"Private language" is an oxymoron. There is nothing private about language as it is a social construction and social constructions are agreements between individuals on standards of behavior. Communication between individuals is the use of language so any "private" language would be a useless language.

The only reason we use language is to communicate individual ideas others. You, as an individual, are already privy to your ideas and thoughts. There is no need to communicate them to yourself.

Like most everything else, the fundamental components of language are visuals and sounds - part of the basic, fundamental components of mind, along with olfactory, gustatory and tactile sensations that all come together in what we commonly refer to as conscious experience. The brain naturally compares and distinguishes all of these sensations and tries to find patterns to improve its chances of survival. In a way, all the sensations are themselves a language in which the mind tries to understand. In a sense, the world communicates its various states to the mind of the individual via its senses. The senses are, in a way, the translators of the state of the world (which aren't mental states) into mental states for the brain to interpret. If any type of communication, or informative process, could qualify as a "private language" maybe this could be it.

The flu sometimes does mutate in a more deadly strain but because the virus is endemic most people have some resistance to it, even against a new deadlier strain. So that never resulted in pressure on healthcare capacity as Covid has and does (I've not heard of triage because of the flu, except maybe the Spanish one). Since we all rather not live in continuous lock downs (I presume) to avoid total deterioration of the healthcare system, a way out is getting enough people vaccinated instead of infected. — Benkei

How did most people develop a resistance to the annual flu - by getting it and now they have the anti-bodies? Why doesn't the same concept work for Covid?

With proper detection, isolation and contact tracing, a lot of nasty bugs could be squashed before they really can do damage, as NZ did, but it requires political will which is often absent because $$$. Closing down air traffic with China is apparently problematic. — Benkei

I don't get this part. If closing down air traffic with China is problematic, which is in essence keeping people separated to prevent the spread then keeping people 6-feet apart and limiting the number of people in a room would be problematic. China was the one that prevented any information from getting out about the virus and how it originated. And if you believe anything the Chinese govt. says then that is problematic.

This makes little sense to me. Whether it was manufactured or not doesn't change the healthcare problem. Being angry with those who allegedly made it, wouldn't diminish my annoyance towards those advocating bad policies or personal decisions. — Benkei

Many people are arguing that people should get the vaccine to prevent the virus from mutating and spreading, but the research shows that the virus can be spread even by those that are vaccinated. And if the virus can mutate even among the vaccinated, then why are we not making the same argument regarding the common flu?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with how science works. And apparently I was a fool to take your curiosity at face value. You're just another fucking idiot. Sorry to have wasted our time. Carry on. — James Riley

So you're saying science is like a religion and it's conclusions should never be questioned?

I do know how science works. You only arrive at the correct answer after making all possible mistakes.

There are no experts here. — James Riley

Many people here think that they are experts. They imply that science is like a religion where it's conclusions are never to be questioned. As an example, the info that the CDC has put forth has changed several times throughout the pandemic. Even Fauci said that masks don't protect well. Most people are just wearing cloth coverings and wear the masks improperly anyway.

I don't know about you, but I don't trust what the government and the state-run media says. The media has become a joke. They are all political propaganda machines.

sure, I suppose the "personal freedom" thing can make a point of sorts. It's just that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't care about anyone's freedom. The virus replicates propagates mutates unchecked in whatever fertile grounds, leaving victims in its wake, and that's a social thing with consequences as well as personal. — jorndoe

None of this addresses the issue of why someone should be vaccinated. As I pointed out, even the vaccinated can carry and spread the virus. So again, what is the point of vaccinating?

It seems to me that getting vaccinated or not has only implications to the individual deciding to get vaccinated or not. Everyone else each has this decision with the implications only involving themselves.

Oh "the Left" is the problem now... For fuck sake, do you guys ever try to make sense? — Olivier5

Both sides are the problem. I'm not on either side. I'm just asking questions that people refuse to answer and would rather nitpick posts than address the valid questions being asked.

