Am I now projecting?

:razz:

A representative form of government carries along with it the people's expectation for the government to be trustworthy in making decisions that affect/effect one's own happiness and/or livelihood by virtue of being a decision that proves to be what's best for everyone involved. When such a government does it's job, the results are easy enough to put on display when the right questions are asked of everyone and the answers gathered and organized in certain way...

A representative form of government(a republic) is successful if and only if the overwhelming majority is better off as a result of policy and/or legislation passed. When far too few end up with all the power and the many have none, then it's not working properly.

That is the case in the US.

Assuming an agent with some semblance of what is often called a "mastery" of one's native tongue...

When we place trust upon another to tell us about the world and/or ourselves, we expect sincerity. That is true for everyone. We expect them to believe what they say.

Some however also expect truth. On my view, that sort of expectation is no different in content than expecting another to form, have, and/or hold nothing but true belief. The problem, of course, is that everyone forms, has, and/or holds false belief at some point in time. So...

Omniscience is not required for honesty, sincerity, "telling the 'truth'", and thus trustworthiness. It is clearly unreasonable to expect otherwise. None of us are omniscient. Not one. Not any. All of us are not.

It follows from this reasonable, and still yet readily attainable, criterion for "truth telling" that...

Truth is not necessary for trustworthiness.

What sense does it make then? Well, sincerity is all it takes. The speaker must only believe what they say as well as believing that they've said all that's relevant to the matter. The takeaway here is that the very idea and/or notion of "telling the truth" conflates truth and belief or demands omniscience. Neither is acceptable. That's shameful - to put it mildly - given the influential power of it's use.

Truth is presupposed in all thought, belief, and statements thereof somewhere along the line. Telling the truth is simply stating all that you believe to be relevant to the matter at hand(whatever it may be).

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

...is an impossible criterion to satisfy at face value if everything said must be true. People could go to jail for saying exactly what they believed to be the case, simply because they expressed false belief. They would be convicted and sentenced for perjury simply for holding false belief, if counsel could convince the juror of perjury for giving false testimony, for not telling the truth.

Thus, to continue to expect any individual to always say true things shows an emaciated understanding of how thought and belief work. No one can do that.

When the same term is used on more than one occasion in the same argument or line of reasoning, that term must always be used in the same sense/acceptable use. When one fails to do this, they've committed the fallacy in thought called "equivocation".

The inevitable logical consequence of equivocation is self-contradiction on the face of what's said at two different times. Self contradiction is often prima facie evidence of an equivocation fallacy being hard at work.

Shades of meaning are wonderful. They do not require an equivocation of terms.

When we trust a self-professed white supremacist to be what they claim, we are trusting the truthfulness of their testimony. That is... we are assuming sincerity in their speech; that they are being reliable 'truth'-tellers; that they believe (that)what they are saying(is true).

When we trust that one who denounces white supremacy is against it, we are trusting the truthfulness of their testimony. That is... we are assuming sincerity in their speech; that they are being reliable 'truth'-tellers; that they believe (that)what they are saying(is true).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Along with some of the other considerations heretofore, trust is more completely and better understood in terms of voluntary and involuntary types of trust and/or situations when trust is operative/influential to the agent's subsequent thought and behaviour.

When we approach the cupboard to grab a cup, we trust that there will(or at least could) be one in there. There is no choice in this matter. We either believe that there is one, we believe that there is not, or we aren't certain. We do not approach the cupboard to get a cup when we believe that it is empty.

We do not approach a white supremacist looking for or expecting fairness or empathy from them for non whites, for that is akin to looking for a cup in a cupboard that we believe is empty.

When we swerve our vehicle to the left to avoid an accident, we are trusting our senses to be reliable sources of information about all the stuff happening around us. We believe that we just avoided an accident.

When we are first learning how to talk about the world and/or ourselves, we trust the trustfulness of the teachers' testimony. That is especially true when we're looking for confirmation that we're calling something by the right namesake. That unquestioned trust underwrites each and every language users' worldview across the board. Here again, there is no choice in the matter. We quite simply do not get to decide what the names of things are while we're learning what they are called.

This last bit sheds a bit of light upon trust as an inevitable precondition and/or prerequisite for the ability to acquire language, and supports Un's vein of thought concerning how deeply embedded trusting others can be and is for all humans due to our social interdependent nature.

Trust does evolve into different 'kinds' which may be better understood in terms of what we knowingly trust another to do and/or be(after realizing that not everyone and/or everything is trustworthy). We have no choice but to trust, until we're aware of our own fallibility. Then, some may learn to look a bit closer at whether or not something or another is dependable; at what can be counted on; at what can be confidently relied upon for some specific reason/purpose. In addition, we ought also think about further considering what - exactly as possible - ought we allow ourselves to be dependent upon them for...

Not all who are trusted for some things are trusted for all things. One who is always fashionably late may or may not be as dependable as can be expected for being a source of good entertainment...

:up:

Great subject matter. Wish I had time...

