Leaderboard

My ancestors were raped and pillaged by the French.

Immediate:

Here's a Venn diagram explaining why Marjorie Taylor Greene's book isn't selling well:

Jinx!

@Luc Turpin I think this is the time to bring in the correspondence principle and see how it bears (not koalas 😀) on Young's slits. Have you heard of the correspondence principle ?

This is different from the claim “Animals don't distinguish colors” Babies don’t understand color as a concept, either. But they can distinguish them (at a few months of age) Can we raise this above the level of petty semantic arguments? There are videos of birds putting colored objects in bins matching the color. I suspect it would be pretty easy to find such examples, or even more rigorous studies.

Moslims, Hinduists, Jews, etc would not agree with that. The bible is a bundle of different writings by many different people, and it was decided by humans which writings it would contain. So it is a collection of subjective impressions by many different people. It definitely is not 'THE Word of God'. And the bible says that the Apocalypse was expected during Jesus' lifetime, or shortly after.

! Moderator Note It's been painfully obvious for a LONG time, but it's still frustrating that you don't bother to source your conjecture the way others do. You seem to think your raw opinions are meaningful without facts and evidential support. This has allowed you to post a whole lot of crap in otherwise scientific threads. You need to stop it. You seem very smart, and you often represent a POV that we need to see, but you ruin it with unevidenced opinion that you assert like it's fact. We can start trashing bad faith posts like that if you can't stop yourself, but we want to let you know our thinking on this.

Uncoerced You’re mixing frames and making another category error. You as an individual entity acted a certain way and society as an entity concluded that action was a mistake / against accepted social norms. You as an individual, however, still were subject to a set of basically unconscious chemical signals and electricity, propelled like an automaton who then later tells himself a story which pretends you had any control, and those signals drove you to execute that action. Both can be and are in fact true at the same time in parallel. You can continue being snarky and bitchy about this FACT in every post you make, but I can promise that doesn’t in any way bolster your stance nor result in me/others reconsidering mine. But this is at least IMO par for the course in most philosophy threads… mock others who disagree with you bc you’ve got nothing better to stand on. Useful as a metric similarly suffers from subjectivity. I’m grateful to have you as an ally in my desire to improve the way we as a society address criminality. Welcome aboard!

He said a lot about a lot of things so not until you tell us more specifically, no. It is of vital importance to know what Aristotle said, if you want to understand modern physics... No?

No philosophy here. Neither science. Just a list of crackpot ideas, completely detached from reality and the discussion in this thread.

"Ummm... I'd love a cream cake". (determinism), but I'm not going to have one as I'm on a diet. (freewill). True or false? I constructed this to be analysed.

I don't know anything about clothing brands, but all dyes can run if not fixed well. Black, being so dark, will be particularly obvious when it happens. I have some maroon coloured bath towels (a slightly mad choice of colour by my late dear wife, hem hem) which still run a bit after 15 years, so I have to wash them only with other reddish items. But I also have a (Barbour) shirt with dark blue, green and cream colours in it, that is absolutely fine. Clearly, the manufacturer had the wit to realise that putting these colours together required the dyes to be well fixed, to avoid the shirt being wrecked the first time the customer washes it. Barbour is a good - and expensive - brand however. I suspect your items may not be the best quality if the black runs. However the good-ish news is that black, unlike say blue or red, will just make other items in your wash a bit grey, rather than changing their colour in an obvious and potentially more damaging way. It will probably be best to wash them with other dark clothes and not at a high temperature. There's a bit of explanation here from a detergent manufacturer, which may shed some light on the issue: https://www.persil.com/uk/laundry/laundry-tips/washing-tips/knew-one-colour-runs-wash-another.html

I did. Back up the thread, eleven posts up. Agreed with Pigliucci on category error, and disagreed with Dennett, Churchland, et al that it's an illusion. There was a whole chat and everything. After two pages touching on subjective experience you stroll in and.... I think my response to that was the soul of restraint, considering. And now I'm done here.

Lets try one last time then. Could you define free will as you see it?

Would you kindly provide support for that claim?

So, so long as the facts and evidential support are safely stored inside your head, you are free to post without them? I suppose that's one of the benefits of moderating.

