both the universe in general and organic life in particular appear defective, or suboptimal — 180 Proof

(Y) Very hard to answer this one without just claiming the opposite with empty words. Nice.

The way I put it is that the mind provides the frame within which anything we think or say about existence takes place — Wayfarer

This could be straight from the Kant's mouth. Nice.

Fair enough - I've been following the thread, but admittedly haven't read much mroe than what's been provided here. Will do.

Yeah bang on.

I find it extremely hard to think his arguments actually lead to this conclusion.
Logically, there must have been something for life to come in to. So, his position seems to be that without perceivers we couldn't know anything. Sure, but that doesn't entail a lack of anything, does it? The activity we call ESR for instance, doesn't need an observer. But, we are te observer, so we're just stuck - I don't know that we can draw conclusions from that, though, positive or negative.

Though, I found Kastrup convincing for a few days after finding his work more accessible than most idealists (and related theorists). Perhaps I just don't find Hoffman as accessible.

So, can you spin out a narrative of difference that illuminates the meaning of science being accurate measurement and art being touchy-feely measurement? — ucarr

I can take this one:

Art has no right/wrong value. It has good/bad value (and subjective, at that). Science is the opposite. It has right/wrong values, and no good/bad values.

Art isn't even defined well enough to measure anything, additionally. Science is well-defined as a methodology of observation and measure. At any rate, science would be prior to art, if they were to be intertwined in a non-trivial way.

the foundational indeterminacy of our existence — Constance

Please explain this line to me like I am a first year phenomenology student.

Hmmm.. I think it's possible you're talking about it at a level which I am not.

that's an outcome predicted by Relativity. — ucarr

Sure, I agree that prima facie, that fact is interesting, plus part-and-parcel of talking about science. But, you'll see that in your formulation the outcome and prediction are separated. Science predicts. Outcomes are the fallout of experiments. I see a pretty relevant distinction - control.
Perhaps noting that the results are open to all for use (eg using some new discovery about how hydrogen can be broken down into water (im making this up) to solve droughts). Applications. Applied science. The methodology requires years of training and peer-review to even be taken seriously (on a high enough level, anyway. An experiment that predicts the temperature of a particuar fruit's skin under specific conditions isnt on that level, for instance). I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. Maybe that's just me.

Falsifying one's expectations is key - another apt point that seems to illustrate that outcomes come after the science. When you're done with an epic performance of a play, you aren't still performing the play when you pick up your Tony award eight months later, for instance.

Asking the right questions about the world we see around — ucarr

I fully agree here, and to me, this is purely methodology. Getting the "right answers" relies on the methodology. There is extremely little a scientist can do about the outcomes of their experiments/observations, except improve methodology if they don't make sense (or, read Kuhn).

I know one of the best ways for testing a theory is seeing if it can make correct predictions, so I don't agree that science isn't seriously concerned with outcomes. — ucarr

I think all I meant there was that the outcomes aren't hte science, they're the indicator of success. Science, as a method, doesn't care about the outcomes. It just deals with them and moves on to new methodology. It's not motivated by the outcome, per se, but by the outcome's accuracy. Unsure if that seems like a distinction without a different to some..

I think an impartial viewer would disagree that the exchange is sickly sweet, cartoonish, and ingenuine. — praxis

Well as one, that's how they come across. I couldn't give a squirt of piss who wins - I'm just calling it like I see it. They come across as cartoonishly saccharine and dishonestly bubbly.

You think they're being plainspoken and nice so they won't be canceled? — praxis

Probably not in the sense that they've strategised in those terms, no(though, who knows - more brazen political horseshit has happened). But I didn't suggest that. I suggested that what comes across. I am not alone, and ths is not an unreasonable reading of such twaddle as they've used for their talking points imo. It boils down to this:

They certainly do not come across as genuine characters, in any sense. — AmadeusD

Anyone who is trying to win your vote shouldn't be taken at face-value anyway. Unsure why this wouldn't apply to the ticket who had to pick up on a race they(i.e Biden/Harris) were sorely losing.

oppressive atmosphere for anyone who is not in a car — Jamal

I find this a very, very weird take. Why would it oppressive to not be in a car? I didn't drive until I was about 26 and have never in my life felt that being in a metropolitan city was oppressive. Do you not think this is more to do with your disposition than anything about the infrastructure?

