I like the word pinprick, for whatever reason. I think it started with the way the word is used in the Marilyn Manson song “Cyclops.” I had an artist friend and I thought “Pinprick Productions” would be a cool name for a production company. I liked the alliteration, and even came up with a logo and introduction thing you see at the beginning of movies. Basically, a black screen with dots of light being poked in it in the shape of a spiral (which again was a reference to the MM song). The word seemed to grow from there, and seemed appropriate for whatever I was doing creatively. I occasionally write poetry and used pinprick as a play on pen-prick. For philosophy, it seems to fit my style of primarily trying to poke holes in arguments, rather than create much of my own.

If you are equating minds and brains, why are you asking me "what is mind?" — RogueAI

Because you’re not being understood. I’ll elaborate my confusion:

I gave you an argument that if minds are brains, then talk of minds is talk of brains. — RogueAI

What do you mean by talk of brains/minds? Does talk of brains mean talking about things like neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters? Or does it mean talking about things like thoughts, memories, and ideas? If the former, then no ancient Greeks couldn’t talk about brains, because they had no knowledge of the existence of neurons, etc. If the latter, then of course they could, but that is really talking about the content of brains/minds. Think about a cup of water as an analogy. We can talk about the cup itself, it’s size, shape, material, etc.; and we can talk about its content, the water.

ancient peoples could meaningfully talk about their minds without meaningfully talking about their brains. — RogueAI

They could talk about the content of their minds/brains, but not about their brains/minds themselves. But that is only due to their ignorance.

This assumes that there is some way to have an “impersonal view” — khaled

If my personal views are irrelevant then I can still have them without them skewing my results. For example, if I’m measuring something, my religious, political, etc. beliefs will not influence my measurement. Therefore, my measurement is objective.

Logic is a vehicle of truth but what premises you choose may not be true. — khaled

If you choose an untrue premise, then the argument isn’t logically sound.

You’ll notice that if you do this long enough you’ll eventually reach premises that are not logically explained OR you’ll keep going forever — khaled

Or, you’ll reach a premise that is also factual. Something like this:

Water is a liquid.
All liquids take the shape of their container.
Therefore, water will take the shape of its container.

This argument is logically sound and valid. It is also objective. This is an objective truth.

2+2=4 explains nothing but is true. — khaled

This does explain something. It explains what the value of “2” and “4” is, as well as what it means to add. Also, if this is referring to actual objects, it explains the quantity of those objects, or groups, whichever the case.

But the next line you probably want to add which is “Therefore people will believe the ideas with the most explanatory power”. That is what I disagree with. — khaled

I’m not trying to make that claim. People are irrational, and will believe whatever they want, or are compelled/forced to believe.

But then again I’m the type of guy that says mathematics produces no new knowledge. — khaled

If you don’t know how to add, and then you learn how to, don’t you now know something that you previously didn’t? Even counting can lead you to learn something. You don’t know how many pennies are in my pocket. You count them, and now you know. That’s new knowledge.

Bruh you literally followed them up with “People can disagree with this but it would be human error” — khaled

If the point you’re trying to make is that people don’t always believe what is true, then of course I agree. There will likely always be someone that disagrees with everything, but this isn’t an issue with “truth” or “knowledge,” but with humans.

Ok so I now propose to you a theory:

Pens never run out ink

I have just written a line with a pen

Therefore pens never run out of ink. This is now a proven scientific theory that cannot possibly be incorrect

Does that seem right to you? Newton’s laws are also something like this as they claim objects will move a certain way forever. How can you be sure of a theory that states something will be the same for all time. — khaled

I think you should consider the opposite when making theories that presume eternal consistency. For example, you should see what the hypothesis “pens will run out of ink” concludes. Or that “when a force is acted upon an object, that object moves.” The conclusions of these experiments would provide causes. This would lead to the truth that force causes motion. If that is true, then it’s inverse(?) would also be true (that objects do not move unless acted upon by a force).

At what point can you be sure that the proposed theory will actually work for all time? — khaled

I don’t really know if you can, but if you’ve tested every possible counter theory, and they’ve all failed, then what is left to doubt? But of course that just shifts the issue to knowing when every possible counter theory has been tested. I guess the point is that science isn’t meant to be static, or that 100% certainty isn’t possible (although Decartes’ cogito may be an exception). But does this have any relevance to whether or not explanatory power is the best criteria for judging a theory? Or that theories with no explanatory power must be refuted before they can be considered false?