Religion is a subtle topic, because there's so much subjectivity in it. The only objective knowledge about God is The Bible. And The Bible says that "Kingdom of Heaven is inside you". And everything is in God's power, and there's no evil, the only real evil is a sin. And that evil on Earth is the result of a man's free will. And yet you have to use due instruments for understanding religion. You can't measure a weight with a ruler.

But where is evolution if animals also distinguish colours? As I am being proved. Evolution of what? How could the sky be blue if there is no blue. And yet. Animals don't distinguish colors, this is wrong statement. They distinguish carriers of a color. And I stand on this thought. And I have one more question. what science or area of knowledge does color relate to? So that I could choose a correct way of communicating. Because I can see that philosophical way of thinking is not appreciated. But color is a philosophical question also. Color (American English) or colour (Commonwealth English)

Literally. You said that it is absolutely not a coincidence. The sun puts out a lot of EM radiation and the highest intensity is around the 400 to 700 range so it makes perfect sense that evolution would favor eyes that detect light in that range Evolution of whom/ what? For animals there's no color as a concept. For all animals, kingdom Animalia. What's wrong with this?! This is Wikipedia. What experiment?

Parrot trained by a human? Does that parrot know that the sky is "blue" and the grass is "green". What does it mean for it? Ok. Animals can distinguish colors without evolution.

That's a rather strange request for a hypothetical question, for instance, if I asked "What are the benefits of understanding the universe (TOE)?" you wouldn't, surely, ask me to explain how I would solve the gravity issue. But if you insist, my definition of free will is, it sounds almost exactly the same as an orange tastes when you look at a red triangle... It's kinda like the argument by gun owner's "my guns could never hurt me or mine, bc I keep them locked and I'm responcible in how I teach my children" But you never know bc "from time to time we all get sad" - Jim Jefferies Geez, another neg (without explaination) to a perfectly reasonable statement; FYI that's like a double plus for me, thanks...

I think this event connects with the ability to speak. But I read, that yes, parrots can speak, but they repeat trained words and they can't generate new senses. And I am not sure that a color "green" means the same for parrot and for me. Because we have different brain If you mean that evolution still continues than where new homo sapiens evolved from chimpanzees? And I thought that dinosaurs could distinguish colors.

That's such a cop out; are you sure you're not criminally insane???

What's the point, it's got nothing to do with the question I've asked..

