However, there are anthropocentric and evolutionary features that the philosophical investigations on this topic have not focused on much:

https://medium.com/@cb_67963/human-mathematics-and-gods-mathematics-682ac8e7bba — Doru B

Interesting article. Thanks. I don't think it will convince anyone one way or another on the issue of the nature of mathematics. I come down on the side of math being a human invention. There are studies that indicate that numerical ability may be present very early in a baby's development.

The question is, what process is underway whereby the brain moves the arm to pick up the glass of water rather than not move the arm at all. If the brain uses cognition, then the brain uses thoughts, either subconscious or conscious. — RussellA

IE, thoughts don't have to be in words. — RussellA

IE, a thought remains in one's internal world, whilst an idea may become part of one's external world. — RussellA

As is common in discussions here on the forum, you and I are working from different definitions of a particular word. "Thought" means something different to you than it does to me. Here are some definitions, although I don't think this will resolve our differences.

• The process of thinking; cogitation.
• A product of thinking or other mental activity: synonym: idea.
• The faculty of thinking or reasoning.

Here are some definitions of "cogitation."

• Thoughtful consideration; meditation.
• A serious thought; a carefully considered reflection.
• The act of meditation or contemplation.
• The faculty of thinking.

As I said, I'm sure this won't resolve the issue. Perhaps I should start a thread - What is a thought? Perhaps not.

There is the conscious thought "I want to open the door". — RussellA

For me, at least, this is often not true. I just took a sip of water. My throat felt dry, so I reached over, picked up my glass, and took a drink. There were no thoughts like "I'm thirsty" or "I want a drink." I just was and I just did. I think most people don't really pay attention. Looking back, you can lay out a chain of thoughts and intentions, but that's often a rationalization of what they think they must have done.

Isn't the subconscious "wanting" not also a thought ? — RussellA

Good question. It's not what I usually think of as a thought. It's certainly not in words. Do thoughts have to be words? Even if they're thoughts, that doesn't necessarily mean they are ideas.

An individual subscribes to an idea or philosophy due to their personal biases and intuitions. If the idea conforms to their biases and intuitions, they are more likely to accept it as being true. Also, it seems to me that biases and intuitions are virtually impossible to overcome completely, especially because they are probably mostly unconscious.

Moreover, an individuals biases and intuitions are ultimately arbitrary, since they are the result of the individual's genes, upbringing, education, environment, etc. (which are things that are essentially outside their control and are due to chance). — clemogo

Alas, someone dissing intuition again. Intuition is not arbitrary. It's a reflection of everything we've learned since we were babies. Generally, our knowledge is not made up of facts. We knew that things fall long before we knew about gravity. We don't say "things fall." We say "Sh*t, I broke another f**king glass."

Beyond that, of course our thoughts, ideas are based on who we are. That's why there are so many different ways of seeing things. That doesn't necessarily represent bias. It makes more sense to me to call it perspective. In my experience, reason only comes in at the end when we use it to weed out the baloney. My ideas reflect my experience. The fact that I am subject to the faults of a limited perspective, bias if you will, means that a lot of my ideas are incomplete or wrong. Reason is one of the facilities I use to deal with that.

I want to open a door, and I have the idea "I must turn the door handle in order to open the door".

My idea is partly based on my innate a priori intuition of causation - an effect needs a cause - and partly based on my empirical a posteriori observations - turning a door handle causes the effect of the door opening. — RussellA

Is that really what happens when you want to open a door? When I want to open one, I just do it with no thought at all. The wanting goes directly into the action without the step we call "intention." There's no idea "I want to open the door." There's just the wanting and then the opening.

But how to feel reality without using rationality? My mind tells me the truth, but this truth is abstract because the mind also is. How reason explains the spirit? It denies it since it is not physical. Denying our spirit is the same as denying our intuition. — Ergo sum

If you are saying that spirit and intuition are the same thing, I disagree. My experience of spirit is wordless awareness of myself and the world around me. I think intuition is a much more mundane capacity. Most of the things we know we never learned as facts. Since the minute we were born, we have been immersed in the world, taking in sensory information and processing it, often wordlessly. From that process, we develop a model of how the world works. Mommy feeds me. If I drop things, they go down. If I hit my head, it hurts. My foot is part of my body. Things I do make other things happen. And on and on. There's nothing magical and spiritual about it. The fact that many people distrust their intuition is just a result of a lack of intellectual self-awareness. We don't know facts. We know a world.

