This post contains all of the English concepts she's saying we don't have. Weird.

As I asked before : what philosophical problem is Noetics the solution to? — Gnomon

The entire issue of private experience. If private experiences (and in this case, the noetic quality of those experiences) are derived from a wide-dimensioned, and accessible, world of sensation that not only opens the Hard Question (doesn't solve it) to much richer and more interesting theories (and sets down many of hte mundane as untenable) but it also means we can finally talk about qualities like "satisfaction" in terms that have to do with something beyond our "earthly realm".

So that was a shoddy wording without saying, look, it solves a number of tensions but raises the further questions. It would just put paid to several currently-well-loved theories..

I have a feeling you will quite like this short TED talk by a Johns Hopkins researcher. It is specific to a certain medical detail, but the discussions of hte metrics used are highly relevant here.

I think the authorities are struggling to adapt to this and politics is in turmoil because of the way it can be manipulated. — Punshhh

Definitely - I think its partially baked into how information travels though, right. Unless you're there, in the moment, people are going to draw different conclusions to any kind of reportage - apparently, even video evidence (I can restrict, to keep us relatively neutral, this, to condemning anyone saying Alex Pretti was in any way responsible for his own shooting. That's insane).

The Islamic crowd has been stimulated into action due to the genocide going on in Palestine and the fact that Western governments seem to be endorsing it and supplying the offender with weapons. The far right group has been mobilised by Nigel Farage over the issue of illegal immigration, which has amalgamated with the traditional right wing groups such as the BNP and the Tommy Robinson crowd. — Punshhh

Unfortunately, I think this formulation is probably evidence of the type of issues we're talking about (but obviously, I would - we have different views haha so I'm also doing it - to be sure). I'm not talking about protest groups - but roaming enforcers of Sharia in that case (and this well before Oct 7), and in the other, roaming groups of unhinged leftists assaulting and harassing random passersby(unfortunately, I have only instagram videos for this. If you'd like those links, I'll DM you) to agree to certain tenents like "fuck ICE" or whatever (this is restricted to current milieu, but it happens across many cultural 'events' as such in the last 20 years or so - most notably COVID - again, just to clarify, I am unaware of any groups on the right doing this sort of thing. Protesting, sure, but not this kind of genuinely fascist type of behaviour and that will speak to what's been available to me, If I have missed it).

That said, I'm not totally dismissing that formulation about the protest groups - but i think you're being charitable to one, and uncharitable to the other. As, likely, i would come across if I had carried out the same exercise. Just goes to the bolded above, I think. There is also, though, hte issue of people being genuinely uninterested or maybe unwilling to look at contrary evidence. For example, my position on the ICE/anti-ICE thing is that I see absolutely insanity on both ends of the spectrum: Some of the responses to Pretti's obvious murder have been absolutely baffling. But in the same vein, there are people defending all-out assault on ICE agents and military-style organizing of essentially militia groups to disrupt Federal law enforcement, and harass/assault random members of hte public.

Something prior to either of these positions need be the stopping point, or we can't talk to each other.

If we understood each other's goals to be so totally different as to warrant desisting from conversation, that would be bizarre but at least mutual. Currently, there's no mutuality even of the facts admitted. And yeah, I understand its easy to say "yes, one side is allergic to facts" but that would be to betray the issue, imo.

Well, personally, I wouldn’t make false claims—claims that politifact or others could easily debunk—to people I love. — praxis

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, though. If you can admit he was stupid, not lying, then we're good.

Michelle Obama has never acknowledged that she was a DEI hire. Why would she if she never was? — praxis

No, please read a bit more clearly: "On the grounds that". This means, taking that person's position on board and considering it from that perspective. I essentially agree with you, although she wasn't hired at all anyway just came along for the ride. I think she's said some absolutely god awful, stupid, indefensibly false shit over the years - but she wasn't even hired, so you're right to push that (and as I said, I don't take Kirk's position anyway). Charlie considered that to be hte case, and responded in that context. Again, can easily be called dumb or reactive for this, and probably should be. But its not lying or any other kind of bigotry.

I’m sure it makes sense to you. — praxis

If it makes sense, it makes sense. It can't make sense to me and not you :) It can just either be senseless, or misread.

