those are overlapping numbers - not single-language speakers.

But you’re right on the latter particularly in terms of volume of media

Children use these to claim that there are no answers to moral questions, and pretend to be nihilists. — Banno

Hey Banno...

I know we disagree, so just want to set aside the obvious disagreement here - I'm interested in how you envision one making the 'claim' (assumably, one that isn't prima facie wrong) yet 'pretend' to be nihilist? I understand you're saying that the experience of being transgressed against, as it were, presents essentially an hypocrisy, but i guess i'm interested in the psychology of that 'pretend' part. Do you think of it as a conscious hypocrisy or just a naivety?

f you read this far, then the answer is clear. It is English which is the most useful language in the world for the number of speakers in the world (don't know how many exactly but it would be spoken in every country you place you foot in), — Corvus

I think this isn't quite right - about 1.3bil English speakers and about 1.8bil Mandarin speakers last I saw anything about it..

That's odd. While contradicting yourself out loud you (inaccurately)charge me with a fallacy? — creativesoul

What? I didn't charge you with anything.

And what contradiction, sorry? I'm trying to have a discussion not a pissing match.

I don’t really care — Mikie

That much has been obvious for some time. Not understanding other people's perspectives makes it very, very hard to care.

Well this has been adequately bizarre to finish out the year. Nice.

As if codes of conduct cannot be considered as a state of affairs? As if it is never the case that kicking puppies is forbidden? — creativesoul

I don't think so no. It can be the case that a code of conduct exists, and that a group or society accept, and live by, a code of conduct. So you could say, "In this quite particular scenario, it is the case that one ought not kick puppies" but that's just an appeal to authority... so, I suppose in some sense i have to concede here but it's not a concession on my position, just on the way it applies.

That one ought not kick puppies isn't the state of affairs in the above. It's the existence of, and assent to, a code of conduct which includes that proscription. It may well not have that proscription and the state of affairs still obtains, but without that obligation.

The best we can say is that humans generate opinions and some seem to 'check out' and other's can't be assessed. — Tom Storm

This seems very much the reasonable view.

And apparently didn't even read it. Try doing so. — Mikie

If you could please outline exactly how you deduced this, from my giving no notion of my view on either the quote, or the response, that would be nice. As far as i can tell, you have wholly invented a position on it/them, ascribed it to me, and then reacted to it. It is a fact that I didn't give mine, so .. logic dictates...

Are you ok? — Mikie

Yeah, i'm totally fine. I'm just finding it really interesting trying to connect the non-existent dots you're connecting here.

But please, do go on lecturing others about how to communicate, and about "bad faith." — Mikie

Your hyperbole knows no bounds.

Are you questioning whether or not it is the case that we ought not kick puppies? — creativesoul

Realise you didn't ask me, but it's apt to my considerations of the discussion - I don't think it could be the case, as it's a judgement, not a state of affairs with with one's opinion could correspond.

Banno will disagree, but i've not seen a way to conclude that it is inaccurate.

It is — Mikie

It isn't.

I see you got sucked into that as well. — Mikie

I gave you the quote, and an independent response to it. Are you like... ok?

It’s such a stupid point that I barely give it attention anymore. — Mikie

Yet further entrenching the obvious fact that you are not communicating in good faith.

Imagine the level of a mind that hears “the world is facing an existential threat,” is given the overwhelming evidence, and chooses to ignore all of it in favor of screaming endlessly about how “existential” is technically the wrong word. — Mikie

This isn't really a coherent thought experiment, but even reading in to it what you must mean, no one is doing that.

The evidence doesn't result in the world ending in 12 years. That's what's been discussed. Please, please try not to make things up that other people think or say to argue with. I stopped using twitter to get away from that.

I think the bolded is about as close to that meme of the dude crying behind his mask as i've seen on this forum.

I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense. — Mikie

This is, in no sense whatsoever, a strawman. It's definitely a weak position for those who initially denied the facts, though but it an entirely legitimate position that allows for much action and seriousness, without taking and overwhelmingly cynical position of claiming the world is literally ending.

But on AOC, i'm not quite sure if you're trying to deny she said it, and in any case, it was glib, but here is the quote:

"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'"

and climate scientists reacting: https://www.axios.com/2019/01/22/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline

It is absolutely inarguable there is a degree of fantasist alarmism on that side of the issue, politically. AOC likening the CC to WWII is another rather bizarre example.

