And I'm fine with that. Stands to reason, given the thread :smirk:

You don't get it. It is actually the dark web AI deep fake Russian hackers from China sending fake news to Alex Jones. — Lionino

Ahhhhhhh. That wraps it all up in a neat little package.

I'm still finding the OP and attempts to justify it totally nonsensical. I'm really trying here...

You can’t say X is all there is and X is one third of what all there is. — Bob Ross

FWIW, I think he's attempting to make 'consciousness' and 'mind' two different things. I guess I don't flatly reject that, but i have a feeling he doens't quite know what he's saying and you're right to call it out.

Ah Banno - level with me - do you have a really hard time making friends?

it should be done by anonymous vote, and only the current female competitors should have a vote.

Nobody else should be allowed to vote. Not officials, not parents, not spectators, only competitors. — flannel jesus

The problem is that this is a transphobic thing to do. No one is allowed to speak about the experience, place, or social impact of trans women except trans women.

Bigot.

If they decide, as a group, that they're okay losing spots to trans athletes, then why stop them? — flannel jesus

In reality though, because it is extremely clear that people are unable to make sound decisions in an ideological whirlpool. I note you've said anonymous - this does not preclude the over-all or general criticism (which is almost always vitriolic and aimed at destruction) having a serious effect on anyone who voted 'No'. It is not a burden females should have to bear - deciding whether or not to allow males to take from them.

What is true is that a 50 year old transgender woman was allowed to compete in the women’s events for athletes 16 and older. — Michael

I'm unsure this makes it any better... The idea that 50 year old male is given unfettered (in context) access to vulnerable young females undressing and competing is... extremely uncomfortable and you've got to question motive.

There maybe an infinite number of answers to this question, but I don't know any of them. — Sir2u

:cheer:

Unless the solution is something other than exercise..

All else being equal, 26 lego blocks in a pile is equal to the amount of lego blocks when they are used to make a lego house (out of them), but the latter has more identifiable parts because there’s more to identify (e.g., the pile is just a pile of blocks, but the house is made of blocks, has walls, perhaps a window, is a house, has a roof, etc.). If you just mean that the best world is one with the most of a building block, then, all else being equal, the pile of lego blocks and the house made out of them are morally equivalent (and, not to mention, how many kinds of building blocks are there?): it is not more virtuous or morally correct for a person to advocate for their to be a lego house instead of just a pile of lego blocks. If you mean, instead, identifiable entities, then the house is better; but, now it is ambiguous what you mean by ‘identifiable’: this concept could easily explode into triviality. — Bob Ross

This seems a very North-Whitehead type line. The idea of Actual Entities being foundational to reality even. All of the Lego blocks exist in a nexus with the other blocks, multiply realising multiple other entities extracted from potentiality by the process of 'becoming' - which is, in fact, the process of communion between Actual Entities with either future states (as perishing and rebirthing from moment-to-moment) or other Actual Entities doing the same dynamically. (is as far as I've gotten ... LOL)

DeepAI:

North-Whitehead's 'actual entities' refer to the fundamental building blocks of reality according to the philosophical system of Alfred North Whitehead. These actual entities, also known as 'actual occasions,' are understood as the basic units of existence and are seen as the primary components of all things in the universe.

According to Whitehead, actual entities are not static entities but dynamic processes. They are events that constantly arise, perish, and transform in a never-ending process of becoming. Each actual entity has its own existence and experiences, and it embodies its own unique individuality.

Actual entities are not separate or isolated from one another but are interconnected through a process called 'prehension.' This process refers to how one actual entity incorporates and relates to other actual entities in its surrounding environment. Every actual entity prehends its past experiences, other entities' past experiences, and possibilities for the future, which influences its subsequent becoming.

Each actual entity contributes to the overall complexity and richness of the universe, as they interrelate and form higher-level entities called 'societies.' Societies are composite entities that emerge from the interplay and coordination of multiple actual entities.

In summary, North-Whitehead's 'actual entities' are the basic dynamic events that make up reality, constantly undergoing change and interconnected through processes of prehension.

Consider a different sequence — Banno

Why? Why not deal with the one he presented, and either help him work out the defects, or understand what he's trying to say (you can't be sure, regardless of your hubris)?

Correct! — YiRu Li

Then I think you are taking a misguided, and ultimately dangerous position. Given that you live in Seattle (iirc) that is probably not a great position to be in. I would recommend understanding 'medicine' proper. It is not particular to a system - it is a set of aims, for which a system must be adequate. Western medicine at least goes a long way toward.. TCM gets barely off the starting block imo.

However, when we opt for Chinese medicine, Chinese doctors emphasize the importance of thinking and communicating strictly within the framework of Chinese medicine theory for optimal utilization. — YiRu Li

Can you not see that this is a serious, empirically verifiable, problem? This is the reason TCM has never been integrated. It doesn't work, and this attitude means that any aspects which are helpful in some way (all systems have these, basically) cannot be utilised outside the context of an ineffective, superstitious and scientifically semi-literate system.