Using reason is part of the process of living, but should not be all of it. — Ergo sum

I wonder whether Descartes ever read Buddhist philosophy, specifically the part where it talks about anatta (no-self). The self, as per Buddhists, is an illusion. Therefore, Descartes argument is invalid: — Agent Smith

As AgentSmith intimates, the questions you are asking highlight the difference between eastern and western philosophies.

I don't think eastern philosophies were available in the west till the late 1700s or early 1800s. Not sure about that.

The objection is that we stand in causal relationships with over people, yet have no relationship of personal identity with them. For example, I can make my mother angry or make her remember last Christmas, yet we are in no way identical. — Ignoredreddituser

I have some questions:

I looked up "causal continuity" on the web and found references but no definition. You know if something doesn't have a Wikipedia listing, it doesn't actually exist. So, what does it mean?

What does "causal relationship" mean?

What causal relationship do I have or could I have with another person?

What would it mean for someone to have a "relationship of personal identity" with another?

The Fundamental Principle of Epistemology: The universe makes sense (logically). — Agent Smith

We've discussed this type of issue several times in the recent past here on the forum. The statement "The universe makes sense," is a metaphysical statement, i.e. an absolute presupposition. As such, it is neither true nor false. It has no truth value. It's just a rule we all agree to apply because if we don't, we can't say we know anything. All in all, it seems to work pretty well.

In a nutshell, thoughts could be connected in many different ways than just logically and they maybe equally, if not more, important for...you know for what. — Agent Smith

It strikes me that thoughts, ideas, whatever, are not really stored in the brain at all. In my experience, they are created and recreated as needed. So, something is stored, but not fully formed ideas unless they have been memorized.

But the requirement for contextual words does not negate the claim that the metaphor itself is a metaphor, whether it's one word or a few. — jamalrob

I was with you until this.

Any way of thinking is given the name logic. — Agent Smith

Yes, there are different kinds of logic. I see the idea of logic as being the idea of the connectivity and coherence of thought. If thoughts were disconnected (if there was no underlying logic of their associations and relations) we would have nothing. So there is formal, rule-based logic, but I would say there are also logics of metaphor, of painting, of poetry, of music, of athletics, of dance, of metaphysics, phenomenology and so on. — Janus

I'm ok with that, I guess, although it is pretty circular. Earlier, I described possible connections between thoughts based on my personal experience:

So, back to the question of what connects the different elements. First - I'm sure there's probably more than one cognitive science way of seeing this such as, speculatively, the location where the element is stored in the brain or when the memory was created. Maybe there is some sort of tag that allows connection of thoughts, memories, etc. with similarities. Someone help me out here.

Personally, when I create a new thought, idea, memory, I experience it as tagged with a mental image. Letters I sometimes experience as colored. I usually see "L" as white or beige. "D" as a light yellow. Since those colors are similar, when I can't think of someone's name, I may come up with Dan when his name is Larry. Other tags might be a feeling, mood, tone. Of course, there are billions, trillions, quadrillions of connections between neurons in the nervous system, so things are immensely more complicated than this. — T Clark

I guess that describes what the two of you would call a "logic," whether or not you would agree with my particular formulation. If that's the case, then we agree.

Sorry. Let me clarify. Assume that is is established. Hypothetically, what then? — emancipate

We're all done (brushes dust from hands). We congratulate ourselves on a job well done.

I shalt refrain from analyzing your mind and your intentions. — god must be atheist

And then you go on to do exactly that.

So anyway, what does it matter if metaphor can be a single word or not? So it's established that metaphor cannot be a single word. Great. What now? — emancipate

It hasn't been established. It's a claim I've made, but I don't think everyone agrees.