Makes it much easier to ignore various posters on every other topic once they show their hand on this one. — Mikie

Once again showing in how-bad-of-faith you deal with people.

I think you would have to contend with the collapse of morals into actions to say that one can do something even if they don’t find it morally permissible.
— Bob Ross

But if there are no true moral judgements, then we don't have to consider that there is anything morally permissible. There is nothing to permit or deny. Meaning my objection still holds. — Philosophim

I'm unsure whether this little observation i'm about to make is really relevant, so apologies if something in the exchange I have missed would indicate i'm being redundant..

If there are no true moral judgements, one need not include 'morality' in their considerations of an action. I'm unsure how a lack of 'true' moral judgements would entail inaction. It merely means one cannot use morality as a worthy benchmark for action or inaction.
I understand the whole donkey w/two foods TE, but that assumes an equal morality in the two options. If there is not a true moral position to be taken, what's the obstacle to action?

The world is going to end in some sense no matter what we do. — frank

Right; I guess it's the idea that we've got >100 years to go that's a hard sell.

If the topic is: the world's about to end, then denialism is fine. If it's: if you buy this type of lawnmower, you're being eco-friendly, then denialism is fine. If the topic is: anthropogenic climate change, then denialism is just ignorance of the facts. — frank

The latter-most seems to include the former-most, to those like Mikie. The facts of the matter entail the impending end of the world (as least in some sense). His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction)

Noumena has nothing to do with the solid material existence in the empirical world. — Corvus

It seemed fairly clear to me that Noumena is the placeholder for things in themselves, beyond sensible intuition - of whcih we can know nothing. Not that they aren't related... Just that we can't actually know anything of them. Or be certain they exist.. only infer. But as usual, im looking to be set straight, not offering an actual take.

I probably should have been more specific - in the sense of transcendental idealism, is it not the case that the unity of perceptions of a given object actually represent a 'whole' object rather than merely a set of properties...

E.g sure, the Eiffel tower consists of metals in various forms, probably some electrics and wooden aspects too. But it is the Eiffel tower - not a list of components. This is a bad example though, so turning to Wolfs 'Horse' example, the 'Horseness' doesn't consist in any properties of the horse, but the totality of those properties, under certain concepts. Take away the 'brownness' and it's still a horse. Take away 'horse-hairy-ness' and it's still a horse. Take away the mane, the hoofs etc.. In parts, and Horseness remains. it's only removing a critical mass of those properties that removes the horseness. I guess this is the ambiguity im attempting to explore. I have no answers.

Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. — Tzeentch

This also seems inarguable. More people have turned to denialism and wholesale derision as a result of Greta's presence. I think it's been a detriment.

there is no market for them or their doom — unenlightened

I believe, on the account that it's somehow a 'grift', the market consists in academia, media appearances and global climate summits.

I don't think that's the case, beyond a handful of cynical wankers, to be clear. That said, I have say, this seems self-evident:

Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate. — Tzeentch

But i don't think denialism is a legitimate reaction (or even some kind of 'truth wrapped in a lie' take). I think, per a couple of other comments, its worth noting (entirely aside from the facts of the matter, which Mikie so aptly re-presents), there is inarguably a psycho-social element to the entire situation whereby some can fall into a pattern of behaviour around their beliefs which is satisfying in itself viz. othering those who don't either react the same way, or deny the facts. Both seem to me extremely unhelpful from either hte psychological or the physical facts angle. Group-think doesn't necessarily skew the facts, or at least not only the facts but the emotions too.

But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed. — Mikie

It is now patently clear you’re communicating in bad faith.

Take care buddy.

it's still just rhetorical hyperbole rather than making a factual moral claim about right or wrong. — Vaskane

I agree. But that isn't his position. Which was my point. But it seems we more or less agree on what's actually happened.

Check ya DM's mate

Currently looking at a lot of Opera (on top of In a Silent Way - Miles Davis, and Gregorio Allegri's Miserere)

Mario Lanza and Jussi Bjorling's performances of La Donna e Mobile are absolutely phenomenal.

Just more fluff and feelings. If you’re not interested in the science, your gripes about how someone else communicates is boring and irrelevant. Take it somewhere else. — Mikie

The irony burns.


