Chickens and fish have minds, as they have brains and minds are what brains do, right? Jellyfish are an example of an organism that doesn't have a brain and therefore no mind, no? If not, then what is different between human and chicken brains such that one is minding and the other isn't?

A brain-dead brain may not have a mind as you think of it (do you really know what consciousness is?), but it still has information (and I assert that consciousness is just a type of information).

Brains are visual objects, or visual information of others mental processes. Believing that the world is as it appears visually is naive realism. Are you a naive realist?

Silently hum a note in your mind. Now duplicate that same frequency aloud. I think some readings of the Private Language argument would say this activity is nonsense because there's no way to tell if the note you hum is the same as the note in your mind.. — frank

Like colors, sounds only exist in the mind. The sound you hear when you hum and the "sound" you "hear silently humming" in your mind is a memory are the same. Just as the password stored in the computer's memory is the same as the stokes on the keyboard you type, or else you won't be able to get access to your data.

Physical states (or better, processes) like digestion do not necessarily involve conceptual thought, whereas mental processes just are conceptual thought processes. It amazes me that you seem to find this difficult to understand. — Janus

What about processes in the brain that do not involve conceptual thought? The information in your consciousness was processed in the brain before appearing in consciousness. Are those not mental processes?

I don't know what you are asking. I haven't said the body is "composed of both mental and non-mental states". The body is physically composed. I may have tendonitis, a physical condition, without knowing it. I know I have tendonitis, when it is demonstrated to me beyond reasonable doubt that I have it, just like I know anything else. — Janus

Then you're saying that mental states are physical states -mind is the brain and vice versa? How is does the non-mental process of tendonitis become a mental conceptual thought?

You're right, I misread what you called "strange". I read it backwards, in fact, as 'processing can exist independent of its processor'. Yeah, there are examples (e.g. coma patients, chickens, fish) of mindless brains but, as far as I know, there aren't any examples of brainless minds. Infants & paraplegics have legs without walking just as there can be brains independent of minding. Why is that "strange"? — 180 Proof

If a processor processes, when it doesn't process does it still make sense to call it a processor? Is a brain still a brain without the activity, or just a lump of matter that takes up space? What's the difference between a brain that doesn't think and a leg that can't move besides their shape? They are both just lumps of biological matter.

Strange. You seem to believe that a processor can exist independent of its processing.
— Harry Hindu
I do? Cite where I've given you that impression. — 180 Proof

Here:

The latter makes sense and the former does not. "Mind" is predicate (processing), "brain" is subject (processor) like e.g. walk and legs, respiration and lungs, respectively. Mind(ing) is what a brain does. — 180 Proof

You said the former does not make sense and the latter does. If the former does not make sense and the latter is not saying the same as the former, then what else could you be saying?

My "mind is not for rent to any god or government".
— Harry Hindu

Don't flatter yourself. ;-) — Wayfarer

"Though his mind is not for rent
Don't put him down as arrogant.
Always hopeful, yet discontent
He knows changes aren't permanent
But change is."
:cool:

Mental states', as the term is ordinarily used, refers to states of a person. I have no idea what you think big toes and pubic hair have to do with it. — Janus

Are not big toes and public hairs part of a person? Are mental states of a person the same as the physical states of a person? If not, what is the difference between them?

I have.... no clue what this means. What's a "non-mental bodily state"?
— khaled

Digestion, respiration, tendonitis, etc.,etc.,: the list is endless, — Janus

So the body is composed of both mental and non-mental states? How do they interact? For instance, how do you know you have tendonitis when you have it?

Empty in not containing any individuals - hence Noether's Theorem could not be proved. — Banno

WHAT is empty?

The point about the transcendent nature of 'God' is that we can't make an object out of it - there is no such object, and so no objective method to know about 'it'. — Wayfarer

The same can be said about leprechauns and ghosts, but we don't use terms like "transcendent" to describe those things, why?

But the point of practical spirituality is to 'know by not knowing' (again remeniscent of Socrates) - hence 'the cloud of unknowing'. 'The known must cease for the unknown to be', — Wayfarer

You'd have to know when you're in a state of "unknowing", hence you cannot ever escape a state of knowing, unless you're dead or unconscious.

