Nowhere in physics is the concept of now enshrined... — Devans99

So much the worse for physics. You are doing the same magical thinking again. Deriving the way things must be from the thoughts folks have. Actually, physics works the other way around. Look at what's around and let that guide your thoughts. The reason the particularity of the present of 'here' and 'now' does not appear in physics is that physics is abstract; so it is general and not particular. You are looking at a map, and declaring that because you and I do not appear on the map, we must not exist.

I've no time for stuff like this - philosophical incantations that purport to tell the world how it has to be. It's magical thinking and it doesn't work.

physics makes no distinction between now and past/present and in relativity, there is no preferred reference frame. — Devans99

And when exactly does physics do this? If physics don't realise that I am quoting you after you have posted and not before, physics is a dick. Obviously there is no reference frame in which there is no preferred reference frame.

What could possibly go wrong? — Jake

Nothing that natural selection can't sort out - eventually. :death:

There's a well known but seldom practiced method for dealing with muddy waters - quit stirring, and wait for the mud to settle. Things went to hell in Florida when the apes arrived, a few monkeys won't matter much now.

if you reject this view, it's your responsibility to present a reason to doubt it. — frank

I don't reject it. I merely consider an alternative hypothesis, that has been presented, and that accounts for things in a slightly different way.

If this is true, what does that imply? That contemporary evolutionary theory is entirely wrong? Species don't arise by natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift? — frank

No. It might be that speciation by hybridisation is rare, occasional or frequent. I think it is almost certain that it happens, unless that report proves to be wildly wrong.

My own argument is roughly thus:

We have seen speciation by hybridisation and we have seen fertile hybrids between species with different numbers of chromosomes.

What we have seen in one lifetime is unlikely to be very unusual or at the extreme of the possible over evolutionary time.

There is thus no immediate reason to rule out as impossible that a more distant hybridisation could have given rise to the human species.

Thereafter, one should consider whether such an event has explanatory value in relation to human characteristics and maybe look for whatever evidence might distinguish this hypothesis from the currently accepted one.

One of the things I found interesting, though I am not qualified to pass judgement, was McCarthy's discussion of the cooling limitation of primate brain size, and how trans-cranial blood supply, found in pigs but not non-human primates overcomes this. Is there someone debunking these ideas, because the critiques I've seen seem to focus on other speculations and don't go into the details argued in the human case specifically.

I found someone who will engage the topic. — frank

Following up on the links, a large part of the relevant argument is that speciation by hybridisation simply does not occur. But it does occur, so I repeat my earlier reference. https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-bird-species-arises-from-hybrids-as-scientists-watch-20171213/

As far as I know, this is the only speciation that has actually been observed, and it arose from hybrids.

Even those who deny that that there is such a thing as race (sensible educated people) have a fairly clear idea of what it is that doesn't exist, and will be able to agree that a racist is one who believes it does exist, and that it is significant.

It is possible that some people think that headgear, and/or religion are racial characteristics, and such people are racists. But on the face of it, someone who attributes the headgear of one religion with another religion is not necessarily racist, merely ignorant and wrong, and someone who has a fear (or hatred) of members of a particular religion, is not necessarily racist either. I'm not fond of Scientology, but I don't associate it with any particular headgear, let alone race or ethnicity.

y'all mad at me because I don't side with every other black person.

And here, it is if anything everyone else being accused of racism, for expecting a black woman to unconditionally support every other black person.

But what we do have here is the combination of woeful ignorance, rampant fear, and strong prejudice. And that is just like racism in every respect except the actual avowal of race as the justification. And that is enough for loose talkers to be well justified in calling it racism, because the effect is the same.

As to the power thing, it is significant; if the moderators don't like me, I better watch my step, but if you peasants don't like me, I don't have to care. So the prejudice of a black person is not in general as harmful as that of a white person in -say- the US or Australia, or the UK. But in particular, people - including black people - in the media, people who are wealthy, have power despite their racial disadvantage, and so of course their prejudices are more significant, whether racial or cultural.