Hi again Vaskane,

It seems you're under a false impession about my part in this exchange. Very well may be my doing, though so i apologise - and i will note that as i go. But it is entirely wrong to say that I care much at all about the 'buffoon' issue. It is minor, uninteresting and a passing comment in my initial response. You might see my response as emotional - sure - but it was mild, and in passing.
What is substantive, and on which, Mikie and I actually exchanged, is the moral valence of caring, or not caring (to different degrees, i can assume) about the climate crisis (and nominally, what to do about it).
I disagree that not caring is objectively immoral. Mikie thinks it is. That's the disagreement. It is not emotional. It is not unreasonable. It is simply a matter of my subjective position vs his attempt to make it objectively immoral... about whether "I don't really care about climate change" is a statement illustrating immorality. I disagree, he appears to think it does, regardless of any potential objections. So, up front, I want to make that extremely clear. I don't give a monkey's about any ongoing discussion to do with 'buffoon' in this thread. It was a throwaway comment, though one I agree with still.

Of course it's an emotional reaction, but that doesn't make it a fallacy. It's okay to express emotions in arguments. It's an emotional reaction that I happen to agree with. — Vaskane

Fair enough, certainly can't argue with this; totally reasonable. As noted, it didn't reach ad hominem - but I didn't attempt to claim it was a fallacy or ad hominem. I merely suggested it would be better not to. Which I, subjectively, think is the case. That's all I'll say about this.

The facts of the matter aren't about moral correctness. There is no morality involved in Mikie's defense of the science, he's merely saying if you wanna be a self deceiving buffoon and deny the science, go right ahead, but all it takes is a quick 5 second search to return loads of neutral non biased science in support of climate change. — Vaskane

Hmm... I readily (even in the comment you're responding to) agreed. Unsure if you've missed that this was not the subject of our exchange(as outline in my preamble), from my perspective, and as I tried to point out multiple times. If i failed, that's on me. But let this be clarity there, in any case.

I don't see anywhere in his sentiments that detail right and wrong in the sense of "Good" and "Evil," again Mikie is saying the guy is acting being a fool for disregarding the science. — Vaskane

Hmm, fair enough in the face of taking that 'buffoon' element of the exchange as major I have no problem with that; you're more than welcome to hold that view with no objection for me... But, because to me it was extremely minor, I have no idea why you're/he are fixated on the way I communicated about his emotional response. Seems hypocritical (and ironic, considering Mikie's last little bit of immature nonsense just there is exactly a gripe about communication, while accusing me of same...wild). But that said, it also doesn't bother me, just seems odd.

The substantive exchange, and the 'gripe', for my part was directly related to his (in my view) asserting my moral response to (the established facts of) Climate Change have a definite, inarguable moral value in the negative. The 'buffoon' disagreement was very much secondary and unimportant to my mind. If it didn't come across that way, again, apologies for not achieving enough clarity.

It would be like you going to the doctor and finding out the science indicates you've an aggressive cancer, possibly too late to cure, but there is still a chance to rid your body of it should you act now, and you choose ignoring their findings, like "oh well, I don't have cancer, I feel relatively fine." — Vaskane

Its not at all like that to my mind, but taking it as an analogy, sure. Still, there is no moral content in either that reaction, or an extremely cautious one. Those just are the two reactions we've chosen to discuss. Mikie thinks otherwise. That's the conflict.

I rest my point, Mikie isn't making a moral argument about "Right" or "Wrong." — Vaskane

Yes, he 100% is. He requires me to be defective, if not immoral, to hold my position. That is absolutely a judgement on right and wrong, moral or immoral. And by his lights, its inarguable. Ha...ha?

I'm not engaging with a complete ignorance of that fact (assuming you've read the exchange). Otherwise, thank you for a rather pleasant exchange.

Hi Vaskane :)

At risk of this being another round of redundant talking past each other... (so, forgive if i bow out quickly. I can see it's not the best use of time if that does occur)

To which we can clearly see you're having an emotional reaction — Vaskane

Do you not see Mikie calling someone a buffoon as an emotional reaction? Because to me it is one without doubt, and if you do not agree we have no further to discuss. The premises we're on aren't the same. I could accept my response is emotional in the sense that it irked me that Mikie is so intensely convinced of his moral correctness, yes treats others with moral disregard. Noticing things is naturally an emotional process.
So, from my perspective, to deny that would be a patent disregard for the facts of the matter. It is a personal attack, not an attack on the argument. Though, I note it doesn't reach the ad hominem level. I guess this just isn't an issue. Pretending his response was not emotional, but my noting it was, is incoherent.

Kasperanza's rhetoric is completely overturned by science — Vaskane

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Based on only the comments that have been addressed, his position isn't one on the science. It's one on the moral status of the facts of the matter (given you both are saying his 'facts of hte matter' are counter to science, I defer, but it's not all that relevant as I never addressed that in any way whatsoever and so responding to it misses me completely). The comments i've addressed could well be in light of accepting the entire mainstream position, including recommendations on combatting CC. If that's not his intention, sure, but this just further supports my intuition that Mikie's responses are confused emotional comments about something I never claimed or addressed.

I simply said calling someone a buffoon might not be hte best idea. It isn't. Clearly.

You're turning it into a debate about the morality of change being either good or bad. — Vaskane

That is exactly not what I did. My entire position rests on change being neither good nor bad without an arbitrary framework to measure it against(and I refrain from choosing one, basically. Could be A-moral i guess). If that isn't clear, I apologise, but i'm unable to formulate a version of what I've said earlier more clearly if that is the case. A failing on my part. But, regardless of that failing, it is entirely counter to reality to pretend I'm making any kind of moral argument about climate change.

Doesn't over turn the science though, that science by independent neutral organizations, not the "science" funded to find counter arguments against climate change, which indicates terrible consequences if solutions, necessarily, aren't found and met. — Vaskane

At no stage did I even tangentially intimate that I was anywhere near denying any of the science around anthropocentric climate change. I actually actively acknowledge it, and my, let's say trust, in it, multiple times. I also observed Mikie's position as admirable. I actually called the situation a crisis at one point. If that doesn't indicate an emotional state that is in line with Mikie's, im unsure what would. I simply reject his moral position and find nothing convincing in his warblings about it.

Further, and contrary to your assertion, Mikie was, in fact, arguing that for me to hold the position I hold, i must be suffering some kind of defect of humanity (his initial formulation was to charge me with psychopathy. Laughable in many ways, not worth addressing further. I've dealt with it). So, at-base I'm unsure where this is relevant, unless you're (maybe accidentally) actually responding to Kasperanza. Though, in that case, I suppose i can ignore it. He may well have been saying untrue, or misleading, or wilfully ignorant things ( in fact, i would agree, it's just not relevant)

In fact, an object is only its set of properties, in that if all the object's properties were removed, then no object would remain. — RussellA

Are things more than their parts?

I'm late to the party but ordering it today! I'll be sure to check the version :) — Daniel Duffy

Good. I think i F'd up on this one - I got F. Max Müller's translation, which I take to be neither well-renowned or particularly good, because it was available and cheapish.

I take it that the Cambridge translation by Guyer and Wood is considered the best when considering a ratio between readability and accuracy to the original.

No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about: — Mikie

Suffice to say I cannot understand how it is even possible, without what I've asserted, that you're appealing to feelings to support your position - whcih is exactly what you've done. However, the below... So, adieu :)

Hey guys, take it to Marriage Guidance, and leave this space for the discussion of climate change, huh? — unenlightened

Fair; hahahaha

True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true. — Mikie

Hmm.. I think I see what you're trying to establish - putting the glibness aside, I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back(I would also posit those things are a result of a lack of impulse control, rather than an actual intention to do those things actively, as it were).

You're conflating actions (readily understood to represent a defect (though, I would argue its not a moral defect, but a neurological defect per above hypothesis)), and a mere moral difference of opinion. (be careful not to jump forward to actions from here... they may be inferred, but not entailed. I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway). I don't have any particular view on actions being taken - Could be good to do so, might not be.

In this case, there is. — Mikie

There, unequivocally, is not. You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy.
That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this.

Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns. — Mikie

Hmm, again, that's just your position. Nothing more, nothing less, and it says absolutely nothing about anyone but you. There is absolutely nothing factual, objective, or verifiable about that claim.

So you’re not interested in what happens to the human species? I really do find that abnormal, yes. Maybe not psychopathy— maybe just nihilism. — Mikie

Perhaps. But that is a far cry from your position elsewhere, even in this same post. I also pointed out i'm an anti-natalist. A fully valid position that results in my not really caring about this issue. No nihilism required. I still very much enjoy my life when i can, and appreciate that those around me also do. I recommend Rivka Weinberg on this particular topic and how it doesn't denote any kind of anti-social attitude.

