There are certainly anecdotal occurrences like this, but it doesn't change what I wrote. Japanese Americans aren't mostly attacking Whites for the internments. Blacks aren't mostly attacking Whites for their outrageous and still terrible treatment of them, and Native Americans arent' mostly spending their time attacking them for the holocaust White Americans and the White American US governments levied on them.
— Thanatos Sand

If you'd actually read my post and noticed I'd said "aren't mostly" in every case, you could have avoided wasting your time. If POC hadn't mostly forgiven us, Whites wouldn't mostly be living and working peacefully with them today. We are.

Also, I didn't vilify Whites in any way. Vilification is misrepresentation; I misrepresented nothing. The fact you say I did, really compromises your post. Also, the fact you focus on POC "vilification" of Whites and not a rise of vilification in POC by Whites shows a troubling bias in your post. Lord knows, Whites still greatly demonize or dehumanize POC.

And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does.

If theres an environmental aspect to Gayness that can make one Gay, there has to be one that can make one straight, but theres neither. Gay people mostly come out and mostly have come out of predominantly Straight communities and most of the children raised by Gay parents have turned out straight.

As to the Black White supremacist, you'll have to ask someone else. I've never heard of such thing
— Thanatos Sand

But why?

You say you've never heard of it yourself, so your question is ridiculous.

from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
— Charles Darwin

If Darwin is right, this form too should've evolved. There's nothing impossible about it. There are whites who fight for blacks. So, the converse should be there.

Except your problem, and its a racist one, is you see Whites fighting for equality and human rights for Blacks as "Black supremacists." They are not and that's an ugly notion. So, is your notion that a Black person fighting for rights for particular Whties--like poor or Gay Whites--would be "Black White supremacists". Again, that's not only nonsensical; it's offensive.

Much as I don't like Sand's posturing, I think there is a logical gap here. A child has memories of being a mechanic; therefore the child has the same soul as the mechanic.

But memories are not soul.

I did no posturing, only cogent argument with the occasional appropriate repartee.

Cool man. Thanks for the clarification.

The one who needs to take it easy is you. I never said you tried to "pick a fight" with me or to bully me. But you did get argumentative here:

I don't intend to argue Saussure with you.

It's certainly not standard convention; so you cant' impose it on others. If it was, people would have to always write in scare quotes to signify they are signifying the actual signified. Not only would that be unwieldy, it is not how we write in English. Its' certainly not how we teach people to write in English departments.
— Thanatos Sand

Well a convention is not something one imposes -- do as you like. I'm just telling you it's been standard practice in Anglo-American philosophy for more than a few generations now. Indeed, we do always use quotation marks when we want to signify the signifier. You get used to it.

It's certainly something one imposes when you and Michael try to erroneously argue its legitimacy. If you didn't want to impose it; you shouldn't have entered the conversation as a third party defending it. And, indeed, we don't always use quotations when we want to signify the signifier. The fact your post I re-posted used none helps prove it. So, it's not something one should get used to.

I don't intend to argue Saussure with you.

Youre' certainly taking an argumentative tone in your statement, particularly since I was never arguing Saussure; I just explained his ideas for you. So, relax.

It's been too long since I read Saussure, so I'm not sure what separating involves here and if that's what Michael and I think we're doing.

I might even agree that quotation marks are not the ideal way to do this, but in our circle it's the standard way of talking about a name (I'm speaking loosely here) instead of the name's bearer. Like I said, it's just a convention in our crowd (but evidently not yours) -- we could refer to Michael's name as <Michael> or Michael-name or Name(Michael) or whatever.

It's certainly not standard convention; so you cant' impose it on others. If it was, people would have to always write in scare quotes to signify they are signifying the actual signified. Not only would that be unwieldy, it is not how we write in English. Its' certainly not how we teach people to write in English departments.

As to Saussure, he correctly points out all words only signify other words that give it meaning; they are not tethered to objects.

I got ya.

↪Thanatos Sand
It's a convention. We can talk about a thing by using its name; if we want to talk about the thing's name instead of the thing itself, we put the name in quotation marks. (Talking about the thing by using its name we call "use"; talking about the thing's name by putting the name in quotation marks, we call "mention.")

What you and Michael don't get, and what Saussure demonstrated very well, is that the thing and the things's name can't be separated as long as you are using the same word, quotations or no.

Thus Michael's name is "Michael," but Michael is not Michael's name, for the obvious reason that things are not identical with their names.

I know that, but that's not what Michael said. He said "I am Michael, and I am not a word so Michael is not a word," which was wrong in many ways.

Quotation marks just have multiple uses, and this is one of them. — Srap Tasmaner

Quotation marks just have multiple uses, and this is one of them.

They do have many uses. That Is an incorrect use of them.