If you don’t want to share fair enough. — I like sushi

My attitude is rather similar; if you don't want to engage with the hypothesis presented, fair enough. I have engaged a bit and shared a bit, but my purpose in engaging with the text is to discuss with others who wish to engage with it, rather than to answer the questions of folks who don't want to engage with it. You don't have to rely on my hearsay, you can get from the man himself.

Yes. It's far fetched, it's based on a controversial theory of speciation, and there's plenty of legitimate criticism that can be mounted. It's a shame that folks here don't bother, but rely on argument from authority, ridicule, and outrage. I'd say it seems highly unlikely, but not impossible. But then I bothered to read it, and also some of the criticisms, and I reckon that makes me an authority compared to most contributors here. :roll:

Here's what I think. The whole notion of reincarnation is bogus because it's your childhood environment that shapes your identity as a person, and unless reincarnation can replicate your childhood experiences that shapes your personality as you grow up, the whole idea is hopeless. — Purple Pond

Even the most materialist science allows that there is a genetic component to personality. So nature and nurture at least, and then by hypothesis of reincarnation, a third factor, that one might call 'spirit'.

Such a factor has certain essential properties: non-physicality (it survives physical death); independence from experiential memory (because most people cannot remember previous lives and some people lose their memory while living , but presumably not their spirit).

So we are talking an accumulated habit of response, or perhaps developed abilities of awareness, virtue or vice, and so on. One way of thinking about it is to assume a larger grander spirit self in a 'higher reality', that injects a portion of itself into a living being the way one might immerse oneself in a book or computer game. I don't think there is anything contradictory about such notions, but I don't think there is much evidence for them either. You can take @Wayfarer's evidence seriously, or dismiss it as conjuring and wishful thinking, according to taste.

Personally, I like to immerse myself in the game, and forget about higher reality for the duration.

The guy is a kook. — I like sushi

Oh gosh, is he? I'd no idea. Well that changes everything.

Maybe you could tell me when abouts he thinks this happened? — I like sushi

Maybe he'll tell you himself, if you read what he says.

I'll just leave this list here for people too clever to need to look at the article to glance at, along with a comment on it.

Human Traits Not Seen In Other Primates
DERMAL FEATURES
Naked skin (sparse pelage)
Panniculus adiposus (layer of subcutaneous fat)
Panniculus carnosus only in face and neck
In “hairy skin” region:
- Thick epidermis
- Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
- Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
Large content of elastic fiber in skin
Thermoregulatory sweating
Richly vascularized dermis
Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
Dermal melanocytes absent
Melanocytes present in matrix of hair follicle
Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides and free fatty acids

FACIAL FEATURES
Lightly pigmented eyes common
Protruding, cartilaginous nose
Narrow eye opening
Short, thick upper lip
Philtrum/cleft lip
Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
Eyebrows
Heavy eyelashes
Earlobes

FEATURES RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
Short, dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebra
Seventh cervical vertebrae:
- long dorsal spine
- transverse foramens
Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
More lumbar vertebrae
Fewer sacral vertebrae
More coccygeal vertebrae (long “tail bone”)
Centralized spine
Short pelvis relative to body length
Sides of pelvis turn forward
Sharp lumbo-sacral promontory
Massive gluteal muscles
Curved sacrum with short dorsal spines
Hind limbs longer than forelimbs
Femur:
- Condyles equal in size
- Knock-kneed
- Elliptical condyles
- Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
- Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
- Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
Short malleolus medialis
Talus suited strictly for extension and flexion of the foot
Long calcaneus relative to foot (metatarsal) length
Short digits (relative to chimpanzee)
Terminal phalanges blunt (ungual tuberosities)
Narrow pelvic outlet

ORGANS
Diverticulum at cardiac end of stomach
Valves of Kerckring
Mesenteric arterial arcades
Multipyramidal kidneys
Heart auricles level
Tricuspid valve of heart
Laryngeal sacs absent
Vocal ligaments
Prostate encircles urethra
Bulbo-urethral glands present
Os penis (baculum) absent.
Hymen
Absence of periodic sexual swellings in female
Ischial callosities absent
Nipples low on chest
Bicornuate uterus (occasionally present in humans)
Labia majora

