The latter makes sense and the former does not. "Mind" is predicate (processing), "brain" is subject (processor) like e.g. walk and legs, respiration and lungs, respectively. Mind(ing) is what a brain does. — 180 Proof

Yep. Mind is to brain as digestion is to guts. Digestion is not a single state of the gut, but what the gut does from teeth to arse hole. Digestion is not the very same thing as gut; mind is not the very same thing as brain. Mind is what the brain does. — Banno

The problem with this is that we can observe the guts digesting, we cannot observe the brain minding. It's only one or the other - we can observe a brain, or we can observe our own mind. Brains only appear in minds - as mental models of other people's minds. We never observe minds in brains, like we do digesting in guts. Brains and minds are the same thing, just from different perspectives. Thinking that it's brains that are really "out there" is naive realism.

You go on believing that my belief is about somebody else's belief, and that an obvious thing like being male or female must not be a topic of belief. — god must be atheist

That's what a social construction is - a SHARED belief, not an individual belief that contradicts the social construction. So is gender a social construction, or a personal inclination?

Harry HIndu, you completely misread my post. — god must be atheist

I was going to say the same about you and my posts.

Well, it isn't, if you read my post again. The people see their sex/gender. There is no belief, no mistake about it. They are repulsed by it. No belief, no mistake about it. — god must be atheist

What REASON would they be repulsed? Why are others not repulsed? It seems to me that it is a difference in beliefs about bodies.

What does “being yourself” mean? That presupposes you know who and what you really are. — Todd Martin

It's a silly question. Being yourself doesn't necessarily require knowledge of who you are. A cat does not know it's a cat, but has no issues being a cat. We are all outcomes of our genes and upbringing and are always being ourselves. It's just that some people (and cats) are followers and some are leaders.

never said that and again you're trying to make it about colour. — Benkei

No. I'm not. I'm asking why CNN and all the other sites are making it about color, and why you can't provide evidence to the contrary (because there isn't any).

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-03-22/amanda-gorman-hill-we-climb-translation-backlash-sparks-controversy?_amp=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/06/marieke-lucas-rijneveld-writes-poem-about-amanda-gorman-furore

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Yes. Stop watching TV and watching movies, as it's all propaganda. For some reason people want to be like the characters they see on TV and the movies, or be told how they should be the actors that play those characters, rather than just being themselves.

Think about religion and politics. It seems like most people need to look to others to give themselves purpose and meaning.

That is my preferred usage, too, but not everyone's. The point being that there is no correct usage, just convenience.

There are hermaphrodites and such physical variations; so the physical distinction is not so solid.

And, apparently, the traits that go with 'man' and 'woman' are also malleable.

Recognising variation is just being honest. Accepting someone's preference to be called "they" is common curtesy. — Banno

You seem perplexed, Banno. My point was that you are wrong on both counts. There is a correct usage but it has nothing to do with common courtesy. Science doesn't concern itself with common courtesy. It just calls it how it sees them.

I can comment on the US experience because I'm intimately familiar with its language and familiar with its culture and history because I read local, untranslated sources. — Benkei

Then any white person in America that knows Dutch should be able to translate it.

If you think that you would have even been considered to translate the speech, one look at your pale-white skin and you're automatically disqualified.

Have they found a replacement? With all those other names you provided you would think that they would have found a replacement by now. I still can't find any evidence of what your claiming. Other sites say they same thing - that it was about Rijneveld's skin color.

You don't know shit about the Netherlands and even on this narrow subject failed to get your facts straight, first by basing yourself on a few foreign news sources and then failing to know Rijneveld doesn't publish in English. — Benkei

Again, we're talking about events that happened in the US, not the Netherlands, that need to be translated into Dutch. So me knowing anything about the Netherlands is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Netherlands seems to be having a tough time finding someone that can translate the spoken word of a black American.

It wasn't MY facts. It was CNNs, which you claimed to be incomplete, not wrong. (Then Trump was correct when he called CNN "Fake News"?) So all your other qualifiers that you claim Rijneveld doesn't have are irrelevant because if you don't have dark skin, all those other qualifications mean zilch.

I believe that there are people who are truly repulsed by their own body, due to their sexual characteristics. This makes them reject their own sexual nature, and identify with its opposite, or with an alternative. — god must be atheist

I never denied that people believe certain things. I'm questioning the validity of their belief, just as you question the validity that I'm a Dark Sith Lord, and just as you question the validity of the belief that an anorexic person believing that they are fat. Again, what makes sex/gender so special that claims or beliefs about one's sex/gender are just accepted without question when they contradict observations? Seems to me that the West has a sex/gender identity fetish.

That, at the very least, would require the person doing the translating being better at English than average. — Benkei

Then I could translate Gormans speech using Google Translate.