Asking questions means that you haven't yet taken a side because you don't have all the information to be able to make a decision - mostly because both sides keep playing politics with the idea of personal choice.

If it was so easy to find the answers, then why not provide them here for everyone's benefit? It seems that you're more interested in playing political games than having a discussion.

Here's a question no one has asked:

If Covid-19 naturally mutated from a non-lethal virus to a lethal virus, then what is to prevent the regular annual flu from mutating into something more dangerous? Why aren't the annual flu shots being mandated if this is the case, and we should never stop wearing masks for the fear of some virus naturally mutating into something more lethal?

If Covid-19 was manufactured in a lab, then that brings a whole host of other implications that we should consider and be fearful of. One implication is that we should be more angry at the scientists manufacturing lethal viruses and unleashing the on the world, than being angry at those that are unvaccinated, which the internet shows most blacks haven't yet been vaccinated thanks to the Left's scare tactics last year when Trump was president. So are you being racist by bashing the un-vaxxed?

So, in the Left's haste to deny that the virus was man-made, they are implying that non-lethal viruses can mutate into lethal versions naturally and that we will never stop wearing masks or mandating vaccines for viruses that have the potential to mutate.

What threat are the unvaccinated to the vaccinated? If there is still a threat even though you are vaccinated, then why get vaccinated at all? If I can still carry and spread the virus even though I'm vaccinated, then what purpose is there to get vaccinated?

We all know that the more someone tells you to do something, the more some people resist. They want to make their own decisions and not be coerced. Therefore, the govt. shouldn't be in the business of telling people how to live their lives, but instead should simply be providing objective information for individuals to make their own decisions concerning their own bodies. Whatever happened to "My body, my choice"?

Facts are like truths in that they come in degrees. The relationship between some statement and some state-of-affairs is a fact/fiction or a truth/falsehood. The more some statement accurately describes some state-of-affairs, the more factual/truthful it is, and vice versa for fictions and falsehoods. The boundary one decides on where some statement is more factual than fictional can depend on what is being talked about and how detailed you need to be.

"what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?"
Then religion isn't saying anything at all. Is it a fact that I will be born again, or not? If you can't say either way, then you haven't said anything at all, so why bother making a religious claim if the claim isn't intended to point to some actual state of affairs?

Politics is the one domain where people aren't concerned about being factually correct to the point that listening to politicians speak is a waste of time. Listening to their critics is just as much a waste of time as they seem to whine about why the other side isn't using logic or making any sense. It was never their intent to make sense or be logical. Logic is the antithesis of religion and politics (group-think).

Irrelevant to the point I made had you read the entire post (but history shows that you aren't interested in reading the whole post, hence the reason why so many of your arguments fall flat in the context of the whole post that you are "responding" to.)

When is it okay to invesitgate the corruption of your political opponents? When you are absent any corruption yourself? Which politician fits this definition? Any that do are the very ones whose political carreer will come to a quick and decisive end. That is the whole point - that investigating corruption has now been defined as corrupt. It's the oldest tactic in the political playbook - blame them for the same thing that you're doing.

Two groups are committing immoral acts. — Cheshire

Then defending yourself with equal force is immoral?

Anti-vaxxer's are like climate change deniers, or in the case specific to this topic, systemic racism deniers, and are positions often taken to express tribal solidarity. I agree that the foundation of this is like religion and the value it places on social solidarity over truth or actual principles. — praxis

LOL. Just go back and listen to how the left was anti-vaxxers when Trump was president. If it was a Trump vaccine, they weren't going to take it. Now that we're under a Democrat administration, we're suppose to take it? It's the same fucking vaccine!! You see, the political parties are expecting you, like most people, to forget what they said just a couple of years ago.

Equating Anti-vaxxers to these other people is the problem I am talking about. Again, labeling people without having talked to them in order to understand them is the problem. It's just regurgitating the talking points of a particular political party, who's existence is dependent on people like you helping them demonize a certain group that you've never met or talked to.

