If the imagined object finds itself in a dark space then the space imagined looks all black. No light coming out. The object is black too in the sense that no light comes from it. So there is only darkness in your imagination. But there is an object in it. And there is no difference between an imagined empty space and one with an object in it. What's the difference? You can feel no objects bumping into or hitting you in an empty space, while a space filled with black objects will become clear if you touch these objects.

Then in that space of pure darkness, there's a black object, and therefore that space is not empty, right? — Amalac

Wrong. The objects have no color. Only when connected to our minds they have color. Later I'll expand on this. We must go to the vet now. Puppy dog has a thing with her right hind leg. Maybe it's comedy, maybe not. I couldn't find anything and yesterday she started crying when I paid attention to another dog... :smile:

Lagom: the Swedish secret for a happy life. With a mad fool and some noble dust this shouldn't be a problem

You can't fix stupid. You have to wait until Nature fixes it. Like Covid. — James Riley

I tend to agree. Maybe disaster, natural disaster, has to hit their capital houses firstly. An inconvenient truth (it didn't need a disaster to make the maker of this beautifull and informative documentary see though). Will they ever learn though? Musn't we take the power from them (maybe even gun-wise)?

But if the visible shit, that light- brown rusty blur, has enveloped the planet, then you can bet the invisible shit has too. The lights at night, from space, are another example. Anyone who thinks the Earth is too big for little old us to trash just doesn't get it. — James Riley

Very true! How do we convince the powers that are?

Therefore, if this infinite space is the same as the empty space to which Kant is refering, then I can't imagine it being empty, in fact I can't even imagine it not being empty. — Amalac

This is Einstein's view, more or less. Dark is not the same as black though. Black is the color of an object (or the it). It refers to an object. Space is no object.

Climate change deniers lack vision and keep their eyes closed for the obvious which even the layman (especially the layman) can see: climate is changing in an unnatural short time span.

Anti vaxxers just don't wanna vax. Let them.

9/11 conspiracionists just think these 4 planes were remote-controlled by government officials to start a new war, make money from it, patriot acting to consolidate their power, while infusing society with fear (safe-boxes to be sold in which you can drink your red Lambrusco wine while outside you box hell is breaking loose).

Creationists are right. Only, it didn't happen 6000 years ago.

Flat-Earthers are locally right.

But can you actually visualize, in your mind's eye, there just being darkness? When I try to do that, I can't help but also imagine space as having edges of another color. — Amalac

That's because your eyes have edges. Space can be closed, finite, and without edges.

Name some and do they make predictions, have these been verified? — TheMadFool

I already 10 years ago, no, even in my teens, made the prediction (like the Hopi) that natural disasters (storms and fires) will increase because of human activity. Reality has confirmed my predictions.

What color has space?

Space has no color.

Does your anus perfectly match predictions made about its throughput, or doesn't it? If if it doesn't, should we believe in your anus? — Olivier5

:rofl:

SO, what is accuracy? What makes one measurement more accurate than another? — Banno

The more exact the numbers measured are, the more accurate.

I'll only believe in man-induced climate change if the observed global warming (rising temperatures) perfectly matches that predicted based on human-activity-related CO2 emissions. — TheMadFool

It doesn't match perfectly. The supershowers were predicted to occur in 20 years. These showers ar people's-activity-induced.

I can use my finger to point at my body, but I can't point the tip of my finger at itself. — Yohan

You can point it at the other tips. Assuming all tips have a common core you can learn about the pointing tip.

I suppose, studying Philosophy at university will prepare you for discussions like is this ism better than that? But otherwise, are there any good resources on how to learn to enjoy those word battles? I do follow them from time to time and feel like einstein when I understand what its all about, but I very seldom come to any a-has afterwards — Ansiktsburk

Not everything is an IQ -show off. You can look up the meanings of all difficult words. Just click on them and let Google do the work (that's how I do it). You'll reach a point of insight!

anti Wax — Ansiktsburk

I'm anti-wax too! I like women with hairy legs! :smile:

Equivocation! Interesting, explain please. — TheMadFool

Equivocation. That's the word I looked for! Thanks. There are two different meanings for "exist". Which ones? I can exist while not existing at the same time.

:lol: Where's the evidence for climate change? — TheMadFool

Evidence: This year, a local supershower of rain stationary felt down in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. These were predicted to occur only in about 20 years!
And look at the floods in the US this year. Or the forrest fires globally.
The polar ice is almost gone.
Average temperature has risen in a short time.
What more do I have to say? Is it just a coincidence?

↪SoftEdgedWonder An image, not a fact. Thanks for making my point. :smirk: — 180 Proof

That's your image of the facts... :wink:

So, yes, we may have a fragmented picture of reality but, interestingly, our bodies are, let's just say, in the thick of everything going on, not just in your immediate vicinity, but also in the entire universe itself. We should then, in principle, be able to sense everything that's happening in the cosmos. Do we need to evolve sense organs or is the mind/brain, by itself, adequate (ESP)? I dunno, you tell me. — TheMadFool

:up:

It's self-refuting, it amounts to saying: I exist AND I don't exist, a classic contradiction! — TheMadFool

No contradiction here. Just two different meanings of "to exist".