That said, I'm obviously less qualified to comment on such experience than other Americans, but more qualified to comment on it than you do on the Netherlands. — Benkei

We're not talking about an event that happened in the Netherlands. We taking about an event that happened in America that is translated to other languages, not just Dutch, dumb-ass.

I don't understand how your mind works, Harry. THis seems to me to be a non sequitur. — Banno

It's not a non sequitur. It's a question asking you how you reconcile your own contradictory statement.

I also asked you to address me as "My Master". I'm deeply offended that you won't address me as common courtesy dictates.

For someone who pretends to be colour blind, you're really hung up on making this about colour. — Benkei

Try again. I'm asking why CNN and Gorman is making it about color.

I can read English and read local sources. How's your Dutch? Yeah? Thought so. That's why I can accurately comment about the US and you can't about the Netherlands — Benkei

Would you be able to successfully translate Gormans speech then? If not, then who and why, and does that not mean that English-speaking non-blacks hearing the speech directly from Gormans mouth before the Super Bowl were not able to understand the words?

I can use Google Translate. All I'm asking is for a link supporting your assertions. Saying that the CNN article is not complete requires evidence. Please forgive me if I don't take your emotional outbursts and name-calling as evidence. Instead I see your inability to answer direct questions as evidence that your are simply intellectually dishonest.

You may be able to read Englush, but according to you that still isn't enough to know the American experience. Look at how you contradict yourself with every post.

I haven't insisted on anything except evidence for your assertions and for you to address my questions. You being Dutch isn't enough, especially if your going to question my knowledge of American current events when in American. You keep contradicting yourself and avoiding questions.

You keep avoiding the question. Yet the article mentions none of that and only focuses on their skin color as the only reason they were not a good choice to translate the speech. Why do you think that is? I've provided a link that provides the information of what we are taking about. You havent provided anything to back up your assertions. Where are you getting your information? What is the black emancipation movement and if a non-blacks person are incapable of understanding it, then why translate it in the first place?

And if non-blacks can't understand the black experience then how can a man understand the female experience to assert that he is a she? Wait. Let pop some popcorn because watching you perform your mental gymnastics is entertaining.

What's a non-binary? Neither male nor female I suppose. My hunch is that there's a lot that's involved in gender determination and as we all know that translates to more ways for things to go wrong and I don't mean that in a disparaging way against any of the myriad gender identities that are around. — TheMadFool

Great question. It seem obvious to me that there are people that can identify as something that they are not. What makes sex/gender so special that people that identify as something that they are not and then their assertions simply accepted without question? Take, for example, my assertion above that I am a Dark Sith Lord. Why do you question my self-identification, but not a man who says that they are not a man, but something else?

Male and female are the physical distinction, it’s man and woman that are the social abstraction therefrom. — Pfhorrest

Does this mean that "doe" and "buck", and "queen" and "drone" are social distinctions? Biology points to morphological, physiological and behavioral differences of not just male and female but between humans and deer and bees. "Man" and "woman" are terms that refer to both sex and species whereas "male" and "female" point to just the sex.

Says...? That is my preferred usage, too, but not everyone's. The point being that there is no correct usage, just convenience.

There are hermaphrodites and such physical variations; so the physical distinction is not so solid.

And, apparently, the traits that go with 'man' and 'woman' are also malleable.

Recognising variation is just being honest. Accepting someone's preference to be called "they" is common curtesy. — Banno

Which is it? Is there no correct usage, or does common curtesy determine correct usage?

I identify as a Dark Sith Lord and it would be common curtesy to address me as I would like. From now on, you can address me as "My Master".

It's materialist to judge people by their appearance. — frank

I don't know what materialism has to do with it. An idealist can judge by appearances as well. We all judge by appearances. Some people judge and identify by skin color only (shallow, surface-level thinkers). Others judge and identify by behaviors (deeper and more thoughtful thinkers that judge by the content of one's character). Which one are you, Frank?

Having trouble reading again I see. I'm talking about experience and knowledge of "black emancipation", "spoken word" and the "English language". Rijneveld is a writer who has written poems but doesnt perform, has zero experience as a spoken word artist, hasn't studied the English language or literature, isn't bilingual, isn't versed in US sociology or politics let alone the black emancipation movement. She's entirely unqualified to do this.

So your reply is totally idiotic. — Benkei

Who are you talking about? The Dutch writer is white and non-binary. They won the International Booker Prize in 2020. For more than 50 years, the Booker Prize has recognized outstanding fiction in the English-speaking world and is considered one of the top literary awards. The article is about how the Dutch writer is unqualified because they are white and doesn't mention any other reason other than that. So who is it that is having trouble reading again?

What is the point in asserting your greivances if the people you are addressing are incapable of understanding you? Every human being has to overcome adversity in some form or another. Every human being understands what it means to have to overcome adversity.

How far do we go when it comes to understanding others that are different than us?