Science never makes the claim to truth. Science expects the questioning of everything. It's not science that is dictating the truth. It is politicians and their constituents that use science to promote their own truth. Asking questions is scientific. Not asking questions is participating in group-think. Everyone should have the right to question authority. You shouldn't take offense to people asking questions about someone's claims.

I don't think that it's particularly controversial to claim that the economic recovery would be aided by as many people getting vaccinated as quickly as possible. I've heard people claim that the vaccine is more dangerous than the cure, even for the elderly. I have yet to hear what I think is a reasonable explanation for not getting vaccinated. Do you know of any? — praxis

So, the claim that the vaccine is more dangerous than the cure, even for the elderly isn't something you heard that is a reasonable explanation for not getting vaccinated? I'm confused on that point.

How is the economic recovery being helped if the vaccinated still have to mask themselves - when we have to go back to the authoritarian mandates that hurt the economy in the first place?

Ok stop. He's in jail because a reporter deemed the facts suspicious, looked into it, and raised a stink, THEN they investigated the murder like they were supposed to. — frank

Ok, stop asking reasonable questions? How religious.

The police don't know who has been killed until they have been called. Someone has to call the police for them to do something. Think of how many people are lying dead in some wilderness without anyone knowing that they are dead or even missing. Who was suppose to call the police and didn't in the case of Ahmaud Arbery? Who called the reporter? Did they also contact the police? How did the video of the killing get out? These are all reasonable questions that I would expect a reasonable person to try to answer, and not tell me to stop. If they were really interested in the truth, then getting the answers to these questions would be the goal, not trying to shut the person up that is asking the questions. They're questions, not statements or arguments.

What does a nation with systemic racism look like vs a nation that doesn't have systemic racism but has pockets of racism in some areas? — Harry Hindu

I don't know what this diatribe is about. Sounds like you're taking something personally. — frank

Asking what the difference is between the two is taking things personally? It seems to me a valid question that you are simply incapable of answering so you make a personal stab at me, committing an ad hominem fallacy, equivalent to a fundamentally religious person calling me a "sinner" for asking questions about their definition of "god".

I don't know that you can actually blame a moral theory on an outcome(which is what I did to be fair). But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. Intuitively they seem wrong regardless of when they occurred, so adhering to a system that permits acts(in hindsight) that are always wrong; implies a faulty system of ethics is available. — Cheshire

Really? What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing.

Ummm....what did they do to Trump, actually?

The GOP utterly failed to do the choreographed selection of the party nominee (unlike the Democrats, who can rely on the ever loyal Bernie to lure in progressives and social democrats) and got a wild card with Trump. And the party is now in a state of disarray, but still holding on two the duopoly.

And let's face it: many in both parties would likely want to change things, but once the dance is going on with a certain tune, you cannot start to tango when everybody else is doing a square dance. There is no evil solid entity lurking in the shadows, no Illuminati. There are just people who think they can control the dance. Yes, there is a power elite in every country. But don't think they agree on things and can act in an uniform fashion. It's more like things happen and the elite accepts it or tries to manage somehow the process. — ssu

Trump ran on fighting corruption, like so many other politicians. Whether they actually did anything or not to fight corruption isn't what I'm trying to focus on.

I'm assuming that when you, ssu, say that you want to fight corruption you really mean it. You don't have any ulterior motives and that if you see Democrats engaged in corruption, you will fight them as hard as any Republican you see engaged in corruption, nor will you be allowing certain corporations to continue to engage in corruption because they are donating to your campaign. I hope you would assume the same thing when I say that I want to fight corruption.

Now when both parties are engaged in the same kind of corruption, then investigating one can be a threat to the other. You and I will become the enemy of both and there will be a lot worse than impeachment that you and I would be facing.

Both parties need each other, 1) to keep the nation united and not have states secede, or another civil war break out, and 2) to have someone else to blame when your ideas fail.

