An object can't exist outside a subject-object relationship. But a thing persists when no subject is around. — Dawnstorm

This is profound. I've not got much else to say here - but this statement is a clear explication of exactly why an IRist cannot really understand a DR position.

“No Christians are Muslim” is a trivial observation, not an argument. — Esse Quam Videri

The argument included the first half of the concept. Please do not ignore half of hte point and then zoom in on something.

Secular worldviews also make incompatible metaphysical and moral claims. — Esse Quam Videri

We're not comparing them. We're comparing religious and scientific worldviews (notice that's not "secular" either). You're drawing way outside the lines.

Your substantive there against misses the delineation. Religious world views being incompatible damns them all. Not so with secular views. That is the point and it is not moved by what you've (relatively accurately, just misplaced imo) pointed out.

It was totally surprising. Totally out of the ordinary. But he assumed it could be done, because he really thinks so little of Europeans — ssu

These are the assumptions I have absolutely no interest in taking on board. This, and my alternative seem equally plausible. I think it takes someone in camp 1 from the previous thing to land on this side, as a statement rather htan speculation.

Then of course there's the idea that all of this was part of the "Art of the Deal". That this was 4D Chess and Trump gives first an outrageous and demeaning bid, and then takes home something totally else.

Well, if so, just what on Earth did he get? What did Denmark now "reasonably" accept that made everything first to be worth it? We don't know. — ssu

I'm not really sure what's so hard to swallow in this (albeit, your framing is highly prejudicial - but reasonable imo).

He's probably secured further defense positions and tactical mineral access. Which is what he wanted all along. Its just a question whether he's stumbled into it or there's some "art of hte deal" thing going on (note, I have already dismissed "4D Chess" as a cultish concept. But he is a Businessman). To me. It is not inconceiveable he predicted how the chatter would go and leading up to DAVOS, had this in mind all along). It's just also not inconceivable your framing is accurate.

You're right - we don't know. That's the point of hedging at this stage. Thinking yourself into knots about the President being senile or whatever overtly dumb thing you can claw on to (not you, but the more unhinged along these same lines) is bad for you and does nothing for anyone else given there's no real evidence at this stage of how this all came about.

Trump posting himself (or, at least, someone in his feed) this AI picture tells more than a thousand words: — ssu

What are the first five? I have a feeling a huge amount of rhetoric is doing lifting in response to this thing.

That's a biblical truth, so It's not really an assumption I don't think? But I agree - it makes the whole discussion incoherent.

:up:

You are not adequately coming into contact with the competing views.

Plenty of materialists are religious. Plenty of idealists are religious. But no Christians are Muslim.

You are missing the delineation entirely, in service of keeping a dead question alive.

That very much may not be hte case. https://www.ms.now/news/dhs-denies-that-ice-used-a-5-year-old-as-bait-to-catch-his-dad?utm_

Vance has commented, as have the agencies involved. I think it takes assumption to take this narrative seriously at this stage. Being predisposed to eat up social media posts which suggest things you're predisposed to believe is something I'd suggest guarding against. Fact check things before getting up in arms.

Now, who is making assumptions? — Questioner

There is no assumption. IT is a direct inference from the fact that you made an absolute claim which was false. I infer, then, you are not partial to saying "Well, Meloni likes him" (or Orban, or whoever) Which she does. Because she's conservative. ITs a logical inference. Not an assumption. Otherwise, i agree. Its a professional courtesy from most leaders.

I have eyes to see, and ears to hear. There is nothing respectable about him. — Questioner

It is factually untrue. Your opinion is something else, and you're entitled to it. That wasn't what you claimed. I don't play games. You were wrong to say what you said. It's not an opinion or something your eyes and ears can tell you, unless you're going to accept that several world leaders in the free world like Trump and respect him. Being honest isn't giving up your position.

Yes, he's been receiving a lot of death threats. — Questioner

Jesus Christ. Just condemn lying about hte president on National TV. There is no evidence he has received death threats as a result of this. That has been tied to his advocacy about Gun Control.

It is really important to not be wrong.