Deadnaming someone and telling them they’re an abomination to God is just a vibe too—a hateful vibe. — praxis

Very, extremely, disagreed. But i have a feeling you are someone who thinks deadnaming someone is "violence" and I genuinely think its trivial (and no, I am not ill-informed about hte claims from certain kinds of trans people about this issue - I just have my own views and don't swallow personal claims at face value, generally) so there is probably too much daylight between us. As i've noted before, I do not give a flying fuck about deadnaming. I get deadnamed all the time. I simply couldn't give a shit. And my view is anyone who does make a big deal of it is doing themselves a mischief. If your identity is disturbed by being called Dan, that's not my problem. I can only give my own views (although, those of my trans friends mirror mine - they get on with their lives)

You obviously do, Mikie. Your mental schism is bizarre.

In my experience? I don’t see any images, mate. — NOS4A2

So, you keep making claims like this.

What do you call the images (there is literally no better word) of objects you perceive?

This is why I held you to the fire earlier - you only have two options if you do not consider the apply you 'see' as an image: It is either in your mind, or your mind is attached to the object. Appearance cannot occur other ways, askance a mediated perception (which we factually have, so its a tough road, i'll give you that).

You are simply dodging the questions here and its getting tedious. I've asked you directly to answer and you have refused. That is a very loud silence. And its loud because you are entirely ignoring, leapfrogging and pretending you've answered a question you havent even demonstrated an understanding of. Read some of Banno's posts.

Nevertheless, I find the Noetics concept philosophically interesting, though not convincing. — Gnomon

I agree. You might get a kick out hte Institute for Noetics - I think the basic premise is that ineffable experience indicates something beyond perception with regard to consciousness. Weird stuff - but I have to give full disclosure: I used to think that was a done deal.

This because the generation of the superseding species (or entity) dovetails with the yielding species achieving its highest self-realization through the instantiation and establishment of the superseding species. — ucarr

Is this just an unfortunately verbose way of saying "evolution is real and causes species to die"?

It's not hard, at all.

No, I wouldn't, and I cannot understand why you would, for several reasons (though, I don't find it weird. Giving opinions is natural response when they're coming up against each other, so not judging your position there):

Firstly, I am not religious. What's being claim is illegitimate to me. In any case, the context made it incredibly clear Kirk was not vilifiying a trans person, personally. If that's the premise you're operating on, we can drop it. It goes no where.
Secondarily, what the fuck do I care about a random person saying this? Unless the person was someone I actually trusted and (personally) loved - and seemed to be putting my child at risk - I cannot see why I would expend energy on this. That seems bizarre and perhaps the root of much emotional nonsense in the modern world. Stop trying to police random people's thoughts and feelings (this requires that the next response is apt, so hang tight).
Thirdly, if my kid went up and spoke to someone who is (at least portrayed as..) transphobic, how is it possible the fault is with the person my child went and antagonized in some way? My job is to teach my child to either put up with their decisions, or not go into spaces they already determine might be harmful to them. We do this with non-trans kids. And trans kids are (well, probably aren't a real thing in the sense meant here) aren't special in this way.
Fourth, that's their right. Plain and simple.
Fifth my job is to help my kid, not hurt other people. If you think otherwise, we live in different worlds.

Given the context, your final little bit doesn't seem relevant - a wider look at Charlie's views and interactions with people make it quite clear his intent (quite important) is not to villify. Believe it or not (genuinely - not me telling you its true regardless - just saying, that's my take whether or not you believe those interpretations).

If you can’t say anything about it that appears to mean it’s basically meaningless to you—just empty words. — praxis

This sentence does not make sense. If you could rephrase I could reply a bit more directly, but on it's face it looks like all you're doing is trying to say that there's an ulterior meaning (or, esoteric anyway) and that I'm wrong to take it at face value. Rejected on first principle grounds.

Okay, that’s one meaningful indicator of what it means to love everyone—you don’t lie. — praxis

Generally, maybe. But that is an absolute leap imo and not something I'm willing to take as a tenet. because there are counter-examples - but again, generally, yes, cool. Hopefully not a big spanner here.

If you check with politifact or some other fact checking organization there are many instances of claims made by Charlie Kirk that are judged to be false. Just typical MAGA stuff like about the 2020 election, Covid, climate change, etc. There is often a gap between political rhetoric and objective fact, to put it mildly, and it's obvious that Charlie was fully immersed in the game of politics—worse, MAGA politics.