Does this mean that atheists could never understand theists and vice versa? I was once a theist. I am an atheist BECAUSE I have come to understand religions and theism. I have asked for "white privilige" and "systemic racism" to be defined and to point out specifically who is participating in it and perpetuating it and I receive no concrete answers, just like when I ask a theist to define their god. So, until you are able to clearly define your religion, Benkei, I have no reason to believe it myself.

Some issues here.

1. We have black, female, bilingual, spoken word artists familiar with black emancipation in the US in the Netherlands, hell, we have bilingual spoken word artists that would presumably have a better understanding of the medium at least, none of them were approached;
2. Publisher knew this so there was a team of sensitivity readers set up because this translator's knowledge and grasp of the English language are mediocre at best;

The criticism was primarily about experience and knowledge of the translator. — Benkei

LOL. So you, as a white person, Benkei, can speak to what it is like to have owned slaves and what its like to have to let them go because your side lost the war? Can the descendents of northerners speak to what it was like trying to free slaves and the risks that they were taking? No black person alive today can speak to the experience of being a slave that was emancipated. And it can also be said that every person alive today had ancestors that were enslaved or oppressed in some way. Your argument just fell flat on its head.

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.

STFD and stop projecting. — 180 Proof

You're the biggest racist on these forums, 180.

if women ruled the world, would they allow a Man's Day?
— Harry Hindu

There is already, as mentioned above. — Amity

That wasn't what I asked. I was asking a hypothetical question. If you aren't going to pay attention to what I actually said and respond to what I actually said, then don't bother responding at all. These racist tactics are tiresome. If women or blacks were the ones in power, would we have White History month?

This is based on fear of losing power and control.

Having a Whiteness Day could inform rather than create further division.
Understanding the history of whiteness - the organisations to ensure dominance: — Amity

Again, if blacks were in power and whites started celebrating White History, would the blacks feel like their power is threatenend?

The point of my post was that if it is good or bad for one group to do, then it good or bad for all groups to do. Blacks are human beings just like whites, and any moral obligations that one group is beholden to, the other group should be as well. Not having the same moral expectations of one group that you have of the other is racist.

It's strange to say that everyday the US had a black president, it is still White History month every day. We don't have White History books. The history books in schools include the contributions from blacks and whites. World History books are a history of all peoples. So I am failing to see where White History is being celebrated and taught in our schools. There is no official part of our society that is designated as only white, yet plenty of places designated as only black. So your argument just doesn't hold any water when you actually try to reconcile what you said with what we observe.

Probably to call attention to the fact that the status quo is "Man's Day" every day all year long except(?) "Woman's Day". A symbolic form a protest to prick the cultural conscience (and maybe even rattle some political cages around the globe) ... like "Black History Month" in the US (which is manifestly white history month every day). — 180 Proof

Yet White History month and Man's day aren't officially recognized days while the others are. You sound like someone that is simply angry at the world for spawning you in a environment where there happen to more people that have a different skin color than you. Considering that the US is mostly white, it is no surprise that most of the people recognized will be white. The same goes in China and Africa - the majority race will be the one that is recognized the most. It seems to me that you are trying to impose minority rule of the majority. Why do I get the feeling that if the roles were reversed and blacks were the predominant race in the US, that we would never get a White History month, or that if women ruled the world, would they allow a Man's Day?

I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.

Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).

The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse

What does any of this actually mean, or how is it useful? What does it mean for the parts or the whole to be primary? What would the differences imply?

By saying one is primary, you seem to be projecting some sort of preference, or value of parts over wholes or vice versa, but preferences and values only exist in your mind and are not qualities of parts, nor wholes. Primary and secondary are ideas in the mind based on relevance, not properties of wholes or parts.

Parts or the whole is relevent to whatever goal is in the mind at some moment. So the answer is, parts or wholes are primary or not depending on what your goal is at any moment. Is your goal to tell time or to fix the watch? The whole is primary for the former, while the parts are primary for the latter.

I agree with that. — Olivier5

Great. So the problem of the "privacy" of one's experience is shattered when you understand that causation carries information about your "private" experiences. Just like everything else in the world, you know enough about that thing (person), you can understand how they work (think) and predict their behaviors.

What should be done is only known after you do something. Is what you did what you should have done or shouldn't have done? What if that baby grows up to be the next Hitler or Stalin?

No scientist is going to prove to you in a lab whether or not you should dump a baby in the trash. It's not a scientific question but a social and moral question. — Olivier5

What should be done is irrelevant and imaginary. All that matters is what is done, and what is done by humans is ultimately dictated by natural selection. The fact that most mothers do care for their babies is the outcome of natural selection.

I agree, but it goes both ways: the state of my mind also determines what I will physically do, like when one decides to do or write something. — Olivier5

I don't understand what you mean by "it goes both ways". The mind, like everything else is both a cause and effect. So the state of some mind is both caused by the state of the world, and the mind can be the cause of some state in the world. That is what I said.