As far as I can tell, all that has been established is that a metaphor cannot be a single word without context, which, however, has no bearing on the OP. — jamalrob

Here is the OP:

Recently I heard a philosopher speaking about a certain term Heidegger used as being a 'metaphor"....yet, is not a metaphor a comparison between a minimum of 2 terms, concepts, etc. For example, a metaphor is "she has a heart of gold".....we have here the metaphorical vehicle ("Gold") and the tenor or subject of the metaphor... ("heart"). But neither "heart" nor "gold", when taken alone, constitute a metaphor. — jancanc

Why doesn't it have any bearing?

I assume you mean all of them. — Alkis Piskas

Yes.

The example used py the poster himself --"she has a heart of gold"-- also fits to the abobe scheme, — Alkis Piskas

I agree, this is a metaphor.

In my example "he holds a chair in physics" the word "chair" is used figuratively. — Alkis Piskas

I'm not sure about this. Technically, I think it is what's called a metonymy. From the web:

In rhetoric, change of name; a trope or figure of speech that consists in substituting the name of one thing for that of another to which the former bears a known and close relation.

Maybe it can be both.

If, however, the topic asks for striclly single words, i.e. creating a metaphor by uttering a single word, — Alkis Piskas

This is how I interpreted the OP. As I noted in my previous response to @god must be atheist, it is my understanding that a metaphor is made up of two parts. In a one word metaphor, the second part has to be implied.

A metaphor is not a comparison. A metaphor is a meaning attributed figuratively to a parallel literal meaning. — god must be atheist

We seem to be running across the question of what a metaphor is and isn't. Seems like a good time to define the word. Here are several definitions from the web:

• A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles”
• A figure of speech by which, from some supposed resemblance or analogy, a name, an attribute, or an action belonging to or characteristic of one object is assigned to another to which it is not literally applicable; the figurative transfer of a descriptive or affirmative word or phrase from one thing to another; implied comparison by transference of terms: as, the ship spread its wings to the breeze; “Judah is a lion's whelp,”
• A figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)
• A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another.

I think it is reasonable to say that a metaphor is a comparison, but whether or not we do, it clearly requires two elements. This from Wikipedia:

The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1937) by rhetorician I. A. Richards describes a metaphor as having two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the object whose attributes are borrowed.

A single word does not provide both parts unless it is somehow implied. If I say "A**hole!" the "You are an..." is implied.

Headed for bed.

Taoism, if I'm correct, is paradox-oriented; Not at all sure if they're true paradoxes but the general idea seems to be nonsense makes sense or there's no such thing as irrationality, every fool or looney needs the right context to be seen as wise or sane respectively. — Agent Smith

It's a long story, but no.

That must be the Taoist in you. How does that fit into your professsion as an engineer where you'd be constrained by logic. Should I walk on a bridge you built? — Agent Smith

What makes you think that engineers are "constrained" by logic? I've always thought that Taoism is the philosophical system most consistent with science. Anyway, I never designed bridges, so you're safe.

As Janus said, it's all logic which I interpret to mean that just like chaos is order undeciphered, illogic is logic undeciphered. — Agent Smith

I don't know what that means. @Janus wrote

If thoughts were disconnected (if there was no underlying logic of their associations and relations) we would have nothing. So there is formal, rule-based logic, — Janus

I don't think that is true. Again, I'd like t hear from someone who knows more than I do.

Logic, it seems, has morphed. meaning-wise: It was once a specific way of thinking (contradiction intolerant systems like categorical, sentential, predicate logics) but now it's just a specific way thinking (contradiction tolerant systems; vide paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, logical nihilism). — Agent Smith

I not sure what you mean here either. Seems like you're saying that there is something that connects thoughts, we'll just call it "logic" even though it isn't what we normally think of as logic. Kind of a circular argument.

I don't experience ideas as connected logically.
— T Clark

That must be the Taoist in you. — Agent Smith

Everything I wrote is based on my personal experience of thinking from the inside. That's what it feels like to me. I'd like to hear what a cognitive scientist has to say. I'm skeptical that the incredibly complex process of thinking is mediated by logical connections between thoughts.