Droves of atheists (and anti-theists) renunciate merely the social consequences of organized, religious structures - as opposed to the (indeterminate) metaphysical assertions, that the structures themselves declaim. — Aryamoy Mitra

Maybe we could say that the latter is atheism and the former is a-religion. There is also a-political. A-political would include all forms of political/social coercion, not just religion/theology. Politics is essentially a religion. Politics evolved from religion. They are both forms of Big Brother. I'm not just an atheist, but a-political. My "mind is not for rent to any god or government".

Firstly mental states are not identical to brain states; a state of happiness is a state of the person, not just a state of the brain — Janus

You're conflating mental states with states of a person? Mental states are brain states, just from a different perspective. Is your big toe and pubic hair included in this happiness that your taking about? We all know that the same thing looks different from different perspectives. Why would it be any different for brains - (observing a brain that is part of you vs observing a brain that is not part of you)?

I had no idea you're a mysterian too ... — 180 Proof

Strange. You seem to believe that a processor can exist independent of its processing.

I suppose it does. The God of the Old and New Testaments, Qur’an and many others differ greatly, and yet the atheist supposedly believes in none of them. Because of this, I reckon the atheist would need to account more generally, if that makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

The mono-theist believes in none of them, except just one. There is just as much evidence for one as there is for all the rest - none. The atheist is just being consistent.

Gorman positioneert zich nadrukkelijk als iemand met een natuurlijk bewustzijn van haar plek in de voortdurende strijd van zwart Amerika. — Johan Fretz

Het is dus flauw de critici huidskleurobsessie te verwijten, terwijl zij overduidelijk doelen op zeer specifieke ervaring en vakkennis van zwarte dichters in relatie tot Gormans werk. — Johan Fretz

Why are you making it about skin color?

What's the matter, Netherlands have too much white privilege to find an qualified candidate to translate a speech made by a black woman in Amerika?

voor wie de geschreven tekst zich voegt naar het ritme en de cadans van het gesproken woord. — Johan Fretz

LOL, the written word is read at the pace of the reader, not at the pace of the speaker that is being translated. "Spoken-word-artist"? Phhhah! Art is in the eye of the beholder.

But you upbraided synthesis for trying to be someone else: — Todd Martin

If synthesis is a follower, and I'm not, then telling them how to live their lives and how to think, and then they do just that, is what we both do and how we are both being ourselves. Leaders lead. Followers follow.

Your example goes straight to my point: a human being, unlike a cat, knows what he is, and, unlike a cat, often has issues with it. — Todd Martin

If someone asserts that they Elvis Presley reincarnated, are they really being Elvis Presley reincarnated, or just being delusional?

The latter makes sense and the former does not. "Mind" is predicate (processing), "brain" is subject (processor) like e.g. walk and legs, respiration and lungs, respectively. Mind(ing) is what a brain does. — 180 Proof

Yep. Mind is to brain as digestion is to guts. Digestion is not a single state of the gut, but what the gut does from teeth to arse hole. Digestion is not the very same thing as gut; mind is not the very same thing as brain. Mind is what the brain does. — Banno

The problem with this is that we can observe the guts digesting, we cannot observe the brain minding. It's only one or the other - we can observe a brain, or we can observe our own mind. Brains only appear in minds - as mental models of other people's minds. We never observe minds in brains, like we do digesting in guts. Brains and minds are the same thing, just from different perspectives. Thinking that it's brains that are really "out there" is naive realism.

You go on believing that my belief is about somebody else's belief, and that an obvious thing like being male or female must not be a topic of belief. — god must be atheist

That's what a social construction is - a SHARED belief, not an individual belief that contradicts the social construction. So is gender a social construction, or a personal inclination?

Harry HIndu, you completely misread my post. — god must be atheist

I was going to say the same about you and my posts.

Well, it isn't, if you read my post again. The people see their sex/gender. There is no belief, no mistake about it. They are repulsed by it. No belief, no mistake about it. — god must be atheist

What REASON would they be repulsed? Why are others not repulsed? It seems to me that it is a difference in beliefs about bodies.