No heavy judgment, but if loving everyone means not lying, well, Charlie's love seems to have been rather shallow. — praxis

Hmm. This is odd. Making a false claim is not lying; it's being wrong. Some of those are in contention anyway. But this doesn't speak to his claim to love everyone. This is just you assuming he willfully said false things. Very different claims, I think. You seem inordinately obsessed with propping up your beliefs about Charlie on demonstrably bad reasoning and factually inaccurate claims - can I ask why you're motivated to do this?

Where have I claimed that? — praxis

The reference here is to another thread, and in that thread, I variously quoted two examples these (Thread is closed - quote from you is "Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in?"
"A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.'"

You have directly claimed this at least twice and from what I see in the thread, one at least, is after I provided you with information which should have stopped you from making this claim, even if you have an internal commitment to it. There is no evidence of such. That is required.

I'm justifying ambivalence to his murder and pretending that his quote about trans abomination is as morally wrong as his assassination? — praxis

If you could point out where I charged you with that, it would be helpful. GIven we're discussing honestly, I would want a direct response to that. Irony looms large my friend.

I admitted to watching the godawful Williams video that you suggested I watch. I admitted to suffering through it twice, in fact — praxis

Jesus. You still don't see your own arse in the mirror do you?

He was supporting Kirk's claim that Michelle Obama and other black women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously," etc. That seems to be assuming the worst in them. He did not try to show their lack of intelligence, he just took it for granted. — praxis

He didn't assume anything. He commented on what he sees in their actual effect in the world (and to be clear, specific Black women who he (rightly or wrongly - this is extremely important) acknowledge were DEI-derived hires. I don't have the knee-jerk to DEI hires Charlie had, but on those grounds there is actually no good reason to reject what he's said which has been clipped to hell to sound racist which it demonstrably was not), and their actual, let's call them failings to be charitable. He did not, arbitrarily claim anything there. This is exactly what the next response is about...

I am? — praxis

Obviously.

What follows after because is an indecipherable word salad. The truth is you don't know why he didn't mention it, right? — praxis

That you appear to choose not to understand English in situations that it wouldn't be helpful for your position, isn't my problem. Feel free to have a go. I'm not judging you for that, but i am for this reply.

Anyway, if you and Kirk love everyone that means you love people who, for instance, rape and murder innocent children. That seems deranged. But I can see it to be true on a spiritual or transendent level, and also perhaps on a theological level. — praxis

That is roughly what is meant by the phrase "I love everyone". You seem to have solved your own problem here by finally acknowledging the actual intent and meaning of something someone else has said. That is good.
I love everyone on this exact level - we're all human, we're all fallible. It doesn't mean (as i've already made explicitly clear) that I agree with anything the person has done or said. I think you're bigoted. But that doesn't mean I don't love you on that same level. Clear enough?

Was Charlie spiritually or theologically advanced? — praxis

Hard to tell, given that's an almost meaningless thing to be - but I acknowledge what you're getting at. He wasn't a scholar, although, i'd suggest he had a better understanding of Biblical matters than the majority of American xtians. Speculation, to be sure.

In this light, isn't it rather self-aggrandizing to say that you love everyone—that you're so spiritually advanced that you can transcend the conventional world of good and evil? — praxis

I can't understand the question. It's just a vibe that people who understand the plight of the human race tend to take on. There's nothing 'advanced' about noticing that we're all human. I also suggest: Try taking 3 dried grams of psilocybin and not coming out with that as an extremely strong motivator for at least the short-term. It's the opposite of self-aggrandizing. And for Charlie, someone who routinely vilified himself, it seems a wilfully stupidity to suggest this - but i admit, I may not understand why you're asking given the lead-up doesn't do anything for it.

I apologise for wading into this thread.

It has made me far less optimistic about several posters.

You're not actually listening to what's being said. I have not denied what you (erroneously, nonetheless imo) posit.

What I'm saying is: they are not metaphysical commitments. They are models which are definitionally open to update on empirical grounds.

Religions are definitionally not. You cannot move from "worldviews" to "some specific person's belief" and get a coherent conversation going.

On their face, religions contradict each other metaphysically. Scientific models contradict each other empirically.

I wont be pressing that further.

Again, missing the point. I'm not denying what you think I'm denying. — Esse Quam Videri

Then your OP has been answered and your objections are about something else. That's fine.

Very much appreciate it, as always.

Falsifiable does not mean, "It can be proven to be false", its that "There is a state of being which would negate the claim that "X is Y", and that can be as simple as "X cannot be Y if X is Z". — Philosophim

:up: I think Hallucinogen's dissatisfaction comes from wanting a definitive call on whether or not all statements have this available. They don't. But ones which are apt for it either have what you've described (i.e an counterfactual) or they don't.