If I may ask, how are thoughts connected to each other? Same question for ideas as expressed in propositions, theories, beliefs, and so on. — Agent Smith

I'll speak, tentatively, for knowledge, thoughts, feelings, memories, fantasies, imagery, and other mental ... what's the right word? Experiences? Phenomena? I won't speak for facts, propositions, theories, etc. My way of seeing these things is based on introspection and it is idiosyncratic. I've laid it out on the forum before. I don't propose it as the truth. It's just a way of thinking that I find helpful and that fits my own experience of those phenomena and how they relate.

When I think about this, I can see an image in my mind. It's a cloud lit from within. Like a cloud, it is amorphous and it's elements are not well defined. I can think of this several ways. Sometimes, as someone with an interest in eastern philosophies, I think of this as the Tao as discussed in the "Tao Te Ching." Sometimes I think of it as a model of the world I carry around with me that allows me to see, feel, how new knowledge fits in with my current understanding. It includes things I learned in school, sure, but also many more things I never learned explicitly. Things I just accumulated based on experience from the time I was born. Nobody ever taught me that if I let something go it will fall to the ground. I knew it before I had words and long before I'd ever heard of gravity.

Sometimes my inner engineer pops out and I think of the cloud as a truss, a structure made up of connected elements. Any change in one element telegraphs through the whole structure resisting the change. Unless the new element is consistent with what I have experienced, it will have a hard time fitting in. Here's an example of a truss:



So, back to the question of what connects the different elements. First - I'm sure there's probably more than one cognitive science way of seeing this such as, speculatively, the location where the element is stored in the brain or when the memory was created. Maybe there is some sort of tag that allows connection of thoughts, memories, etc. with similarities. Someone help me out here.

Personally, when I create a new thought, idea, memory, I experience it as tagged with a mental image. Letters I sometimes experience as colored. I usually see "L" as white or beige. "D" as a light yellow. Since those colors are similar, when I can't think of someone's name, I may come up with Dan when his name is Larry. Other tags might be a feeling, mood, tone. Of course, there are billions, trillions, quadrillions of connections between neurons in the nervous system, so things are immensely more complicated than this.

Without going any further, I don't experience ideas as connected logically. Maybe someone with more of a cognitive science or cognitive philosophy background can help here.

Some one-word metaphors — god must be atheist

I don't think any of these words, with the exception of "shit," is a metaphor. There has to be a comparison for it to be a metaphor. To say "She is a trailblazer" is a metaphor. Just "trailblazer" by itself is not. I think "shit," as an exclamation is a metaphor, because it represents "This situation is shit," which is a comparison.

So are you both saying "inaction" does not itself count as an action? How about if I said, "The action of not working hard".. "If everyone did other than working hard...". Is there a way that's acceptable? Maybe I'm not getting the meaning of "positive behavior" or where he says that as opposed to "not doing". — schopenhauer1

According to Kant's formulation that I quoted, something becomes a categorical imperative when I will that it be universal. I think the act of will is the important factor.

Also, and maybe this is a quibble, the work hard obligation would only be applicable in situations where hard work is needed.

Actually, the list comprises all words with double meanings, where a secondary meaning refers to, is connected to and extends the primary meaning, to describe something different in kind. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think these are metaphors. The word "chair" is not a metaphor sitting there by itself. There has to be a context in which a comparison is made. Not sure of that.

Isn't "chair" a metonymy? I guess it could be both.

One must work hard, because if one does not work hard was universalized, no one would work hard and living itself would be difficult. One cannot judge without being alive, thus a contradiction (of sorts). — schopenhauer1

One of the ways Kant formulated the categorical imperative is

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

I'm not sure of this, but don't you have the idea of the categorical imperative backwards? Isn't it the positive behavior that is universalized as an obligation? I think that makes a difference, doesn't it?

Added more to last post. — schopenhauer1

This is a good idea. I'll use it from now on.

Can a Metaphor be a single word? — jancanc

Shit!

Asshole!

Yes, I think the idea is quite simply that if it’s introspection then it’s not science, and there’s an optional detour through philosophy. (If introspection, then philosophy, and if that then not science.) — Srap Tasmaner

I would like to examine this statement a bit. When you say that introspection isn't science, do you mean that introspection can't be studied by science. That's clearly wrong. If you mean that introspection has to be a fundamentally different method of gaining knowledge than science, I think I disagree. First, clearly introspection is required to study introspection scientifically. Also, a personal report of introspection can be verified, or at least corroborated, by looking at other reports of introspection, examination of brain activity, evaluation of differences in behavior, and other pretty standard psychological testing methods. Or are you saying, as many here do, that psychology isn't science?