If minds are identical to brains and two people from ancient Greece are talking about their minds, it would follow that they're talking about their brains. The problem is that ancient Greeks COULD have meaningful discussions about their mental states. They could not have meaningful discussions about their brain states. They thought the brain cooled the blood. Therefore, brains aren't identical to minds. — RogueAI

I don’t understand any of what you’re trying to say here, so let’s start at the beginning. First, what is “mind?” Second, what’s the difference between “mind states” and “brain states?”

And what does this mean exactly? — khaled

That you aren’t letting your personal views (opinions) cloud your judgement, draw inaccurate conclusions, etc.

And again, how does one know they’re unbiased — khaled

By being able to justify your claims logically, rather than resorting to some preference to do so.

When I think about what I’m having for dinner am I seeking to find “the objectively best dinner”? — khaled

Well, that would be a subjective truth, but otherwise yes.

So why are we having this conversation? — khaled

Lol, now you’re starting to sound like me.

That much is true but it leads to none of the rest of the paragraph it’s in — khaled

No one believes something because they think it’s false. Therefore, people believe what they think is true. If truth exists, it must have an object that it is describing accurately (some feature of the world, a concept, physical object, etc.). Therefore, any idea/theory that aims at truth must explain something. Therefore the best ideas/theories are those that have explanatory power. What exactly do you disagree with here? Are you claiming that a theory/idea that explains nothing can somehow still be true? If so, please try to give me an example, because I don’t even see how a theory that doesn’t explain anything can even be considered a theory.

This is not “truth seeking”, this is “truth creating”. — khaled

What if I use these “true by definition” concepts to learn new things? Does that count as knowledge? BTW, those examples were meant to counter your statement that there is nothing that everyone will agree with. But, consider the example of measuring something. I can objectively say it is 12 inches long after I have measured it. I didn’t previously know the length of the object, but now I do, and because I used an objective form of measurement the knowledge gleaned from its use is also objective.

Science is empirical. Any theory is immediately incorrect as long as there is an observation that doesn’t match it. — khaled

Well, at least partially incorrect, but I have no issue with this. But, this doesn’t mean every “theory” has to be disproven to be incorrect. Hitchen’s razor is a good example of what I’m getting at. Some “theories” aren’t really theories at all because they don’t explain anything, or because they simply assert premise(s) arrived at irrationally and draw whatever conclusions happen to follow.

Actually let me ask you, how does one arrive at said immutable truth (aside from things that are true by definition)? — khaled

See above example of measuring.

How many times do we have to throw a ball into the air to be 100% sure Newton’s theory of gravity is making accurate predictions? — khaled

Once. But, if there are changes in the environment that could have an affect on gravity, then the experiment would need to be conducted under those particular circumstances.

At how many throws can we know for certain that it is impossible for the next throw to oppose the theory? — khaled

One, unless something in the environment has changed. If I hypothesize that I cannot walk through walls, and then proceed to attempt to do so, and fail to do so; then I can accurately say that I cannot walk through walls (at least at this particular time, with walls made out of this particular substance, under these specific circumstances, etc.).

I think it's sort of a chicken and egg effect. Suffering causes a desire for things to be different than they are, and a desire for things to be different than they are causes suffering — Pfhorrest

But without suffering one would not desire for things to be different, right? Suffering necessarily becomes the first cause, or first link in the causal chain.

Since when is objective = what everyone prefers? — khaled

For me objectivity means unbiased. I don’t consider desiring truth to be a bias because it is essentially the entire point of thought itself. This is demonstrated by its universal acceptance. Of course there are disagreements on what is true, or whether truth even exists, but that is irrelevant. No one chooses to believe something because they think it’s false.

There is nothing everyone who is, ever was, and ever will be, will agree on. — khaled

That a foot is 12 inches, that the correct spelling of “the” in English is t-h-e, that chess is a game, etc., etc. People may mistakenly think otherwise, but that is only due to human error.

Notice the "At least seems that way". Very important. So at no point can you actually know it is that way right? — khaled

I only added that to account for different types of “its.” IOW’s it depends on the subject. Facts, such as my above examples, can be known with certainty.

That much is true but not vice versa. If the method you select does provide the most accurate models it MAY not be wrong. — khaled

So you’re saying the most accurate models could still be wrong? I’m sure that’s true with some things, but I would limit those to only things that are not fully explained.

