How do you know?

Relaying the concerns of voters is what politicians should do and is entirely moral. It’s not Trump bringing up specific communities and subjecting them to any degradation. He never mentioned where they were from, who they were, that they were a “specific community”. So that’s a lie.

He does a lot of long-form interviews, podcasts, rallies, so one can get a fairly good judge at competence. Weasels can bring up one or two lines that they find nuts, and sometimes rightfully so, but when compared to the millions of other things he says their portrayal turns out to be false. Kamala does zero interviews.

You follow the lack of concern for people exemplified by your Leader. Amplifying lies is not moral behavior, especially while holding a large megaphone.

Yet when Biden, Clinton, the FBI, the media, or Kamala does it you’re silent. Your concern is so sporadic it shows up only when it benefits you.

Falsely protecting them does nothing for the concerns of everyday voters who live there. Springfield is not a sanctuary city and when an estimated 20,000 people show up in a town of 60,000 rumors are the least of your worries. The damage is done and it’s the administration’s fault.

Well, she’s been in the second-most powerful position for a few years now and has absolutely nothing to show for it. I’m banking on people realizing that.

I know you don’t catch any US political ads over there but they are at least hitting her on those angles in adverts. But the Trump campaign doesn’t have the reach the Harris campaign has, what with the media, the government, and Hollywood backing her, so I fear it is an uphill battle.

The whole optics thing is quite funny, that she needs a smaller podium so she doesn’t appear nearly a foot shorter than her opponent. So they actually made her a smaller podium. And this appears to be true given the size of the video framing in which she did her cringy gesticulations. Man, political theater is so interesting.

Much ado has been made about Trump’s comments about Springfield, which they claimed led to a series of supposed bomb threats. The idea is that Trump says something, bad things happen, in a form that goes “before this therefor because of this”. Biden himself expressed his horror.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/13/springfield-ohio-bomb-threat

It turns out all 33 of these threats were hoaxes from overseas. The media’s incessant reporting on the topic appears to give those who would wish to hoax Americans an angle of attack, in this instance fake bomb threats in Springfield Ohio. Hilarious.

Is this affidavit real? Russian disinfo? A scam on gullible Trump supporters?

This account says he has procured a sworn affidavit from an ABC whistleblower that they rigged the last debate, up to and including working with the Kamala campaign to taylor the event in her favor.

I was pretty certain during the debate that it was rigged, but I don’t believe the affidavit. Although, it isn’t completely out of the ordinary for those wedded to the establishment to rig these sorts of things. Recall in 2016 when a CNN and DNC apparatchik gave Hillary Clinton the questions before a townhall. The J6 inquiry hired the president of ABC to turn their inquiry into mind-numbing propaganda. The DNC emails (which have gone missing from Wikileaks since Assange’s release) revealed the incestuous relationship between the DNC and the press.

Look at this from NBC:

Trump dispenses with unity and blames Democrats after apparent second assassination attempt

Former President Donald Trump and his allies are fanning political flames after his Secret Service detail thwarted what is, according to the FBI, the apparent second attempt to assassinate him in less than 10 weeks.

In a message posted to multiple social media platforms Monday, Trump accused his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, and President Joe Biden of taking "politics in our Country to a whole new level of Hatred." He said their rhetoric is responsible for threats and violence against him, even though they routinely denounce political violence and did so on Sunday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna171218

Not a day has gone by where Trump hasn’t been vilified, so this comes off as quite silly. What’s worse, he has been portrayed as some sorcerer capable of dividing the country, stoking tensions, “fanning political flames”, and increasing the threat of violence with his words and tweets. Meanwhile the entire media industrial complex, his opponents, including the Whitehouse, all of whom have far greater power and reach, are completely innocent.

Another apparent assassination attempt.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-harris-election-09-15-24/index.html

We’re reaching peak anti-Trumpism. The moral panic only escalates until the absurdity is realized or the threat is neutralized.

Yeah right.

And this is where you're making a mistake. Visual sensations are events in the body (specifically events in the visual cortex). Depth is a characteristic of visual sensations, and so it seems as if there are coloured objects outside the body. But this is as misleading as phantom limbs.

Do you believe the colored objects themselves are events in your body? Or just the color?

You appear to be under the impression that visual perception is fundamentally different to other modes of perception, such as pain, smell, and taste. It really isn't. Each perceptual system simply involves different organs responding to different stimuli eliciting different types of sensations.

No, I think color and pain are fundamentally different. You seem to think they are fundamentally the same.

We need to change how the object reflects light because the wavelength of the light that stimulates the eyes is what determines the type of colour sensation elicited.

Pain is a sensation, it hurts to put my hand in very hot water, I add cold water to reduce the temperature, and so I no longer feel pain when I put my hand in.