CRANIAL FEATURES
Brain lobes: frontal and temporal prominent
Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
Well-developed system of emissary veins
Enlarged nasal bones
Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)
Styloid process
Large occipital condyles
Primitive premolar
Large, blunt-cusped (bunodont) molars
Thick tooth enamel
Helical chewing

OTHER TRAITS
Nocturnal activity
Particular about place of defecation
Good swimmer, no fear of water
Extended male copulation time
Female orgasm
Short menstrual cycle
Snuggling
Tears
Alcoholism
Terrestrialism (Non-arboreal)
Able to exploit a wide range of environments and foods
Heart attack
Atherosclerosis
Cancer (melanoma)

Looking at a subset of the listed traits, however, it’s clear that the other parent in this hypothetical cross that produced the first human would be an intelligent animal with a protrusive, cartilaginous nose, a thick layer of subcutaneous fat, short digits, and a naked skin. It would be terrestrial, not arboreal, and adaptable to a wide range of foods and environments. These traits may bring a particular creature to mind. In fact, a particular nonprimate does have, not only each of the few traits just mentioned, but every one of the many traits listed in the sidebar. Ask yourself: Is it likely that an animal unrelated to humans would possess so many of the “human” characteristics that distinguish us from primates?

I was wondering about that as I was reading, but the hypothesis is that it was a male pig and a female chimp, because that is how the offspring would be socialised as chimp and back cross with chimps. There is further reasoning for this in the article.

Humans share the same sorts of genetic similarities — Tzeentch

We are not talking about genetic similarities, but structural morphological and biochemical similarities in the absence of genetic similarities. If you want to argue against the hypothesis, it is probably a good idea to read it.

This is all well and good, except it never happened. — T Clark

You may be right. The author concedes that you may be right. but a diagram from a text book merely declares you are right, it does not provide evidence of your rightness.

According to Swindle, many of the pig’s organ systems are 80 to 90 percent similar to the corresponding systems in humans – both in anatomy and function. The system that matches up best may be the cardiovascular system, as a pig’s heart is about the same size and shape as a human heart. Pigs develop atherosclerosis – artery plaque buildup – in the same way that humans do, and they react similarly to myocardial infarction, the classic heart attack.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/why-pigs-are-so-valuable-for-medical-research

Not my favourite source, but 80 to 90 % is a lot of similarity, and if you consider the level of similarity, as well as the shear amount, it is hard to explain by convergent evolution.

At the Botswana Ministry of Agriculture in 2000, a male sheep impregnated a female goat resulting in a live offspring. This hybrid had 57 chromosomes, intermediate between sheep (54) and goats (60) and was intermediate between the two parent species in type. It had a coarse outer coat, a woolly inner coat, long goat-like legs and a heavy sheep-like body. Although infertile, the hybrid had a very active libido, mounting both ewes and does even when they were not in heat.[2] He was castrated when he was 10 months old, as were the other kids and lambs in the herd.[3]

A male sheep impregnated a female goat in New Zealand resulting in a mixed litter of kids and a female sheep-goat hybrid with 57 chromosomes.[4] The hybrid was subsequently shown to be fertile when mated with a ram.[5] In France natural mating of a doe with a ram produced a female hybrid carrying 57 chromosomes. This animal backcrossed in the veterinary college of Nantes to a ram delivered a stillborn and a living male offspring with 54 chromosomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep–goat_hybrid

So we know that female hybrids of species with different chromosome counts can be fertile in back crosses, and those who could stop laughing long enough to read the reference in the op will know that multigenerational back crosses are what is being hypothesised. And from that article:

And I must now emphasize a fact that I, as a geneticist, find somewhat disappointing: Though there are other ways of detecting them, with nucleotide sequence data, it can be very difficult to identify later-generation backcross hybrids derived from several repeated generations of backcrossing (and this would be especially true of any remote descendants of backcross hybrids produced in ancient times, which is what I'm proposing humans may actually be).

(An explanation follows.)

Ridicule is a poor argument, and was not in the end convincing against Darwin, when he suggested humans were related to apes. It's not more convincing here.

Reading the article, it doesn't seem particularly dogmatic, or cherry picking. Speciation by hybridisation is definitely a thing. Like this.