When you say that there are many in both parties that would likely want change, what do you mean by "change"? Anything other than abolishing all political parties and lobbyists isn't any type of change from the status quo.

An attempt at an exploration in search of objectivity, because relativism causes so much harm. — Cheshire

Intrigued by this. How do you imagine it causes harm? — Isaac

It delivered the worst humans have ever done. Slavery, Genocide, Illegal Downloading... — Cheshire

How are any of these the fault of relativism? These acts were often argued to be morally acceptable and objectively moral. It's the actual argument that these acts are objectively moral that provides the reasoning for others to participate in them.

Moral relativism doesn't make the case that these acts are what everyone should be doing. In fact, it makes the opposite case. So, because someone is engaged in illegal downloading doesn't make it ok for you to do it. That's you're own personal choice. And if you are making your moral decisions on what others are doing, that isn't moral relativism, but more of moral objectivism. So, moral relativism isn't thinking that what is good for others is good for you. It is in the understanding that you are a social animal capable of complex reasoning and that using reason to navigate the social environment is in your best interests as a social animal.

Goals? This is a goal. To enslave half of mankind.

You have to qualify now what those goals should or must be. And ay, there is the rub. That is precisely what the debate has been for thousands of years, with no end in sight. — god must be atheist

It's not qualifiying what the goals should be, but whether any goal has a moral property of good or bad (goals are more than just being good or bad) in some sense independent of the person, or group, with the goal in question. Enslaving mankind and freeing mankind are different goals. Whether they are good or bad is something different, and is seems to always depend on the person's, or group's, other goals.

There has been at least one other issue in philosophy that has been solved: Zeno's paradox of the hare and the turtle (the hare will never catch the turtle ... like heck it won't.) — god must be atheist

Another that has been solved is which came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg - evolutionary speaking.

but we can't actually safely and without any doubt in our minds decide what feature in an act makes it moral, immoral or amoral. — god must be atheist

Sure we do. Goals is the feature. If you didn't have goals what would morality be? Those that help realize your goals are good, those that inhibit them are bad. We even label events not caused by any humans, that either inhibit or help achieve our goals as "good" or "bad" events. People or events that have no impact on your goals are not considered to fall into the territory of ethics.

Understanding that morality is subjective isn't that difficult. We all have our own goals. Some goals we share primarily because we are the same species, or members of the same culture, so it can appear as if there is an objective aspect to morality, until you meet a new civilization or person with different goals that include how to inhibit your goals.

I know that Scientific realism is the common sensical position, and I have a lot of time for it.
I guess I'm considering a view of idealism and realism at the same time. For example, I say that physical nature exists independantly of human cognition, which is a realist statement, but then I realise that such a statement, that nature exists independantly of human cognition, is borne of human cognition, and wouldn't be possible without it. Then I get stuck in a double bind. — Aidan buk

Stop thinking of it in dualistic terms and think of it monistically, or else you're left with explaining how physical things interact with ideas.

What does it mean for something to exist independently of human cognition, or human congnition exist independently from physical nature? Are they not causally related? I think you are confusing the map with the territory.

Well, it works well for those in power wanting to hold on to the status quo. — ssu

As such, essentially every government in the world is an oligarchy where the elite few rule the many and limit and strictly control the new members to their club. Just think if you or I were able to become president - what they did to Trump would be nothing compared to what they would do to people like us looking to really change things.

Anyway, if you have so much discontent towards how things are in the country, both from the left and the right, make sure that the opposition will be divided and incapable of unifying. Has worked in other countries, actually. — ssu

Dividing is just practicing what they are doing. You divide people by labeling them. Stop labeling. No more Democrats or Republicans.