I’m trying to figure it out I just don’t understand how a sensation can have the property “color”. It isn’t clear what if anything we’re talking about with the phrase “color sensation”. We can’t point to it, examine it, or even think about whether it is the kind of object that is able to have such properties in the first place. So how can one verify whether such a thing even exists?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Do you accept that pain is a sensation? Do you accept that a bitter taste is a sensation? I am simply pointing out that colour is another type of sensation, specifically a visual sensation. This may not be "common sense", but common sense does not determine the facts, and in this case common sense conflicts with the scientific evidence. I trust the scientific evidence.

If you want to reject the scientific evidence in favour of common sense then go ahead, but it's the less rational position to take.

I think of sensations as events in the body, but colored object appear outside of it. I’ve never seen or felt or tasted a colored sensation before.

I know common sense isn’t its own argument, but I don’t know how to deny that the colorful things outside my brain are not colored. And I am presented with evidence every moment of my waking life that objects, not sensations, have the property “color”. I don’t think believing what one is told or accepting an argument from authority is particularly rational, so I’ll go ahead and continue to believe what I do.

We just use those things to change the way an object’s surface reflects light. That does not suggest that colour is a mind-independent property of the object’s surface.

Why would we need to change the properties of the object if color is not a property of the object?

Perhaps you could explain which (if any) of these you believe:

1. “the apple is red” means “the apple reflects ~700nm light”
2. The apple is red because it reflects ~700nm light
3. The apple reflects ~700nm light because it is red

I don't know the correct answer but all of them seem good enough for me.

Yes there is. Dreams, hallucinations, variations in colour perception (e.g. the dress), and studies such as this. This is why James Clerk Maxwell in On Colour Vision (1871) said "it seems almost a truism to say that color is a sensation".

Very few examples and most if not all of them are the result of a body in a state of sleep, deprivation, or hallucination. The body is no doubt fascinating but it’s just not enough for me to doubt common sense, personally.

Besides, sensations aren’t red any more than the word “red” is. Sensations or experiences do not have any properties to begin with. If we are to abandon common sense and the world for pseudo-objects and things without properties we're going to need much more than that.

Objects outside the body just reflect different wavelengths of light. This light causes one type of colour sensation in humans and another type of colour sensation in dogs.

But their location suggests that the color is outside the body, not inside. What we do with paints, phosphors, pigments, suggest that the color is out there among the surfaces of the objects these adjectives are meant to describe. On the other hand, there is no indication color sensations exist.

No it’s not, it just isn't what you claim it to be.

It sure looks like it is. Yours neither looks like it is nor makes any sense.

Your reasoning is akin to arguing that because pain is not a mind-independent property of fire then it is not useful and a distortion and a fiction to feel pain when we put our hands in the fire.

But I'm speaking about vision. Pain is no doubt located in the body, but it isn't clear that color is. So it is a false analogy. We'll stick to color since that's what the thread is about.

Trump plans to end taxes on overtime if elected. Who would've thought he'd fight for the American worker?

"As part of our additional tax cuts, we will end all taxes on overtime," Trump said in remarks at a rally in Tucson, Arizona. "Your overtime hours will be tax-free."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-end-all-taxes-overtime-2024-09-12/

Kamala's political triangulation suggests she will be stealing this pledge in due time.

It's clearly useful to visually distinguish objects which reflect 400nm light and objects which reflect 700nm light. Colour sensations is how we do that.

I don't see how it is useful to distort the picture with a fiction.

It's not that either humans or dogs (or neither) is seeing the "correct" (mind-independent) colour when looking at an object that reflects 500nm light; it's just the case that 500nm light causes different colour sensations for humans and dogs.

A fiction is something invented or untrue. Color is a fiction. So it follows that the less color the less fiction, and therefor more accurate. Given that the dog sees a less variety of color according to your spectrums, and color is a fiction, it follows that the dog sees less fiction. Isn't that so?

My opinion is the opposite: that the dog is less-equipped to see the world, not only because it has only a fraction of the cones we do, but because it sees less of the world as a result.

I don't think color is a sensation because sensations occur within the body, while colored objects occur outside the body in a space independent of the mind.

Is it possible to smell and taste things more accurately? Does the world contain smell and taste even when we're not smelling and tasting things?

Well, yes, dogs have better hearing and smell.

I was strictly speaking about colors, though. If color is a fiction, why are we adding fiction to whatever it is we’re adding the color to?

The eagle has 20/5 eyesight, more rods and cones, and see much better. According to color factionalism they invent color, too, and somehow paint the images with their brain, but why would animals with such great sight distort their sight with color?

There are plenty of species that don't need vision at all. Why is there a question of a species needing color?