Hate and Love don't appear to be opposites.

Fear and Love make more sense, as Jkop has pointed out.

In this sense, both are apt for their uses. Both of apt for their misuses. Best we just focus on ourselves.

They exist in your experience. What this consists in is the bloody question mate. I have actually explicitly stated this. Give me your answer. For the love of God.

You refuse to give any account whatsoever of how it's possible to see anything. I think perhaps you need to reflect on your way of going about these things. You literally haven't answered a single thing.

The heat the snake is interested in and detects is the heat emanated from warm bloodied mammals. This is not a private sensations the snake is detecting, it is a property of the mammal. No mental images need to explain what is going on here. So, is the snake a direct or indirect realist when it comes to infrared energy? Do we really need to use either expression? — Richard B

It's extremely likely (I will look into it while replying and see if I can glean a good determination) that the "heat" here is not a idealisation. And, as it goes, even your description betrays this: infrared radiation is not what is called 'heat' in every day use. The photons the pit detects slightly warm a membrane within the organ - that is a private sensation which other animals (say., mammals) do not enjoy. It is a private, at least semi-subjective sensation.

A better exampel from biology, which I think runs counter to this, is that my wife and I have very, very different ideas of what 15 degrees celsius means. For me, it's barmy - perhaps even crisp.
For her, it's slightly warm.

We are not detecting anything inherent in the air around us, clearly.

As Dingo didn't address this I'll have a go - I think the issue here is that social opinion is more effective censoring people than the law is. I return to Mill on this:

From Chapter 1:
"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."

From Chapter 4:

"The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion. And in general, those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling have left this condition of things unassailed in principle, however they may have come into conflict with it in some of its details... In our age, from the highest class of society down to the lowest, everyone lives as under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship. Not only in what concerns others, but in what concerns only themselves, the individual, or the family, do not ask themselves—what do I prefer? or, what would suit my character and disposition? but—what is suitable to my position? what is usually done by persons of my station and pecuniary circumstances?

So its right to make a point about censorship, in the modern sense, being somewhat rare (although, I imagine many cases are unjustified beyond discomfort grounds anyway) but I think the above is illustrative of what's really wrong.
People shouldn't be interfering with other's beliefs in these ways, and we have literal roaming gangs of enforcers of political opinions, whether Islamic or Democratic (I simply don't know of any on the right at this time - if i'm ignorant, i'm ignorant).

The inarguable effect of social opinion precluding women from dobbing in their abusers is a prime example we may not want to lose sight of in these discussions.
The epistemic injustice meted out in yesteryear appears to have sort of turned on it's head, rather than diminished appreciably. Maybe this is just the nature of humans in large groups.

Fair - a distinction that does matter. I've noted before, publication is not as clear-cut as you make it seem.

Publication benchmarks tend to only be met by public figures. If not many people see your comment, this owuldn't apply. Which is likely why there haven't been more prosecutions.

In either case though (lets assume that every case is a publication issue) that is still clearly wrong in a democratic, adult society. Particularly one where, increasingly, use of social media is akin to talking shit with at the pub. Its a bit of a category error to capture social media posts by non-public figures with that i think (but this is just my opinion).

I see the point, but I don't think so, no. There is a semantic idealization - and even then, I think you're overstating. The vast majority of uses of "thermometer" or "check the thermometer" are to assess temperature. We then reach for our internal library of potential sensations to assess which that temperature is likely (well, we think, certain) to excite.

I believe neither of your two options. Why do you think we see images, take images into the head, or create images/representations, when neither of the above have been found in any skull in the history of mankind? — NOS4A2

This is to misunderstand, entirely, even the fundamental basis for what we're talking. You seem to think you do not have any images of any kind available to you. That's fine. But it means the rest of this conversation is utterly pointless.

I've worded that badly - I take him more seriously than Don. I think its a far, far bigger threat than a meme, regardless of how unbecoming it is of the office.

These are not metaphysical positions my guy. My point is still as strong as ever.

Their adherents routinely treat them as ultimate frameworks — Esse Quam Videri

Perhaps we're living in different worlds.

'm pointing out that you are overlooking the simple historical fact that religions do revise—slowly, unevenly, and often under pressure — Esse Quam Videri

And are almost routinely vilified for such. They are definitionally unopen to review, being revelatory. This is not contentious.