I have no problem calling this nonsense.

as the two theories are fundamentally different — YiRu Li

Yes: One is based in reality; one is based in fancy (more or less) as has been illustrated by every post you have made around the topic.

It's essential to identify the origin of the pain to determine whether acupuncture, herbs, Qigong, philosophy or a combination of everything would be the most effective approach. — YiRu Li

Can you please outline whether you are actually serious in your approach throughout these exchanges?

It seems you are utterly incapable of considering anything but an ideological view point unsupported by any evidence. Your only citations are shoddy youtubers, spiritual texts, and anecdotes.

Ok Gotcha. Makes the wait a little more exciting :)

I shall await.

In the meantime, while I appreciate the game you're playing, I'm specifically asking - do you feel that inconclusive evidence is incoherent as a concept?

Those dreaming of ethnic cleansing are in control. — ssu

I thought this was given - it's just also assumed that Netanyahu is representative of a religious right-wing, and not Israel in general.

Apparently, that doesn't apply to Palestinians, in any case though, so ... oh well.

I think that's a little misleading from Mr. Watchel. It is true that the majority of 'illegal' gun crime isn't committed with guns stolen by that criminal but guns stolen by another criminal, whos crime is to sell the stolen gun/s.

So, it's a two-layer claim that most guns used in crime are stolen - and it seems to be pretty much an infallible conclusion. Where else are they coming from? Are all these gang-bangers previously license holders that let it lapse and now illegally carry?

Hunter Biden is inarguably a crack addict, though?

Hmm. Only in a situation where determining premises is difficult, I think.

Moving from shaky premises is acceptable (read: reasonable) when we can't be sure one way or the other. Like when there's, for instance, disputed facts, the subsequent argument tends to get back-engineered to determine the reasonability of hte premises. This is why lawyers can get a superbly well-founded rep. for massaging the facts.

But if you can show (as tends to be the case in cross-exam.) that the premises are unlikely enough to make the subsequent story inherently unlikely(eg. claiming one felt a certain level of threat that is implausible to support a self-defense argument), that story tends to be reject as unreasonable.

Can you be a little clearer about what appears to be a bit of a corner you're drawing up.... What's the relevance of inconclusive evidence, and why does it appear that you're unsure it exists?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised - But i am. I wouldn't think someone like yourself would put stock in a culturally, geographically biased outlet with a Controversies Wiki page longer than it's actual page (that might be jest - but its not far off).

For thousands of years, people in Korea, China, Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan have been utilizing these acupuncture points to treat various ailments, and this practice continues to thrive today. The only way to refute its efficacy is to examine your body and confirm the absence of inherent acupuncture points. — YiRu Li

This may explain quite a lot. For some reason, you are rejecting all Western medical notions, by the sound of it. I, as noted, have no problem being a Western Chauvinist about medicine. I simply reject that what you've said here is sensible. There is no reliable or effective way for me to assess that particular claim on myself. I imagine it is this technique, coupled with culture-wide pareidolia that has resulted in a total lack of sufficient verification of the practice. As noted elsewhere, Acupuncture doesn't work for almost anything other than mild pain (and, given its prevalence in media, placebo).

Acupuncture is effective — YiRu Li

It is not.

individuals in various environments require distinct treatments. The practice of using 'Poison' to treat patients indeed originated from the West. — YiRu Li

This is nonsensical. Obviously, every instance of an illness is unique - but illnesses themselves respond to certain treatment fairly universally. Pretending that each and every instance is somehow metaphysically distinct in such a way that medicine and biomechanics vary is... left wanting, lets say.

Err, the concept of using drugs to treat illnesses is what your 'herbs' are doing, with far higher efficacy and targeting. I have no idea why you've scare quoted 'Poison', particualrly in a place it makes no sense. If you have an axe to grind against Western medicine, this wont go all that well i don't think.

Therefore, the wise healer combines various methods of treatment, tailoring each to its suitability. The diverse methods of treatment all lead to recovery because understanding the condition of the illness is the key to effective treatment. — YiRu Li

Which is not found in any of the pseudo-spiritual quotes you've put forward. The technique you've just described is Western diagnosis.

I do apologise, But i am beginning to lose respect for your position on this.

Cheers, I actually found the document pretty quickly here

That is wild my dude. Absolutely wild. Quite wild also, that its nearly double the number of Dems v Cons. It has never, across three continents, been my experience that it's a 'left wing' position to either take a-historical positions, or to be anti-Jewish (i don't say anti-Semitic as this could, conceivably, be a result of bad education or indoctrination rather than some ethnic axe grinding exercise - but, that's optimistic).

Though, I also note, its significantly more Black and Hispanic Americans. Could there be something going on there? Stats demand weird questions...

1 in 5 in Gen Z believe the holocaust to be a myth. — BitconnectCarlos

Not trying to be facetious - but do you have a source for this? My children are gen Z and this seems laughable to me... Would like to know if something so ridiculous was really going on :)

Ever read Al Jazeera? — Banno

Can’t be serious can you?