Why do you claim the existence of a "Best standard"? If there is such a thing then what is it? — khaled

A standard aims to determine something, correct? For instance, to use one of your examples, if the aim is to establish which of two novels has the fewest words, then the best standard would be one that actually counts the number of words. But having “the fewest number of words” as a standard for truth makes no sense, as the number of words is irrelevant to a thing’s truth value.

But what makes you think a bunch of rocks floating in space imply some "Objective standards" with which some evolved ape on one of said rocks must debate? — khaled

I don’t think that. I don’t think that objective standards are implied by planets. I believe that truth is objective, which isn’t to say that truth exists in all discourses, but just that if truth exists in a particular area of discourse, then it must be objective. I also believe that there are ways to arrive at truth. Therefore, when considering whether or not a particular idea or theory is true, it is necessary to examine it’s methodology, because not all methods are even capable of arriving at truth in the first place. Therefore a standard is needed to determine which methods are capable, and which aren’t. And that standard is explanatory power, because in order for any statement to be true, it must be able to demonstrate how it arrived at that conclusion. IOW’s it must explain something.

When you think of your mind, do you think in terms of physical properties? What color is your mind? What shape is it? What's its volume? What does it smell like? What's it made out of? How heavy is it? These are nonsense questions because your mind isn't a physical thing. — RogueAI

When I think of my mind, I think of my brain. I equate the two, or rather reduce mind to brain.

How does materialism survive such a failure? — RogueAI

By being able to explain everything else. Consider this example. You’re a judge in a murder trial. The prosecutors are able to explain everything about the case except for motive. They have forensic evidence that shows the suspect was at the scene of the crime, the murder weapon in his possession, etc. It is strange that they are unable to account for any motive whatsoever, but in light of everything they can explain that doesn’t give you a read not to convict the suspect. To make the analogy more symmetrical and fair, let’s say the defense provides an explanation for a motive for somebody else. This other person stood to benefit from the victim’s death, and also strongly disliked the victim, had a history of violence, etc. But in a case with many variables, the most rational thing to do is to agree with whichever theory best explains the most variables.

When did I do that? I didn't utter the word "objective" once before you did. I honestly don't know where you got "So I take it you don't care about objectivity" from. — khaled

You seemed to me to be claiming that desiring truth is a personal preference, and that therefore seeking truth is biased (as opposed to objective).

I don't. I care about obtaining ideas that seem true. I can't test if they're true or not (because I don't have a hotline to truth) but I can select the ideas that provide the most accurate models. That is my criteria. That is not everyone's criteria. That's all I said. — khaled

My point, or argument, is that everyone prefers ideas that seem true, rather than ideas that seem false. Therefore it seems strange to me to consider someone who does so biased (i.e. subjective). Therefore, the most reasonable, and objective, thing to do is to have “whether or not it obtains truth” as a criteria for any methodology. Therefore choosing explanatory power as the best method is objective, because if something explains something else logically and rationally it by definition is true (or at least seems that way). So, if the method you select does not provide the most accurate models, then the method you selected is objectively wrong.

By setting up an actually testable standard. For example: Makes the best predictions, Has the fewest words, Most intuitive, etc etc. — khaled

But you can’t determine which standard is best without objectivity.

Yep...pretty embarrassing for the good ol’ US of A. But not surprising in the least. MTV needs to do a celebrity death match episode with these two. Trump can be portrayed as an infant, and Biden as an undead corpse. :lol:

The real question is whether or not this will affect anyone’s vote. I seriously doubt it. We know who these men are, and they did nothing to change anyone’s mind about them.

I can't be wrong about the existence of mind and thought. — RogueAI

All evidence supports the idea that “mind” is physical. What evidence is there that anything nonphysical exists?

Might as well make thought the building blocks of reality, instead of inanimate non-conscious stuff. — RogueAI

My brain is both physical and conscious, and is the cause of thought. Why the need to postulate anything more?

Idealism does not fall prey to the Explanatory Gap/Hard Problem of Consciousness, which imo, is catastrophic for materialism at this point in time. — RogueAI

I agree, but what does idealism explain? Even with the assumption that there are nonphysical objects, how do they interact? How do they form/create/become physical objects? What rules govern their motion, size, shape, mass, etc. (or lack thereof)? Materialism isn’t perfect, but I don’t see how it could be wrong about the things it can explain, like the majority of physics. And that counts for something, right?