Definitely with you there!
Semi, but there's an insanely big (defamatory) leap between "babbling" and "senile". That's hte care I was indicating is needed.

Sorry, i meant latter, clearly. You haven't said anything that could've drawn me to the alternate. Sorry about that.

A bruise isn't something dangerous. — ssu

True - but its a 'win' for a certain pre-disposition toward Trump's activities. I guess I'm trying to avoid the predisposition. It could be totally fumbling. But it could be what he intended all along, sacrificing looking a certain way to his detractors in the process. That would be respectable. I try to be charitable i suppose, having been trained on judgments which are almost always intended to trade of a set of facts most favourable to a defendant.

Its seem the DRists among us have retreated into semantic arguments.

So be it. Onward we move..

I think you're being unnecessarily combative.

"publication" is an amorphous concept. Standing in the town square, giving everyone around you a taste of your nonsense is protected (good). A badly worded joke on social media is not (bad). Publication usually requires a benchmark of dissemination to reach an actionable level. Usually, a non-public person is not going ot reach that. So the Online Safety Act (Harmful Digital Communications Act here in NZ - cant remember the analogous in the US) steps in to capture those who don't actually meet any establish criteria for causing harm. The multitudes of detentions along these lines are chilling. And are wrong, in principle imo. Anyway.. The initial delineation..

That's a serious problem (to me), and while Dingo is quite stepping on the right tiles here, that remains within your analysis, to be addressed. The ECHR does have problems. But that's an entirely different conversation and suggesting that's Dingo's next step is not good faith.

Definitely misunderstood. Sorry mate. I agree.

Excellent :)

I was referring the couple of trans threads we were exchanging on. All is well :)

Are they clowns, or am I the blind dude who is not seeing what is going on? — javi2541997

I think this, but I also think you're not a clown. Its entirely plausible (and indeed, seems maybe at the 51% probability mark) that it's just the shit show it looks like, and he's a total moron who has lost it.

But it also seems to me entirely plausible that, while "4d Chess" is some kind of invention of a cultish aspect of his base, there's intentionality to these things and he's perhaps willing to be seen the way you say above, while having achieved his initial goal and moving on with his... plan (that was hard to say lmao)

I don't know. But it seems plausible to me, and he seems happy enough to say it may be true.

when the institution is oriented to protect and spread American interests, presence, and culture. — javi2541997

That doesn't seem wholly accurate. It was set up (by Europe - not imposed by American) to prevent Soviet encroachment, and to ensure Europe retained American defense interest, rather than American withdrawing like after WWII. But you're right in terms of the conflict of interest.

That is not really true though, is it?

Seems more like wishful thinking for those who do genuinely have no respect for him which is fine. But Machado, Meloni, Orban, Milei, apparently, Rutte. They are just leaders you do not like. which is fine. But its best not to make statements that are untrue about a President. Like Cameron Kasky is finding out.

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. — PoeticUniverse

I agree, but its a really interesting potential solution. It would essentially hold all the explanatory power needed. It just.. isn't supported by much except first-hand experience which is notoriously unhelpful in sorting out consciousness issues. I thikn dismissing it out of hand, in the current situation, is also a bit far.

As someone who lives in NZ, I don't think you have that right. Can you provide the blog?

The semantics are. That's all. Extremely obviously.

So when the current American-style racism — ssu

I can't conceive of what you're talking about. The current claims about any kind of widespread racism in the US seem, factually, ridiculous. The tenuous connection you're making between Nazism and US policy is unserious, sorry to say. I can't really engage it.

we shouldn't forget all the positive aspects that people get from religion and their faith. — ssu

I disagree, but understand what you're saying - we should be able to extract them, not have to prop up the rest on their behalf. The aspects of tribalism that I think are good seem to me only 'good' in a naiive analysis. They necessarily lead to the types of out-group negativity which reduces social cohesion when taken beyond their immediate and tangible effect of, lets say easing the overall burden of children care and rearing. But that also means necessarily restricting children to certain social, political and moral precepts. That seems to be why places like the Mid East are how they are.