I've come to the conclusion that the polarization of American politics is an active if not openly declared strategy (or policy) implemented by the two ruling parties to stay in power. They only ease the tension if some nutcase comes along and starts shooting politicians of one or the other party (as has already happened). Otherwise, make the other side as evil as possible in the "culture war". — ssu

I agree. The argument that voting for a third party is a vote for the other party is part of this strategy to scare you into voting for one of the two. But when you see both as equally evil, then voting third, fourth, fifth, etc. party (or just no parties) is the only reasonable option.

the foundation of the problem...
— Harry Hindu

... isn't identity politics, it's politicizing some issue, and that can be done with practically anything. Currently popular is vaccination vs antivaccination. Many Trumpian antivac supporters are themselves vaccinated, though they may decline to admit it, inanely claiming HIPAA rights violations or whatever, and apparently could care less if a portion of their followers die from not being vaccinated.

Even if there were a significant risk with getting vaccinated, shouldn't Trumpian "conservatives" be willing to take a health risk in order to get the economy going full-steam? Isn't that what a brave patriot would do for their nation's economy? That seemed to be their courageous logic at the beginning of the pandemic. How did it get turned around? If you have no actual principles and are merely a group-thinking follower, the Trumps of the world can make you dance like a mindless puppet on strings. — praxis

Yes, it's politicizing identity. What do you think anti-vac and vaccinated are, if not identities? It's using labels as weapons against your political opponents.

A large percentage of unvaccinated are blacks. Why aren't they getting vaccinated? Maybe we should ask people why they aren't getting vaccinated instead of demonizing them when you have no idea what their reasoning is? What gives you the right to determine the medical decisions of others? Should others make medical decisions for you?

There's two sides to the coin. — frank

But you were talking about string theory. Can you make up your mind which analogy you're going to use? By narrowing it down to only two (views), limits the possible options or solutions you can think of or understand.

Emotion traps people. We want there to be recognition of racial bias in society so that DAs can't get away with just ignoring the murders of black men like Ahmaud Arbery.

But emotion clicks in and says that all white people are complicit, which isn't true, but it satisfies a bruised, frustrated heart to say it, and we just forget the more abysmal truth. — frank

The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery are in jail. Who else has killed a black person and isn't in jail, or isn't being hunted down to put in jail? The knee-jerk reaction to label every altercation between a black person and a white person as racist just makes the word, "racist" meaningless and makes it more difficult to fight real racism. Blacks and whites can disagree and it not be racist.

Labeling all white people as complicit is fighting racism with racism. In what ways are whites complicit, that blacks aren't? Don't blacks keep voting for the same Democrats for 50+ years that are part of this system of racism?

WHO is racist? Point them out so that we can fight them together. Calling everyone racist doesn't make anyone want to help you fight racism.

What does a nation with systemic racism look like vs a nation that doesn't have systemic racism but has pockets of racism in some areas?

Kants thing in itself, direct notions of eternity, nothingness, etc, at first thought, seem to represent thing which are unknowable. They purport to represent things outside of human cognition. But, surely, all there is is human cognition? In such an instance, there is no unknowable, in the way it is commonly assumed, instead, the unknowable is always knowable.
For example, knowing that it sounds silly, someone asks, so you know the thing in itself then? And I'd say, what are you referring to, in your mind, when you mention the thing in itself?
Surely if you can think it, I can know it?

Is this just an instance of taking reason on its own too far? — Aidan buk

It's a good point. The only problem is that we can't say that all there is is human cognition. What does it even mean to say that all there is is human cognition?

There are some ideas that represent things outside of human cognition, but then there are ideas that don't represent anything, or are products of human imagination as opposed to some other natural process independent of humans. These things we can be said to know, as we are the creators of such things. However can we say that we know the Earth, Sun and Moon in the same way that we know Paris is the Capitol of France?

That’s the saddest part, Trump didn’t do jack for his base and none of the wealthy who scored big under his administration stormed the capital. — praxis

The same can be said of Biden, who's been in power for 50 years, hasn't done jack for minorities except insult them, yet they keep voting for the promises made by the Democratic party. The only promises kept by either party is that they keep making you out to be the victim of someone else.