Not necessarily. I don’t know if it exists or not but even if it did there is no point at which we can be sure we have found it so I don’t care if it exists or not. — khaled

If that’s the case, then why fuss over whether or not I’m being objective? If you don’t care, then I don’t see how you can care about obtaining truth at all. And if that’s the case what’s the point of having these discussions? Without accepting objectivity how can either of us determine whom is correct? Am I missing something?

This in turn makes me consider if bodily pleasures should win out over some sort of "higher order" happiness. — Aleph Numbers

Depends on what the goal is. If bodily pleasures leads to that goal, then it should win out; but if not, then not.

However, the addict using a substance might still result in the greatest amount of bodily pleasure — Aleph Numbers

In the short term. The long term consequences of “fiending” and/or withdrawal is where the downside lays.

However, most people, I think, would argue that some sort of lasting happiness would be preferable to an addiction. — Aleph Numbers

I do too. Also, if the act of using a substance you’re addicted to does violate your free will, then I would argue that any violation of free will is harmful, or at least feels harmful.

I'm asking if in such a situation it can be said that the person can be said to be satisfying their preferences with respect to how they want to act in those specific circumstances if they drink the soda. — Aleph Numbers

This makes me think about addiction, which makes me think about the question of free will. An addict may want to stop using whatever substance he’s addicted to, but is simply unable to resist his urge to do so. I also think it’s good to consider the difference between rational (intellectual) and irrational (emotional), as these two forces are often at battle within any decision we make. So the question becomes if the addict uses X substance again even though he doesn’t want to, is that an act against his will, and therefore irrational? Or, is it an act of free will, and therefore rational? Did he willingly choose to give in to his addictive desire, or was his desire simply overpowering?

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

Maybe but it is. — khaled

I take it you reject objectivity?

What else could it be? — khaled

An objective objective?

If someone does something differently than you, that doesn’t automatically make them wrong; but neither does it automatically make you wrong. — Pfhorrest

Right, I agree.

Neither of you has the burden to justify your ways to the other, nor any obligation to do as the other does if you can’t justify doing otherwise. — Pfhorrest

This is true too, until one person begins questioning the other’s behavior, or unless the two behaviors are directly contradictory to each other (although it’s odd to think of behaviors as being contradictory rather than just different), in which case some resolution is needed.

Both ways of doing things are initially to be presumed fine, until something can be shown to be wrong with one; — Pfhorrest

But this can be done by showing how one method is more effective/efficient than the other, not necessarily proving the other method is flawed/wrong. Consider the example of cleaning a sidewalk. One person does so by sweeping it, while another does so by spraying it with water. If one of these people can show that their method of cleaning the sidewalk is more efficient/effective, then that method can be said to be better. Note that this isn’t claiming that the other method is wrong, only that it is less effective/efficient (which is analogous to explanatory power/rational). Also note that this is a more favorable example on your behalf, as both methods of cleaning the street actually accomplish the task. This obviously isn’t always, or even usually, the case with ideas or beliefs. Ideas that postulate an unprovable or indemonstrable premise as an explanation for something (i.e. God) are, precisely because of this, incapable of explaining anything. IOW’s they never accomplish the task they set out to accomplish, and therefore can be disregarded as relevant ideas at all. Put in the context of this current discussion, if the “all minds” theory cannot demonstrate that minds exist, then it cannot use minds as an explanation of anything. Until it is able to do so it isn’t necessary to take the idea seriously by attempting to disprove it, or refute its claims against physicalism. It’s claims are unfounded to begin with. Again, note that this isn’t claiming “all minds” is impossible or wrong, only that it hasn’t shown itself to be possible or correct yet.

That implication is intended and warranted. — Pfhorrest

I have much to say about this claim as well, but out of respect for the OP, I’ll wait to see if this thread progresses on topic before responding and derailing yet. :smile:

How does that work? — jamalrob

Lol, no idea. But I don’t think I’ve ever heard/seen another artist be this complex. His music is utterly silly and humorous, yet profound; contradictory and nonsensical, yet relatable and understandable. Fascinating.

So for the case at hand, we don’t have to worry about the mere POSSIBILITY of solipsism being true; sure, it might be, but so might its negation. Both of those are possibilities. Which seems more likely to be true to you? — Pfhorrest

I would tentatively choose to believe whichever theory explains more. Admittedly, I’m not an expert on solipsism arguments, but from what I understand solipsism points out a possibility that our current theories of consciousness cannot account for. So at this moment solipsism cannot be refuted, whereas it does point out an obvious issue with our other theories. I’m guessing this is what leads some to agree with solipsism. Where I disagree is that while solipsism is possible, it explains virtually nothing. I fail to see the reasoning in rejecting the evidence used to support other theories of consciousness and what they are able to explain, simply because they cannot explain solipsism. Our theories could be wrong completely, and at the very least need to be revised in order to account for solipsism, but this possibility doesn’t make solipsism true, nor does its inability to be refuted. The issue with solipsism is that it lacks evidence to support it and explanatory power.

