In fact they can extent all over space. What has neoplatonism got to do with this thread? You act like the church once acted vis a vis Galileo. Except, the church was rational.

In fact they can extent all over space. — EugeneW

So, you accept a fact of science describing the nature of a domain of observence within reality?

church was rational. — EugeneW

.....

I'm challenging your intellectual rigor. For sure you now write about me saying "in fact".

Suffering does not imply compassion. — Garrett Travers

I thought of an interesting question.

When you see the linked images of Ukrainian refugees do you have to stop and consider your variables or do you instantly have compassion for these suffering creatures?

https://www.google.com/search?q=ukrainian+refugees&sxsrf=APq-WBsrMBXhMjQLg-tWqxsOVN5OhprYBw:1646194578575&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG-NjYyKb2AhWHHjQIHbfxAGcQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1536&bih=760&dpr=1.25

See what I mean? How predictable. I can temporarily accept scientific reality.

church was rational. — EugeneW

More than you wrt to me.

When you see these images of Ukrainian refugees do you have to stop and consider your variables or do you instantly have compassion for their sufferings? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Do I have to consider my variables when viewing images of people being displaced by a war criminal violating the one principle I have asserted is the primary evil in the world, that being the violation of human consciousness? There's no way you've got to ask this question. As if you're talking to some fucking alien.

No. And please refrain from asking this kind of nonsense to me again in the future. As if I, or Rand haven't been the single greatest denouncers of this kind of anti-human turpitude in a god damn century.

I'm challenging your intellectual rigor. — EugeneW

I'm still waiting to detect something of that nature. It hasn't happened yet.

I'm still waiting to detect something of that nature. It hasn't happened yet. — Garrett Travers

That's because there is nothing to challenge. Yet.

Okay. You are basing your realism on your senses. Why?

Okay. You are basing your realism on your senses. Why? — EugeneW

I didn't say such. I'm basing my reality on my senses, distributed cognition, tools that enhance sensory data quality, experimentation, independent verification, historical analysis, logic, and every other option available to me to provide, or clarify evidence from which to abstract.

I didn't say such. I'm basing my reality on my senses, distributed cognition, tools that enhance sensory data quality, experimentation, independent verification, historical analysis, logic, and every other option available to me to provide, or clarify evidence from which to abstract. — Garrett Travers

Well, if you think that gives you a good view of reality, who an I to argue?

Well, if you think that gives you a good view of reality, who an I to argue? — EugeneW

Don't know what you'd argue against. It's all the same stuff you base yours on, but claim otherwise regarding.

Don't know what you'd argue against. — Garrett Travers

Aha! So your reality can't be argued against? It's the one and only reality? Like the church said...

Aha! So your reality can't be argued against? It's the one and only reality? Like the church said... — EugeneW

No, reality cannot be argued against with any sort of legitimacy.

No, reality cannot be argued against with any sort of legitimacy. — Garrett Travers

You see? Like the church said to Galileì.

No. — Garrett Travers

So in the case of the images of the Ukrainian refugees, you have instant compassion though you know nothing of the background and deeds and ideology of a single one. You don't care about their background or deeds or ideology because you feel united to them in principle. This kind of solidarity will always trump your variables.

This is the solidarity I feel with suffering creatures despite their deeds or ideology or background. A similar solidarity, but much, much more open-armed.

There's no way you've got to ask this question. As if you're talking to some fucking alien.

No. And please refrain from asking this kind of nonsense to me again in the future. As if I, or Rand haven't been the single greatest denouncers of this kind of anti-human turpitude in a god damn century. — Garrett Travers

It's a thought experiment.

Garrett knows a naughty word. That makes him feel powerful. He is so powerful behind his screen. (Yes! Use your anger! Only your anger can destroy me!)

Other posters will continue to respond to this vulgarity. I will not. Enjoy your selective compassion but don't be surprised when in the future selective compassion in the world at large breaks your heart.