You conflate unrelated ideas and makes ambiguous or controversial assertions. You distinguish wrihtly between an individual manager and a corporation but err in the robot-manager analoghy. You note wrihtly that corporations lack full personal rights but ignore their legal rights. You assert in absolute corporations cannot be considered individuals morally (not shown or proven, up for debate). Corporations can face moral/ethical consequences (moral and ethical [and thewly] are the same word). You claim to hav considered all counterarguments and loopholes but already failed to consider a few in this post, unless you think you are immune to rebuttal. Also (a few): "An individual manager of a corporation isn't the same as a corporation" -> An individual manager of a corporation differs from the corporation itself. "Even corporations themselves don't have a full set of natural personal rights" -> Corporations lack a full set of natural personal rights. "nor could even be considered an individual entity for moral consideration" -> Nor can they be considered individual entities for moral consideration. "I've built up the section 'responses to counterarguments' over about 6 years of discussion" -> I constructed the 'responses to counterarguments' section over six years of discussion. "I've even tried to find a loophole in my own argumentation myself" -> I attempted to find a loophole in my argumentation. "but nope, someone I spoke with reminded me that loophole basically collapsed to another form of functionalism" -> Yet, a discussion reminded me that a perceived loophole collapsed into another form of functionalism. Maybe if you could write that would help. I'll give you a brain instead. Neuroscience shows a clear link between brain (material) processes and consciose experience. Brain damage (do you know about that?) can cause alterations or loss of conscioseness; neuroimaging studies associate brain regions with distinct experiences (maybe you are a localisationist who denies plasticity, or believe in some supernatural, supermental crap?). The theòry of emergence argues conscioseness, a complex property (and all properties are of nature, so material), arises from simpler components throuh their interactions, suggesting a material basis for conscioseness. Physicalism (fýsicalism), supported by many philosophers of mind (I don't care about popularity fallacies but I can see you do), argues mental states, including conscioseness, originate from fýsic (physic[al]) brain processes. Acknowledging or arguing conscioseness has a material foundation does not trivialise its complexity or nature, and should not warrant a warning or "spam" reports. I am not responisibil for others' lack of understanding or unwillingness to try to understand a thing. These standards are prejudicial, preconceived, inbred, dishonest, dogmatic, manipulative, hýpocritic. You cannot (Hmm, some people ignorant of English might see that as a misspelling with the way writing now goes—I shudder!) justify how a single post is "spam." I expect users on a scienty and philosophy forum to be able to imagine something that isn't real beyond their weak and flaky constitutions. (You should know what I expect doesn't make a thing good or bad, or wriht or wrong, neither does what anyone else expects.) People's actions or reactions, no matter how many and many people they come from, are no reasons in and by themselvs to establish a community standard. If users cannot back themselvs up with reason, they hav nothing. Conformity is an arbitrary standard. It is met by whoever sets the metes and bounds for each case. So there are many instances of people here conforming, and many not. But I do not subscribe to this groundless sham, when others insult and threaten and attack, and many others don't get what they deserve because no one is mass and fraudulently reporting them. What rule did I break? How is my comment spam? The many who would and do speak up against me are so poorly-articulated that they cannot even back their grievances, and can't even try. They cannot even show the least bit how my comments are off-topic, spam, or wrong. Something I promise is that if everyone thouht and behaved like me, the world would be perfect, someday. This is because I try to take advantage of everything I hav to hav more, and so I get what I want. Others do not so they're not getting what they want. This group looks like it's divided between people who would choose either fight or flight, but not both. You prefer not to take advantage of the fact that we are both living, reading, and talking beings and so do not fulfil the means to the end by using like for like. As if I were a weed that's grown too much you go behind and cut me out, instead of telling me what you want and fear of me, why, and how, if you can. Your approach has many qualifications. What about nonbilious arrogance, variably correcting, or specifically being? If you do not give the limits, there are none, and whatever you'v planted will go and grow forever. And it will hav no idea what you say if you say you meant otherwise. So what hav I done wrong, beyond post something some tattletales didn't like? Do you accept how you and other people make up stuff about me, like "mentally ill," "incoherent" (implying mental disorder), "on the spectrum"? Did you not even read my appeal? Is it because you hate feelings or meanings or anything put eloquently? I already said why I didn't report it. A better question: why do people report me for expressing myself but don't report the insults and threats against me? (See how folk get irritated when they hav to learn something or thenk for themselvs or at all.) I hav gone on unchecked in many places, and gone against many lowly authorities like yourself who had varying amounts of moderating power, and I hav silenced and parted them because I exposed and destroyed their specious lies that they no doubt learned under an emotional screen, if they did not block and ban me first. I hav stopped many a controversial thread and question with my sheer, open, relentless thouht. Your warning is threatening the victim rather than the offenders. I am censored by its insidiose implication. I spammed nothing. Users report me because they are corrupt, abusive and liars and censors. Every one of my comments is a correction or improvement, and others would rather not be corrected when they see what a great difference lies between their kenth and the truthe (or sooth). Admins are regularly allowed to break policies and rules that they enforce, and which I wraid, and their ilk don't mind because it's for their side. I hav to deal with illiterates, malliterates, and mindlesses every day over the internet, who criticize and badmouth others and me because they can't see how they slipped up. They can't support their attacks, and they use a host of fallacies to defend themselvs whilst doing nothing to expose whatever wrongness was in the claim, or they report and duck. And often the victims get punished, but they don't; they get to keep running around thinking that they got the best. And no one watching, including you, is the more competent to switch back the harm. So I'm wronged everyday by the rubbish people say and do, and can't stand them. I could preface every comment I write with: "You might not like this!" to soften it for softer heads, but any preface put in my comments would be a waste of time, obvious to me by the sheer lot I must always do (maybe I should also add: "Nobody's better than anybody." "Be yourself." "Love everyone." "It makes me so angry that people don't accept people for who they are." "Don't be mean." to every comment I write, since saving peoples' feelings is more important than wrihtness and sooth). Any comment I make that improves a space that is reported or downvoted or removed by another user or admin is vandalism and abuse. The users and admins here and elsewhere who do not understand this simple and universal rule should be reprimanded and removed of their posting and admin privileges until they do. Regardless, I hav known everything your ilk could tell me, and expected such a sorry solution. Not that I'm not used to being abused like this, by people who hav no idea what they do and who don't care. There are more important rules than those a few people here hav thought of, which I should and must uphold.