But we can tell when we are dreaming. — Banno

No, not always - retrospect isn't all that relevant here. If we can only tell the difference by dry comparison, then the events themselves are not phenomenally distinguishable. I think that's more important for the point... But yours is taken, nonetheless.

Use is determined by... well, what we do. Not by what we say we do. — Banno

Clearly untrue. We are told what to do with language all the time. Institutions and systems enforce language use constantly. Sometimes under threat of force.

The essentially difference between the sciences and the humanities is cross-culturalism. Science, as a method, is not culture bound (in the general sense). It's motivation is simplicity of theory, not outcomes.

Everything in the humanities is culture-bound (in the general sense) and outcomes are the policy-driving forces. These aren't problems, though.

I'm not totally sure where Kripkenstein fits in his development. — Count Timothy von Icarus

LMAO

This doesn't work unless you're already partial to it. To someone like me, who is skeptical of taking any of it seriously, they come across saccharine in a cartoonish, "we;re really trying guys, don't cancel us" kind of way. They certainly do not come across as genuine characters, in any sense.

Sure, perhaps, but this would apply to everything you can ever think or say. — Apustimelogist

People pick theories that seem to work for them. — Apustimelogist

Ain't that the truth/s :P

Religion is the foundational indeterminacy of our existence — Constance

Please explain this line as if I was a first-year ethics student.

Meaning that there is some sense in which the star is red, and another sense in which the star is not red. Since we are not violating the LNC, this must mean that the word 'red' may take on related but different meanings. My original statement. — Lionino

Sure. That is not what they discern. That's my point. You discern this difference. That is not what is happening when the average person refers to both the shirt and star. They think they are referring to the same immutable property of the two different objects. That's what I disagreed with - not that two senses are being employed.

Idk what part of the link you are referring to. — Lionino

Yeah, that's not what I linked, weirdly. Let me see if I can both figure out why that's the case,a nd provide hte page I intended to link.

This was the link I intended (if this again links to that indexical page, ignore it, and move to the below)

From the linked article:
"Pain receptors, also called nociceptors, are a group of sensory neurons with specialized nerve endings widely distributed in the skin, deep tissues (including the muscles and joints), and most of visceral organs.
....
Activation of nociceptors generates action potentials, which are propagated along the afferent nerve axons, especially unmyelinated C-fibers and thinly myelinated Aδ-fibers. At the spinal cord level, the nociceptive nerve terminals release excitatory neurotransmitters to activate their respective postsynaptic receptors on second-order neurons.
....
The nociceptive signal, encoding the quality, location, and intensity of the noxious stimuli, is then conveyed via the ascending pathway to reach various brain regions to elicit pain sensation. Physiological pain responses normally protect us from tissue damage by quickly alerting us to impending injury."

If we take this account seriously, the possibility to pain being in the injured area is not open to us. It is a mental phenomenon triggered by events in the injured area which are not mental events. Back to the interaction problem, it seems.

there is a chance they would just see white from UY Scuti, even though it is red. — Lionino

This runs into the distinction. They are wrong to think they would see Red. In THAT sense, the star is not red.

We're just arguing over who's the betterworse dictionary writer. — Hanover

And it seems to be by design.

No. — Banno

You can't possibly be lacking this much in humour.
Ah well. I prefer human interactions anyway ;)

Do they understand the difference between the cause of red and the experience of red? Likely not, but that doesn't mean that they are not talking about a different thing as when they say the shirt is red, when they say UY Scuti is red (a scientifically correct statement). — Lionino

I don't think this is really apt. They don't know they are saying different things. They think that the colour of the star matches the colour of the shirt. IFF they could see the start, it would match their experience of hte red shirt. The different uses are there, but I don't think they are acknowledged as different uses. I just don't think people make these distinctions. Barely anyone takes Red to be anything but a property of some objects that they cannot escape, when their eyes are open.