I think suggesting there's anything remotely close to this anywhere in the USA is tantamount to a lie. I understand we're probably going to have just wave and walk on by on this one, but the premise being that the US "is a racist country" is risible to me.

how religions contradict each other and how secularism offers a way out. In contrast, you spent no time at all reviewing the ways in which secular ideologies contradict each other. — Esse Quam Videri

Because its utterly irrelevant. Secular world views do not claim metaphysical primacy. Religions do. Their inconsistency is damning to them all. Not so with secular views.

Light is of the mind-independent world; it is absorbed by the eyes; and therefore each of us has direct contact with the “mind-independent world”. Since this contact is direct, so is access to the “mind-independent world”, and there is zero room in space and time for any intermediary. That’s my whole point, basically. — NOS4A2

But this appears to be an incorrect analysis of how that works.

Light does not appear to you. It enters your eyes and, after some other intermediary activity mental images appear to you. Light stops being light at your eyes. Your brain literally constructs images from the data which your eyes derived from that light, as electrical signals, within your brain. This is why you can get after images, because your brain is still constructing an image due to an excess of light enter the eye and distorting the objects its reflected off. This should be sufficient to at least give you pause. You cannot see an object witout light - light is a medium which is not in or of the objects it reflects off of. There is no possible room to call mental images direct, unless you do the thing of saying "direct representations" which is a misnomer because representation already infers intermediacy.

I definitely misspoke in one regard earlier: We are in direct contact with the mind-independent world. I am not an idealist. I apologise for any confusion that caused. But that does not mean that our perception of it is direct. They are two different things. It may be that you and others do not see the distinction, which was why I said it's sound to reject this. If that's your model, then your take will result in a 'direct' description. I think this is empirically incorrect and misleading myself.

My understanding of the problem of perception is whether I can directly perceive the mind-independent world, or if I directly perceive some mind-dependent intermediary, like representations or sense-data — NOS4A2

This is correct. I hope the above clarifies that I'm addressing this specific, and imo, entirely erroneous concept that we do in fact 'directly' perceive.

as it became more and more obvious that he’s senile. — Punshhh

Is this genuinely something you want to stand behind? Be very careful.

Don’t we deserve to understand what we are supposed to call “direct” when described as well. — Richard B

No. Not at all on my view. (I think this is a really weird thing to ask though - what does 'deserve' mean here?) It may not be something available to the human mind. I suggest this is the case, and attempts to get around it into DR-ist theories are simply a reaction to that discomfort. Most response amount to hand-waving, anyhow so that seems relatively simple to understand, even if it's not accepted in your view.

Funnily enough, potentially the best, most well-described system which tried to do this was Kant's CPR in response (fear, really) to Hume's problems of perception and identity - and that resulted in an IR position properly understood.

Perception is biological relation to the environment just like other bodily processes. The fact that errors, like illusion and hallucination, occur does not imply mediation by mental objects. — Richard B

No, but hte well-understood facts do support that. This is why its so hard to understand DR arguments. They seem to fail at the first, empirical, hurdle.

I agree with the premise there, but I think your conclusion just falls into the Haters line (this is speculative - I'm not charging you with being a hater). Time will tell, and I have an extremely hard time thinking this is bruise on the US or Trump. That seems an emotional reading. We'll see. Really apprecaite this exchange so far.

If you believe your statement you should go to speakers corner perhaps and voice this concern and see what happens? — I like sushi

Are you not seeing that this is the exact problem? "See what happens" when you use your right to speak 'freely'? It's hard to understand what could support such an attitude, unless I've misunderstood.

True. But in-group bias is a Human standard. Racism is a somewhat direct consequence of tribal values. In modern times, we've had the privilege to construct tribes of multiple ethnicities. It wasn't so in the past.

I also think it's largely a cultural resistance, not an ethnic/racial one. But that will always mask actual racism.

I certainly do not trust the government or some legion of self righteous twats to decide. Freedom of speech is about protecting your other rights, throughout history oppression always comes for speech first. — DingoJones

Yep. Something the current strand of "Trump's a fascist' don't seem to understand, as compared to the swathes of undemocratic, 'liberal' protesters preventing many from speaking, even those on their own side.