Although I would not call that "delicious", it(the guest speaker's narrative) is dead-fucking-on, nonetheless.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Anyone who agrees to convert anything necessary for public life to be subsequently dependent upon that gas ought be shot in the head and left for dead.

Where would the demand for such water and gas come from if not by force?

The evidence you're presenting does not warrant the conclusion you're drawing. The start up cost of moon mining would be astronomical(pun intended). The cost of freight would be as well. For water and a gas not readily available on earth...

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about that too much.

Earlier you mentioned having direct access to your own mental states...

One's own personal subjective mental states begin long before one acquires the ability to name and describe their own mental ongoings. Accessing one's own mental state is talking about one's own thought and belief. All sorts of creatures aside from humans are fearful, relaxed, hungry, starving, content, and/or disturbed. So, following what you've offered here, are we to say that these animals have direct access to their own mental states?

I would think not. We humans access our own mental states by naming and describing them. We are often naming and describing that which existed in it's entirety prior to our awareness of it. Thus, we are faced with a choice to make:Either those animals have those states even though they do not have direct access to their own mental states, or there is no difference at all between being fearful and having direct access to the mental state of being fearful.

Newt Gingrich is having a party, last I heard — Shawn

You friends with Newt?

I'm struggling to understand why you would place so much confidence in the ideas your presenting here. Particularly, I'm very hesitant to agree with anything at this point in time.

You presented an article chock full of false predictions about what's going to be happening later.


You use that article to ground your own current belief that those things are happening?


Surely, you understand my concerns here?

I wonder what Frankfurt would call that?

Some of it is certainly bullshit.

As it now stands...

There is no profit to be made by using the moon's resources unless the start up costs are covered. Anyone who expects some immediate return on investment will find themselves sorely disappointed.

Mind you, there's a lot of profit out there. I just pray to the spaghetti monster that we don't start claiming planets like Mars as our own.

Russia, China, and India will have a seizure. — Shawn

Laying claim to celestial bodies is announcing that they are your personal property. No one owns the moon.

Everyone owns the moon.

We should all have seizure, if by that we mean that we should all take that as a serious affront to humanity, because that is exactly what it is.

That's a part of everyone's world that is worth preservation.

First I heard of it...

That's the sort of priorities that a mind has when it's sole concern is profit.

That said, I agree with you. We ought not be doing shit like that.

According to whom?

If you call a man a dick does that mean being an asshole is a male quality to the extent that being an asshole means being a bastard to the extent being a bastard is like being a dick? — Hanover

I know plenty of women who are dicks.

So...

:wink:

What reason do you have to believe that we are?

Using slang for a woman’s body part to mean “coward“ very much implies that cowardice is a womanly quality. — Pfhorrest

Only for those looking to be offended.

The term "pussy" when used as a slight for someone with cowardice is not referring to female genitalia, it's referring to the coward.

Some people who use the term "pussy" are also misogynists. However - and this is the important part - others who also use the term to refer to a coward do not think that women are lesser in any substantial way just because they are a women. Those men and women also use the term "pussy" for rhetorical effect when belittling someone they believe are cowardly.

So, not all use of the term "pussy" to refer to cowards and cowardly behaviour comes from those who do not place equal value upon women... misogynists.

The universe is a worse place because the US exists as it does. — StreetlightX

So, what changes need to be in the US so that both are better places?

In addition...

Look at what Trump has done - every time he could get away with it - to each and every individual who did their job when it concerned being in a position to enact oversight on Trump.

He fired them for doing their job, for performing the duties that they took an oath to perform. He fired them for keeping their word, because it involved investigating him.

That's a big big problem when not enough congressional members perform their own sworn duties.

There is a fair amount of oversight within the constitution... the separation of powers... in addition to all of the different oversight committees within both houses of congress.

Unfortunately, there are too many bad actors in play, as well as too many that are quite simply not doing their job. They are untrustworthy, and nowadays they are not even hiding the fact that they are not performing the duties that they took a sworn oath to be personally responsible for performing.

The problem is that there is no real way to fire them or hold them accountable. In theory it(the framework of American government) works. Unfortunately, the success of any given methodology is only as successful as it's implementation, including how a representative democracy with democratic traditions ought to work while retaining the failsafes necessary to avoid too much concentration of power.

:worry:

Exactly. In no way or manner does it imply that these are womanly qualities. But, if that is where a person's mind goes when they hear those words, then the fault lies with their demented mentality. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, that's perhaps a bit too much of a stretch.

:wink:

It definitely lets the original speaker know one thing for certain... the connection between women and weakness does not come from the speaker. The only other option... is... well... the (mis)translators' own belief system. Knowing that also allows the speaker to witness what psychologists call "projection"...

All that being said...

Praxis seems alright most of the time.

...pussies and cowards. — Merkwurdichliebe

In what context does this not imply a lack of courage, which means being scared and/or fearful?

I think we gradually come to have mental state concepts through experience but also through literature or stories and other peoples testimony.