He's clearly a Trump apologist, and in my books that is a supporter.

There can be no middle road on this issue. You either support fascism, or you do not. — Questioner

This explains a lot. This is a childish, unhelpful and extremely bigoted way of thinking about other human beings. You are also probably entirely wrong on what you're calling fascism, in order to do hte first part. That's how bigotry works: you cloak it in something you think its morally worthy. Funny, that.

When I asked you what this meant, you chose not to reply, so I will have to assume that you are suggesting it is historically insane to draw parallels between the Germans who marched people to the gas chambers and the MAGA goons — Questioner

No. I either missed it, or didn't get to it. Please stop making assumptions about motivations and things you couldn't possibly know. That is, it seems, the most glaring problem in almost everything you want to talk about.

To answer: Yes. Because they are nothing alike (or, not more than trivially). The charges that they are speak to a lack of understanding, or perhaps a wilfull stupidity on the part of those claiming it in my view. The onus is on you. So, onward..

Why? You think those in the 1930s were a different human species than the ones we see today? — Questioner

If you truly think this is a good faith question (rather than an attempt to frame everything the exact emotional way you like it) I can't understand why you would wade into a philosophy forum.

You expect Minnesota to co-operate with their occupiers? — Questioner

This, for instance, is exactly the type of emotive, unhelpful nonsense you seem addicted to.

Prior to their arrival, the state should have fucking co-operated with Federal law enforcement's planned, notified lawful activity to enforce immigration regulations and laws (again, we can discuss how it's played out later. That is not yet open to us, in this exchange, if you want to actually sort anything out). As they did, apparently, under Obama who deported more, in worse circumstances.

DHS notes a more than 1000% increase in assaults on ICE agents. Are you trying to kid me, or yourself? Even court documents (which, I hope you understand what's happened when i delieneate between DHS stats and court docs) reports a 25% increase. That is absolutely absurd and would be considered a form of organised treason in many circumstances (I wouldn't call it that - I'm making a point).

And - “Operation Metro Surge” is unconstitutional – it violates both the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments — Questioner

Possibly. There is no ruling on this and making such a bold statement, again, explains why its so hard to have you say reasonable things in response here. Certain actions definitely do - that's not in argument here with me. But this statement is wholly incomplete and misleading.

I have to admit I am somewhat shocked that you would repeat such a stupid falsehood. — Questioner

Then we have nothing further. You are not in touch with reality and clearly on a particular intellectual mission I have no interest in. Why did you bother.. .

You are clearly incapable of hearing either a competing view, or refraining from hyperbolic emotional framing. You're entitled and I have ill no will. Am just utterly astounded at this type of bad faith being present on this forum (besides Mikie) and so shall 'dip' as they say. Different strokes... Let's stick to poetry.

Once again, you do not seem to have read anything but what triggered you emotionally.

Obama deported more people than Trump. THe circumstances in which they were held were as bad or worse. The places they were deported to were the same.
Conceptually, Don is the only difference. The extreme knee-jerk to his plans cannot be ignored as a trigger for how this has gone. Not that it justifies anything, but "fair and balanced" is a joke if you cant admit this.

This is exactly what he's talking about. Totally ignoring that there have been several hundred detentions for simply posting something on the internet that someone, somewhere doesn't like.

You realise that's the benchmark right? Someone claimed to be upset by something you said? If the state can intervene in such circumstances, you do not have free speech. Plain and simple.

Mikie, is it just your nature to make pithy, childish replies? There is no blaming protesters for getting shot unless they do something which would justify that. I've not said otherwise. You just cannot help yourself but but in with these low-level, Twitter-type trolls.

This is so intensely confused.

Minnesota actively, publicly said it would not co-operate with a Federal law enforcement activity which is justified and reasonable (not the current activities - i'm saying conceptually) was apparently fine under Obama. I would focus there. That would be sensible as it indicates you're going to get some trouble. As ICE have, in fact, had. You can ignore all the assaults on ICE if you like, but there are two sides to this (not hte murder of Pretti - It's bogus to pretend anything I'm saying is an attempt to justify whatever Mikie is whittering about. You have to actually read and not assume).
Texas, as far as I know, is co-operating. They do not need to run the type of operation seen in Minnesota (although, I'm not saying its good or that I'm 'fine' with it either). I wouldn't focus there. I wouldn't anticipate issues. Nor have there been.