What determines whether an idea is worth considering is largely personal preference. — khaled

It shouldn’t be. Whether or not an idea is rational should be the criteria for consideration.

You personally seem to prefer the idea that offers the most explanatory power, that may not be the case for others. — khaled

But my reasoning for this isn’t because of some bias/preference, unless you consider desiring truth to be a preference. The purpose or function of an idea is to explain phenomena. If it isn’t able to do that, why should I entertain it seriously?

This is backwards. If you reject every possibility until it can be proven, then you reject everything by default and then have nothing with which to prove anything from, leaving you rejecting everything forever. — Pfhorrest

I don’t necessarily mean rejecting, just not accepting without proof/evidence. Isn’t this what a default position should be? I shouldn’t automatically accept every idea I stumble across and then begin the process of disproving them all.

Also, you seem to imply that if a methodology leads to universal nihilism (rejection of everything forever), then the methodology is wrong. This isn’t warranted.

Pissing as many people off as possible seems to work pretty well... Arrogance, ad homs, condescension, confusion, etc. all work pretty well at achieving this task.

Check the link here
for an explanation.

Is such a service possible? Can we transfer our stress to someone else? How much are you willing to pay for such a service? — TheMadFool

I think that’s kind of the goal of therapy; only ideally the stress of the client would not be transferred onto the therapist, it would simply dissipate, or become lightened in some sense. Apparently, people, or insurance companies at least, are willing to pay quite a lot for this service. ~$100 per hourly session, possibly multiple sessions per week for years.

Or has anyone produced some refutations to all is mind that are just as difficult to disprove as the position they refute? — Chaz

The idea that an idea has to be proven wrong in order to be wrong is wrong. In order for an idea to even be considered plausible, or worth considering, it must have some justified explanatory power. Can “all is mind” justify its premises? That is question number one. If you cannot answer it affirmatively, there is no need to proceed. If you can, then the next question should be what can it explain better than (insert alternative theory/ies)? Then ask what is left unexplained. Once that is determined, simple arithmetic will decide which idea is best.

What is strange is why do we feel the need to take someone down from a high. Why do we not permit excessive happiness? — Benj96

Resentment. Our egotistical desire to be the best at everything all the time feels threatened by observing someone who seems happier than we are (How dare you be happier than me!). We seek equilibrium relative to us.

My follow on consequence is; consider a device that can be implanted in everyone which regulates mood just as we do to each other on a daily basis. If you get a little too happy it triggers an increase in negativity and if you get a little to depressed it provokes an increase in positivity. That way no one ever suffers from depression or self harm however can probably never enjoy the most profound of emotions either. Would this be better or worse than total (and possibly destructive) freedom? — Benj96

This doesn’t seem desirable for a couple reasons. One is that if everyone was in relatively the same mood all the time we wouldn’t respond appropriately in certain situations. A lot of communication is nonverbal cues that allow the listener to know the emotional content of the communicator. If I can’t tell if you’re happy or sad about a particular situation, I may not know how to respond. Also, it’s been shown, or at least theorized, that depression can be beneficial, as it forces the subject to pay attention to potentially pressing issues/problems that need to be dealt with. Depressed people are also more accurate when judging their abilities, whereas people who are not depressed tend to overestimate their abilities. Also, this is overlooking the obvious question of “how much happiness/sadness is too much?”

To give another reason, live would be markedly more boring if everyone remained “middle of the road” regarding mood.

I don't agree with this. I think that each experience is novel. I've never had two experiences the same before, though I've experienced deja vu, but I really can't even imagine the possibility of living through the same thing twice. I recognize deja vu as just a feeling, and not really having the same experience twice. With the nature of time and spatial existence being as it is, it seems completely impossible to have the same experience more than once. So quite clearly, coherency must be based in something other than prior observations of the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, it depends on how general you want to be. I had in mind things like causation, or gravity. You have certainly observed one object cause another object to move on more than one occasion. My point being that due to this consistency in experience (or observation if you prefer) we come to have certain expectations of how the world works. We then experience incoherency when these expectations are not met.