Over the long term, though a hybrid of pig and chimp seems extreme and unlikely to survive, given natural perversity, it might happen enough times for one or two to get lucky with the fertility. At least I don't see much justification for a blanket dismissal before consideration. It does seem to explain some curious facts that are otherwise odd coincidences.

The "Dark Triad" focuses on the pathology of a relatively small group of people. The "Three Poisons" focus on characteristics of all of us. For that reason, it seems to me the poisons provide a better basis for understanding. — T Clark

My thinking exactly. As usual, the ancients have an understanding of psychology, whereas the moderns attempt an overview that excludes themselves and makes psychopathology 'other'.

Why am I unreasonable?
Just because...

But find a basis for understanding this, or maybe just go and do likewise: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/16/friendship-over-fear-manchester-man-shows-solidarity-with-local-mosque?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR2NRVGNLnXKcAHAAF41IJMbd9zzh9zJPfdWeaBMhPOJDz7ndZX9AAN2F9Q

I just checked. unenlightened never used the words "race," "racist," or "racism" in his posts. — T Clark

There you go again questioning lived experience with facts. And there they go again complaining about it. :grimace:

… In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach
My existence led by confusion boats, mutiny from stern to bow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. — His Bobness

When asked to provide evidence that people's lived experiences can and should be questioned, I gave you an analogy to illustrate why. You said "analogies weren't evidence" and I explained why they were. You dropped it there. — czahar

Yeah, I'm not in the business of convincing you, so I'm happy to leave everything here, and let the jury of readers reach their own judgement. ' The defence rests.'

This may be true, but if it is, the answer is not to put marginalized people's testimony on a status above belief; it's to not be so trusting of privileged people's. — czahar

Which is what I am doing, and you are not. You could have provided examples of questionable whites and males, but you did not. And that is is evidence that is not a matter of opinion but can be checked by anyone who cares to took at your op. Evidence that contradicts your claims of fair-mindedness. And you might want to claim now that it is just an accident, but as I said already, history informs us that it is no accident at all but an ongoing rhetoric that sustains privilege and status.

I am doing what you claim is the right thing and questioning your claims in the light of the evidence, and finding them unsupported, and indeed contradicted by the evidence. It's not like there's a great shortage of white men full of shit to question.

https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture

There's a load of interesting stuff here. This chart in particular might give pause to the militant carnivores.

Yup. You want to question that?

Analogies are not evidence.

I would never suggest that we simply dismiss someone's lived experience outright. — czahar

This is the claim I am questioning; and it does not support your claim, that you might make another claim that I might question.

Thing is, the complaints you guys are complaining about, the testimonies that you are allegedly legitimately criticising are those of folks such as women and black people whose testimony is historically regarded as questionable, and there is a huge and long history that a part of low status is nearly always that the testimony is also given a low status. And that this is the testimony that you both bring into question yourselves is the corroboration that you demand that this is a continuing problem and the complaints are true. You yourselves are the proof of the validity of the experience.

I would never suggest that we simply dismiss someone's lived experience outright. I'm just saying that it's not above criticism. That it can and -- under certain circumstances, should -- be questioned. — czahar

And provide evidence of this too.

I'm not a fan — Terrapin Station

I'd like to see some evidence of this; I'm not going to convict you on your confession alone.

Painia says this after complaining about “several people who will dismiss your voice and your complaints because you haven’t provided enough proof that what you are saying is real.” — czahar

In a court of law, first hand accounts are evidence. Now I doubt that many would say that such evidence is proof, because folks can lie or be mistaken. But the complaint is precisely that the evidence is dismissed without evidence to the contrary, and the evidence of testimony is discounted on one side and counted on the other.

But having knowledge of something doesn’t absolve people from supporting their claims. — czahar

You conflate the role of complainant and judiciary. Folks provide their testimony, and you refuse to consider their evidence until the case has been proved. Thus their case is always dismissed and never heard.

Sure. Orchards on the steeper slopes, and pigs and chickens under them to tidy up the windfalls and fertilise. Terracing is a thing too.

If I was fit and without commitments, I'd look to something like this, for an education and some fun.