Morning guys (my time) - I have to say, I am disappointed in my response earlier. Not conceptually, but I was rushing to leave work and I did not take the time I shoul dhave to respond to , specifically, Metaphysician's comments and it's come off extremely badly, even by my lights.

My overall take is the same, but it was a lazy, unsupported response. I'll get to a more substantive response today but i apologise for what appears to be an essentially useless response.

The only thing I want to add here is that the number of "lies" swirling around ICE, Trump, the overall situation and about Good, her wife, ICE, Trump and the overall situation from what would be termed 'the other side' are pretty clear.

It's hard to know what to do in those situations. Anyway, I apologise for that repsonse. I'll fix it up later today.

With this, I fully agree. But the videos are clear. I can't understand why you'd need one. Its clear.

Odd that you don't trust MSM, but you repeat a Trumpist version of the events, one that ignores established law and policy- and that is inconsistent with video evidence. — Relativist

I cannot have a discussion with someone who is this incapable of watching a video.

Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger. — Relativist

False, and this is the exact kind of emotional over-reaction that is going to have all of you crying into your soup while the law does its thing. I shouldn't really care, but I like talking to you guys. This is absolute nonsense. As someone who reads case law for a living, I am just stumped as to the ignorance shown toward this event. Its astounding.

The agent actually leaned in toward the vehicle — Relativist

I cannot fathom being so beyond rational assessment as to say something like this, having seen the videos. I'll see myself out.

Its a description of the events which were filmed from multiple angles Mikie.

Can you at least see that you're not approaching this in good faith, given the sarcasm and dismissal? That's not meant to be combative - but I would expect a reduction in sarcasm and dismissiveness if you're not into Twitter-type exchanges, which is good.

I'm saying the facts are as described, but doesn't make it any "better" of an event - just, clearly not murder. The legalities are fairly clear given the multiple videos.

For those of us trying their best to stay outside the "I hate Trump and "I hate Europe/liberals/opposition" circles, tihs just seems like the exact intended outcome.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore. — AmadeusD

I don’t see how absorbing light into the eyeballs counts as indirect. Maybe you can explain it. — NOS4A2

Yes, this is the crux, I think between Banno's approach (which is sound, i don't want to sounds dismissive. I just htink its wrong and Mine (and i presume Michael's) is that absorbing light into the eyes is not, at all, contact with the object which the light reflected off. There is nothing of the object in the light which enters the eyes. For Banno's approach, that's a red herring. For mine, it's the whole point.

It’s hard to grasp for me. Experience is the medium? Is it anything like traditional mediums like light, clay, air, or paint, where some sort of tangible substance is required? — NOS4A2

Totally understandable. I think the key here is that the felt presence of immediate experience is not an object. It is not a "something" in the sense of your examples. Its certainly far cleaner and easier to just sort of say "I see clay" and in a sense (Banno's) that's true. But trivially, and possibly ideally (as in "i see" is idealized). To me, there is no direct contact with objects. That doesn't seem possible by virtue of any hypothetical involving perception as a fundamental element of the relation between object and perceiver (tautological? Recursive? That's sort of the point). We'd have to posit a hypothetical where there is no difference between the object and the perception. But that's simply not available on the information we ahve about how light and perception work and we do not know of any speculative biology which could 'see' in any other way.

So you’ve gone too far in pretending the images on that screen is the “distal object” you’re perceiving. — NOS4A2

I think we just go one step further - you've gone too far in pretending the distal objects are in the images you receive, whether CCTV or through your eyes. Bare rejection of this is sound.

No real need - not offended. Just figure if we're to get on better than we have previously this would be good :)

Something I'll throw out: I spent about 11 years deeply interested in, and in the study of, Amazonian tribal myth making. I was my country's foremost expect on their Shamanism and related anthropologic considerations. All is not lost on me my friend :)

Not jaded at all. I just live in the real world now. I am a very happy, spiritual person. I would refrain from such assumptions.

You're wrong. All MSM is absolute nonsense to me. Entertaining sometimes, but otherwise useless.