This year already holds a record. Of forrest fires and floods. Koyaanisqatsi. The Hopi knew already: trays of burning ashes emptied on the world. If the modern lifestyle continues. The first pieces of ash have hit us...

You have zero reason to doubt climate change, other than the misinformation you've been fed. — Olivier5

:up:

Self-referential paradox: A person saying, "I don't exist."
— TheMadFool

How is this a paradox? — I love Chom-choms

It's not a paradox. It's a lie. Someone saying he doesn't exist denies his own existence. So, instead of a lie, it could be denial also.

I have my doubts. Firstly, is it real? Secondly, have we found its cause, are humans to blame? — TheMadFool

Yes.

Yes.

the cat is in a hat" is true iff the cat is in a hat.

That's the whole of it. — Banno

That's a fact. But what if the cat finds herself in Schrödingers box?

Kant's right hand glove thought experiment is meant to show the symmetry between left and right. In an empty a right-hand glove is introduced. Is this the same as a left-hand one? Had God a preference? Is He right-handed? It appears nowadays He indeed is (if only looking at our universe).

But what does Kant mean by empty space? (Einstein thinks globally empty space can't exist according to his equations) Can we imagine empty space? Is it just blakness? Are there coordinate axes? A flat metric? Can you imagine "the nothing", even no space? Space is not a thing. Is space subjective? Of course. If I dream I experience space. I could have dreamed 5 minutes, according to someone watching me sleep and dream (REM), while I have experienced hours days or even years.

So space, empty or filled, is a subjective thing, but it refers to objects and shows us how these objects interact. Empty space, empty ad infinitum, is timeless (see Feynman's one electron universe). There are no categories in this space. You can imagine introducing them but that takes away its emptiness. It must be completely dark in there. Try to imagine you float inter galactically.... Imagine...

It is also the state of affairs set out by a true statement. — Banno

Who determines if the statement is true? Don't say: "reality"....

Basically, we don't know if climate change is real/not. — TheMadFool

???? It's VERY real!

If matter was somehow equivalent to information, what is meant by the common saying: wrong information — Mersi

Wrong matter?

Okay. We disagree. — 180 Proof

In fact, I am right and you are wrong.

Path of least cognitive effort for a start – images are subject-dependent whereas facts are subject-invariant/resistant. Images easily flatter (or expedites) self importance, etc. — 180 Proof

I "seriously" disagree. Facts are the path of least effort, cognitive-wise, perceptive, or everything-wise. Facts are subject-variant, dependent on images we see in the mental world. The true nature of the world is revealed by imagery. Images can flatter (or expedite) self importance and they can light it up. But generally images are not involved in flattering at all (I'm not talking about the flattering that is involved in, say, nude photography).

Did Aldous Huxley take a page out of Indo-Aryan culture. What if, what Huxley predicts already happened, a failed social expermient lost to history? — TheMadFool

Looks like it indeed! I didn't know about soma being used by Indo-Aryans way back (?). I think I ask for an operation. To transform me into an Indo-Aryan... ☺

Thus, the appeal of self-flattering biases which prefer images to facts, believing to knowing, ideals to reals – "there must be more to existence than (this existence)" to "existence is gratuitous" – transcendence (the soul) to immanence (flesh), etc. — 180 Proof

Is preference for images (over facts) self-flattering? If so, why?

Or an actual state of affairs — Janus

Like the creation of the world by the gods.

Soma is a drug that is handed out for free to all the citizens of the World State. In small doses, soma makes people feel good. In large doses, it creates pleasant hallucinations and a sense of timelessness. — Brave New World, Q & A

Sounds like alcohol in present times. Consumed by those living in in-between limbolands or by those in the class of compliant loan slaves. To keep them compliant (even obedient). Big money for the big dealers like Heineken, once kidnapped.

The reason that rings true for me is that I’ve always detested the ‘blind watchmaker’ schtick of Dawkins et al but I also have no time for theistic creationism — Wayfarer

I fully detest along. Dawkins et al. His "The Selfish Gene" (of which his watchmaker book is a copy in a different guise) shows an attitude that betrays his incompetence of finding new memes (to speak in his own poor idiom or jargon). So he objectifies us, animals, genes and memes. According to the knowledgeable pro(contra) fessor we are just vessels created by the selfish genes to ensure their passing on. Memes are involved in people. We are puppets on the strings of memes and genes...What a vision... I pity this man.

Okay, my opinion.
I think it's really dumd. To think technique can replace human parts is to be ignorant, seriously ignorant, about the beauty of biological functioning. And about its nature, which is incompatible, even incommensurable, with biological processes.

But if people wanna spend their time and money on it, who am I to forbid?

All this being said... an iron computerized AI dick...Mmmmm... would be nice.... viagra starts wearing out...

It's impossible to predict what the future holds. What now? — TheMadFool

Not really. The future will bring chaos, barren soil, reduction of biodiversity, more pollution, suffering, fire and water, superstorms and superlightnings, stupidity, the first trillionair (in dollars), poverty at max, acid rain again, crumbling towers, and if we're lucky some exploding thermonuclear devices. It remains to be seen if a movie will be made about his era.