"Well we have less philosophical problems with this stance so I am taking this stance" arguments. — Lionino

This is one of my biggest pet-peeves. It is the reason things like Austin and Searle make me laugh so much. Ignoring things doesn't make them go away. Just like ignoring that I've made a distinction between 'red objects' and 'the colour red', spoken about the former - Results in Banno responding to both at once which would be a reasonable response, had i confused the two uses.

A child learns to differentiate between dreaming and being awake — Banno

They largely differentiate being asleep to being awake. Not dreaming. These can be confused all the way through life and indeed, are.

That is one way of getting around the possibility you missed it. Perhaps we are destined to throw this at each other forever :)

Try going into a shop and asking for the red pens that are not red and see how far you get. — Banno

Ironically, you've missed my point completely - and it was a linguistic one. Haha, i suppose. We'll see around this corner again, i'm sure :)

There is nothing wrong with 'red' meaning both the experience of red and the usual cause of red, and that is what it means. — Lionino

I think there is, but it's going on in this thread, not the world. My most recent reply to Banno (which he responded to in the quote above) points out this difference. It has been missed. Which is why, earlier, I was suggesting we do away with using the same term to refer to things that aren't in the same categories. No one, in every-day life, understands the difference of refering to Red, the colour, and referring to things as red-causing things.

So something happens in the brain, as a consequence of signals sent from the body, that equates to a mental feeling. — Lionino

I'd say this is right, though, im unsure how a neurophysiologist would respond lol.

In other words, the body is a sufficient but not necessary condition of pain. — Lionino

I think this is reversed. The body is not necessary. You can even feel bodily pain without hte body sending signals to the mind. That's how powerful the illusion can be. You may not even have the body part indicated by the pain.

do worms — who lack a central nervous system but still react to stimulus — feel pain, and thus suffer? — Lionino

My understanding is "no", but hten, are we also talking 'emotional' pain? I still think no, lol. But yes, interesting questions for sure.

just my brain, which correlates, through induction, some sensations to some points in space? — Lionino

This, imo. A fairly simple explanation can be gleaned here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/sensation-of-pain

I think, as philosophers, we would do well not to tread on ground for which we are not quite prepared.

If you wish to present a case that there are no red pens, be my guest. — Banno

I've not argued that. I've argued that 'red pens' are not 'Red'.

Perhaps you've twisted yourself up in the language hehe. Reference is tricky when you think things consist in their symbols.

And I take it you're an asshole, full stop. — apokrisis

Ah, you're one of those. Possibly this isn't the site for you if this is how you respond to people you don't know about htings you've got no understanding of (i.e my experience). Maybe just re-read these exchanges, cringe a little, and review how quickly you descending into emotional whittering.

So why live there? — apokrisis

I am legally obliged from two angles (my son and step-son). I am Irish, and born in England.

Nothing you have said makes any sense. — apokrisis

You've seemed to respond adequately to most of it. Maybe just don't purposefully be a dick lmao.

"we should deny the pen itself is red". There are red pens. — Banno

You've done absolutely nothing to support this. You just assert it - maybe because you can't think past your visual field ;)

Motorneurons.

There is a cause, and an effect. Contact with C-fibers at a sufficient level is the cause. Pain is the effect. They cannot be the same thing, right? So, we're off to a racing start.
Now, we already understand that pain signals travel through the body via the spinal cord to the brain, where the brain receives the data (think Chinese Room) and looks up the appropriate sensation to deploy to the perceiving mind. And, again, for some reason this isn't landing: it is often completely wrong in what it deploys, making it quite obvious pain is not in the effected area. It is caused by the affected area, but hte pain itself need not actually correlate with the injury. Or a part of the body at all, it seems.