I don't understand how you can make unfounded assumptions, and then propose them without any founding, but say someone else is being partisan man.

THe officer was hit with a lethal weapon subsequent to a citizen illegally obstructing him, refusing lawful orders, he suffered internal injuries and had recently been attacked in a similar scneario.

I don't quite think you're seeing hte forest for the trees. I understand the emotional response - It's tough to watch and super tragic, shitty thing to have happened. No serious person would argue otherwise (note here: If you come back at me with "well, so so and said x" yeah - not a serious person. Whatever bullet needs biting, I'm hungry - plenty of responses to this event pretending it's anything other than tragic, and as if Goode was an inherently bad person or lied about hte child abuse thing have caused me to realize that person is a knobend when perhaps I previously didn't).

But the footage and the law is clear. This is absolute bullshit for that reason. Also, the President didn't shoot her. LOL.

Yes ma'am, years ago. More poetry/lyrics since then (to the present day) but certainly a few short stories and what not previously when I was younger and had a more whimsical outlook on things.

Lol. The only thing he is looking at is the midterms. — ssu

Yeah, that's why the short term part is relevant there. He clearly can't think past his nose (or, at the very least, thinks it's a good idea to appear that way).

So, I think gold might be going still up, even if the fears of military annexation of Iceland Greenland by USA from Denmark isn't on the table. — ssu

hahaha, i see what you did there.

Regarding the Kevin's, those outlines are clearly bent in a certain direction. I forego making comment cause I'm not informed, but again, from Trump's perspective, or those who trust his intuitions (lets say... clearly an inapt description of what motivates his actions) would just say "great!". Could be a bit more bollocks there. I just don't know - from what I've seen on the economic side its pretty bland and uninteresting, except for what things look like.

No, it’s clear from what I wrote that we interact with the environment around us directly, not indirectly. For instance your eyes are in direct contact with the light from that generated image.

This does not dovetail into an indirect perceptual account at all because we do not have anything like computer generated images or telescopes in the brain. In my opinion the indirect realist ought to stop leaning on metaphors and analogies using “mind-independent” examples and finally tell us what medium they are interacting with directly in their brain. What is the telescope or computer screen supposed to represent in your analogy — NOS4A2

Its not clear at all, which is why i asked LMAO.

What you're claiming doesn't make any sense. Your account is literally indirect. You are claiming that mediated perception is direct. You aren't even making Banno's argument.

I don't know what you mean by the bold. There are no metaphors or analogies in hte basic description of the perceptual system. A car does not have "redness" as a property. To suggest so is totally unwarranted. Redness exists solely in minds. If you want to claim that the red you want to exist in the object is the same red that exists in your mind, you are essentially claiming that every object in the world is interconnected physically. But our internal images are not objects, nor are they physically connected to anything but maybe hte brain.

The "medium" you want is a total red herring. We have experience as the medium. What we experience is data. Data comes from somewhere. This is not hard to grasp.

I aware that this is an entirely inaccurate description of what goes on with ICE.

As for Renee Goode, it was an horrific event. 100% Granted. However, It was warranted for the officer who in the course of duty was hit with a lethal weapon by a woman who refused lawful commands. There is absolutely no question about this whatsoever. it is tragic, it shouldn't have happened - but she shouldn't have made a job of impeding lawful federal activities and refusing lawful commands. Those are the results of the incredibly risky behaviour she undertook. They always are. There is no surprise or controversy unless you're dead set on "us v them". Due process is an absolutely ridiculous concept to bring in for this specific situation. Assaults on ICE Agents are soaring. You do not get to pretend one side is allowed to be violent, aggresive, rights-violating wankers, and ICE has to just put up with it. They are mandated to enforce the law and they do not deserve to deal with the horrific, unwarranted crap they're getting from emotionally unstable children who can't keep a job down.

Not letting feelies take over is probably the best move right now. And unfortunately, emotional, inaccurate crap is usually what's driving responses to these things. Being detained for not being able to provide ID, for instance, is routine even for local law enforcement.

Well aware how this will sound to those partial to the types of thinking I've outlined.