For example I don't remember the word consciousness being used or discussed throughout my whole childhood. Studying philosophy of mind exposed me to new concepts but all of them linguistic or conceptual as opposed to referring directly to transparent mental states. — Andrew4Handel

This gets into something that underlies the question in the OP.

Here you're invoking "mental state concepts". These are equivalent to our thought and belief about mental states.

Hence... if mental states or minds exist in their entirety prior to our awareness of them, then they can be studied... in principle. Practically, we first need to know what we're studying.

So, going back to what you've added here...

There are a multitude of mental state concepts. What are they talking about though? What is being picked out to the exclusion of all else? Not all of them are compatible with one another. So, at least some of them are wrong. In what way can they be wrong? How would we know that?

These are the sorts of questions that arise if and when we do not clearly explicate what it is we're talking about when using the term "mind".

If minds exist in their entirety prior to our naming and descriptive practices... then we can be wrong about them. Hence... my approach here.

:wink:

Have you ever used the avatar name bushidobillyclub?

How are you defining studied? — Andrew4Handel

Normally. No technical jargon necessary there.

:smile:

I reflect on my mental states but so far I don't know what they are.

Maybe we can explore the language we use to define them? — Andrew4Handel

How does one reflect upon something if they do not first know what that something is to be reflecting on it?

Language plays an irrevocable role. Exploring the language is a metacognitive endeavor. Knowing which language is best for talking about something requires first knowing what we're talking about.

What are you talking about when you talk in terms of "mind"? It is a noun... a name... what are you picking out of this world to the exclusion of all else by using it? What is the referent of the name?

If the mind is something we all have, and it exists in it's entirety prior to our awareness of it, then in principle it can be studied... if we know what we're looking for and at. — creativesoul

Do you agree with this... in principle?

:razz:

If the mind is something we all have, and it exists in it's entirety prior to our awareness of it, then in principle it can be studied... if we know what we're looking for and at.

:smile:

He was on board with Obama's equally shitty bailout in '08... — StreetlightX

Quote me. — Baden

My bad. It was Street... not you.

So, while this framework may lead to interesting and novel considerations regarding the three different kinds of thought described, it does not have what it takes to be able to pick out and effectively talk about some differences that matter most when it comes to how well our notion of thought fits into a timeline of evolutionary progression.

There are language less creatures capable of forming, having, and/or holding thought or belief about things and for specific reasons and/or purposes despite their own inability to take an account of their own thoughts.

Those language less thoughts described above come long prior to language use, and thus long prior to all cases of thinking in terms of, as well as some(perhaps most) of the first two kinds as well. The neglected kinds of beliefs I'm attempting to shed some much needed light upon consist in their entirety prior to our picking them out and describing them; prior to language use; prior to naming and descriptive practices. Thus, we can get those rudimentary basic beliefs quite wrong, even when and if they become the focus of our attention... as a subject matter in and of themselves.

In the very same way, Mt. Everest exists in it's entirety prior to our naming and descriptive practices as well.

The point, I suppose, is that while there could be some useful practical applications of this framework, it simply cannot qualify for a good reliable trustworthy baseline from which to conclude/infer much at all. It is not very strong justificatory ground for any broad-based universally applicable claims regarding all thought itself.

The actual, real, point of view invariant, elemental distinction(s) between thought that is existentially dependent upon naming and descriptive practices and thought that is not is left sorely neglected. As a result, I find the that framework itself is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to naming and descriptive practices.

Language less thought is one such thing.

If thought evolves over time, and it most certainly does, and we do not have a good grasp upon what rudimentary thought is, what it consists of, and what it is existentially dependent upon... then we cannot have a good grasp upon such language less thought when and if our framework of choice cannot take it into proper account; one that is amenable to evolutionary progression and our current knowledge base. An acceptable framework also facilitates adequate descriptions of observable events and perhaps even permits us to sensibly and justifiably discuss how these and other thoughts influence subsequent thoughts and behaviours.

:smile:

OK, relax. I didn't intend to upset you. I still like Bernie, but in this case he did the wrong thing. — Baden

Harsh words towards one who is so overwhelmingly on the right side of history. He was not for the bank bailout in '08 by the way. You repeated that commonly held false belief earlier. I'm trying to disabuse you of it.

Interesting way to parse some thought out nonetheless...

:smile:

RIP Bernie...

There are some thoughts that consist of correlations drawn between language use and other things. All of the 'kinds' in the OP include such. The third kind has no exceptions. They all consist of correlations between language use and other things. The first two kinds have exceptions, and the differences which make those exceptions so are left sorely neglected.

In other words...

Some thoughts do not consist of correlations drawn between language use and other things. All of these thoughts lie beyond the scope of the OP, aside from some of the first and second kind. However, because the OP does not draw a distinction between these differences(which are ontological/elemental in nature) - as it stands - it is inherently incapable of taking proper account of such pre and/or non linguistic thought.