What does “being yourself” mean? That presupposes you know who and what you really are. — Todd Martin

It's a silly question. Being yourself doesn't necessarily require knowledge of who you are. A cat does not know it's a cat, but has no issues being a cat. We are all outcomes of our genes and upbringing and are always being ourselves. It's just that some people (and cats) are followers and some are leaders.

never said that and again you're trying to make it about colour. — Benkei

No. I'm not. I'm asking why CNN and all the other sites are making it about color, and why you can't provide evidence to the contrary (because there isn't any).

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-03-22/amanda-gorman-hill-we-climb-translation-backlash-sparks-controversy?_amp=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/06/marieke-lucas-rijneveld-writes-poem-about-amanda-gorman-furore

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Yes. Stop watching TV and watching movies, as it's all propaganda. For some reason people want to be like the characters they see on TV and the movies, or be told how they should be the actors that play those characters, rather than just being themselves.

Think about religion and politics. It seems like most people need to look to others to give themselves purpose and meaning.

That is my preferred usage, too, but not everyone's. The point being that there is no correct usage, just convenience.

There are hermaphrodites and such physical variations; so the physical distinction is not so solid.

And, apparently, the traits that go with 'man' and 'woman' are also malleable.

Recognising variation is just being honest. Accepting someone's preference to be called "they" is common curtesy. — Banno

You seem perplexed, Banno. My point was that you are wrong on both counts. There is a correct usage but it has nothing to do with common courtesy. Science doesn't concern itself with common courtesy. It just calls it how it sees them.

I can comment on the US experience because I'm intimately familiar with its language and familiar with its culture and history because I read local, untranslated sources. — Benkei

Then any white person in America that knows Dutch should be able to translate it.

If you think that you would have even been considered to translate the speech, one look at your pale-white skin and you're automatically disqualified.

Have they found a replacement? With all those other names you provided you would think that they would have found a replacement by now. I still can't find any evidence of what your claiming. Other sites say they same thing - that it was about Rijneveld's skin color.

You don't know shit about the Netherlands and even on this narrow subject failed to get your facts straight, first by basing yourself on a few foreign news sources and then failing to know Rijneveld doesn't publish in English. — Benkei

Again, we're talking about events that happened in the US, not the Netherlands, that need to be translated into Dutch. So me knowing anything about the Netherlands is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Netherlands seems to be having a tough time finding someone that can translate the spoken word of a black American.

It wasn't MY facts. It was CNNs, which you claimed to be incomplete, not wrong. (Then Trump was correct when he called CNN "Fake News"?) So all your other qualifiers that you claim Rijneveld doesn't have are irrelevant because if you don't have dark skin, all those other qualifications mean zilch.

I believe that there are people who are truly repulsed by their own body, due to their sexual characteristics. This makes them reject their own sexual nature, and identify with its opposite, or with an alternative. — god must be atheist

I never denied that people believe certain things. I'm questioning the validity of their belief, just as you question the validity that I'm a Dark Sith Lord, and just as you question the validity of the belief that an anorexic person believing that they are fat. Again, what makes sex/gender so special that claims or beliefs about one's sex/gender are just accepted without question when they contradict observations? Seems to me that the West has a sex/gender identity fetish.

That, at the very least, would require the person doing the translating being better at English than average. — Benkei

Then I could translate Gormans speech using Google Translate.

That said, I'm obviously less qualified to comment on such experience than other Americans, but more qualified to comment on it than you do on the Netherlands. — Benkei

We're not talking about an event that happened in the Netherlands. We taking about an event that happened in America that is translated to other languages, not just Dutch, dumb-ass.

I don't understand how your mind works, Harry. THis seems to me to be a non sequitur. — Banno

It's not a non sequitur. It's a question asking you how you reconcile your own contradictory statement.

I also asked you to address me as "My Master". I'm deeply offended that you won't address me as common courtesy dictates.

For someone who pretends to be colour blind, you're really hung up on making this about colour. — Benkei

Try again. I'm asking why CNN and Gorman is making it about color.

I can read English and read local sources. How's your Dutch? Yeah? Thought so. That's why I can accurately comment about the US and you can't about the Netherlands — Benkei

Would you be able to successfully translate Gormans speech then? If not, then who and why, and does that not mean that English-speaking non-blacks hearing the speech directly from Gormans mouth before the Super Bowl were not able to understand the words?