If you don't like the convention, you're free to ignore it, but it makes it more difficult to distinguish when you're talking about Michael from when you're talking about his name.

You were free to ignore our discussion, but chose to enter and make your erroneous statements. We were discussing the validity of that "convention" and I showed how it is incorrect. You are free to ignore his statement too if you don't like it.

Thanks for proving my point. All those things you mentioned are still words. And the fact you think copper, Michael, and red contain no letters is very sad.

So, no, that blurb did not contradict it.

You continue to conflate use and mention.

No, I don't, you just continue to set up a false separation of them in your misunderstanding of words. Michael is a word, and it's cute you think it isn't. And that blurb you quoted doesn't contradict it at all.

It's absurd to think it's not.

You tried to do it right here, and that was wrong. Michael is still a word:

↪Thanatos Sand

I am Michael. I am not a word. Therefore, Michael is not a word.

Sorry, now you're trying to flip it around. You were trying to say Michael isnt' a word because you're Michael. And it's still a word. And it is absurd you said you were a word, so you should stop saying it.

↪Thanatos Sand

I am Michael. I am not a word. Therefore, Michael is not a word.

Of course you did. You wrote that and those are all words, including the Michaels.

↪Thanatos Sand

I am Michael. I am not a word. Therefore, Michael is not a word.

You just said you're a word when you used the word Michael to write "I am Michael." Try to avoid contradicting yourself.

No, I don't. And it's astonishing you think Red is not a word and "red" isn't a color. That makes no sense at all.
— Thanatos Sand

It makes sense if you understand the distinction between use and mention. So if it doesn't make sense to you then you don't understand the distinction. There is one. It's astonishing to think that you don't see it.

No it doesn't because the distinction between use and mention you apply to these words is a false one you fail to support. So, it's not astonishing I don't see it. But keep on saying red isn't a word. That's adorable.

↪Thanatos Sand You conflate use and mention.

Red is a colour, not a word, and "red" is a word, not a colour.

No, I don't. And it's astonishing you think Red is not a word and "red" isn't a color. That makes no sense at all.

That doesn't mean that "correspondence" and correspondence are any different in semantics in their expressions themselves. They need further elaboration for that. But feel free to show how they're different without elaborating beyond the expressions themselves. You can't.
— Thanatos Sand

Well, "correspondence" is a 14-letter word whereas correspondence is a close similarity, connection, or equivalence between two or more things (or communication by exchange of letters).

Just as "red" is a 3-letter word whereas red is a colour. And just as "Michael" is 7-letter name whereas Michael likes to talk about himself in the third-person.

Sorry, none of that disputes what I said about the semantics involved. Your definition of correspondence could well apply to "correspondence." So, you fail there.

And "red" and red are both colors and both are 3-letter words. Same applies to what you said about your "Michaels." So, you fail there, too.

True. I can't explain how a single word has two senses without first explaining one sense and then explaining the other. So, for example, 'leg' can be used to include tails or it can be used correctly to exclude tails. "Correspondence" can be used to mean what correspondence usually means; or it can be used to mean anything you like in order to shore up a theory that thought and belief are all correspondence. That was the original complaint by another poster. It's worth thinking about even if you don't agree with it.

This doesn't counter or address what I said in any way. I do appreciate the attempt, though.

I won't actively participate in this thread, but I wanted to throw this into the mix: There has been historic slavery of white people. For some reason this gets ignored in favour of a narrative where white people are always and only the oppressors. Anyway, it's something for you to Google.

Oh boy....the "whites were slaves, too" narrative so popular among White supremacists.

Identity politics has IMO contributed quite a bit to this phenomena of increased racial antagonisms. In fact, during the US presidential election I heard many a Democrat express absolute joy at the coming demise of the political power and influence of white middle and lower class voters. They often made no attempt to conceal the one group they do not represent, i.e. older white men, by conspicuously failing to mention them among those they do represent: blacks, Latinos, young people, women, etc. Reminds me of Carl Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction (as I understand it) as constituting the essence of politics.

There are certainly anecdotal occurrences like this, but it doesn't change what I wrote. Japanese Americans aren't mostly attacking Whites for the internments. Blacks aren't mostly attacking Whites for their outrageous and still terrible treatment of them, and Native Americans arent' mostly spending their time attacking them for the holocaust White Americans and the White American US governments levied on them.

And the fact Blacks, and Native Americans, and Latinos, and the Japanese Americans have forgiven Whites and, for the most part, do not hold it against us for what our ancestors did and some of us still do, shows Blacks and other POC have shown great sympathy towards us.
— Thanatos Sand

Not sure if this is the case. There's a ton of racial resentment--admittedly on 'both' sides these days--based upon historical grievances.

This is the case. And the fact there is racial resentment--mostly deserved, some undeserved--doesnt' change that fact.