Much of my way of knowing the world is based on introspection. That's certainly true of mental processes, but also more objectively observable phenomena (do I believe that?) and, certainly, philosophical approaches.

There is still a part of world in which introspection is considered a good thing, a praiseworthy thing, perhaps even a thing one ought to do or one must do to lead a rich and fulfilling life. (We get threads about it here.) Still, it’s not science, which makes it — from a point-of-view I’ll cheerfully admit is made of straw — something like a ‘hobby’, all well and good but not something ‘serious’. — Srap Tasmaner

If this actually does represent a common view here on the forum and in philosophy in general, it represents a massive failure of introspection in itself. If you think that you know things just based on reason and logic, you are not even aware of how you know things. Is knowing how you know things science?

I almost feel tempted to let science win whatever argument it wants to have with philosophy. If science wants to claim it’s the only sound or reliable way of producing knowledge systematically — sure, you can have that; philosophy can produce something else, understanding maybe. — Srap Tasmaner

Science has no argument with introspection, just some scientists.

(In this context, I always thought it odd that the new biologically sophisticated version of psychology ends up being called “cognitive science”, as if knowledge is the only mental phenomenon that matters.) — Srap Tasmaner

It pleases me that you recognize that cognitive science is psychology. Many people who like to denigrate psychology as not a science are unwilling to acknowledge that. Perhaps if they were a bit more introspective they wouldn't.

A question that just popped into my head - is introspection the same as intuition? I think the answer is clearly "no," but I think they are painted with the same brush by many.

Infinite means in-finito, not finished, never to be finished. What in life never finishes? The finish line can be pulled away from you indefinitely. Indefinitely=infinitely? On can tell a never ending story, play infinite games. The universe goes on forever, as life in it. It never ends. Infinite! — AgentTangarine

Little kids love this. No reason philosophers won't too.

It'd be weird to say facts in and of themselves have no "logical" connections to any other facts. That they are facts at must entail a vast array of logical connections, right? — Nils Loc

Thoughts are not facts. And, no. Although it is not the subject of this thread, facts are not connected logically either.

Logical connections between ideas have been the norm for thousands of years. We need to think outside the box as it were, not a walk in the park for sure. — Agent Smith

I don't think our thoughts are connected logically. I'm not sure they are necessarily connected at all. Certainly some are not.

Do all applications of force deform? And is the deformation continuous? if I have a solidly braced steel beam spanning six inches and I hang a feather from it by a thread, will the feather eventually cause the beam to fail, or the thread to cut through the steel? — tim wood

The model for application of a force to something solid is a spring. Apply the force and the spring deflects elastically as long as you don't overload it. For elastic materials, applied force (stress) is proportional to deflection (strain). The greater the deflection, the greater the force (reaction). A spring will deflect under the force of a load as required to resist the load.

So, yes. If you hang a feather from a solidly braced steel beam, the beam will deflect enough to provide a reactive force to the feather just as if it were a spring. Steel behaves elastically within the stress range provided by a feather. If you use something much heavier, it may stress the steel beyond it's elastic range. If that happens, the steel will continue to deflect and will eventually fail.

This is, I'm certain, too obvious to state but for the sake of clarity, thoughts have, for good reasons no doubt, been 99% of the time, viewed with a rational/logical lens; humanity has, for most of its history, been (pre)occupied with the logical link between thoughts (ideas/concepts/theories). — Agent Smith

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but I am sure enough to be able to say you're wrong.

Here are two thoughts:

The NE Patriots will win the Superbowl this season.
The Earth revolves around the sun.

What logical connection do these thoughts have? What kind of connection of any kind do they have other than the fact that I have thought both of them? They are both expressed in English.

You can apply force all day long and not change a thing. Example: hang a weight from a steel beam; nothing happens. — tim wood

The beam bends. Not much, but enough to provide an equal and opposite reaction to the force you have applied.

