Oh, word? — AmadeusD

Obviously not. — AmadeusD

It's very common, as in you are walking on the street a fellow civilian gets hit by a rock or bitten by a dog - whatever. Or you find him injured and he says his leg hurts, you may either see an injury or assume the pain is not visible to the eye. You don't doubt he is in pain. — Manuel

That's why it's not particularly puzzling why - when someone has a broken leg, or even a cut and say, "it hurts", we understand what they mean, because that's what we would say if we were in a similar situation. — Manuel

It is a first-person phenomenon, so-called experience, that anything with the ability to experience knows what it is like to have such a certain experience rather than other experiences, given what you are, where you are, etc. — MoK

I cannot seem to fathom how we can appreciate time without partially transcending it. — I like sushi

Yes. Do you know Galen Strawson's book, Consciousness and Its Place in Nature? A very good argument for the plausibility of panpsychism. — J

And if you've been following my discussion with Wayfarer, you see that not everyone agrees on exactly how to characterize the hard problem. I read Chalmers as saying it's a scientific problem, hard but potentially solvable through scientific inquiry. Whereas I think Wayfarer sees Chalmers as being closer to the New Mysterian position of McGinn and others. — J

Does that make his thumbs scissors — flannel jesus

I have a friend who's coined the term "The Impossible Problem" to describe this wrinkle in the Hard Problem. (And yes, Wayfarer, this is the very same question we're examining from different angles in the other thread.) My friend means the problem of actually experiencing another person's consciousness. Why does this seem impossible? It creates a dilemma: If I experience your consciousness as myself doing so, that is clearly not what it's like for you -- there's no observer or alien presence for you. But if I don't do this, and instead simply have your experience (how? but that's a different question), then I haven't experienced it -- my "I" is not present to do any experiencing. Either way, it doesn't seem possible that I can ever know what it is to be you (leaving aside the somewhat ambiguous "what it's like".) — J

do you call two knives "scissors" just because you momentarily rub them against each other? — flannel jesus

stock market is up 6%. — RogueAI

As mad as it may sound the only 'reasonable' conclusion I can come to is something about consciousness is atemporal. — I like sushi

globalization has already happened in whatever ways. Goods-versus-bads is apparently a hot topic in some circles. Blanket globophobia is a wee immature, though. — jorndoe

Distrust in Trump's US doesn't mean mutual distrust throughout (if that's what you were seeing); in fact, it can lead to increased cooperation/collaboration/bonding elsewhere. — jorndoe

“The United States’ policy approach could support continued investment in the U.S. manufacturing sector,” says Jim Kilpatrick, former global Supply Chain & Network Operations leader for Deloitte Consulting LLP and a partner with Deloitte Canada. “It could also drive a notable shift in supply chain strategy by prioritizing reshoring while potentially altering recent nearshoring and global sourcing trends.”

U.S. manufacturers import a variety of products, parts, and raw materials from around the world, and supplemental tariffs levied on these items could affect supply chain strategies as organizations manage costs and potential supply chain shifts.

“Economically viable opportunities for reshoring production to the U.S. are likely to be higher-value, complex products with strict quality standards, produced with technologically advanced, higher-capital-intensity processes, and a workforce with higher-level skills,” says Kate Hardin, a managing director with Deloitte Services LP. — WSJ

The real problem in the US is in income distribution, not globalization — ssu

If those posts are of better quality than us humans here (and they probably would be), isn't human philosophical discussion a bit of mockery? — RogueAI

Are you actually in the shower curtain business?

No. Your whole issue is a thought experiment. Yet if you would link to an article on how the shower curtain business is actually making great advances again in Michigan (or where ever), then there would be more credibility to your argument. — ssu

Sticking to your party line in a country where the both parties are at fault of this mess, that I don't get. — ssu

It doesn't once occur to you that autocracies start with giving the people what they want and need. You've rendered yourself blind.
— frank
Rooting now for autocracies, Frank?

On a philosophy forum? Or being ironic? — ssu

Whatever you say. — Mr Bee

It's hard for me to folllow what his actual plans are if there even are any, but if I recall wasn't this entire thing just to bring back manufacturing to the US? That isn't happening thus far: US manufacturing extends slump; factory employment lowest in 5 years — Mr Bee

Now just ask yourself, is truly a huge drop in imports something that makes Americans better off? — ssu

Given your affinity for neoplatonism, I'm quite surprised it doesn't at least make some sort of sense. In its broadest sense, the general idea is quite flexible. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, exactly. :up: So if we say an essence is a definition, it'd be a bit like saying New York City is the name "New York City," or that smoke, as a sign of fire, is fire. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The way St. Thomas puts it in De Ente et Essentia, which is fairly standard, is that essences are the metaphysical reality, and definitions are the signification of that reality (the signification of the quiddity). . — Count Timothy von Icarus