The type of farming you describe is productive because farmers and farm workers for this type of farming get paid for shit. As the father of two farmers, I can see this first hand. — T Clark

I don't have chapter and verse to hand, but I'm considering productivity per acre and not per man-hour, obviously. A lot of land - anywhere that isn't plains - you don't have much choice. Anything more productive than grazing or forestry would have to be small scale and mixed. But there's a lot of narrow valley bottom, and steep valley side that could do more than it does, and did, before agro-industrialisation.

What is Gobbledygook?

I would think it is any language one does not understand. In which case the paradigm speaker of Gobbledygook is the parrot. And all that is required to avoid parroting is rigorous honesty. Speak whereof you know and understand, and no gooks will gobble.

If a rule is unofficial, then it is not subject to accountability, check and balance. That makes such rules an attempt at tyranny. When a rule is unofficial, there is nothing to check it against; which means that it constitutes effective tyranny. — Ilya B Shambat

Is this an official rule, or an attempt at tyranny? :death:

Notice something peculiar? — ssu

Yes. I notice that the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in food production, and that therefore your figures are so misleading as to be pretty much worthless. We export a lot, we also import a lot more.

How do they increase efficiency there though? — Nasir Shuja

This is a very complex topic, but very broadly, a labour intensive market gardening and mixed farm set up, adapted for climate and soil and irrigation availability is about as productive per acre as you can get, by and large, though much land is unsuitable for such use. So we are in agreement to a great extent. It is also a much more pleasant way to live. Are you ready to work hard and be rather poor?

Wouldn't this put meaning into the minds of the individuals then, and not something shared? The rules are shared, but the meaning of the rules is what is in the individual's mind. So if one person misunderstood what the whistle is supposed to mean, that person might keep playing, having assigned a different meaning to the whistle. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well if you don't understand, you're not sharing, and you're not playing the game properly. But sharing a pizza does not require sharing a stomach, we each have some. And likewise we can share thoughts, rules, meanings, in separate minds. Let's not make it a problem because it isn't one. Maybe your slice of pizza is bigger and has more salami, maybe your understanding is sharper. Still, we share...

What do you think is the relationship between meaning and rules? Are they the same thing, meaning is rules, and rules are meaning? Or, are rules a type of meaning, or is meaning a type of rule? Or is there some other relationship? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well the rules are a formal description of the game. I described the rule of the referee's whistle, that give the meaning as varying according to context - 'start', or 'stop'. The players share a practical understanding of this but probably could not say very clearly 'what the whistle means'. So contra Banno above, I want to say that meaning is being able to play the game, or in this case, stopping playing the game when the whistle blows, and restarting when the whistle blows again. Exactly as one says that a dog understands 'sit' just in case it sits when the trainer says 'sit'. We don't require that the beast can explain itself. I suppose I would say something like that meaning is how the rules play out in the form of life.

I imagine W's builders reaching an impasse. The builder says 'Block!' but the assistant has run out of blocks. The game has become unplayable, and something new has to happen. Perhaps the assistant speaks - 'Slab!!' And the rules have changed, the game has changed and the meaning has changed.

Isn't exploring the mind an instance of doing something? — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure it is, and we do it with language, but it's secondary, and parasitic on the practical uses of language to coordinate social action. First we hunt, then we tell hunting stories, and then we theorise hunting.

Meaning isn't use. But just about any question we might have regarding meaning can be answered by talking instead about use. And that just about is only there to cover the unknown...

Share... Like a pizza? Or like a house? Or like Brexit? Or like an investment? Or like a story? — Banno

What are you doing here? You pick me up on my inexactitude, and then retreat to the only difference being some unknown possibility. We read the same thread, we speak the same language; why do you want to have a problem with "share", suddenly?

My suspicion is that there is an implication here that might be dangerous for a certain philosophical convention - that ethics cannot be discussed?

The builder and the assistant are doing something together, building something. This is cooperation. I would say that the act of building, in this instance, is something which is shared. So "cooperation" refers to a sharing, and in this case what is shared is the act of building.