The president's lawless army has descended upon the city, and this has nothing to do with immigration — Questioner

Well, both of these are utterly preposterous and supported by anything but personal assumptions.

It is about having a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act. It is part of the strategy to ensure Trump does not have to leave office. — Questioner

Haha. If you think so - I'd prefer to keep my head on my shoulders. If you truly think these are motivations for anything he's done, I implore you to bookmark this and come back to me in three years.

Trump's offer to remove the ICE army if Minnesota hands over the voter rolls shows that. — Questioner

No. That shows (on an inferential basis)he's concerned that Minnesota has been propped up by illegals voting for their Democrat mates who have supported wide-spread fraud. But prior to that, checking voting eligibility and fixing the holes (many of which have already been found - why are we ignoring things like that?) is exactly what he's said he wants to do. Is it in service of 'his side'? Yes. So was allowing millions of illegals to vote Dem.

If you're going to make this type of assumption that's fine - but I'm going to then say Walz dipping shows clearly he's guilty of fraud. Nice work :)

Exactly. First of all, ICE or any government agency wouldn't make an operation without approval of the state in normal times. And then it would be low key, simply marketed as totally normal police stuff. Just ask yourself: was it really in the news when the highest number of illegal immigrants were sent away during the years when we had Democrat Presidents? You have to have a serious political crisis when for example the Military is put into a state without the acceptance of the state leaders. It's not something that hasn't happened, for example President Eisenhower put the military escort black children to school: — ssu

Not entirely askance from your position here, but I think when you have multiple state leaders actively claiming they wont participate or co-operate with lawful ICE operations (which, at least as initially proposed, they were) you can't just "let it run its course".
But the optics and possibly actually authoritarian bent is not lost on me. It's is crucial to remember I am not a fan of the Don. I am a fan of discussing things in a mature manner and hearing all comers. It is not interesting to me to have people(Mikie) be so intensely combative and incapable of reading a full post that they say the batshit stuff they do.

We need to purge all the charlatans and bullshitters from halls of power everywhere. — Christoffer

Who does?
How is that to be assessed?
Or implemented?

These seem like wishful pipedreams of someone who thinks their moral compass is perfect (not you, but whoever actually runs this argument to its end).

instruments don't measure cold. They measure temperature.

That is a glaring misstep. Temperatures do not have 'cold' to refer to. Neither hot, nor warm or any other experientially-bound concept.

Methods don’t contradict each other or anything else — they constrain belief-formation. That’s not the same category. — Esse Quam Videri

haha. It's funny you think this runs for your point - It runs exactly for mine: They aren't hte same category. So comparison between them is of form. Scientific findings which don't cohere aren't problematic.
Religious views that do are
Scientific findings don't excite metaphysical commitments in people.
Religious discovery tends to
etc....

This is the exact point I am making. Secular view points aren't "incoherent" because they don't all claim metaphysical primacy. Religious views do.

If we agree on this, then I am having a hard time understand how you've come to disagree with any of what i've said.

Calling religious reformers “outliers” just builds the conclusion into the premise. — Esse Quam Videri

They are. That isn't my opinion. They are outliers. Religions are definitionally (most of them) unopen to revision because they are revelatory. This isn't controversial.

Super interesting that we're seeing essentially hte same set of facts, the same way,and getting a diff. conclusion. I mean interesting truly here - not some veiled derogatory remark!

Well, in principle i get you - but taking for instance, Abu Hafs al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, as seriously (or, in the same vein anyway) as Trump is, to me, a grave error which will have you doing and saying things I would liken to a panicked middle-aged woman trying to figure out why her computer is saying "Restart".

Dbl post. My apologies.

I have had a disturbing thought - that the ones justifying the murder of Alex Pretti are the ones who would have marched people to the gas chambers. — Questioner

That is historically insane.

They are, however, fucking blind.

That's true, but there's always going to be a question: If local law enforcement co-operated, the way they did under Obama, there wouldn't be the need for ICE to be carrying out these raids and there would be no media-driven (and, as much as you might think this is fine) a concerted, semi-violent effort to impede, harm and hamper not just the enforcement, but agents themselves, the temperature wouldn't be so goddamn high.

This is doable 10 years ago. It's not now. If its the fact Trump is doing, then that is the problem for those people, not hte enforcement.

And yes, there is always going to be this question, because that's what happened under Obama.