There are species that have color vision because for those species it was adaptive to have color vision, and via biological evolution such sensory capacities evolved.

The is a question of a species needing color because, from the perspective of color fictionalism, color is a fiction. I’m just not sure why a species would adapt to a fictional view of its surroundings.

No, just that it is possible to see thing more accurately, for instance if the world is without color, maybe it would better to see it without color. Why would a species need color?

What national abortion ban?

“Bloodbath” was a lie, the “very fine people” hoax, that he is going to implement Project 2025, that he wants a national abortion ban, that he wants to ban IVF, that he incited a crowd to storm the capitol, that police died on that day, that J6 was the worst attack on America since the civil war.

Considering the color fictionalism position, if the world is without color then I suppose a scene of greys is what it must look like. And the implications are crazy. We must have evolved into beings who paint the world with color, and somehow were able to stay within the lines this whole time. In fact we must have invented color at some point. Of course it’s all untenable.

Kamala won that debate. She is far superior at the political act, groomed as she was to be a puppet. It was pure skill or she got the debate questions beforehand. But her lies went unchecked, allowed to list off the common anti-Trump hoaxes. She even said something like J6 was the worst attack on the US since the civil war, and on the eve of 9/11. She’s a brick, but she can play the part, and sometimes that’s all people want.

People with complete achromatopsia are not blind.

I wonder if someone with achromatopsia views the world more accurately given that it is without color.

Not sure what you mean by "how it really looks", just as I wouldn't be sure what you'd mean by "how it really smells" or "how it really tastes".

I just mean seeing it without the sensation of color. What do you suppose it looks like?

My claim is that pain and colour are sensations, and the fiction is that colour is not a sensation but a property of the ball.

Is the world outside your head without color in your view?

Perhaps we would be able to numb the sensation of color like we could the sensation of pain, and see the world how it really looks.

I don’t doubt there are such activities. People try to make money by getting views on social media all the time, often by making political propaganda. What makes it a campaign or something nefarious?

I don’t believe any of it, and I’m certainly not scared of social media and tic-toc videos. I mean, who cares?

It’s a nonsensical pretext to censor and control social media, spy on Americans, and if the past is any indication, to gaslight the electorate.

Fact? It’s complete bullshit, itself an influence operation. It’s just a list of trigger-words to activate the drones. “Putin”, “Russia”, “Trump”, “right-wing”, “influence”, and Kamala gets some help with her campaign.

The “Russian influence” canard returns. We now know they are using it as a pretext for surveilling American and Canadian citizens, which is the true crime.

Absolutely. I have no qualms with people using those verbs. Philosophically speaking, however, my concern is only if it is true or false, and the use of those verbs falls under one category and not the other.

But other mechanisms such as a cortical visual prosthesis can help (or will be able to help in a few decades). Much like a cochlear implant helps where an ear trumpet can't.

It will definitely help and will improve the quality of life of those who cannot see. But if seeing is using the eyes to perceive the environment, that isn’t sight. That’s all I’m saying.

They hear because of the cochlear implant, much like I can see the words on the screen because of my glasses.

You can see the words on the screen because your eyes still function enough to be able to see. No amount of glasses can help the those with total blindness see, however.

If they can hear, why do they have a cochlear implant?

I don't think telling the blind that they can see is a great idea. Mimicking such function is obviously helpful, offering a better quality of life, but it is because the facts are apparent—the blind have trouble seeing—that they were able to get the help in the first place.

If I have a cochlear implant and perceive you say "hello" through my "artificial" means, and I say "Nos said 'hello,'" my statement is true under both correspondence and coherence theories of truth. That is, my saying you said hello corresponds to what actually happened and my use of language is consistent with your own.

We would have a different result if I hallucinated you saying "hello. "

None of this demands a direct realism. To demand a direct realism forces a definition of "artificial" to simply mean "other than typically human, " which in no way can be assumed to be more accurate than other methods. To call one method artificial assumes there is an otherwise natural and correct way, but that assumption is the entirety of this debate. That is, what is contested is whether the world as it appears is as it is or whether it has been artificially manipulated by the internal processes.

My position is that all perception is "artificial" if that term means it is an unaltered representation of reality.

The question is not whether I said "hello" but whether you heard me say "hello". But hearing me say "hello" and recognizing the signals from a mechanical device stimulating your auditory nerve are two different acts. Evidence of this is that one has to relearn how to "hear" using such a device.

By "artificial" I am speaking of the mechanism, for instance the cochlear implant. It was designed, built, and inserted by a human being, whereas the organs were not. In any case, the only things manipulated by internal processes, whether artificial or natural, are internal processes. That's the only extent to which internal processes can manipulate the world.