I can use Google Translate. All I'm asking is for a link supporting your assertions. Saying that the CNN article is not complete requires evidence. Please forgive me if I don't take your emotional outbursts and name-calling as evidence. Instead I see your inability to answer direct questions as evidence that your are simply intellectually dishonest.

You may be able to read Englush, but according to you that still isn't enough to know the American experience. Look at how you contradict yourself with every post.

I haven't insisted on anything except evidence for your assertions and for you to address my questions. You being Dutch isn't enough, especially if your going to question my knowledge of American current events when in American. You keep contradicting yourself and avoiding questions.

You keep avoiding the question. Yet the article mentions none of that and only focuses on their skin color as the only reason they were not a good choice to translate the speech. Why do you think that is? I've provided a link that provides the information of what we are taking about. You havent provided anything to back up your assertions. Where are you getting your information? What is the black emancipation movement and if a non-blacks person are incapable of understanding it, then why translate it in the first place?

And if non-blacks can't understand the black experience then how can a man understand the female experience to assert that he is a she? Wait. Let pop some popcorn because watching you perform your mental gymnastics is entertaining.

What's a non-binary? Neither male nor female I suppose. My hunch is that there's a lot that's involved in gender determination and as we all know that translates to more ways for things to go wrong and I don't mean that in a disparaging way against any of the myriad gender identities that are around. — TheMadFool

Great question. It seem obvious to me that there are people that can identify as something that they are not. What makes sex/gender so special that people that identify as something that they are not and then their assertions simply accepted without question? Take, for example, my assertion above that I am a Dark Sith Lord. Why do you question my self-identification, but not a man who says that they are not a man, but something else?

Male and female are the physical distinction, it’s man and woman that are the social abstraction therefrom. — Pfhorrest

Does this mean that "doe" and "buck", and "queen" and "drone" are social distinctions? Biology points to morphological, physiological and behavioral differences of not just male and female but between humans and deer and bees. "Man" and "woman" are terms that refer to both sex and species whereas "male" and "female" point to just the sex.

Says...? That is my preferred usage, too, but not everyone's. The point being that there is no correct usage, just convenience.

There are hermaphrodites and such physical variations; so the physical distinction is not so solid.

And, apparently, the traits that go with 'man' and 'woman' are also malleable.

Recognising variation is just being honest. Accepting someone's preference to be called "they" is common curtesy. — Banno

Which is it? Is there no correct usage, or does common curtesy determine correct usage?

I identify as a Dark Sith Lord and it would be common curtesy to address me as I would like. From now on, you can address me as "My Master".

It's materialist to judge people by their appearance. — frank

I don't know what materialism has to do with it. An idealist can judge by appearances as well. We all judge by appearances. Some people judge and identify by skin color only (shallow, surface-level thinkers). Others judge and identify by behaviors (deeper and more thoughtful thinkers that judge by the content of one's character). Which one are you, Frank?

Having trouble reading again I see. I'm talking about experience and knowledge of "black emancipation", "spoken word" and the "English language". Rijneveld is a writer who has written poems but doesnt perform, has zero experience as a spoken word artist, hasn't studied the English language or literature, isn't bilingual, isn't versed in US sociology or politics let alone the black emancipation movement. She's entirely unqualified to do this.

So your reply is totally idiotic. — Benkei

Who are you talking about? The Dutch writer is white and non-binary. They won the International Booker Prize in 2020. For more than 50 years, the Booker Prize has recognized outstanding fiction in the English-speaking world and is considered one of the top literary awards. The article is about how the Dutch writer is unqualified because they are white and doesn't mention any other reason other than that. So who is it that is having trouble reading again?

What is the point in asserting your greivances if the people you are addressing are incapable of understanding you? Every human being has to overcome adversity in some form or another. Every human being understands what it means to have to overcome adversity.

How far do we go when it comes to understanding others that are different than us?

Does this mean that atheists could never understand theists and vice versa? I was once a theist. I am an atheist BECAUSE I have come to understand religions and theism. I have asked for "white privilige" and "systemic racism" to be defined and to point out specifically who is participating in it and perpetuating it and I receive no concrete answers, just like when I ask a theist to define their god. So, until you are able to clearly define your religion, Benkei, I have no reason to believe it myself.