There is no room here for a position other htan that pain is a sensation subsequent to an event in the area it is supposed to draw our attention to. Its almost regular failure to do so accurately is clear enough to me.

I did. You are continually incapable of exchanging ideas. Ignorance is not a virtue, Constance. Just say you don't understand, or haven't read into something. It's much easier for everyone.

You seem spectacularly uninformed about the country you live in. Talkback radio level. Why would your views deserve respect when they are so lacking in content? — apokrisis

I take it you're an asshole cyclist then? Hehehe. Showing your hand rather obviously here, given what I said was an anecdote, not a political essay.

NZ could have just got on with its big infrastructure investments like Auckland light rail, Lake Onslow pumped hydro, the new Cook Strait ferries it had already ordered. — apokrisis

No it couldn't. Obviously.

Do you know anything about NZ's actual past or present, let alone how badly it is handling its future? — apokrisis

Yes, but it appears perhaps you dont? FTR, I hate New Zealand. It's an awful country in almost all ways except landscape. You wont get me to care.

You think roads and carparks are cheap national investments? — apokrisis

This makes no sense in response to what I've said.

You want public infrastructure as good as it used to be? — apokrisis

I said nothing of hte kid. WTF?

Not the current story of both centralising the decision and then pushing the cost and delivery back onto local government. — apokrisis

This is the only efficient way to get large projects done in a country so devoid of intelligence and sense-making leadership.

Then there will be accidents and delays to public transport — Ludwig V

Our public transport is a laughing stock and large for this reason - I've been stuck behind cyclists and been alte for work many, many times on a bus, but we're not allowed to blame cyclists because there's an utterly bewildering number of uneducated weirdos who think that regulating anything is genocidal.

That siad, our trains fucking suck too.

Yet we made symbols or writing systems to help them understand what is red. — javi2541997

Because the experience is not in the objects viewed. It is in the mind. This is why a Blind person can adequately assent to an audio symbolic representation of 'red'. And, to the degree they can, they are almost certainly wrong. We could never know, though.

If the best scientific description of an object places color as a brain construct, then we should deny the pen itself is red if we want to side with the educated community as opposed to those who've not truly considered the issue. — Hanover

:ok:

given up their own freedom of movement in favour of that of machines they have created. — unenlightened

I can't grasp what you're saying. This is plainly not true.

they just convey the idea that something, its exact nature unspecified, is happening when I am not looking — Apustimelogist

I have probably misapprehended you then, but this seems like more a comforting thought than something which can be 'objectively known'. Banno's cups notwithstanding.

if the pain happens exclusively in the mind, how does a burn on your finger hurt your finger and not your foot? — Lionino

I have directly answered this, here and elsewhere. If it is not landing, I apologise. But restating a question I have answered doesn't help me much.

You can't know. Your brain creates the illusion because it has to, for evolutionary reasons, to ensure you see to the injury - and is often wrong in quite obvious ways. The pain is not in the injured area. This isn't even a controversial take. It is how pain works, empirically. The idea that the pain is in the injured area suggests that it would hurt whether there was a mind or not. That is plainly dumber than a doornail. If this isn't your suggestion, you're not being sufficiently clear for me to response adequately, i don't think.

We know this is not a language perception, this red-qua-red, and no one will gainsay this. — Constance

False. Plenty are colour realists and believe the colour red exists outside the qualia Red. We are having this exact discussion elsewhere.

It would help if you didn't erroneously decide that Continental Philosophy is worthwhile, and Analytical not, if you're going to take up analytical discussions. The Continentals have nothing but disdain for taking thinking seriously.

Yes, that may be true.

I think something we could probably agree on though is that your description of the last lets say 10 weeks indicates that Trump's voters rely on spectacle. The election cycle is not one (in this sense). So, either he pulls a Jan 6 (don't bother arguing with this, but to clarify, I do not think he incited anything on that occassion) properly, or he doesn't get a look in. And even in the former case, I think he'd just be arrested for it given he isn't in office.