But mostly, it's just an assumption about 'the way things are', with science being held up as the arbiter of judgement about such matters. — Wayfarer

:ok: I feel this is accurate. Though, it doesn't really go to my rejection of Physicalism per se as my point is that i accept the evidence, and its not good. But still..

Fair enough. You've not presented anything to justify that position ... on my position. I can't even see you understanding what i'm saying in this exchange, if that's your conclusion because those things have patently not happened as I am not confused, my position is consistent and It's really easy to understand :P

I have literally, and repeatedly corrected your erroneous attempt at enumerating my position. It is wrong. Therefore your conclusions have nothing to do with my position. Note:

But I don't own the claim you're trying to make for me — AmadeusD

That claim is:

Since your assumption is based on the assumption or inference that you have access to your sense organs — Janus

It is wrong and is not described in my posts. The single, only thing I have posited I have access to is sense data. Not sense organs. Not external objects. Sense data. That is it. 100% of the position rests here. I am necessarily ignorant as to the process from Sense Organ to data-in-mind because I do not posit i have access to the organs and so am precluding from knowing/understanding that.

I reject that assumption you made entirely, and my position doesn't require it. If you could please point out exactly where you're not getting it, I'm always more than happy to clarify if you are willing to stick to what i have said, rather than your version of it.

The scientific evidence is rather overwhelming. But then most people don't put a lot of effort into apprising themselves of the scientific evidence. — wonderer1

I know the evidence and disagree its particularly convincing. As do millions of others. If you're partial to/leaning to/prefer physicalism as an explanation, then that will colour your reading. As will my neutrality on it (its always going to be more interesting if physicalism does not obtain). If you could, perhaps, put forward some element of 'the evidence' you either find convincing, or more particularly, you assume i must have missed.. More than happy to 'appraise'.

At risk of sounding salty, as a general comment, I do not appreciate seeing or receiving assumptions about education based on differing conclusions. There are millions of people, including professional philosophers, who hold my position in light of the evidence. I could be wrong, sure, but this assertion is.. bad faith, to my mind.

What does this have to do with the previous conflict in our views?

Most of the listings you've put out are just tenets of TCM. They are not 'facts' to be discussed as such.

They also posit an intelligent designer, whcih I can't take seriously at this stage.

I did not make those claims. Are you thinking you're responding to a different poster?

Since your assumption is based on the assumption or inference that you have access to your sense organs — Janus

Unsure how you're inferring that claim you just made from my position that sense data exists, and we have no access to any external objects. — AmadeusD

:) Not trying to be 'cute'. But this is just a restating of the same misguided response from earlier. But I don't own the claim you're trying to make for me, so the follow-on doesn't seem relevant as it's not my position to defend.

I am certain I do not have access to external objects. There isn't a way for that to be the case, as best i can tell. Though, that's not a metaphysical claim.

I ran a charity that funded psychedelic research for some years - and technically I still run the Psychedelics New Zealand Facebook community :)

It was a good decade lol

Yeah, it might, but i've explained pretty clearly why its not even a claim. I don't have access to those organs. I have access to their work product. Unsure how you're inferring that claim you just made from my position that sense data exists, and we have no access to any external objects. I assume the organs of sense are producing the sense data. Thats it. I do not have access, and this doesn't infer I do.

Cannot grasp what conversation you think we're having - But that makes no sense to me lol

Seems a pretty good solution.

Don't push the fat man. Jump.

This is a fun thread.

I can't understand my experience under other circumstances. I don't know that it's open to me to do so, so 'Descartes Demon' and all that. So, the inference is strong enough for me to rest on it. I can't know for sure. I thought that was a given... lol

Then I certainly either misunderstood or misconstrued the line. Apologies for dragging you through that, then lol.

evidence for X can sometimes be compatible with not-x — flannel jesus

Of course I agree here. Evidence for X can obviously be compatible with not-X unless its totally conclusive. This goes to hte heart of why 'indirect' evidence is such a shaky claim.

It doesn't really put paid to anything. I thought of an example... You're tracking animal prints. There are four Big Cats it could be in your area.

You have a cast of only one paw from the four possibilities.

You come across a print. The cast does not fit. It is not the animal from which the cast came.

It is not evidence for any of the other three being the culprit. You could say "it's evidence for all of them" but thats not sensible imo. It isn't evidence for any of them. It increases their likelihood given we have only four possibilities. But it provides nothing by way of evidence for any of them.

It's part and parcel of why I expect there to be 'actual' external objects.

I don't understand that we could have experience without sense data. It is a perfect explanation for experience. It could be delusional, but its data from our senses. Our sense organs need not be of any particular kind, other than capable of relaying something to our brain/mind.

Sincere good luck @Bob Ross

I am sure you feel that that is the case... :halo:

And, I don't agree with is conclusions, best I could tell. I feel he got my point that information which reduces the possibility of other outcomes, isn't evidence for any of the remaining outcomes. I wouldn't go so far as to say a piece of information can't be multiply inferential.