The Presocratics were struck by a dilemma: either mind is an elemental feature of the world, or mind can somehow be reduced to more fundamental elements. If one opts for reductionism, it is incumbent upon one to explain how the reduction happens. On the other hand, if one opts for the panpsychist view that mind is an elemental feature of the world, then one must account for the apparent lack of mental features at the fundamental level." --SEP — frank

This is a strange quote. What do mental features look like compared to physical features at any level, fundamental or not?

Thoughts are "about" things in that they are the brain so shivering its neurons as to adjust its readiness to act on those things. Conscious thoughts, in particular, adjust its readiness to select among symbols for pointing at those things. This kind of thought is thus (whether online or off) thought "in" symbols, and consequently prone to making us think (mistakenly, though often harmlessly) that the symbols are in our heads. — bongo fury

But isn't our brain in our heads? Your brain shivers are meaningless. Where are the scribbles you are reading now - in your head, in your brain, on the screen? Where is the scribbles' meaning - in your head, in your brain or on the screen?

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

Songs are sound events. Having them "in your head" is practicing brain (and general neural and muscular) shivers that refine your readiness to engage with and participate in the sound events. — bongo fury

Then its brain shiver events all the way down? If not, then the brain shivers represent events that are not brain shivers. If not, then how are brain shiver events about events that are not just other brain shivers?

How apples look like is how they participate in person-sees-fruit events, which are illumination events, which we learn to differentiate among through practice: active participation in such events. — bongo fury

Sounds like you have person-sees-fruit events in your head which contradicts your assertion that it is "neither".

defining the concept of intelligence in non-mentalistic terms
— Ned Block

Isn't this impossible? The essence of thinking is mentalistic if I understand the term correctly. — TheMadFool

I guess it depends on one"s assumption that intelligence and thinking are not necessarily mental processes.

It seems to me that Block is simply assuming everything is "physical" and that there is no "mental" component to reality.

Are you quite sure you are sticking with the premise?... — bongo fury

You obviously didn't understand the question. If its neither, then you haven't said anything useful. I'm asking what it is that is in our heads, not what is not in our heads.

And I asked about songs. How are songs different than apples. Unenlightened asserts there are no apples in our heads, but I'm sure that you've heard the expression of having a song in your head.

Do we have direct access to our mind or our brain? And what is the "we" that has this direct or indirect access? Personally, i think the use of the terms, "direct" and "indirect" are the cause of the problem. As usual, the problem is language use.

If its neither then how do you know that what you experience has anything to do with apples at all? What is it about the experience that makes it about apples?

And this is what the indirect realist is continually pretending to do — unenlightened

What is the difference between indirect realism and direct realism? Is your mind part of the world? Do you directly or indirectly experience your brain or your mind?

I assume your argument would something along the lines of needing some kind of representation in the brain in order to recognise an apple in the world? I don't think brains work like that, but even if they did, such representations would be used to recognise apples out there in the world, and not more representations in the brain. I mean what would be the point of that? — unenlightened

How are you defining representation? Representations are an effect of a cause. Being that the cause is not the same as the effect, you don't have the cause in your brain, you have the effect. Its just that the representation is causally related to what it is about. So, thanks to causation you can represent an apple and that experience informs you of the reality. You can only talk about your thoughts and perceptions, but those perceptions are causally related with the world, hence you can talk about the world by talking about your thoughts.

Computer facial recognition is comparing an image of your face, not your actual face, with information stored in memmory - which is just another representation of your face. Its just that the representation is an effect of the cause, which is you putting your real face in front of your Webcam and taking a picture. If that first cause did not happen there would be no information in the computer to compare.

How are apples different than songs? If you don't have apples in your head, can you have song in your head? Where do songs exist?

And then what? does the representation of the eye examine the representation of the apple and feed the information to the representation of the brain? Where the representation of the representation of the eye in the representation of brain in the brain examines... — unenlightened

Its either representations in our brains, or the real objects in our brains. Do we have real apples in our brains or representations of them in our brains? How does the representation differ from the real thing yet inform you of the state of the real thing, as in the apple is ripe? Isnt the knowing that the apple is ripe more useful than knowing the apple is red?

We do not find that we see in our brains. — unenlightened

I don't think that was ever said or implied. We represent, or model, in our brains.

It's not all the same. Color blind people either have a defect in their eyes or in their brains. — Marchesk

Right, so we continue troubleshooting. If we take one of each type of patient and prod their brains with a metal rod, does either one experience red? If the patient with a defect in their eyes experiences red but the latter patient does not, than that seems to imply that colors are generated in the brain, not by the eyes.

Agreed. So where does the red come in to play? I agree that information comes into the brain from the senses interacting with the world. But then what? — Marchesk

I'm not sure I understand your question. If everything is information, then the way we think about red apples as physical objects is wrong. Physical objects, like colors, exist only in the brain as digitized representations of an analog world.

We realists call that 'an illusion'. It's not a real red visual cortex, the way a red apple is a real red apple. This is a very useful distinction for a philosopher, that allows us to admit the possibility of error. Sometimes, one might mistake a stick insect for a stick, or a mirage for an oasis, or a bang on the head for a red glow in the sky. — unenlightened

How does one distinguish between the illusion of red and red that is not an illusion. Red appears the same way to me.

Bite the fucking bullet man. How do everyone's eyes get to signal the same apples as red? Is it telepathy , or is there something about the apples that tells the eyes to signal red? Or come up with another explanation that actually explains. — unenlightened

Dude, you know it's the wavelength of the photons. I don't know what telepathy has to do with anything. The difficult thing to account for is the redness, not the causal chain. — Marchesk

But as enlightened pointed out before, not everyone's eyes get the signal because we have color blind people. Where does the "physical" difference between those that are color blind and those that are not lie? If all else us the same, the apple, the light, etc, then why are there color blind people?

The apple isn't red. It is ripe. The light isn't red. Its an EM wave that has a 650nm wavelength.

The color is the effect, and effects are not their causes. The "difficult thing" is resolved by thinking of everything as information, not "physical" objects. Red is causal information about the ripeness if the apple, the level of light, and the state of your eyes and brain. The difficult part comes in trying to discern what part of red gives us information about just one of those things. We can't because red is single product of multiple interactions and all we have access to is the single final product.

A little bit of highschool physics brought to bear on the set and the "color" black sticks out like a sore thumb - unlike the rest of the colors in the set which are reflected light, black isn't, black is the absence of all reflected light. In simpler terms, for all colors except black there are photons emanating from the colors that strike our retina. Isn't this a fundamental difference in property? Doesn't it mean black, in being so unique, isn't a color or if one doesn't take kindly to such a proposal, that black needs its own subcategory under the rubric of colors?

What say you? — TheMadFool

What I say is that if the existence of colors is not dependent upon the existence of light in the environment, rather colors always occur when there is an eye-brain system, then colors are a product of some state of an eye-brain system, and not necessarily a product of light.

As I have mentioned before in other threads, we cannot sever the part of our experience that is about the world from how the world relates to the body. Every experience is both about the world and about the body. In other words, we cannot experience the world as it is independent of our observations of it. Our observations always include a bit of information about ourselves. This is why the eye doctor is able to get at the state of your eye-brain system by asking you to report the contents of you mind when observing an eye chart. The doctor isn't concerned about the state of the chart. That is constant. The variable is the patient and their visual experiences, and that is what the doctor is getting at. Does this mean that our experiences are objective in that they can be talked about, predicted and tested?

Buyer's remorse already, and you haven't even received the item you bought through the mail. :joke:

I suppose Timothy Mcveigh was a weak mind, then. — Olivier5

Yep.

The difference is that the Reps had already established a principle about “too close to the election” that had denied the Dems their rightful appointment, so the Reps then denying their own principle was a naked power grab.

You have to consider the two events together. If the Dems had been that hypocritical I would be just as critical of them, but I really don’t think they would have been, since Dems are all about the process and civility and compromise even when the Reps are making naked power grabs in response. (That’s a criticism of the Dems there, BTW; I think that’s a weakness, you don’t respond to cheaters by playing extra fair yourself). — Pfhorrest

Like I said, the principle is established in the Constitution. The Congress has the power to determine the organization and constituents of the SC. You don't seem to understand that it is within the power of the Legislative branch to establish new precedents and abolish old ones with new laws and rules. They have done this many times. It is only because we citizens have allowed it to become a partisan issue that we now have fights over which side has more justices, or which way the court leans. The SC is suppose to be a non-partisan body, but thanks to the polarization of the Congress which has the power to basically design the SC any way they see fit, the SC has become an extension of this partisanship that exists. I think the Constitution should be amended to allow us citizens to vote for Supreme Court justices, and they and all members of Congress need to have term limits.

They were both power-grabbing. You are just showing you bias. The bold part just makes me laugh. I mean, where do you get all of your political news - from the DNC? You sound like a religious fanatic. "God is good. Devil is bad."

I’m explicitly arguing AGAINST black and white thinking here. You act like the only alternative to naked partisanship is “they’re all equally bad”. That’s thinking the only alternative to white is black. I’m arguing that that’s not the case, that there are shades of grey between partisanship and “they’re all equally bad”, that you can recognize the faults of both parties and still see that one has more faults than the other. To deny that is lazy black-and-white thinking — Pfhorrest

No. You're not. You are arguing for more of the same TWO-party system. Two-party = Black and White. No parties = No black or white. You seem to think that one's religion or political party makes one more moral than others with a different religion or political party. My point is that politics and religion are inherently immoral as they are both a limitation on personal liberties and freedom of thought. They are essentially a form of group-think. There are good and bad in every group, and that is simply human nature.

Unfortunately two party politics are pretty much inevitable in a first past the post system of voting. Gotta switch to something like alternative vote, ranked choice, proportial representation, etc. if you want more than two parties. — Michael

I'm not really advocating for more than two parties, although that might be better than what we have now. I'm saying that we should abolish political parties altogether.

I never said it would be easy. I was thinking more of like a run-off. We would replace the primaries with a preliminary election to eliminate most of the candidates so that in the final election there are only two or three candidates.

Should any of this lead to riots, another difference is that Trump can rely on thousands of neo-Nazi sympathizers to unleash hell onto peaceful demonstrators. These violent cretins have had wet dreams for years about the Day of the Rope. Yes their dream is to hang all people of color, all white women who ever had biracial sex, as well as all politicians, journalists and intellectuals. — Olivier5

This is a great example of how emotions cloud your judgment, and the power propaganda has on weak minds.

The problem with the SC vacancies issue is hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans. Normal procedure was that when a justice dies the president appoints a new one modulo Senate confirmation. With the late vacancy under Obama the Republican-controlled Senate flatly refused to even consider any confirmation, on the grounds that it was "too close to the election". — Pfhorrest

The Dems made the exact same argument when Trump had a vacancy to fill. The only difference was that the Reps had control of the Senate. So it seems clear to me that had the Dems had control of the Senate they would have flatly refused to consider any confirmation.

and Democrats calling for them to stick to the new procedure that the Republicans just established four years earlier — Pfhorrest

Thats not the argument they made. The precedent is in the Constitution. It says, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it.

I'm not going to defend the Democrats as any kind of paragons of virtue, both parties are FUBAR, but that doesn't mean they're both equally bad. "They're all equally bad, there is no difference" is just a lazy way of avoiding having to figure out which is better or worse, every bit as lazy as "my position is right because it just is because it's mine now shut up you're a bad wrong person".

(Hey look, it's my principles against "nihilism" and "fideism" showing up in an unexpected place, again). — Pfhorrest

The only problem is that I'm not a nihilist nor do I adopt fideism, nor does anything I've said support such ideas, so your experiencing your delusions of grandeur again.

Your problem is that you think there are only two choices. Those that can only think in black and white terms are the lazy thinkers.

If I'm thinking about this correctly then I'm meaning, what is it that gives the darkness it's black colour for the naive realist from an objective stand point, if the blackness doesn't have physical properties to intrinsically accommodate the colour like objective material objects would. — David Cleo

Hmm. I'm not sure I understand the difference between naive (direct) realism and indirect realism. Is your mind not part of the world, and you have direct access to the contents of your mind? What do you mean by naive realism? Would another person experience the same thing I experience if they were me? Or maybe I should ask if I have the same experience everytime when there is no light, then does that not say something objective about the relationship between me and some amount of light in the world? If so, does not that mean that my experiences are objective? If we can predict what someone experiences given that they are a human in an environment without any light, does that make what they experience objective?

I'm not sure i understand the question. Darkness is blackness, and black is a color.

Its amazing how people blind themselves to the simple fact of a two-party system of government, where one party reverses the "progress" made by the other when they are in power. In a two party system of govt., progress isn't one party gets what they want, because that will just be reversed by the other party. Progress in a two-party system is when both parties work together so that everyone gets what they want. The only problem is when both parties don't represent certain citizens, which just means that they don't get what they want. This is why we need alternative choices with new ideas to bring to the mix. Its just that the media is controlling what ideas you have access to.

Deligitimize the result in key states, prevent them from certifying their results in time or, if republican controlled, send in competing electors, then vote Trump in via the house. — Echarmion

Sounds exactly like what the Dems would be doing if the roles were reversed. Just like the Supreme Court vacancy fiascos at the end if the Obama and Trump administrations where the Reps and Dems reversed roles, one claiming we should wait until after the election while the other said that the president gets to select a new judge.

Its so predictable what each side will do and say in every situation that it has become boring. And the contradictions are such that neither side actually says or does anything different. You all are just a gaggle of automatons that keep voting for same BS. There is no difference between Reps and Dems when they both adopt the others position when the roles are reversed. The fact that you all are unable, or unwilling, to see it just exposes how insignificant the truth actually is to you.

We just might have the same situation in 4 years with the roles reversed and then the democrats are going to be doing the same thing as the republicans are doing right now while conveniently forgetting everything that they said four years prior.

Senator Graham's announcement that there will be no more Republican presidents if they back down from this fight is a call out for civil war as States that lean red will have no reason to remain part of the Union. Of course the only winners of another American Civil War will be Russia, China, and the U.S. military industrial complex.

There is a way to make sure there aren't any more Republican president's without a Civil War. That would be to abolish all political parties, including Democrats.

You're just making noises with your mouth. — Harry Hindu

Now that's a good example of a lie. Or is it the truth? — Metaphysician Undercover

It depends upon your explanation of what makes a noise or scribble a word, rather than just a noise or scribble.

You are missing out on the best part of life if you think that everything spoken must either be the truth or a lie. You might also be missing out on the worst part of life, as well. Conclusion: your life must be very boring. What if I said to you: "Let's go run away together", how would you class this as truth or falsity? How would you class a question? How would you class rhetoric? How would you class diplomacy? I'm sorry to have to shatter your illusion Harry, but human relationships are not discussed in terms of truth and falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

We were talking about politicians. They don't ask questions. The reporters do. Politicians make assertions. If you aren't telling the truth or a lie then you aren't saying anything. You're just making noises with your mouth. So it seems to me that believing in the existence of statements that are neither truth or lies would be the boring life.

Asking a question asserts the truth or falsity that you are ignorant of the answer to the question, or else why ask it, unless you are lying about, or feigning your ignorance?

And if politicians aren't telling the truth or a lie and people believe that what they are saying is either or, then the politician is fooling their listeners, which equates to lying.

Vague platitudes are neither truths nor lies. — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl:
Post-truth bullshit.

If it isn't the truth, then its a lie.

You're not interested in the truth, only your ideology. But then, like I said, ethical/political truths are subjective. 71 million people thought Biden was more dangerous than Trump.

I was once Christian. But I began to question my beliefs. I actually had the humility in my late teens to consider that what I believed was wrong. I questioned my beliefs and eventually did a 180. I did something similar with my politics.

The problem today is that everyone thinks they are right and are unwilling to accept the possibility of being wrong. People are too emotionally invested in their political and religious beliefs.

You may be right, but the issue isn’t necessarily the quantity of lies, but rather the harm, chaos, destruction, etc. that they cause. I think there is at least an argument to be made regarding whose lies have been worse. Also, doesn’t all thought reflect whatever system (political, philosophical, religious, cultural, etc.) the agent has bought into? — Pinprick

The amount of harm, chaos, destruction, etc that they cause is subjective, as is all moral and political truths.

People also conveniently lumped all the blame on Trump when we have various levels of govt. where our mayors and governers have much more control over your lives than the POTUS has and no one wants to point the finger at them too?

I haven't bought into any system. I'm an atheist and an independent voter. I'm not the one that is indoctrinated into some system here. Atheists that are registered Democrats have simply swapped one Big Brother (god) with another(govt). Atheists that are Republicans are just confused.

No, really, some people lie more than others. There is actually such a thing as counting a person's lies. And Trump has pushed the volume meter to levels which we couldn't imagine, even from the most dishonest politicians. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do vague platitudes count as lies or truths? Vague platitudes is the language of politicians and lawyers. When you learn how to twist words to mean almost anything, then you can always assert plausible deniability later.

All you have to do is watch any news station where they interview political pundits or strategists from both sides and observe how each side spins the truth.. Its a wonder any reporter worth their salt puts a microphone in front of any politicians face, as what comes out of their mouth is just flat out propaganda.

But at least we'll be free from the liar in chief. — Wayfarer

As if no president except Trump has lied, and even acquired power by lying. :roll:

You people's political party is no more than a religious cult. Democrats lie. Republicans lie. Thinking one does it more than another is just a reflection of your indoctrination.

You speak as if thought is different to speech. It is, quite obviously, but it can be said and it is true that speech is nothing but vocalized thought and thought is simply unvocalized speech. I'm curious though because, if what you say makes sense to you, your brain must work in a radically different manner than mine. Care to share. — TheMadFool

Do you understand what Aristotle is saying? Take in what Aristotle is saying and then roll it around in your head and then get back to me with how you would paraphrase it.:

“It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” — Aristotle

To represent a contradiction with words, you can only represent the opposing ideas separately on a screen or on paper with symbols stretched across space and time. Contradictions are opposing qualities in the same space at the same time. Try to say, "exists" and "not-exists" at the same moment. Do you see the problem now?

While you can say a contradiction, you can't think a contradiction. A contradiction is illogical because it doesn't represent how one thinks. It is impossible to think of opposing qualities in the same space at the same moment. If you can do that, then your brain must work in a radically different manner than mine. Care to share.

Explain it to me with the argument I made:

1. P & ~P.......assume contradictions allowed
2. P............1 Simp
3. P v A......2 Add [A being any proposition under the sun]
4. ~ P.........1 Simp
5. A..........3, 4 DS

Three important facets to the logic above:

1. The propositions themselves
2. The logical connectives (&, v)
3. Natural deduction rules

Have I missed anything?

Explain the non sequitur using one or more of the above. — TheMadFool

Why do you keep moving the goal posts? I explained it using the way you expressed it in your OP. I already pointed out that A cannot be any proposition under the sun because it has to logically follow. A has to be logically connected to P, and it isn't. You say it is, but how? Do you even know what a non sequitur is? It is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid, therefore you are not adequately applying all the 3. Natural deduction rules to the principle of explosion. Basically, the principle of explosion is a lazy attempt to be logical.

p & ~p = Something is something & Something is not that something — TheMadFool

Then I don't understand how you can say that the quote I provided doesn't have any contradictions in it. :roll:

It wasn't and thus this thread. By the way, how, in what sense is the law of noncontradiction self-evident? — TheMadFool

Try thinking of something and it's contradiction in the same moment. That is different than trying to say a contradiction in the same moment, which is impossible. To say a contradiction means that you have to say one sentence and then another that contradicts it in the same moment. It is in saying it that you get the sense of time passing where something is added and then taken away. That isn't what a contradiction is. That is utterly different than thinking of a contradiction, which is done in the same moment with the same thing.

Try thinking of a god that both exists and doesn't exist. Now, use your logical symbols to say the same thing. It takes time to write them out, and the symbols appear in different places than the symbols that they are contradicting. When thinking of a contradiction, you think of the existing and non-existing property in the same moment and in the same visual space - meaning the existing/non-existing god must appear in the same space at the same moment. Remember this quote of Aristotle's:

“It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” — Harry Hindu

Your symbolism is not adequate at representing how the LNC is self-evident, because the symbols appear in different areas of space, not the same area of space, as explained by Aristotle. In order to observe the self-evidence of the LNC, you have to [try to] think of a contradiction, not say or write it.

I guess everyone has an opinion on the matter but what's your beef with the principle of explosion? Any flaws? You don't mention any — TheMadFool

Yes. I did. Search for the phrase, "non sequitur" on this page. The principle of explosion IS a non sequitur error.

I love this quote but, on analysis, it, nowhere in its poetic fervor, states a contradiction. — TheMadFool

Then how are you defining, "contradiction"?

never really making a point, — TheMadFool

To Aristotle, the law of non-contradiction was not only self-evident, it was the foundation of all other self-evident truths, since without it we wouldn’t be able to demarcate one idea from another, or in fact positively assert anything about anything – making rational discourse impossible. — Harry Hindu

Is the principle of explosion self-evident in the way the principle of non-contradiction is self-evident?

(this is the important step because A can be any proposition at all) — TheMadFool

No it can't. It has to logically follow, or be causally related with, the prior statement or its a non sequitur. I did mention this the post you replied to but apparently did not read.

"As for the obstinate, he must be plunged into fire, since fire and non-fire are identical. Let him be beaten, since suffering and not suffering are the same. Let him be deprived of food and drink, since eating and drinking are identical to abstaining.”
-The philosopher and polymath Avicenna

Why is the official (logical) explanation for why contradictions are prohibited (ex falso quodlibet) different? — TheMadFool

I think that maybe you're confusing the law of non-contradiction with the principle of explosion.

The LNC, as stated in Aristotle’s own words: “It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (Metaphysics, IV). To Aristotle, the law of non-contradiction was not only self-evident, it was the foundation of all other self-evident truths, since without it we wouldn’t be able to demarcate one idea from another, or in fact positively assert anything about anything – making rational discourse impossible.

In the centuries that followed Aristotle, medieval logicians noticed something interesting: if they allowed themselves just one contradiction, they seemed to be able to arrive at any conclusion whatever. Logicians refer to this as ‘anything follows from a falsehood’, which is the principle of explosion as you mentioned, but rarely explain why this is the case.

A non sequitur is a logical fallacy where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, so anything does not follow from a falsehood if you apply all applicable logical rules to some proposition. The conclusion is not about, or related in any way to the premise, so even if the premise were true, there is no guarantee that the conclusion will be true or false. Essentially the premise and conclusion would be talking past each other.

While I'm honking, I gotta say, whatever happens we Dems need to sit down in front of a mirror and finally figure out why we continually find ourselves in close elections against cartoon characters. — Hippyhead

The problem is that you don't see that your candidate was a cartoon character as well.

Having to fight tooth and nail to have a chance of defeating Trump? That's clear evidence that all the blame can't be aimed elsewhere. We've somehow alienated vast swaths of the population to an extreme degree. We need to figure out how that happened. Calling them a "basket of deplorables" isn't going to fix it. — Hippyhead

No. It was the candidate that you put on the Democratic ticket that contradicted the very things that the Dems argued against or for. A true progressive just can't bring themselves to vote for an old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years, nor can people that have claimed that systemic racism and white privilege exists bring themselves to vote for a old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years.

The problem is that too many people get their political information from one source - the E! Channel, celebrity social media channels, etc., and that too many people simply don't have the memory capacity to remember the statements that their political party made over the years that contradict the very things that they are saying today. The media is insulting your intelligence and you want to vote for more of the same.

Just look at when Obama wanted to fill a Supreme Court seat near the end of his term and when Trump wanted to fill the vacant seat in the same body near the end of his term. The Dems and Reps swapped arguments in both instances. Both took the position of the other in the previous incident. When both parties are so inconsistent to the point that they take the position that the other party had in a previous instance, it would be difficult to distinguish between them, and the result is close elections between two cartoon characters. Go figure. It is well past the time that we stop feeding this two-headed monster with our votes. There are alternatives. Educate yourselves.

Define Truth as what is eternal, what never changes.

Is there such a thing?

Assume Truth does not exist. Then there is nothing that never changes. So “there is nothing that never changes” is eternal. So Truth exists.

So something is eternal. Some call it God.

I find it interesting that it can be proven that something eternal exists. — leo

If something (God) never changes, then how does it cause change? How does an effect of change follow from a never-changing cause?

Truth is the relationship between statements and the state-of-affairs those statements are about.

Truth is a predicate of statements; it is not a thing. It is not god nor is it eternal. — Banno

What is a "thing"? Is eternal a thing? If not, then how can predicate statements not be eternal if they both qualify as not-things?

The/my strategy is increased stakehold over stockholder control of society. — 180 Proof

Then electing someone that has been in power for nearly 50 years and has done nothing to advance your stategy, just shows that you're all talk, 180. There is no difference between Biden or Trump in this regard. Neither one is interested in promoting a classless society as they are both opposite sides of the same coin - the corp./govt. symbiosis that feeds each other.

So go ahead and throw your vote away voting against something rather than for something unique and truly progressive - like a non-Democrat or non-Republican. But you can't because you are controlled by group-think.

You do realize that in a two-party system both parties take turns in holding power, or the majority, don't you? And that you have to live with Republicans being power from time to time? and that neither party represents your views, nor mine? The only other options are one party with no choice or liberty, or more choices with more parties having equal press time so that we can have access to alternate ideas.

With the existing system, you can never realize your strategy. It will always be a pipe dream until we have other choices.

You can take your foot out of your mouth now. In future, please wake up and pay attention. — Baden

The only ones not paying attention are the ones that think this is only a two-man race. You and your pals have Trump tunnel vision.

wait, what, you're a progressive? — Benkei

The ones that don't continue to vote or the status quo? - yes, we are the true "progressives", if that is the label you want to use. The Democrat left isn't progressive or liberal. They are authoritarian socialists.

Ah, the good old hypocrisy fallacy. You don't get to decide what people are allowed to complain about. What matters is whether the complaint is warranted, not whether or not the person making it meets your standard of purity. — Echarmion

Stop putting words in my mouth, hypocrite.

I never said that I get to decide what others complain about. People can make whatever decisions they want, but then don't expect others to make the decision to take anything you say seriously when your behavior contradicts your words.

Yeah, that worked very well in the USSR. Or Nazi Germany. — Echarmion

:lol: The USSR and Nazi Germany were one-party systems, not no-party systems! The U.S. is currently only one step away from these types of government.