It’s interesting stuff, sure, but it is not sufficient to give me pause because humans have looked in the brain and have seen no images or anything that constructs images. — NOS4A2

Either you believe we literally take images into our heads from the outside, or we have absolutely, 100% without a shadow of a doubt, seen, in the brain, the infrastructure for creating mental images/representations. One of those needs to be true (but this doesn't determine an IR/DR perspective. It just is the two options available based on the fact that we aren't the images we 'see'). It would be helpful to know which you think is the case..

If humans don’t see light why do we have lightbulbs? — NOS4A2

I'm not quite sure what work this question is doing? Light provides the eyes with data. Without the light, there is no data. Though, it does seem we can literally see light in the form of photons. Not sure that changes anything - the point is that without photons bouncing off an object, we wouldn't become visually aware of it. If that doesn't give you pause, I guess I feel like you're not sufficiently in touch with the problem. Onward...

If I’m having hallucinations I’m going to get a second opinion — NOS4A2

How would you know you were having an hallucination? How would you know the second opinion was 'accurate' and as against what? Consensus? That's fine, and also what I would do - but it's not supportive of a DR position.

While you and Michael claim there is the proverbial veil blocking us from direct access to the world, I say that the veil blocks your access to the goings on of your own brain. I say this for the simple reason that the senses point outward. — NOS4A2

This is quite clearly incoherent: If we are veiled from the actions of our brain, we have no possible access to the outside world. We do not see things in our eyes - our eyes literally ships electrical signals to our brain. Without hte brain there is no possible mental image (or whatever you'd like to call it). Eyes (i.e the sense organ) objectively see/present nothing but "code" for lack of a better term. They do not contain or receive images. This much is an empirical truth and not part of the philosophical disagreement - which is why it seems to me you (and others) are not quite coming into contact with the facts prior to trying to determine some epistemic situation (there is a big spanner to this approach, but its not hard to overcome).

Again, this is why we have sophisticated imaging contraptions, specialized doctors, and brains in jars: so that we can better understand what is occurring in there. — NOS4A2

A clear mistake. Our senses are still our only access to any of this. None of it brings us closer to the objects we study in the epistemic sense. If there's a veil in the sense you want to call it (we don't), then that's present when you look down a microscope or interpret dye results etc..

claiming there exists things in the head that cannot be proven to exist, but because you believe you have a superior epistemological grasp of what is occurring behind your senses rather than in front of them. — NOS4A2

I don't even think you're in touch with the competing view point.

There are no "objects" in the head. That has never been claimed, so let's be clear: The images we see are there, whether or not you claim they are generated by the brain or not. If you're claiming they are not generated by the brain, you have a world of philosophy and neuroscience to battle against and an incredibly uphill battle it is, to explain how it is the apple on my table gets into my head(read: experience, i guess, noting hte empirical facts of perception).

Banno has understood this and made a different, more successful argument. I'd look there.

I do get the impression you both feel that scientific discoveries demand that we should accept the metaphysical picture that indirect realism seems to draw. — Richard B

Not quite, but it gives a default understanding which we would do well to be skeptical of displacing on philosophical grounds imo.

As indirect realism retreats into private first person experiences, science needs to find consensus in the public realm. — Richard B

This is an extreme error. Science doesn't 'need' to find anything, whatsoever. It follows a method and 'come what may'. In this case, we now understand that we do not receive images from without, but light which is turned into electrical signals, which go the brain - and then we have work to do. This isn't controversial. The fact that humans have private experiences is a fact, and not one which discussions of perception can do much for. There is no way for me to have your experiences.

If hydration directly processes H2O, why can't we say perception directly processes light? — Richard B

Because they are in no way similar processes, physically speaking. Different forms, substances, substrates, organs, results etc... It's a really bad analogy, is the reason this probably was not picked up.

You might say, we should keep "realism" and drop "direct/indirect" and understand we are causally embedded biological organisms whose process of perception supports interventions, coordinations, and manipulations of our environment. — Richard B

You might, but this would be to entirely miss the point of the question (which i think you're entire point about science does) by completely and utterly ignoring the fact that there is no answer anywhere in this discussion as to where we are to consider factually mediated perception direct or indirect. This is a matter of comparison and "the best we can do, in this particular realm where language is important for stability".

You're not even wrong. And I should stress this more clearly: When practicing science, with other scientists, consensus is king. That says nothing about the state of DR/IR theories. That we have shared perceptions (assuming everyone's system in a given thought experiment works right isn't controversial either). If DR is 'true' (or, the best description) this would be how it happens. If IR is 'true' (or, the best description) then this is how things work.