Anyway, we could wiggle and jiggle until the whole thing becomes pro-something BUT that doesn't change the fact that fighting for the enemy doesn't amount to treachery.

Sorry, I did no "wiggling and jiggling" and the Blacks were never the White's enemy; we just made them our victims.

As to the Black White supremacist, you'll have to ask someone else. I've never heard of such thing.

The inquiry is legitmate because the opposite is true. We have white people who are anti-white by supporting racial equality.

Ridiculous. White people are not anti-White by supporting racial equality; they are pro-equality and anti-racism.

I understand who is the victim and who the perp. I don't want to downplay the great struggle of black people but it's a fact that racism has been purged from the political sphere, at least in spirit. This is an achievement. May be it didn't trickle down to the people, their attitudes and behavior, but it is illegal to discriminate by race.

It is not a fact that racism has been purged from the political sphere, and you haven't shown it has. The fact unarmed Black adults and children are still being rampantly killed by police, who represent the government, proves it hasn't. And whether or not it is illegal to discriminate by race, many industries do and are not punished for it.

And I have no idea if there a Black White supremacist. Why do you ask?

Racism isn't a thing of the past. Look at all the unarmed Black men and children shot and killed by White policepeople. Also, there is still inordinate hiring in Tech firms and other industries where POC are a great minority, particularly in the boardroom. And there were also really ugly racist comments and signs made by members of the Tea Party and other people on the Far Right about Obama during his presidency

And without the help of White people there wouldn't have been racism against Blacks. Whites held, raped, and killed the slaves. Whites lynched and terrorized Blacks in the South and North, and Whites set rules of segregation and Jim Crow. So, Whites can hardly hang their heads high for ending racism when they were the major spreaders of and participants in it in the US.

And the fact Blacks, and Native Americans, and Latinos, and the Japanese Americans have forgiven Whites and, for the most part, do not hold it against us for what our ancestors did and some of us still do, shows Blacks and other POC have shown great sympathy towards us.

Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question?
— Thanatos Sand

I started with a question as a preamble, then proceeded with a reply to your question. We can validly assume the existence of something without being capable of answering the questions concerning that thing, which you ask. And I provided an example, gravity. Your questions are irrelevant to the point I was making.

Actually, you didn't reply to my question, and your statement there and here are both irrelevant to my statement I made.

And my questions were very relevant to the incorrect, erroneous point you were making. in fact, they showed your point you were making was wrong. Here they are again:

Do you understand there is no substantial evidence a soul exists, so you have to establish or at least substantially establish that it does before accounting for how it behaves? Do you understand trying to ascertain how it must behave before doing so is particularly illogical? Do you also understand Gravity is something that can be shown to exist in the natural world while souls are not? Do you realize you never actually addressed my statement above, but just responded with a question?

No need to answer them. As I pointed out, they're rhetorical questions showing how wrong you've been.

So it seems the general consensus is that philosophy as a whole (including logic) is NOT considered science, not even related. Though at one time it was closely linked. But science can have its own philosophy(s). Comments?

No, philosophy never has been, isn't, and never will be a science, although analytic philosophers and analytic philosophy department heads have worked hard to make it so and accepted as such. Philosophy's beauty is it is rigorous thought about the areas--e.g. aesthetics and ethics-that science can never provide ample answers or even thoughtful commentary on. Science can have its own philosophy as any discipline, and many pursuits, such as Chess, Economics, and haute cuisine can have. But that is not indicative of philosophy being a science.

[quoteHe did follow all the standard scientific protocols in his work, but, as is well known, prejudice will trump science any day of the week. ][/quote]

Right, he followed all the "scientific protocols" to prove past lives. There are no scientific protocols for proving past lives because there is no science for it. As is well, known, gullible foolishness will try to trump science any day of the week.

P.s. Feel free to print any examples of him following any of those "scientific protocols." I do love comedy.

If anyone thinks that reincarnation requires souls, then I'll remind you that millennia of Buddhists didn't and don't think so.

As I've said in a previous post here, I suggest that reincarnation doesn't require anything inconsistent with Skepticism, which doesn't assume anything.

If reincarnation doesn't require souls, the person arguing for its existence needs to assert what it does require. And reincarnation is very inconsistent with skepticism, which may not assume anything but doesn't accept unsupported claims. And claims of reincarnation are all unsupported.

The article I referred to earlier was a blog post in Scientific American.

I'm sorry, a "blog post" in Scientific American isnt' scientific documentation of anything. Try again.

There are quite a few books by Stevenson on Amazon - but no need to bother reading them, you already know what's in them, right?

Again, a few books by a guy named Stevenson isn't scientific documentation of anything. There are books on the Chupacabra, bigfoot, and alien abductions. But no need reading them, you already know what's in them, right?...:)

In any case, for the interested reader, the point about these particular cases, is that there is 'empirical evidence', namely, children who tell these stories.