This is what I've been saying for awhile now and is the foundation of the problem as stated by - politics - dividing people based on identity and then making people think that everyone else that doesn't share your identity is out to get you. It's no different than religion. In fact, many religions make their followers out to be victims and most political arguments contain the same logical errors as religious arguments.

Abolish political parties and religions. Abolish group-think. Focusing on the things that make us different from one another and using it as an ideological weapon against each other is the status quo. If you are truly progressive then stop voting for the same people and groups that put us in this state of hate.

I read this as your failure to understand English. Inasmuch as you seem to understand English, your criticism must based on something else. Given your invective and argument, that must be hate. If not hate, please make explicit what. — tim wood

Not hate. Logic. Given what you said, I don't expect you to understand the difference.

How do you ask about a money trail and then complain about an analogy? The criteria for an analogy isn't a one for one literal comparison. Why not just make a needless personal attack without injecting additional ignorance. It's too much of a give away. — Cheshire

The analogy states that the person who hired them should go to jail too.

Talk about needless personal attacks...

It's like why is string theory right? bla bla. Why is string theory wrong? anti-bla anti-bla. — frank

So string theory is what changed your mind? I don't get it. Is string theory right or wrong? It can't be both, but it has to be one.

For Socrates (and Plato), the examined life is a constant examination of our beliefs and actions for the purpose of establishing what is true, good, and just.

Awareness of justice or righteousness (dikaiosyne) enables the philosopher to always act in ways that are good for himself and others. — Apollodorus

Then it begs the question of what is truth, morality and justice? That is something that needs to be examined. If they are subjective aspects of our consciousness then it is impossible to always act in ways that are always good for yourself and others. What you consider good might not be examined and interpreted in the same way as someone else. Just the fact that there are so many people in the world that believe that their personal examinations of their life indicates that it would be good and righteous to tell others how to live their lives and define for others what is good and righteous. Many people aren't happy unless they are able to dictate to others how to live their lives.

Philosophers make a lot of statements that sound nice, but fall apart when examined and integrated with the rest of what we know and don't know. I think Dennett calls them "deepities".

Your "point" is irrelevant and amounts to a hasty generalization fallacy, typical of philosophically sub-literate spaghetti coders. — 180 Proof

:rofl:
I was simply reiterating a point made by a philosopher, something that you say that I need to read more of. So you're saying that Witt is making hasty generalizations, when other philosophers, like Russell, praised Witt's statement that I quoted as
"the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating."

So now Russell and Witt are philosophically sub-literate spaghetti coders? Who needs to read more or less philosophy again?

"I think everyone should learn how to program a computer because it teaches you how to think".
-Steve Jobs

I leave it to you argue with the likes of Wittgenstein, Russell and Jobs because you simply can't be depended on to be consistent and intellectually honest.

A little context certainly helps.

Insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

I wonder what 180 thinks of the Bolshevik insurrection, the French and American insurrections of the 18th century, etc.

Do you see yourself in people of other races?
— frank

Absolutely. Maybe you haven't heard: Humans share over 99% of their DNA. Focusing on the small differences, which are just surface level, just shows how shallow you are. — Harry Hindu

So what changed your mind, Frank, in the past 5 months?

Your complete misread of what my remark is symptomatic of a profoundly misplaced (ass backwards) preference of computer programming (formal syntactics) to the exclusion of philosophical discourse (natural semantics) as a model, or ideal, of reasoning. — 180 Proof

And your misread of the post you were replying to stated that not reading to much, as opposed to not reading at all, philosophy is a good thing. My point, that your post doesn't address, is that philosophy itself has made the assertion that most of the problems in philosophy are the result of a misuse of natural semantics.

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."
Wittgenstein
https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/09/take-a-wittgenstein-class-he-explains-the-problems-of-translating-language-computer-science-and-artificial-intelligence.html

KK is a waste of time. Mr. Kid isnt intellectually honest and reading their posts insults one's intelligence.
—Harry Hindu

:rofl: — Kenosha Kid

Proving my point, I see.

wtf are you saying - that incestuous couples have this special power that no one else has where they can choose who they are attracted to?