Neither theory runs against reality. That's why it's such a tense question. I understand the temptation to say what you're saying, but it just doens't touch anything. You're talking about standards and method. The thing Michael and I are, at the least trying to get you guys to deal with properly, is the fact accepted by both camps that there is no possible way for the apple on my desk to be in my head, and it snot possible that my mind is included in the objects it perceives. So there's gap - simple as.

That is, if I speak falsetto, you can say that is not my "real" voice. If you want to say that my real voice is what you hear when we're next to each other talking, but a recording of my voice isn't my real voice, that's fine. But none of that suggests there is this metaphysically true voice that can be meaningfully (and by "meaningfully" I mean that can be identified and discussed coherently) identfied.

Identifying that "real" voice is impossible. Is it the vibrations, the way you hear it, the way your ear drum vibrates? Is it still "real" if through helium? — Hanover

Hmm, I got you. I don't think this is doing a lot, because I can simply say your examples require other modifiers "speaking voice" in the first, or "tessitura" to be more technical.

It seems to me there is nothing missing or hard to grasp (i.e to talk about) in these uses. But i recognize 'use' gives meaning to things - I just, personally, hold that htis is an absolute cop out. If there were truly the way words 'worked' then no words would have shared meanings because anyone's personal use would be valid. But we correct each other. So there is some epistemic primacy to some uses, and I think thats far more widespread and meaningful than a lot do.

What you do call the difference between hearing your wife's 'real' voice when you're two feet away, and a recording from 2022 when you're on another continent?

But none of that suggests there is this metaphysically true voice that can be meaningfully (and by "meaningfully" I mean that can be identified and discussed coherently) identfied. — Hanover

This is exactly my intuition and experience. I can't understand what you think leads to this ambiguity? Either i'm hearing your voice, or a recording of it (which a phone call technically is). Nothing weird or airy fairy there, to me?

It would've been preferable to simply ask what I meant here. I mean, I think you're also being a bit combative and not quite capturing the most reasonable version of your argument.

You want to learn how to actually combat racism? Google Daryl Davies. Single handedly done more to combat racism than all the speech control efforts combined. — DingoJones

This, for instance, isn't the strongest thing to bring up as its very, very context-dependent and perhaps the only example of a similar approach working en masse (even then, Daryl's output isn't not 'masses'. KKK were mostly thwarted financially).

It wasn't an attack.

Yes, that's kind of what I was saying. The scientific method contradicts all (that I know of) religious commitments. Science only contradicts itself insofar as it gets pretty quickly updated by new information. That's a basic tenet of that method. I'm sure you'll agree.

Religions contradict each other and are not amenable to update in that way. That's the issue in comparison. The fact that various philosophical commitments run into each other is mediated by assessment of the results of the scientific method (Excluding outliers(i have been explicit about this)). Religious thinking is not (excluding outliers). So even if you want to move on to 'secular' rather than 'scientific' that's cool, I understand but the above stands.

It feels to me like you're purposefully not quite contacting the point you initially wanted to talk about. If the issue is that secular views are incompatible, sure. But I don't know anyone who would kill someone over their belief in Direct Realism or Incompatibilism (hehehe). This is what I mean by metaphysical primacy. If you think Islam and physicalism are on the same level in this way, I smell a whiff of dishonesty.

Just imagine the historical films done about Trump decades from now. Biden might be forgotten like Gerald Ford. Trump won't be. That's for sure — ssu

Haha, that's true. I wonder how it will look.
I recall on a forum i was on about 20 years ago there was a user who was highly conservative and was absolutely convinced History would look back on Bush II as one of the best presidents ever. Yeesh.

I can't quite grasp the point of the response to the Rhetoric comment. That's not a serious picture or anything, right? And unbecoming of a President to be so unserious but uhh - what are the first five of those more-than-a-thousand words?

No.

I am doing what you've asked: comparing religious and scientific worldviews (you've named mainly philosophical views, btw).

The comparison I've made is clear. The dressing you're putting on this is fine, but it isn't relevant to the OP. There are no "scientific" worldviews which run into each other. There are theories which compete. That is not true for the religious world. They are directly incompatible.

Taking on any given secular view, other than hard atheism, does not do this. Choosing a religious worldview which runs up against scientific method or experimental results is damning as by comparison.

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: