You're so funny. If percentages are psuedo-statistics, then why did you provide a link with percentages?

Here, I made it in meme format because apparently words are hard for you or something: — StreetlightX

"Hundreds and thousands" of people thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe, but that didn't make them right. It made them the subject of a mass deluson.

It seems to me that politics and religion are the branches of philosophy where logic is thrown out the window.

No, asking for actual statistics is one thing, asking for pseudo-statistics that is argued in a form of fallacy is another. Did you even check the statistics given? — Christoffer

What is the difference between asking what percentage of cops are racist and asking what the statistics are of cops being racist? Stop trying to avoid the question. If you, or someone else has provided the statistics/percentage, then post a link. It is very difficult to find valid information in this thread, as it is mostly trolling and racist rants against whites and cops.

Evidence?
— Harry Hindu
A stupid question deserves a stupid answer. And evidence? Well, MAGAt, you certainly qualify (as per your racist apologia post history). :shade: — 180 Proof

Then you haven't been reading my posts. Questioning the assumptions that you are unwilling to question doesn't qualify as "racist apologia", just as questioning theist beliefs isn't "atheist apologia".

And if I had made racist comments then I would have been banned long ago - unlike others on this forum making racist comments from your side stereotyping whites and cops as being racist. The rules aren't being applied consistently. If racism entails stereotyping others, then that is what tim wood is doing, and should be banned, but he isn't because he tows the line of the "left-leaning" forum.

That is a fallacious statistical request. You should look at the statistics of how cops act towards black people. — Christoffer

You're asking the same question. What percentage of cops are racist?

How many are still tRump supporters? At least that many. — 180 Proof

Evidence? No. I didn't think so. You surely would have provided it if you had it.

You're so much more capable if you'd just remove the politically patisan glasses.

You're like a top tier evolutionary scientist that still believes in creationism and intelligent design.

99.9% — tim wood

Racist.

99.9% of white people are racist? Are you white? If so, then you're basically admitting that you're racist. Why should I listen to a racist on the subject of race relations? If you're not white then how do you know that virtually all whites are racist. — BitconnectCarlos

He may say that he's part of the 0.1%. But it is still racist to generalize and stereotype individuals of any race. No matter what race you are.

Imagine if I put angry white faces in this thread.

It's really difficult to find any solutions to the present problem in this thread. It is mostly emotional rhetoric without any clear explanation of where the problem exists (system-wide or specific individuals who might or might not wield political power).

It's like asking a theist to define their god and they attack your for even questioning it's existence.

Take for instance some of the solutions currently being proposed.

- Banning chokeholds
- Banning no-knock warrants
- Establish a national database to track police misconduct
- Lower legal standards to pursue criminal and civil penalties for police misconduct — Harry Hindu

These are some of the solutions in the Democrat bill. Notice how there isn't a qualifier that these only apply to blacks or police actions against blacks. It is an All Live Matters bill.

If mandatory body and dash cams don't make it through then it is up to us to keep using our cameras every time we see police engaging with the public. You can even take out your camera and record your own interaction. "It's for your and my safety, officer."

If twice as many unarmed whites are killed than blacks then why aren't we seeing twice as many videos? Hmmmm?

Where do you get "allowed to"? What exactly does that even mean? And keeping in mind my usage of
"discrimination," does it not seem to you that history tells us clearly that there is proper discrimination to be made by non-white persons about police and white people? — tim wood

We're not taking about history. We're talking about right now. How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. Give me an exact number or at least a percentage. What is it?

You keep making these accusations that blacks are legitimately scared of whites, but forget that far more blacks die at the hands of other blacks, and they are legitimately scared at their own race. If you want to point the statistics that blacks are killed by cops and a higher percentage relative to their population, then you should also acknowledge that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.

I asked you for specific solutions, but you don't have any other than to attack others for their ideas.

Are blacks supposed to be held to a different ethical standard than everyone else? If it is wrong to stereotype then it is wrong for everyone to stereotype which includes blacks stereotyping whites and police.
— Harry Hindu

I find this deeply, deeply disingenuous - and thus either stupid/ignorant, or vicious. Discrimination is the point. — tim wood

Exactly. Blacks are allowed to discriminate against whites and cops.

Are blacks supposed to be held to a different ethical standard than everyone else? If it is wrong to stereotype then it is wrong for everyone to stereotype which includes blacks stereotyping whites and police.

It is wrong to bite people. Lions don't know the difference between right and wrong. Biting is part of their nature. They are not held to the same ethical standards as humans that do possess this knowledge.

Is stereotyping part of a black person's nature so that the rest of us humans hold them to a lower ethical standard than the rest of us?

The idea of educational opportunity in the OP (from a thread merged into this one Nuke) is a good one, imo. But it should be for all, again in my opinion. And the need for it is clear as day to anyone with eyes to see. Begrudge/deprive a person the resources/education to support themselves and you have even explicitly made a choice to either kill them or support them yourself. Your choice. No other options. — tim wood

As I stated in the post that you're responding to, public education is free for everyone and if you do well you can get a scholarship. There are so many different scholarships if you take the time to look. They're are even scholarships where the only qualification is that you have a particular color of skin - black.

If this isn't enough then what else are we asking for? We already have specific handouts for minorities and free education. So be specific in what else is needed. All I see are accusations, ad homs, generalities and platitudes, and no one is responding to what others are saying. Hypocrisy in cherry picking is what is dominating conversation.

Y'know - even if it were entirely true that the mention of race "scares off" potential allies - — StreetlightX

Your choice of words are so off the mark they fail to really exhibit the problem you are trying to get at.

It's not about race scaring off potential allies, it's about race being too narrow of an issue. Police brutality and corruption is a humanitarian issue, not a race issue. Racism is only a small part of police brutality. There are many other ways and people that police are corrupt, brutalize and take advantage of.

Take for instance some of the solutions currently being proposed.

- Banning chokeholds
- Banning no-knock warrants
- Establish a national database to track police misconduct
- Lower legal standards to pursue criminal and civil penalties for police misconduct

Notice how none of these are so narrow in scope as to address ONLY racism. These proposals are meant to address police brutality against all. These are the solutions I'm not "scared of", precisely because they are inclusive and not exclusive.

It seems words only have meaning when the experience the worst is based on is shared by more than one witness. Otherwise the information cannot be conveyed — Benj96

Words are visual scribbles and sounds. When we see or hear them we associate meaning to them, just like every other visual or sound that we see or hear that aren't words.

The private language would be this meaning we associate with our sensory experience. We only need to translate some visual, sound, smell, taste, feeling to another particular sound or visual (words) to communicate those things that aren't words, yet do have meaning as well.

Providing a new name, Philbix, doesn't help anyone if they don't know what that means. To them, it's just a noise your making.

The word had meaning for you, privately, so didnt you just contradict yourself that words need two witnesses to mean something? Words are a particular shape and color, just like Philbix, that you interpret when you experience it.

Is Philbix a color or a word?

I've addressed this point multiple times in this thread. If you lack the literacy or the ability to understand those points, then I've nothing more to add. — StreetlightX

Ad homs are the multiple "points" you have made in this thread.

You're delusional if you think that you, or your side, is the only one with an open-mind. Casting insults does not endear others to your way of thinking.

If you want to have a conversation, then let's do so, but it seems that your emotional state prevents you from doing that.

I could invent 40 words for snow that no one else uses. — Benj96

Why would you do this? What use would you have to invent words for snow for your own personal use?

It seems words only have meaning when the experience the worst is based on is shared by more than one witness. Otherwise the information cannot be conveyed. — Benj96

The same information could not have been conveyed over a live video feed of where the astronaut is?

Didn't you need to show others what you were talking about? If they saw the live video feed, would you need to show them? Seeing what you are talking about means that seeing provides the same information as talking about it. You only need to communicate with others that don't have access to that same information via their other senses.

There is no point in using words for yourself if you can see what it is.

It's cute how those who are not regularly murdered everyday on the basis of their skin color get to explain how skin color does not matter. — StreetlightX

It's extremist quotes like this that just don't reflect reality and ignore the fact that more whites have been killed by cops,(which means that if one black is murdered everyday, then two whites are murdered everyday), is the reason why the solution will turn to violence rather than talking about it. Your posts are equivalent to what I see on FB and Twitter.

Better question for this thread is, is questioning the existence of systemic racism in the US, an act of racism itself? — Benkei

How religious. When a white person disagrees with a black person on anything, the white person is racist. This is like saying that if you don't agree that God exists you are a sinner.

The problem is that you haven't defined your God - the systemic racism that exists. If you can't define it, then how do you expect anyone to know what you are talking about to agree with?

While it's true that genetically there is very little difference between the races, a cultural divide built over many centuries is a very real thing. So words like white, black, asian etc do have a useful meaning. — Nuke

Then the problem is assigning values to different cultures. There is no culture that matters more or less than any other.

You also need to look up the difference between 'systemic' and 'systematic'. They're not the same thing. As I mentioned before, the objections to the idea that systemic racism exists tend to be based on misunderstandings about what's being talked about. — Baden

Systemic racism obtains when a system(s) function (regardless of explicit rules) to favour certain racial groups over others. — Baden

The misunderstanding is yours. As I already have stated, we have a system that favors blacks, as you need to have a certain the color of skin to obtain certain handouts paid for by all taxpayers, to say certain words that others can't, to ignore the plight of others in favor of the plight of "your people" as if "your people" matter more, and to make assumptions about individuals based on what clothes they wear (police uniforms) and the color of their skins (whites are racists).

So who is it with the privilege?

Maybe you need to educate yourself on what systemic racism entails. If doesn't require overt acts of racism. That blacks are treated differently by police is well known. — Benkei

Is it not also well known that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites?

If it is okay for blacks to use the fact that some police are corrupt to then make the assumption that all police are corrupt, then how is it not okay for police to assume that blacks commit crimes?

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it is wrong to make assumptions about an individual based on the interactions you've had, or heard about, with other individuals that share some characteristic, then it is wrong for others to do.

So blacks are doing the same thing that they are accusing the police of doing. When you get two individuals that already have negative assumptions about the other, then it is no wonder that the we have the events that we do. Where does it stop? How do we stop it? It seems to me that it is incumbent upon both parties to make changes in the way that they think about each other.

The police murdered a human being. The color and sex are irrelevant. The fact that protests happen as a result of a black person being killed when many whites have been killed by the same method indicates that White Lives Don't Matter as much a Black Lives. But then there are many more Black Lives taken at the hands of other Blacks, but no protests as a result of that either, so it seems that only Black Lives Ended by Police Brutality Matter is what "Black Lives Matter" really means.

Police brutality happened. Did racism happen? How would we know - simply because the color of the skin was different? Don't you need to know what is in the mind of the individual if they aren't using racial slurs to make it clear that it was racism?

Race baiting is when you assume racism is the cause of some conflict simply because the color of skin is different, as a means to promote special treatment for a particular group. When a white person disagrees with a black person on anything, the white person is racist. Anytime that a conflict arises between two people and their skin is of a different color, racism is automatically assumed to be the cause. Why, when there are so many other possible explanations as to the cause of the conflict? Because pushing agendas are more important than finding truth.

The fact that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites puts them into contact with police at a higher rate than whites. When accusing the system of being racist, you accuse the jurors, prosecutors and judge of being racist too. So why are we only hearing about cops being racist? Where are the stories about doctors saving white lives as opposed to black lives? Where are the stories about teachers giving black children F's while giving white children A's? Where is this systemic racism, and what privileges do whites have that blacks don't? Is it really that we don't have the same privileges, or is it that we don't take advantage of the same privileges - like free public education? If a group receives handouts from the government that you only qualify for by being a member of a particular group, then those are privileges that the other groups don't have, even though there are members of other groups that have the same need (they are in poverty). If systematic racism were real, then how could it ever be that there are many whites with less than many blacks?

If you want to ignore the fact that more whites are killed by cops than blacks to focus on the rate at which blacks are killed compared to whites, then you are essentially saying that because there are more whites, those lives that were lost don't matter as much as the black lives lost because there are less blacks. Whites can afford to lose a few lives more than blacks.

I would be out marching for All Lives Matter and against police brutality in general, not march for the narrow-minded view that Black Lives Matter, when the problem of police brutality would include racism as part of it's scope. Racism isn't being denied, rather it is being incorporated into the larger problem of police brutality and corruption.

Awesome. I'm looking forward to your response to the rest of my post that you just quoted, and one after that.

If so, how do you reconcile your point of view with the Turing test which basically claims that all a computer has to do is mimic a person, — TheMadFool

To say that a computer mimics a person is already defining consciousness as something that can simulated or emulated. Can consciousness be mimicked or is it that wherever some behavior exists consciousness necessarily exists and can't be something that is mimicked?

Firstly, why are you so coy about your definition of consciousness — TheMadFool

Because you've restricted the domain of the discussion to humans.

One of the possible answers to "what is the definition of consciousness" is, "I dont know". From there we dont assume that it is necessary to be human to be conscious.

Secondly, I'd like to know what your analysis of the Turing test is vis-a-vis consciousness and p-zombies? The Turing test would have us believe that behavior alone (of the AI) suffices to come to the conclusion that the AI is conscious. Compare and contrast that to the p-zombie in which case, if a p-zombie is possible, behavior alone is insufficient to infer consciousness. — TheMadFool

What type of behavior is indicative of being conscious? Any human behavior? What about sleeping?


And what did we end up concluding here:

What does it mean to be physically indistinguishable? Are there other ways of being distinguishable or indistinguishable?
— Harry Hindu

Good question but how might I word it to be more explicit than that? Perhaps physical in the sense that the p-zombie has a head, trunk, limbs, internal organs - identical in every sense of bodily parts? — TheMadFool

If there are no other ways for something to be distinguishable or indistinguishable, then "physically" is a useless term, at least in the context of the distinguishable and indistinguishable.

Maybe the dichotomy between the physical and mental is just as useless and should be considered when defining consciousness.

Is consciousness something you have, something you do, or something you are?

:yikes:

I didn't provide a definition. If I did anything, it's give you just a rough idea of what I think consciousness is. — TheMadFool

Then you mistook what I was asking for. I wasn't asking for a rough idea, but a specific one as you seemed to know the specifics if you can behave like the arbiter of what is conscious and what isn't. If you've already determined that you must be a human to be conscious, then you've answered your own question.

Your qualifiers were waking/sleeping and being human. P-zombies fit the former but not the latter, therefore p-zombies being conscious is false.

If you're going to restrict the discussion to only humans then you're not going to agree with my definition, but then that would exclude p-zombies from the discussion as well, and your thread is inadequately named.

It's applying your definition, not mine

I asked you this:

If it is still impossible even though you defined it as such, then is consciousness something more than just the difference between waking states, or something else entirely that has nothing to do with waking and sleeping states? — Harry Hindu

If there is something more, then what is it - that it has to be a human? Then by definition p-zombies aren't conscious because they aren't humans.

I thought I pointed that out - because the hypothesis turns out to be useful for every human that applies it. Do smartphones work the same for everyone despite which religion you follow, or which philosophy you espouse?

When I mentioned sleep and awake states I thought you'd immediately know that the domain of discussion is humans and not anything else. — TheMadFool

I think that's part of the problem - anthropomorphism.

I thought you were talking about p-zombies too, and the point still applies to them:

If P-Zombies look and behave like humans, which includes going to sleep and waking up, then p-zombies are conscious. — Harry Hindu

I'm only concerned with those scientific claims that are well-established - having run the gauntlet of tests and retests consisting of both experiments of verification and falsification. These are, in my humble opinion, regarded as facts as opposed to opinion. — TheMadFool

A hypothesis is a scientific opinion. It becomes fact after it has been tested by numerous human beings numerous times.

In the last statement, the quote, there's the indication that when science gets it right it does get it right and there can be no dissent unless you want to be called a lunkhead. — TheMadFool

So is the question then how do you know you have the right answer even after making all possible mistakes? I guess it determines how you define how you arrive at right answers as opposed to wrong ones. I think there's a thread somewhere around here about that.

So, a standard issue computer is capable of consciousness? I guess we're not seeing eye to eye on what consciousness means. — TheMadFool

It's not you and I that aren't seeing eye to eye. You aren't seeing eye to eye with your previous statement.

What makes it impossible for a "standard issue computer" to be capable of consciousness if you defined consciousness as the difference between waking and sleeping states? If it is still impossible even though you defined it as such, then is consciousness something more than just the difference between waking states, or something else entirely that has nothing to do with waking and sleeping states?

Why don't you give it a go? What is consciousness to you? — TheMadFool

I got to what consciousness is for me by asking these questions that I'm asking you to myself. I think that if I tell you what I think consciousness is, it would turn into an argument. Let's see where these questions lead us.

Also, what are alseep and awake states then, if not physical? — TheMadFool

Then why are you trying to determine if consciousness exists by distinction in body type and function, rather than being awake or asleep? I could build a humanoid robot that goes to sleep and wakes up, like a "standard issue computer". Is it conscious? If P-Zombies look and behave like humans, which includes going to sleep and waking up, then p-zombies are conscious.

So are we talking about distinguishing between body types or waking and sleeping states?
— Harry Hindu

Indeed, what else could "physical" mean? — TheMadFool

Waking and sleeping states aren't physical states?

Could the computer be conscious? — TheMadFool

Well, you did define consciousness as the difference between waking and sleeping states, so it seems to be the case, yes.

If science was always right, then the SpaceX manned mission wouldn't be considered a test flight. Every space mission is a test of our current scientific knowledge. One common saying among scientists is that "You only get the right answer after making all possible mistakes".

Perhaps this privileged position is not unearned - it has repeatedly proven itself over the centuries since Copernicus kickstarted the scientific revolution. — TheMadFool

The Copernican Revolution certainly changed our worldview from a central position to an outlying position. I would give kudos to Galileo for starting the Scientific Revolution in that he laid out the rules of the scientific method which is basically a cohesion of Rationalism and Empiricism.

With an understanding that we live in a shared world that follows the same rules for all of us then there should be some similarities in how we experience the world. Quantum theory may be trying to explain the calculus of how we are both experiencers of the world as well as active participants in the world simply by experiencing it. Our experiences are caused and are then causes of events in the world.

Yeah, no it's the opposite, some scientific theories are only considered 'the best theory we currently have' so long as there is no data to the contrary... and people are constantly and actively looking for data that might not fit those theories. — ChatteringMonkey

Isn't that part of the scientific method?

I think what we're getting at is that the scientific method is open-minded. It accepts that present scientific explanations might not always be the best, and that there might be a better explanation. This explains why science is the default method - because it simply accepts any testable hypothesis that has been tested numerous times and still has predictive power. Every time you use your smartphone you are testing the science that the technology is based on.

So the only qualifier is that the hypothesis is testable by every human being (even on other organisms in the biological sciences). If it isn't, how can we say that what we know is useful for other human beings?

So are we talking about distinguishing between body types or waking and sleeping states?

My computer goes to sleep sometimes and then wakes up when I move the mouse or hit a key on the keyboard.

What if someone is dreaming? Are they conscious?

A p-zombie is a being that's physically indistinguishable from a human but lacks consciousness. — TheMadFool

What does it mean to be physically indistinguishable? Are there other ways of being distinguishable or indistinguishable?

If so, we're forced to infer either that true AI and p-zombies are conscious or that there is no such thing as consciousness. — TheMadFool

I don't know. What is "consciousness"?

the prevailing opinion is that "science is always right". — TheMadFool

:sad:
This is absolutely NOT the prevailing opinion, especially among scientists.

If you are truly a hard determinist, I do not see what the problem would be. Whatever happens was destined (determined), fated to happen you do not really have any real control anyway so why struggle with it. The fact that you are struggling implies you do not really believe it, and I applaud you for that. — prothero

So there isn't a problem, yet you applaud that Brook Norton is struggling with a problem that you say doesn't exist?

Hard determinism is a useless philosophy except as an excuse for accepting any and everything that happens. — prothero

It seems to me that accepting some philosophy is simply accepting the facts of that philosophy, free-will or not.

Hard determinism is simply a way of thinking that you can only be you and you can only behave like you would behave in any given situation given the same information. It is the reflection on what how you behaved, as if you could have behaved differently, that complicates things.

No, the correct explanation of free will is, having alternative futures available, one is made the present, what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion. — Syamsu

This appears circular, although I can't really tell, because it is so confusing.

I will...I do. — Pantagruel

Seems like what you do is determined by what you will, but what determines what you will?

It is therefore proven that there is a spiritual domain, constituting the agency of choices, from which is decided how the material domain ends up. — Syamsu

Am I understanding that Syamsu's explanation is that spirits determine what you will?

Free-will is the idea that you could have chosen some other course simply because you thought of it at the moment when your were contemplating the best course of action. But when the decision is made the others end up being imaginary futures had you chosen otherwise. The fact that you can think of imaginary futures is no indication that any of them are possible simply because you think of them. You have to make the decision to act to realize them. Even then, sometimes that isn't enough.

It's like running through an IF-THEN-ELSE statement in your head. Every IF statement can only be true if the conditions are met, if not then the instructions are never executed and it passes down to the next IF or ELSE statement. You could only execute the instructions if the actual conditions met the conditions of the statement.