To my knowledge, phenomenology isn't as much about the subjectivity-objectivity distinction as it is about what I have described as tier/level-specific/restricted phenomena. Even on the off chance that thoughts are reducible to chemical reactions, thoughts themselves don't actually obey any conservation law like chemicals do, the very idea is N/A or a category mistake. — Agent Smith

I think you and I agree, but this is a subject I'm still working on. Have you read "More is Different" by Anderson.

When I talk about mind or consciousness I use words like "feeling," "thought," "memory," or "imagination." When I talk about biology and neurology, I use words like "neuron," "neurotransmitter," or "synapse." To say this use of different language shows that the two phenomena are not the same thing is not to deny that they are intimately related.

Phenomenology is often charged by it's critics to be a matter of mere introspection, since it is understood to be dealing, not with publicly available data, but with "subjective contents" supposed to be accessed by "looking within" the mind. — Janus

You're right, and it confuses me. Here are some definitions of "phenomenology" from the web:

• A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.
• Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. (SEP)
• Phenomenology (from Greek φαινόμενον, phainómenon "that which appears" and λόγος, lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. (Wikipedia)

These sure sound like they are talking about introspection, maybe self-awareness. But when you start digging, you find the whole thing is just another western philosophical mountain of words. They seem to want to discuss human experiences without talking about the experiences themselves.

My personal way of seeing things focusses on self-awareness and the experience of the world. This is why I find eastern philosophies so attractive. Seems like I should be attracted to phenomenology too, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

In general, symmetry seems like a useful concept in many contexts. It can represent important underlying principles of organization.

As for symmetry in relation to symmetry breaking, I admit that's an idea I've struggled with. My unsatisfactory solution is to think about such situations as phase changes, which is a concept I find easier to understand. I'll keep trying to figure this out.

I mean no disrespect, but could you please refrain from making this discussion about specifically american politics?... Covid in america and Trump seem to usually distract the topic completely from its trails. I'm sure there are threads that are specifically about those things. — Qmeri

Will do.

For ex, rather one agreed that the last presidential election was stolen or that the election went off fair and square, both sides should have been able to state their opinions on the matter equally. And yet, as we all saw, they were not. — laura ann

This is not true. People who think that the election was stolen from Trump have fully expressed their opinions many times from many podiums, including mainline and right wing TV, radio, websites, and newspapers. This in spite of the fact that no evidence has been provided in any forum that the election was not fair and well-run. The stolen election is like the flat earth.

There are not two equal sides to every question.

The same thing happened with COVID. People actually lost their jobs for simply stating their opinions on the policies and mandates. — laura ann

Can you name anyone who lost their job just for stating their opinion against the federal government's Covid policy? I'm guessing you can't. If there were people who did, it was a very few. On the other hand, at least one person was prosecuted for telling the truth, e.g. the person who managed the Covid database for the State of Florida. School funding has been withheld to school districts in Florida that implemented Covid policies recommended by the CDC.

800,000 people have died from Covid in the US. How are there two sides to that fact?

I was referring to this... To me it seems like you are claiming that I'm making a case for racial differences and such to be genetic and its somehow important for me. Technically case is not a claim, so a slight error from me... But the text never says I have ever made a case for such a thing... It just says that I have witnessed some people making cases and how they were treated for such a thing — Qmeri

It was pretty clear to me from your OP that you were not making a claim that inequality is based on genetics. I didn't, and I didn't intend to, say that you had.

Some thoughts:

• There are certain subjects that will raise hackles and lead to conflict. Genetic racial differences is one of those subjects.
• People who make those arguments know, or should know, that they are raising provocative issues that will lead to conflict.
• Mainline science has been used to make false claims of genetic differences between races which support racial discrimination and subjugation for centuries.

Some editorial opinions

• There should be open discussion about just about anything.
• Genetic differences between races, if they exist, are not relevant to how black people are treated. Distrusted. Disliked. Disrespected. Systematically prevented from exercising their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• People who bring up issues of genetic racial differences sometimes, often? usually? do it to undermine claims of discrimination.
• As for those people - boo hoo.

You immediately started expressing assumptions about me and claiming that I made arguments that had not happened. — Qmeri

I went back and checked. I didn't claim that you made any arguments that you didn't.