I don't understand the point of using the term, "physical".

our consciousness cannot access the physical, neuronal processes underlying it; it can only access periodic reports from such neuronal processes. Eg visual, audio or pain reports. — Olivier5

This is like saying humans can't fly. Sure, they can't without any mechanical help, but they can with mechanical help. Our consciousness can access the underlying physical processes with a little mechanical/electronical help, by observing (a conscious activity) MRI images of our brain.

One could also say that humans can't communicate without help of ink, paper, computers and air.

It basically comes down to being a realist or solipsist

Either there is a causal relationship of your mind with the world or there isn't. If there is then the relationship between cause and effect is information and effects (the state of your mind) carry information about their causes (the state of the world just prior to some mental state like the state of some internet philosophy forum post as you begin to read it).

Either your internet forum post contains information about one of your prior mental states or it doesn't. If it doesn't then we're not communicating and you are just a figment of my imagination.

There's no should. Love reveals unity. — frank

So it appears that you're saying that the black group that thinks whites can't speak for them has no love for unity and is not doing what they should.

Res ipsa loquitur. :roll: Pax! — 180 Proof

Sic semper tyrannis.

Half sane then. That's better than none at all. — frank

Which is better than you. We could do this all day where you make an assertion, I question it and you evade it. I would have expected such an amazing claim to be supported by amazing evidence. I thought you actually had a quote of Trump saying, "I want all you armed wackos to rush the Capitol and take hostages". Instead you answer my question for specifics and how what Trump said was different than what Dems have said, with a question about what the Dems said. Do you see the problem yet?

Trump egged on armed wackos?

Just look at this thread. You post. I reply. Your posts determine how I reply.

Observe how you reason. You use reasons to reach conclusions. The reasons determine the conclusions you reach.

How about the concept of free will. You are privy to a certain amount of information at any given moment. That information determines the decisions you can make. You cannot make a decision with information that you don't have. Later, you may acquire new information after you made the decision, but that doesn't mean you would have made a different decision at the time you made it. You would make a different decision now, but the moment of decision is past.

Trump played to white supremacists. He played to QAnon. When the president is egging on armed wackos, it's a little more than that Democrats are demonizing somebody. — frank

In what way? What specifically did he say to egg on armed wackos? How is that any different than the Dems egging on the looters during the Floyd protests?

Amanda Gorman's Dutch translator stands down after uproar that Black writer wasn't chosen.
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/amanda-gorman-dutch-translation-scli-intl/index.html

So does this mean that whites can never understand the language used by blacks? If so, then I think that NOS4A2 is right when they say that this is just going to lead to more division and segregation.

Question:
When a white person looks at a black person and the black person looks at the white person, how much of each other should they see in themselves?

Just exposing you again, Harry, not trying to persuade. — 180 Proof

Exposed what? In all the examples you provided, both sides have blood on their hands.

Nobody felt threatened by the marchers. — frank

No one is threatened by marchers, per say, but there are others that misconstrue what the marchers are marching for in order to make people that aren't threatened by marchers, threatened by them. Not to the mention the criminals that join the march as cover for doing illegal things like destroying property and looting.

It is very difficult to start a grassroots movement without having it hijacked and miscontrued by the elitists in power. After all, there can only be Democrat and Republican movements. Any other movement is "adopted" by one of the two parties, which is then demonized by the party that didn't "adopt" it, or procrastinated by the party that did "adopt" it to hold it over the heads of their constituents as an issue that is never resolved to keep them voting for that party.

Best solution, America has to be first to give up nuclear weapons and i believe that most countries will follow suit. Especially when the reason most enemy countries have them is counteract Americas nuclear weapons in the first place. — David Solman

Riiiiight. America is the only country with imperialistic tendencies. Give me a break.

I'm of the mind that Americans shouldn't be spilling their own blood for people that don't want them there. If S. Korea doesn't want American troops there the S. Korea govt. just needs to say so. But the reality is that S. Korea is more scared of N. Korea than of American soldiers on their soil. They know that American troops are keeping the N.Koreans from invading, just as Saudi Arabia knows the American troops are keeping Iran from threatening them, and Eastern Europe knows that Vladimir is looking to reassert Russian influence in the region.

The world saw what happened before wwii when Germany was simply allowed to invade and annex neighboring countries without any consequence. Drawing the line at Poland was to late. Stopping Germany sooner could have avoided a lot of bloodshed.

Ok, explain what what an indeterministic event would look like. What does it actually mean for some event to be indeterministic? All you will be able to do is provide reasons/causes for some event to be indeterministic and you would then be head-deep in contradictions and paradoxes - that the indeterministic event was actually determined by some prior set of circumstances. Try it.