Let's suppose that "meaning" refers to an act of cooperation, so it is also a type of sharing. What is the act which it is a sharing of? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I'd better use the terminology if you want to go into it. I think we say that there is a 'form of life' which is Jones & Son, Builders in their functional mode, and there is a language game such that the idea of the game is to coordinate the actions of builder and assistant, and the rules are that when the builder needs a slab, he says 'slab' and the assistant passes him a slab and so on. It seems obvious that this very sparse vocabulary and simple repertoire of moves does not make a distinction between object and action - 'slab' means the thing and the act of passing it, just as 'Halt!' means 'take one more step and come to attention.' or 'Scalpel!' means 'Please pass me a new scalpel, nurse.' each in their own game in their own form of life.

If I were to describe this in general terms, I could say that language is a tool of social coordination that requires a mutual understanding in order to function. that is the builder and assistant must both know how the words connect to each other's actions, in order for the language to work, and this sameness of understanding is practical rather than conceptual. and in this sense the mean is not merely demonstrated by the act but consists of the act being the appropriate one.

This is annoying for philosophers, to find that words are not really for arguing the toss, or exploring the mind, but for getting stuff done. Maybe consider the referee's one word whistle language. The one word means 'stop the game' if the game is in progress, or 'start the game' if the game is stopped. And every player has that same functional understanding, though perhaps none have ever thought about it in those terms. the meaning is shared, in the same way that every poster shares the fundamentals of English, and does not have to resort to google translate.

Yelling "slab" may get a house built, but it could just be that in the context of a construction site, it was sufficient for the yeller to mean "hand me what is next on the pile" and the receiver to have understood the word to mean "hand me the hard rock thing cut into a manageable shape." — xzJoel

Well yes, if the pile was arranged right, one could manage with a single word that I would prefer to translate as "next". But that is another story. I'm referring to W's story in which there are words for slab and block used to identify 'what's next'. We discover the meaning by seeing the use they are put to, which is to coordinate action. We see that the meaning is shared by observing that the assistant presents and the builder is satisfied with what is presented in harmony with the word use. If there was a misunderstanding, or a mis hearing, one would see the disharmony that resulted as slab was thrown back at the assistant , along with some remonstration. Compare this with the use of a sea shanty to coordinate action rhythmically - the meaning is reduced to a series of 'nows', or 'heaves'.

It's not built alone though. Even in English. We share the building, then we can share the result, even if the building is not a thing.

But you're not making much sense. When the builder says "slab" and the assistant passes a slab, they are both using the language in the same way to do the same thing together. And meaning is use, so meaning is co-operation, and cooperation is sharing.

Meaning isn't a thing. So it's not shared. — Banno

Well thanks for sharing that opinion, but why can we only share things? People talk about shared responsibility; is communion not shared? I think the thought police are over-stepping their remit here.

f someone had said that to me, word for word, in English, I would have presumed they meant something by their odd phrasing. — Isaac

It is just the sort of error a non-native speaker might make, because the distinction between the present simple and present continuous is not marked in most languages, but is derived from context, which in google's case it does not have.

But I see you understand this already, or at least that you understand how the meaning that is shared can be 'to an extent'. Sometimes we might be 'of one mind' about things, but mostly we sort of agree, mostly or at least understand how we agree and how we disagree.

Why isn't anyone (else) addressing the ontological ambiguity of "shared"? We need to pinpoint just what sense we're referring to in order to answer the question. — Terrapin Station

Do we? Can you pinpoint for me the sense of pinpoint here? No, I don't want you to, really. I think we are better off allowing our pins to be microscopically blunt and rough, and likewise meaning of the points we make to each other - d'you see what I mean?

But the meaning I intend and the meaning you receive might be two quite different things. I think this is the core of the sharing question. — Pattern-chaser

They might be, or they might only be as different as two slices of a shared pizza. Some philosophers claim that a meal is only shared if the mouths connect to the same stomach, but I think they are mistaken.

That's fake news propaganda, or perhaps it isn't. Google translate doesn't make you understand what has been said; it replaces the words you don't understand with words you understand, and you take it on faith that the meaning is the same. And perhaps that tells us something about meaning. Perhaps the same sort of faith in one's own intelligence (rather than google's) is required to make sense of what is being said in a language one does (seem to) understand.