But someone standing quietly out of the way just watching events usually has such little influence that nobody would notice a difference between them being there or not unless perhaps they were looking very carefully for evidence that they were there. That’s a negligible influence. That’s “doing nothing”: as far as anyone can tell, on an ordinary macroscopic scale, the exact same things happened as would have happened if you hadn’t been there at all. — Pfhorrest

Usually, maybe, but I think it depends on which effect we're talking about.

Say what is happening is a crime. The observer isn't a participant in the crime, but can later point out the criminal in a line-up that ends up putting them in prison. That's a lot of causal influence just based on being an observer. Standing quietly out of the way is often how spies and nosey people get their information to sell or gossip.

The problem is that people are confusing their goals.

Take this as an example:

If I wrote a program that only showed a profit for a company because I wanted to spare the CEO's feelings, then that company wouldn't be a company for very long. — Harry Hindu

Is my goal to spare the feelings of the CEO or to display the true state of the company's budget on a computer screen? It seems that the program is written with one goal in mind - to spare the feelings of the CEO.

Should you spare your mother's feelings and lie to her, or tell her the truth that you want to join a rock band instead of becoming a doctor? Once you decide what path you want to take, you write a program to reach that goal. If you are confusing the two, then that is the problem.

You might say that the problem is deciding which path to take, and again I would say that you would use logic to determine the answer. You would ask yourself what other consequences there might be other than your mother flipping her lid, and those consequences become reasons for you to tell her or not to tell her.

So even in our everyday lives, we use logic. It's just that we don't apply all the rules and we end up making bad decisions because we didn't account for all the possible consequences of our actions, and therefore our reasoning wasn't complete before making the decision.

Ok. However, if your path includes belief in determinism then it can affect significantly the path you must take in the future. For example, a true story... I used to feel angry at someone who did me a grave disservice. But when I started applying hard determinism I realized that person could not help doing what they did. I try to feel now, no anger, but a desire to act as to avoid any future problems like that. From anger to no anger so there are practical implications. — Brook Norton

And your anger is part of the deterministic effects of their actions. People react to other people's actions deterministically. How you reacted was predetermined, and is possible that has a deterministic effect on their behavior in the future.

If you decide to not be angry anymore at how people treat you, then you are inviting more mistreatment. Anger is a good thing that informs other's that you've been mistreated at their hands.

You seem to be asserting that everyone else's actions are predetermined, but yours aren't - as if others don't have free will, but you still do.

If others can't help doing what they did, then could you not help becoming angry?

What does it even mean to say that someone can't help doing what they did? It seems to imply that people are separate from the things that they do.

You starting this thread and asking these questions was predetermined from the state of your ignorance and your need for clarification.

We all have reasons for our actions. Once you reach a conclusion, you find that your reasons determined your conclusion.

I don't play language games. That is Banno's forte.

Is it a language game? If it were then there was no ambiguity, was there, as you correctly interpreted my use of words as a game.

However it isn't, so while this shows that you might be right in language being ambiguous, it shows that you are wrong in that what I said was intended to be a language game.

Now, why don't we see if we can completely eliminate the ambiguity by you asking questions about what I said so that I can clarify what I said so that it will be less ambiguous for you, as you are the only person that I am aware of that claimed what I said was a language game. But you don't seem to want to completely eliminate ambiguity, you'd rather assert something that isn't true - that I am playing language games. So, it seems possible that ambiguity can be eliminated, but both parties need to want that.

And there are many different ways to solve a problem in programming depending on the programmer, paradigm or programming language. Object orientated is only one paradigm. Functional programming, for example, will have a very different approach - function composition rather than classes and property inheritance. Even the way a problem is framed is arbitrary. — emancipate

Sure, but they all involve logic (error-free thinking) if you want to actually solve the problem.

If the way a question is framed is arbitrary, are we sure we're asking the same question if the question is framed differently? How would you know? Maybe because some words mean the same thing?

Is it easier to comprehend if I say that ambiguity cannot be completely eliminated? The best we can do is a good enough approximation. Good enough to work with, we can have a discussion and understand each other to a certain extant, not completely but enough. This is the problem with language as transmission of thought: lack. Logic doesn't solve this because it necessarily omits what it considers to be the excess of thought, in an attempt to remove ambiguity.

I dispute the notion that 'proper thinking' and philosophy should aim towards logical reduction. — emancipate

To say that it can't be completely eliminated would imply that we know what ambiguity being completely removed looks like to say that it hasn't been completely removed.

What has been lost in our conversation? Have I not understood you? If you meant more than what you said, then just say what you meant.