Some issues here.

1. We have black, female, bilingual, spoken word artists familiar with black emancipation in the US in the Netherlands, hell, we have bilingual spoken word artists that would presumably have a better understanding of the medium at least, none of them were approached;
2. Publisher knew this so there was a team of sensitivity readers set up because this translator's knowledge and grasp of the English language are mediocre at best;

The criticism was primarily about experience and knowledge of the translator. — Benkei

LOL. So you, as a white person, Benkei, can speak to what it is like to have owned slaves and what its like to have to let them go because your side lost the war? Can the descendents of northerners speak to what it was like trying to free slaves and the risks that they were taking? No black person alive today can speak to the experience of being a slave that was emancipated. And it can also be said that every person alive today had ancestors that were enslaved or oppressed in some way. Your argument just fell flat on its head.

Absolutely. Maybe you haven't heard: Humans share over 99% of their DNA. Focusing on the small differences, which are just surface level, just shows how shallow you are.

STFD and stop projecting. — 180 Proof

You're the biggest racist on these forums, 180.

if women ruled the world, would they allow a Man's Day?
— Harry Hindu

There is already, as mentioned above. — Amity

That wasn't what I asked. I was asking a hypothetical question. If you aren't going to pay attention to what I actually said and respond to what I actually said, then don't bother responding at all. These racist tactics are tiresome. If women or blacks were the ones in power, would we have White History month?

This is based on fear of losing power and control.

Having a Whiteness Day could inform rather than create further division.
Understanding the history of whiteness - the organisations to ensure dominance: — Amity

Again, if blacks were in power and whites started celebrating White History, would the blacks feel like their power is threatenend?

The point of my post was that if it is good or bad for one group to do, then it good or bad for all groups to do. Blacks are human beings just like whites, and any moral obligations that one group is beholden to, the other group should be as well. Not having the same moral expectations of one group that you have of the other is racist.

It's strange to say that everyday the US had a black president, it is still White History month every day. We don't have White History books. The history books in schools include the contributions from blacks and whites. World History books are a history of all peoples. So I am failing to see where White History is being celebrated and taught in our schools. There is no official part of our society that is designated as only white, yet plenty of places designated as only black. So your argument just doesn't hold any water when you actually try to reconcile what you said with what we observe.

Probably to call attention to the fact that the status quo is "Man's Day" every day all year long except(?) "Woman's Day". A symbolic form a protest to prick the cultural conscience (and maybe even rattle some political cages around the globe) ... like "Black History Month" in the US (which is manifestly white history month every day). — 180 Proof

Yet White History month and Man's day aren't officially recognized days while the others are. You sound like someone that is simply angry at the world for spawning you in a environment where there happen to more people that have a different skin color than you. Considering that the US is mostly white, it is no surprise that most of the people recognized will be white. The same goes in China and Africa - the majority race will be the one that is recognized the most. It seems to me that you are trying to impose minority rule of the majority. Why do I get the feeling that if the roles were reversed and blacks were the predominant race in the US, that we would never get a White History month, or that if women ruled the world, would they allow a Man's Day?

I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.

Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).

The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse

What does any of this actually mean, or how is it useful? What does it mean for the parts or the whole to be primary? What would the differences imply?

By saying one is primary, you seem to be projecting some sort of preference, or value of parts over wholes or vice versa, but preferences and values only exist in your mind and are not qualities of parts, nor wholes. Primary and secondary are ideas in the mind based on relevance, not properties of wholes or parts.

Parts or the whole is relevent to whatever goal is in the mind at some moment. So the answer is, parts or wholes are primary or not depending on what your goal is at any moment. Is your goal to tell time or to fix the watch? The whole is primary for the former, while the parts are primary for the latter.

I agree with that. — Olivier5

Great. So the problem of the "privacy" of one's experience is shattered when you understand that causation carries information about your "private" experiences. Just like everything else in the world, you know enough about that thing (person), you can understand how they work (think) and predict their behaviors.

What should be done is only known after you do something. Is what you did what you should have done or shouldn't have done? What if that baby grows up to be the next Hitler or Stalin?