If you're gay are you choosing to not have sex with the opposite sex? Is it a choice that determines what you are sexually attracted to, or what your sexual orientation is? — Harry Hindu

<crickets chirping> — Kenosha Kid

:rofl:

Wait, who sent who? The hit man is the one that is sent to make the hit, but on Jan. 6th the hit man is the one that sent them? Who did the hit man send, if it wasn't the hit man? Typically inconsistent gibberish made by those that are motivated not by truth, but by politics. :roll:

And isn't there supposed to be a money trail between the hit man and who sends the hit man? Very poor analogy made here, but what would you expect from those driven by hate and not truth?

The person you quoted should take some computer programming courses so that they understand how to use language in a more consistent manner. :lol:

Having sex is an act that is not under dispute. Having sex with your own close relative is a particular sex act that can lead to offspring with e.g. learning difficulties (your parents can attest). Having sex after 40 is just having sex. That is, if you're 43, you cannot choose to have sex as a 33 yr old instead, whereas you can choose to have sex with someone who isn't a close relative. Too difficult for you? — Kenosha Kid

wtf are you saying - that incestuous couples have this special power that no one else has where they can choose who they are attracted to?

If you're gay are you choosing to not have sex with the opposite sex? Is it a choice that determines what you are sexually attracted to, or what your sexual orientation is?

And like I keep pointing out-all of this is irrelevant when married couples are not forced to have babies. Having babies and being married are mutually exclusive. So why can't incestuous couples marry and adopt?

Homosexual relationships were once taboo, and are still taboo in many countries, so pulling out the taboo card is disingenuous.

KK is a waste of time. Mr. Kid isnt intellectually honest and reading their posts insults one's intelligence.

It's more of a statement than a confession. Computer programming uses computer languages. Learning a computer language helps you use your native language in a more consistent manner without the need to embellish or obfuscate your meaning. If learning a computer language is a form of programming, as you are implying, then learning a language of any sort would be a form of programming, as you are implying. :roll:

The fact that you are disagreeing with logic as necessary component of reasonable discourse, or conflating the use of logic and being programmed, confesses much.

A condition is any state-of-affairs that we can point to. The temporal distance between some cause and it's subsequent effect is subjective, as change/time is subjective based on the mental state one is presently in. In other words, consciousness stretches out the relationships between causes and their effects, which produces the feeling of time passing - of information flowing through space-time. Information would be the element that is carried through all causal realtionships. Or maybe it's a particular property or attribute that gets carried through as what we point to that links the cause-effect with another sequence of cause-effect, but again, these relationships are subjectively stretched and the amount of time between any given causal events is also subjective.

Should you be determining whether some life, other than your own, is worth living or not, examined or not? — Harry Hindu

You would need to have some familiarity with the existentialists and phenomenologists to understand what it could mean to fail to live your life. You strike me as someone who has read little philosophical literature and on account of that fails to show much nuanced understanding, and is thus given to making inapt comments. — Janus

So it is your position that existentialists and phenomenologists are the ones that determine whether any life is worth living? Is this who examines your life to make this determination?

I think reading too much philosophical literature is a waste of time, as most of it is just obfuscating for the purpose of selling books. I find that thinking logically is all that is needed and for that, reading computer programming books and trying your hand at computer programming would do you well, or else you fail to show much reasonable understanding, and thus given to asking silly questions.

That seems quite good to me. With regard to consciousness it works well. Some definitions (but not others) of consciousness are completely neutral as to which objects can have it. It takes a theory to then predict which things can have experiences and which things cannot. — bert1

No. In this sense, consciousness has been defined as not being limited to which objects have it prior to any theories being posited. What this actually means is a bit vague and a better definition would be needed in order to test it with theories. It seems to me that you need a definition first to then be able to posit a viable theory as to why consciousness is that way - not being limited to which objects have it.