But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. — Mikie

This is true - and I am not denying there are swathes of (lol) denialists who come to the same conclusion as I (emotionally speaking) or, more importantly, an actively negative position on combating CC, but deny the base facts of your position (i.e moral reaction). So, we've got at least three distinct positions - none of which require psychopathy to be inferred. Assuming what you mean is nihilism, that's not required either as outlined above.

Calling someone a buffoon for their dangerous ignorance is more irksome to you than the ignorance itself? Ok! That’s not always true with me. — Mikie

Yes, and yes :)

I absolutely can. If someone sits by while someone drowns, then says “I don’t care what happens, and there’s nothing you can infer from this because it’s all subjective, feeling-based moral intuitions that are completely outside the purview of fact or objectivity” — yeah, there’s a name for such a person. — Mikie

You might want to pull back from using examples that are readily distinguishable. I'm not going to answer to this one. The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. That's a rather silly and kafka-esque illustration to my mind.

Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny — Mikie

Scrutinize all you want. That's actually what we're doing here. I've rejected one black and white fallacy around the position. and in fact, semi-accepted one other. That's all. The discussion is on going.

Ive denied only the logical inference of psychopathy from differing morals. That's ...absolutely fine.

Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. — Mikie

It isn't, So there we are :)

Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels. — Mikie

That is exactly what you are doing. Your emotional reaction is causing you to make wild speculations about another person's mental state - because you cannot fathom the possibility that the amount of time and effort you've sunk into this topic might be relatively unimportant (see, i can do it too!).

Neither my take there, or yours, is in any way reasonable. We do not disagree about hte facts. We have a different moral reaction within the bounds of general human cognition. I am not alone, and I am not even on the fringes in this. If you're seriously suggesting there is only one allowable moral reaction to the climate crisis, I cannot continue taking you seriously.

Well, isn’t that better than assuming they’re psychopaths? I don’t think that’s better really. So I assume it’s ignorance. — Mikie

Sure, and I did thank you for not taking the 'latter' route :) . But, neither is required or inferable. Both speak a bit more to the shakiness of your conviction, to a third party. Morals just differ... Whether that's 'correct' ethically isn't the question here. There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value.

But again, if you look at that interaction, you’d see I’m not really doing that — I’m calling him a buffoon because he was aggressively ignorant and spread genuinely dangerous nonsense and refused to learn anything about the subject to boot. He didn’t simply say “I don’t really care about the topic of climate change or doing anything about it.” — Mikie

I would say, yes, and i would even ascribe 'ignorance' to the commenter. But this is exactly what I intuited, and described - his lack of interest isn't buffoonery anymore than you're not being interested in why I don't care is *shrug*. I would say pointless, though. Obviously, two people trying to share in differing values is (almost) always pointless! That's fair enough. It's the personalised attack thats irking.

you’re just a psychopath. — Mikie

No. I am neither a psychopath, nor do i care much about hte results of patent anthropocentric climate change. Both of those thing are true.
And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. If your form of deduction rests on such a wild black and white fallacy, i think you're charge of buffoonery might be more than a little ironic ;)

There are so many assumptions on your position it's hard to tease apart without sounding like an utter wanker.

What do you infer by 'care about'? How do you ascribe this to non-persons? I am an anti-natalist. Does that explain your lack of understanding of position? Because psychopathy isn't on the table anymore, for you.

in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part. — Mikie

Its not fair, reasonable or anything other than a protection of your emotional investment. Sunk-fallacy and all that.
You've a world-view that allows for only two options with regard to an adequate understanding of climate change:

1. One knows about climate change adequately, and cares the same way you do;
2. One knows about climate change adequately, and is a psychopath


This is - to put it mildly - f'ing ridiculous.

I never regretted the choice. Anyway now I'm here, sniffing around to see what I might have missed. — Tom Storm

This is brilliant lol

That is indeed all I'm saying. They (the politicians) are poisoning the country. Given the corrosive effects of crime, the metaphor is quite apt otherwise. — NOS4A2

It's not, if we're to take your immediate next phrase seriously. Politicians are allowing is not the same as simply Politicians are doing something.

First, I didn’t do that exactly. Second, why you’d dig up an interaction from two years ago in which you clearly have no context or connection is a little strange. — Mikie

Hi mate,

Just to preface this, because it's going to come across slightly combative, I have no skin in this argument. I accept the facts about anthropocentric climate change (despite your assertion; more below). and have no problem with you, or you holding your views. I in fact called them admirable. I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. So, that disclaimer in place...