I think it's going to be quite clear that Trump cannot run again in '28. He'll be in his 80s, and the hypocrisy would be too much, if nothing else. I also just htink he's run his course (speculatively). He's declining even among those who try to take the 'view from nowhere' and give hte devil his due. I was essentially in that position, but it's now clear with Biden out of hte running that Trump is simply not an electable character once octogenerial. You can kind of get away with what he's doing as the more spritely candidate - and he doesn't have the wit of Regan to pull it back in his favour. His actual politics don't seem to matter that much to that group voting for him.

Also, fucking hell. Discussing the elections of the '20s (as oppsoed to 90s/00s/2010s) is spinning my head.

You seem to be under the impression NZ is going to magically become rich in the next few years.
These are the same delusional takes of the Greens. Sanguine to the point of stupidity.

In the meantime, anything that encourages more cyclists and bus passengers, less motorists in SUVs, is a step in the right direction so far as urban planning is concerned. — apokrisis

It is not at all a step in the right directly for a city as spread-out as Auckland. This also ignores the blatant risks shared cycleways present. Cyclists are some of the least respectful people I have ever had the displeasure of interacting with on the political front. No one gives a flying fuck if you get good feelies from cycling to work and snorting at drivers. No. One. Cares. Sit down.

Again, this is blatantly false. Your gears are spinning but not making the connection. — Banno

I think the exact reverse is true.

"the colour red" is not anything but the experience of Red. Otherwise, you're talking about a symbol. And there are many symbols which we use the word Red to refer to. But using the word Red to refer to a colour has my position relatively vouchsafed against the issue you're trying to push in here.
Again, the issue is acknowledge, it just has nothing to do with referring to the colour Red rather than "a Red X". You are plainly missing this distinction in service of pretending word games matter to what we're talking about. And again, so this cannot be missed - the connection has been made. It is not an obstacle.

If I convinced someone that I was raised to call what they mentally apprehend as Red as Blue, we would still come to terms. Because when refering the colour, the symbol isn't relevant. It's relevant when you want to connect something else to the colour such as when you say "hand me that Red pen".

That's my feeling lol.

Some here have failed to see this. — Banno

I do not think this is the case. The complaint (using that word mildly) you're making, and the 'confusion' you seem to want to point out isn't a confusion. IF your point is that the conversation being attempted is not apt due to the issues you see with the language, that's also fine - but I would disagree. It hasn't been missed - I don't think it's a problem for the discussion.

This is now extremely off-track. The colour Red is not anything else but hte experience of hte colour - so either we're dealing with purely self-reportage, in which case, who cares - this is a dead end - or we're trying to figure out why those reports, in almost every case, seem to agree. This is likely because 'red' is a sensation which language can approximate with reference to other things. This means that calling something 'Red' is a helpful fiction - similar to my comment in the other thread. It has nothing to do with whether or not the object contains or doesn't contain what our mind assigns Red to.

I can't take either seriously because I don't have a vantage point from which to determine . — frank

That's fair. Can you elaborate on how you feel i've missed the Geiger counter? And in waht way? Genuinely a bit lost lol - i did respond to that exchange a couple of times.

to the way we use the word "red", and hence to the place of red in our dealings with the world, than can be accounted for by the simplistic assertion that red is one of various purely mental or neurological phenomena. — Banno

You're having a separate conversation. This is not a thread about linguistics.

Yep. — Banno

Respectfully, not enough to understand what you might mean here. An attempt to respond: Okay, well I would assent to most of what you've said about the every-day use of the word Red.
Not sure how that relates to the wider discussion here though. That understanding of the word being multiply-used is taken as an observable phenomenon. It doesn't seem to me this is capable of betraying a discussion around whether or not the colour Red is a mental percept. Or being particularly relevant - more of a "Yes, and?" type of statement.

What's the problem? — apokrisis

You have not been on roads where this is the case, have you?

Or to NZ in general? hehe