So in the case of the images of the Ukrainian refugees, you have instant compassion though you know nothing of the background and deeds and ideology of a single one. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, I have compassion for people that are putting up with something highly specific, in regards to the actions of a tyrant. I do not feel compassion for their individual circumstances prior to that event, and compassion isn't what they need now, or needed then. What they need are people willing to help them, not pity and sympathy. And if I were to be interacting with any of them, the specifics of their life would be a variable in any compassion they'd receive from me.

This is the solidarity I feel with suffering creatures despite their deeds or ideology or background. A similar solidarity, but much, much more open-armed. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's utterly irrational, and you will suffer for it in the long run. You will be easily manipulated by the wicked. But, that's probably how you'll have to learn how absurd such a thing is.

It's a thought experiment. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Derived from nothing that I have conveyed, and pointless to any constructive conversation we could have had on the topic.

Garrett knows a naughty word. That makes him feel powerful. He is so powerful behind his screen. (Yes! Use your anger! Only your anger can destroy me!) — ZzzoneiroCosm

Oh, I'll use ones that are more accessible next time.

Other posters will continue to respond to this vulgarity. I will not. Enjoy your selective compassion but don't be surprised when in the future selective compassion in the world at large breaks your heart. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, I will go enjoy the life that comes with being ethical, no problem.

You see? Like the church said to Galileì. — EugeneW

No, I don't.

That's what the church said too back then. They punished Galileo on rational grounds. His view was illegitimate. As is one against yours, as you said.

That's what the church said too back then. They punished Galileo on rational grounds. His view was illegitimate. As is one against yours, as you said. — EugeneW

No relevance detected between myself and people denying reality in the face of evidence. That you would be you, not I.

No relevance detected between myself and people denying reality in the face of evidence. — Garrett Travers

You value evidence. I don't.

You value evidence. I don't. — EugeneW

Yep, my point. Bye now.

Take care.

Yes, they call that executive dysfunctionality. — Garrett Travers

Dysfunctionailty is not all or nothing. We are all, more or less, dysfunctional.

His mental illness was not of the neurological kind, but of the emotional. And no, that's not a generalization. — Garrett Travers

What's the difference? Is the emotional kind not caused by neurological function?

Do you make a distinction between the neural process and the subjective awareness of thinking? If so, in regard to any process of thought, which, if either, is temporally prior?

Page 7.

The good....
Far and away the easiest page to read since I’ve been onboard;

The bad.....
Easiest to read because there was nothing to think about;

The ugly....
Nothing to think about because instead of steelman argument, there is Abbott and Costello.

It not possible to against assertions of non-existent that is claimed no evidence is needed for. You not arguing here, on dis. You just saying tings.

- Garrett Travers

Dysfunctionailty is not all or nothing. We are all, more or less, dysfunctional. — Janus

What you're saying has nothing to do with that term. We aren't talking about mood disorders, or anything like that.

What's the difference? Is the emotional kind not caused by neurological function? — Janus

Not in a manner that keeps someone like Hitler from executing some of the most tactically brilliant battle strategies of all time. From writing a full book. From becoming Chancellor. Exececutive dysfunctions, again, often come specifically from trauma to the forebrain.

Do you make a distinction between the neural process and the subjective awareness of thinking? If so, in regard to any process of thought, which, if either, is temporally prior? — Janus

No, and it doesn't work in a forward focused, or linear manner like that. Thinking is the result of recurrent neural networks of data integration and relay between structures and other networks of the brain, in symphony with the different structures of the PFC, that is happening all of the time. It's not really an appropriate question. Here's some introductory material on that, might help shed some light. This research is all over the internet though, so if this doesn't really open up the issue for you, you can look around a bit. Researchers are actually building these networks in simulations and checking out how they compare to animal brains, it's really cutting edge stuff: https://neurosciencenews.com/recurrent-neural-network-frontal-cortex-19348/

You arguing here, against dis assertions? non-existent, just saying tings, no evidence

Nothing to think about because instead of steelman argument, there is Abbott and Costello. — Mww

I'm sorry, man. You mean from me on the Kant spherical geometry? I thought you and the other guy were handling that. I'm not actually in touch with Kant's mathematics enough to provide any real steelman there, I had primarily placed him up there on the OP in regards to either his metaphysics, or ethics. Didn't mean to leave you hanging.