I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that..
I generally don't check dates on posts. I see things i find interesting and reply :) Apologies if that's not your jam! Genuinely; folk do stuff differently. It wasn't personal at all. As none other of my comments are!!

You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. — Mikie

This is both not in any way inferable from having a different moral reaction, and it is in fact, counter to the truth. As i've noted, I understand and accept, basically, the 'mainstream' line on anthropocentric climate change. You do not need to posit all these empirical differences to account for our moral differences. This somewhat encapsulates why your take makes me both chuckle, and want to prod a bit. If your assertion is that one requires an in-depth, technical knowledge of climate change science to form a valid moral response to it, I'm just off the bus a few stops back. That's all. But..

It seems that for you, if I do not share your moral reaction, I necessarily must either have access to different information (i.e wrong/incomplete by your lights) or a defective understanding/interpretation. That is just simply void of any validity whatsoever, in any sense.

If that is not the case, forgive, but that is exactly what you are illustrating above. Your assertion that my non-denial is 'because' I don't know the facts is just plain ridiculous, though. So even with my potential error in your thought, what you've said is the kind of unsupportable position I'm trying to deal with in the previous paragraph...

Absolutely; bizarre, isn't it?

Conversely, as noted in that thread, I have an extremely active internal dialogue to, at times, a debilitating degree. I cannot understand how you could possibly deal with systematic knowledge, or logically working through propositions without definitive reference to prior thought - whcih occur to my mind in sentences/phrases. I can't 'image' an emotional concept, for instance, but i can put it into words and hold that while i tinker with the next element of the larger thought process. If i attempt to think in concepts and images only, not only is it utterly, dismally, emotionally triggeringly boring, I can't make heads or tails of fucking anything. I can't only make sense of images in reference to the language in which i first understood the image (perhaps this was a process of acquiring 'concepts' when i was an infant), or subsequently reappraised it under.

There is someone who made a thread yesterday or the day before explaining how he has no inner monologue and also cannot form images mentally. — Lionino

This is true for the majority of people, it seems. https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue-explain-what-its-like-in-their-head-57739

https://irisreading.com/is-it-normal-to-not-have-an-internal-monologue/

I find it fascinating - and fascinating that it took until 2022 for a real grappling to occur.

when you come across sentences half a page long, you’re bound to miss the mark sooner or later. — Mww

Hahaha, very true!

Okay— what was the point? — Mikie

You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take.

One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions; we can co-exist in that state.

You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that. — Mikie

I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from, and how it's informing your passion to encourage others to essentially hold the same moral outlook at yourself. But my 'point' is more that i think it's misguided to be so certain in your moral reactions, as to allow yourself to denigrate others on that basis. Particularly over a joke :P

Sure — there is this guy on YouTube that’s very funny and tackles Climate change in an amusing way — Mikie

Nice. I found the previous commenter's joke funny too :) No trouble here. Thanks for the video!

Yes, i think this is the basis for most 'inner work' type of stuff. 'self help' being a bastardization of it.

Controlling one's inner mono/dialogue is very difficult, particularly for someone oddly perceptive, or quick to discern patterns. I have quite a high IQ and have been told this contributes to both the intensity of my internal mono/dialogues, and my ability to rationally calm it down.

I'm unsure its a reasonable expectation of someone who has both an intense internal mono/dialogue and does not have that level of rationality available.

Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention t or everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade. — Mikie

You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. Respectfully. This is obviously something that ignites a serious passion in you, and that's admirable.

I simply don't care.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly. — Mikie

Exactly. That is your opinion. It is not mine, despite likely agreeing on the basics of the 'facts' of the matter. Though, i appreciate you taking this route instead of trying to assert that my lack of moral alarm is somehow indicative of psychopathy :P

hy anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know — Mikie

Surely not, given the above. But i think jokes are fun. I cannot conceive of why the subject matters to that.

Both, in turns, but through much hard work It's overall constructive/instructive these days. I went through some seriously dark periods though.

Close enough. To reduce it all to the subtleties of transcendental philosophy might be a little different, but the gist is good enough for a general idea. — Mww

Ok, wonderful. Very much appreciate that. I'm getting somewhere heh.

Thanks for this exchange :)

Christ; sorry, for whatever reason I thought neomac's response was part of yours. Doh. Rookie move.