Is it an accurate depiction? Of course not, but its fierceness and its exquisite imagery connects me the sensibilities of another section of humanity, makes them come alive. And of course, this is what all good art does - makes the receiver of the art feel what the artist felt. — Questioner

It is certainly true that Art does that.

I think mixing historical interest with Art, without delineating adequately isn't great. Myth-making seems to be a semi-delusional state of being. Not you, enjoying it. But that process is one which obscures the reality and may present a false impression of those people. In fact, given that history is written, rewritten, and often a victor of some kind - that seems unavoidable. But yeah, as a curiosity myth and legend are ace.

Thanks for elucidating!

Why alienate countries that had good relations with you? It's all just the US shooting itself in the foot, which is hugely benefitting Russia and China. — ssu

Because from an America first perspective, these are untenable bases for making geopolitical decisions. I can't really say much more than that. It's an observation. I wouldn't get into bed with those I don't want to get into bed with. That's kind of where that reasoning ends.

You think that changing tariffs less than in one year is rational? — ssu

I don't quite understand the question. It's not a matter of rationality. They are instrumental tariffs, not aimed at normalizing trade relations in the normal sense. They have largely achieved what Trump wanted (and that may be irrational!).

then you simply avoid doing anything and stay on the sidelines. — ssu

I understand the problem, but Trump has brought in billions of investment since this term started. Not the $21 trillion claimed, obviously, and that's at Trump's feet for being a buffoon publicly. I just think you're looking at goals that administration is not. It's hard to "come to terms" in that way. Its all theater to me.

Is he really dominating the international landscape? — ssu

I don't think this is a serious question. There may be too much daylight in how we're seeing things (or, what information we have access to day-to-day) to come to terms, as above. Trump is obviously dominating the geopolitical landscape. You call it a spotlight and that's fair - but his movements are hte talk of the globe, in most facets of geopolitical life. People are having to do what he wants, or do something relatively radical to not do what he wants. That is dominance to me. That doesn't mean its good.

Just look at how gold is doing. — ssu

Given the tariff situation, that's probably good in the short term. But its definitely not good across 24 months or more. It indicates a collapse is coming. But Trump, being hte mover he is, is probably aware of this.

Is the suggestion that whatever the case, countries need to stick to their agreements? I understand i need to divest of talking about Trump here, but it almost seems liek you're saying we must remain party to agreements which don't benefit us. I don't really see that working.

I was watching some panels from the current WEF session early today (its about 2pm here). The tact that America takes there, compared with say Rachel Reeves contributions, seems common-sense national security considerations.

You're right, though. If Trump is (I can't quite see what you're seeing, but that's not surprising to me) renegging on several agreements, particularly on trade, then yeah thats bollocks and geopolitically unstable.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore.

It’s not inconsistent because the rest of the world is full of mediums through which to view, hear, and smell distant objects. Dealing with those mediums counts as direct perception of the world because our senses are in direct contact with those mediums — NOS4A2

Just a clarifying point: Are you saying that the astronomer looking through a scope (or, lets go further: having generated an image from mathematical data) is in direct contact with the objects lets say lightyears away? Can you explain that? It seems to be the key example of indirect contact to me (and so dovetails into a perceptual account more generally). Just want to be sure that's what you're saying..

Hmm. A couple of things to sort out there...The first seems the strongest to me, but is also, you should note, a clarification on the example - not really an argument against you.

A shadow is arguably not a physical object ( i would say it isn't, but a realise that's not all there is to say). In either case, this leapfrogs the crux of the issue. I may be seeing something different to the object which stimulated my sense organs. I'm not claiming that's the case, but it is absolutely open.

Yes, you can launch an investigation into the cause. But that is because (you do go into this, so bear with me teaching you suck eggs) we are already aware that the cause (to the best of our knowledge) must be restricted to something we can access through our senses. That's fine. The example was one where we have no hope of finding the cause - it's an analogy only.

I think the God one is a bad example (despite my agreeing with you!!) because plenty of people claim to have sensory perception of God constantly. That, in fact, seems to be the basis for on-a-dime conversions. Suffice to say I reject those claims :P