There are people who tell stories about talking to God and being abducted by aliens, too. Those don't constitute scientific or sufficient evidence either. If you think they do, you're in trouble.

When you show me actual scientific documentation of past lives...:)

And thanks for showing you couldn't address what I wrote here:

They may be different topics but they are equally ridiculous, unprovable claims. And different claims of talking to God or Satan can be unscientifically "cross-checked" just like claims of past lives. In each cases all you have are: insupportable claims.

And there has been "considerable documentation" of claims of talking to God or Satan just as there have been claims of past lives. Never have those past lives been proven. So it is as supportable and logical to dismiss claims of past lives out of hand as it is to dismiss claims of talking to God or Satan out of hand...as you do, quite hypocritically.

Research on 'children who claim to remember a previous life', is a different topic to 'people who claim to talk to God or Satan'. This is because such claims can be cross-checked against other sources, so as to ascertain whether there was a such a person, who lived and died in the circumstances the child alleges. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is considerable documentation of such cases; anyone may dispute it, but dismissing it out of hand is something else.

They may be different topics but they are equally ridiculous, unprovable claims. And different claims of talking to God or Satan can be unscientifically "cross-checked" just like claims of past lives. In each cases all you have are: insupportable claims.

And there has been "considerable documentation" of claims of talking to God or Satan just as there have been claims of past lives. Never have those past lives been proven. So it is as supportable and logical to dismiss claims of past lives out of hand as it is to dismiss claims of talking to God or Satan out of hand...as you do, quite hypocritically.

By the way, there is "considerable documentation" of chupacabras and aliens impregnating women, too. You must believe in those as well.

Nope, I don't have to know the research to know it's not true. That's clear.

You don't know anything about the research on people claiming to be God or Satan. So, using your flawed logic, you must believe those people's claims are true. Cute.

Have you read anything about this research? Of are you saying that, purely because you know it's impossible that such research could reveal anything, because you class it with 'talking to God and Satan'. In other words, are you expressing an informed opinion, or simple prejudice?

I class it with "talking to God and talking to Satan" because it is like talking to God or Satan. It is something no physical evidence bears out and the realities of the world show to be extremely likely as untrue. One no more has to read the "research" on claims of past lives as one has to read the research on people claiming to talk to God or claiming to be God to know any of those claims are extremely unlikely to be true.

And using your faulty logic, your not believing people talk to God, talk to Satan, or are God are Satan is "prejudice." That's cute

What would 'evidence' consist of? As mentioned previously, there is a large amount of documentation comprising interviews with children who claim to remember previous lives. Why would that not constitute evidence, at least of continuity between one life and another? And another field is NDE research which likewise has a considerable body of documentation.

If you have to ask what "evidence" consists of, you need to go back and look up the word. And if you think people saying they have had past lives is evidence they have, you really need to do so. Some people say they've talked to God or Satan; some say they are God; you must believe them as well.

But I think it's also important to understand that such questions, insofar as they're concerned with metaphysical problems, are out of scope for the natural sciences as currently conceived, so it's problematical trying to hold statements to them to the standards of natural science.

No, it's not problematic to hold metaphysical statements of fact to standards of natural science if they are claiming to be as true as truth statements within natural science. In that case, it's imperative we hold those claims to such standards.

Thanks but I have already read the discussion earlier. You'll need to reform your statement because it's unclear what is it that you want me to address.

No, my statement is perfectly clear, you haven't shown how it isn't, and I don't want you to do anything. You can address it or not, but I won't address your questions strawmanning that statement.

I had came to the conclusion that you're saying solutions are not passed down genetically, which would be disproven by showing a solution that is clearly passed down genetically. Is there something so far in this paragraph I've misunderstood?

This is actually true. So, you are free to prove your claim by proving a solution is passed down genetically.

That's your second time you failed to directly address my statement, itself. This is clearly a difficulty for you. Here is the exchange itself. Maybe that will help you.:

Harry Hindu
No, solutions aren't passed down genetically. Not only are actual final solutions immensely rare, they are not passed down through our genes.
— Thanatos Sand
"Is camouflage passed down? Is it not a solution to a problem? Of course there is no final solution, as the environment is dynamic."

You said the solutions were passed down genetically. I said they weren't. You still have failed to show they are. And camouflage is neither a solution for many things nor a perfect solution for one. So, my argument there is correct, too. Try to address the issue at hand.

Could you actually address my actual claim in my actual post instead of strawmanning me? I've re-tweeted if for you below:

You said the solutions were passed down genetically. I said they weren't. You still have failed to show they are. And camouflage is neither a solution for many things nor a perfect solution for one. So, my argument there is correct, too. Try to address the issue at hand.