The problem I see here is that you do not seem to be differentiating between experience, and observation. Observation is to take note of what has been experienced, so it requires a task of memorizing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m not, but it’s because whatever difference there is between them seems to not make a difference. Also, I didn’t have in mind anything complex. I was thinking more along the lines of natural physical laws. In which case, the memorization seems to be done unconsciously, or is arrived at intuitively in some way. I remember an experiment that showed that very young children (infants?) were capable of experiencing surprise/shock. This was to show that we are able to form expectations at a very young age, which implies the ability to learn about the environment presumably through “memorizing” observations.

Why do you contradict yourself here? First you say that if consistency cannot be produced, the only thing to do is to discard the observation as illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I listed two other options as well (try to explain the observation using different rules, or try to replicate the experience).

Then you say when observation and reason clash, "it is reason that must become flexible" to accomodate observations. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is meant to refer to those other two options. My point is just that if we are going to make an attempt at understanding something that seems to contradict our preconceived notions (natural reason), then we must alter those notions because we cannot change the actual phenomenon.

As it stands, the word "chair" is applied to various objects but what's missing is a unifying essence in these objects and that's bound to lead to confusion, no? — TheMadFool

The essence is it’s function, or at least it could be, but yes, the lack of an essence could lead to confusion, or relativity; such is the case with “beauty” and other relative terms.

Too broad, a stool satisfies your definition. — TheMadFool

Couldn’t a stool be considered a type of chair?

Sure. Is there something confusing about the definition I provided? I’m not sure I’m seeing the relevance of your response...

What are your expectations for a definition? I’m asking, because personally I don’t see an issue with defining a chair as something along the lines of “an object or piece of furniture whose function is to provide seating; usually for one person.” I don’t see the need to be so specific to define the number of legs, material used, size, shape, color, etc. We have specific types of chairs that can give you more specific information, if that’s what you need.

In science or in philosophy? — magritte

Both. In all areas of life.

The idea of coherency only exists if there are prior observations of the phenomena being observed currently. If you observe a completely novel experience, then you won’t know if your observation is coherent or not, as there is no baseline to judge it by.

If you have prior observations/experiences, then the default assumption is coherency (which also implicitly assumes determinism). The reason for this, I would assume, is because more often than not this assumption is correct. It’s an effective assumption to make while navigating the world and trying to understand it.

If we observe something that contradicts our assumed coherency, then the logical thing to do is to try to develop a theory that explains both the incoherent and coherent observations. If that cannot be accomplished, then the only options left are to discard the observation as some illusion, determine that the novel observation plays by a different set of rules for some reason (which you would then go in to try and explain), or to repeat the observations if possible and hope you can gain some better insight into what exactly is going on.

The bottom line is that observations drive, or determine, reason. When the two clash, it is reason that must become flexible or malleable in order to accommodate our observations.

I don’t think nihilism can honestly promote any particular lifestyle or way of approaching/confronting life, as all lifestyles/approaches are meaningless. Whereas cynicism and Buddhism do promote particular stances, etc.

I beg to differ: I think that if a policy unfairly targets any racial demographic it is racist. The intent behind the policy just might be difficult to demonstrate sometimes, however. — Aleph Numbers

Actually, I would argue the assumption behind this is racist. Outlawing marijuana affects everyone who chooses to use it, regardless of race. A racist policy would be one that explicitly discriminates against a particular race, such as the various race laws that existed before the civil rights movement. You’re assuming that black people are more likely to use marijuana, which is stereotyping.

@Metaphysician Undercover @Wayfarer

Thank you both for this.

Furthermore, I think that yours is a false distinction because what you call material things, like bricks, have what must be according to your distinction, an immaterial aspect, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics. — Metaphysician Undercover

From what I understand, quantum mechanics is observable, and therefore material. Not arguing for or against your point, I just haven’t seen this claim before, so I fail to see the connection. Care to explain?

Computers can do pattern recognition. They can even (mostly) do bad pattern recognition: I asked Google Lens to identify a bush the other day and it told me it was a "plantation", then I asked it to identify a flower and it told me it was "marine life". — Pfhorrest

Ok, but unless the programming is altered, it will reliably make the same mistakes (and correct answers), right? IOW’s it’s unable to be spontaneous. Humans are sometimes very rational, and sometimes very irrational, but it’s difficult to predict when they will be one or the other. Simply following code doesn’t count as being creative.