They aren’t pro-Biden; they are anti-Trump. Anti-Trumpism forces them to toss their principles to the wind. Out of one side of their mouth they will lament systemic racism, and out of the other they would gladly vote for a duo whose political careers led to the mass incarceration of dark-skinned people. Out of one side of the mouth they teach us the failures of neo-liberalism, and out of the other they vote for its champion. They would sink the entire ship if it meant Trump’s exit. — NOS4A2

Exactly. They hate Trump more than they hate systemic racism, white privilege and corruption. When hate is what is driving them, it is difficult for them to make clear decisions.

Pay attention: A Biden vote is only a tactic and not the strategy, just as Trump is only a symptom (much moreso than Biden) of the deeper rot in American society; in other words, an Anti-Trump vote (esp. in a swing state) is not pro-Biden. :mask: — 180 Proof

Your tactic doesn't help you realize your strategy. There are means to vote against Trump while not voting for Biden. There are other candidates that aren't Trump or Biden. Instead of voting for the non-racist woman that hasn't been in power for nearly 50 years, you'd rather vote for Biden?

The way I see it is that both Obama and Trump were rejections of the dynastic, career politicians that have dominated American govt. We're tired of the Bushes and the Clintons, the Bidens and the McConnells. If Trump wins, it will reinforce the validity of this idea, and the next party to put an outsider on their ticket will be the next party to win the White House.

In my district, there are amendments to the state constitution and county referendums that will allow NPA voters to vote in primaries and will remove the Ds and Rs next to the names on the ballots for candidates running for certain county seats. I am voting for these and I would encourage others to vote similarly if they have similar measures on their ballots, as such measures will help to break down these partisan walls.

So independent, NPA voters are now "holier than thou"?

No, Benkei. We are simply tired of the hypocrisy.

Why focus on, or even look for possible misdeeds of Trump Jr., when one just needs to look at the President himself, to be overwhelmed. — Metaphysician Undercover

As if misdeeds only began when Trump became president. :roll:

The size and power the U.S. govt. has accumulated over the years and the way theyve handled that power as a means to divide us and pit us against each other is the greatest misdeed of them all.

You, Baden, Street, and 180 cant see beyond your politically partisan goggles you have on to see that you are pawns in this bi-polar, partisan game that is being played. You all keep promoting the status quo and contradicting yourself.

Please dont call yourselves "progressives" if your voting for the old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years. Dont complain about systemic racism and white privilege and then go vote for the old racist white guy that has been in power for nearly 50 years. Dont expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you do such things.

Abolish political parties and then you limit group think. I know you all know how to apply logic, as i see you call others out in other philosophical domains when logic is not being applied properly, so why abandon logic when it comes to politucs? Because most people have emotionally invested themselves in the "truths" that the political parties spin, just like a religion.

Then how can you even use the term, "physicalism" and "experiences", when you have no means of testing and all you can do is guess at what they mean and how they are related? You keep using the terms without explaing what they mean.

I agree that we've invented the hard problem. The problem arises from the incoherent terms that we are using.

I quite like the pathetic focus on Hunter Biden. — StreetlightX

Puuhhhh-leeeze. :roll:
As if you wouldnt be focused on Trump Jr. as evidence that Trump is incapable if Trump Jr. had a similar story being circulated.

The political hypocrisy is soooo old and tiresome.

Ultimately it doesnt even matter what the Reps and Dems think about this, as it predictably falls along party lines. What ultimately matters is what Independents think about it.

I assume conscious experiences can be explained within physicalism. — ChrisH

How can the quality of depth in a visual experience be explained within physicalism? What is physical about the experience of empty space? What does "physicalism" even mean? What are "experiences"?

How does "physicalism" address the question of why evidence for your conscious experiences from your perspective is different than the evidence of your conscious experiences from my perspective? You dont experience your brain, you experience colors and shapes and sounds and tastes, smells and feelings and report that this is evidence of your consciousness. I experience the visual if your brain or body"s behavior and report this as evidence of your consciousness. Why is there a difference and how can you reconcile the difference using "physicalism"?