You absolutely did say that in your post below — Thanatos Sand

Sorry. It does read like that. But did you read unenlightened's post? Here it is

You see?

What are your comments about unenlightened's post?

Please read unenlightened's post (above).

It captures the essence of what I mean. You seem to be unable to see the difference between white and black people, although, you do mention the ''struggle against oppression'' that, in a way, unifies black people. Look at the flip side - Nazi Germany. It was based on racial superiority of the Aryan race. Can you find the difference between Black and White somewhere between Nazism and slavery?

Anyway, drawing from unenlightened's post, I think it's reasonable to posit the existence of a black white supremacist. I want to know how s/he deals with the contradiction of being black, wanting equality and endorsing the superiority of the white race.

No, it sounds wonderful — TimeLine

Thanks.

The weather will change, and there is no way, lack of eye blink included, to prevent that. So no, I don't agree with that statement — noAxioms

I think I understand now. Small differences in initial states have vastly different outcomes. For example, the temperature may differ by 0.000007 degrees but this tiny difference can mean the difference between fair weather and storms. The butterfly is simply a metaphor for this small difference in a variable.

For my part, I entirely drop the notion of Free Will add it muddles the problem. — Rich

My turn to say this is odd. I think the value of human life, for what it's worth, rests on Free Will. To choose to be good rather than bad. To choose to appreciate rather than depreciate. To choose to live one's life according to one's free will. The sense of self-determination is essential to meaning in life, no matter how ephemeral it is. Freedom is the lifeblood of society. Freedom of speech, freedom to live, freedom of faith, freedom, freedom. So, I think I speak on everybody's behalf when I say Free Will is important.

The computer is not making choices in the manner the human agent does — Rich

How do you know that? You don't. Choice-making can be and is programmable. Computers are the evidence. Being so, the ability of making choices is no longer a viable discriminating quality re Free Will.

Therefore, Free Will doesn't make sense because its confirmation/disconfirmation relies on a property (making choices) that has no differentiating power.

Very strange that no one challenges it. — Rich

Well, I'm working at this problem indirectly. Free will is central to morality, which in turn, necessitates the choice to do good rather than bad. Yes, there's a whole lot of philosophy dependent on free will me thinks. Anyway, I hope you understood why I think choice is absolutely fundamental to the concept of Free Will.

Computers don't make choices. They are programmed by humans who do make choices when writing the programs — Rich

Yes, they're programmed to make choices by humans. I agree. The punchline here is that, given choice can be programmed, it loses its ability to be a discerning variable for free will. In other words, choice, the ability to make one, can't distinguish between free will and no free will.

As the ability to choose is foundational to free will, removing it, by the above reasoning, destroys the concept all together.

When people say ''I love you'' do they actually mean ''do you love me?''

Gold is cold and hard. Yet people say ''She had a heart of gold''

If you want to do your part to end racism, reject the myth of biological race. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes. We're all the same species. Biologically, we all have the same stuff. There are differences though and these are held to be significant by all parties
See here

So, my concern is how does the black person who's a white supremacist make sense of it all. It's a veritable contradiction.

Thanks for the reply.

So, you do agree that it's possible for a black person to be a white supremacist. Where is this person? Given the harsh reactions re racial supremacy of any kind, is s/he hiding? Also, how does such a person's worldview adhere to reality? How does s/he the contradiction entailed by such a sentiment viz. being black and wanting equality and being a white supremacist and wanting the contrary?

Yes I agree. There are different shades of meaning and interpretation to the question. Thanks.

However, I'm looking for a black person who's a white supremacist. Either s/he exists or not.

If s/he exists how does s/he deal with the obvious contradiction of such a worldview?

If s/he doesn't exist, why? As you mentioned in your post there are so many hues to race and culture. Surely, in this smorgasbord of possibilities there must be such a person.

Thanks for your post. So, there are black people who, at a very minimum, want to be white. How do they resolve the contradiction in their worldview?

What an absolute farce of a question. — StreetlightX

Can you please read this

Except your problem, and its a racist one, is you see Whites fighting for equality and human rights for Blacks as "Black supremacists." — Thanatos Sand

I didn't say that. I don't mean that either. All I'm asking for is the possibility that such a black man/woman may exist. The story I weaved was intended only to provide some background on what I was aiming at. Perhaps its was sloppily written and thought. Sorry.

My question is:

Does a black man who's a white supremacist exist? What can we know if such a man/woman exists?

To support the question's validity rememeber the movie Django in which there's a slave (Samuel L Jackson) who loves his white master (Leornado di Caprio). It's fiction but it asks the same question.

Nearby points may have radically different fates under iteration. That's all — fishfry

Sorry, didn't want to misrepresent your view. My question is simple...

What is the connection between ''nearby points'' and ''different fates''?

I see. So, you do agree that a blink of an eye can cause weather changes.

As to the Black White supremacist, you'll have to ask someone else. I've never heard of such thing — Thanatos Sand

But why?

from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. — Charles Darwin

If Darwin is right, this form too should've evolved. There's nothing impossible about it. There are whites who fight for blacks. So, the converse should be there.

But you said small changes can magnify as the causal chain moves forward in time. Isn't an eye-blink a small change? Can you absolutely rule out the possibility that it won't magnify its effects down the causal web? I know that's shifting the burden of proof to you but it's intriguing.

Why are you quoting words I didn't say in my post? — fishfry

Isn't that the gist of your post?

Small changes making big differences.

So, can I change the fate of the universe by blinking my eye?

We are a fucking spec of dust. Accept it. — TimeLine

Yes, perspective changes everything. I once lived in a small world - everything looked so daunting and so big. I still feel that way but this ''speck of dust'' really shakes up my world. I feel smaller of course but there's so many bigger things to appreciate. Does that sound odd?

Ridiculous. White people are not anti-White by supporting racial equality; they are pro-equality and anti-racism — Thanatos Sand

Yes. You're right. I thought of that. Supporting racial equality serves a higher purpose. Anyway, we could wiggle and jiggle until the whole thing becomes pro-something BUT that doesn't change the fact that fighting for the enemy amounts to treachery.

That's beside the point. All I'm asking is ''is there a black person who's a white supremacist?''.

His/her presence would be a contradiction.

His/her absence would be surprising since there are whites fighting for blacks.

And I have no idea if there a Black White supremacist. Why do you ask — Thanatos Sand

What kind of a worldview would such a person have? It would be self-contradictory at its foundation. Being Black and anti-Black at the same time.

The inquiry is legitmate because the opposite is true. We have white people who are anti-white by supporting racial equality.

Maybe your lucky shirt backed the other team. See, it does work! If it can affect game outcomes, it can also have a mind of its own. — Bitter Crank

:D Yes, anything's possible when we're superstitious. I didn't think of that LOL

Complexity doesn't imply impossibility.

I agree the problem is complex but to say the hypothesis is non-falsifiable would require stronger support than just ''the problem is too complex''. There has to be a sense of real impossibility in it. For example, take the following hypothesis:

There's an invisible, undetectable elf dancing on your head.

This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis because it's impossible to detect the undetectable.

I understand who is the victim and who the perp. I don't want to downplay the great struggle of black people but it's a fact that racism has been purged from the political sphere, at least in spirit. This is an achievement. May be it didn't trickle down to the people, their attitudes and behavior, but it is illegal to discriminate by race.

Also, just for the moment, allow the simplifications I've made in the narrative and answer my question:

Is there a black person who's a white supremacist?

To be scientific using a Popperian meme: this thread will not be the actual cause (nor will it won't be) of me planting a Calotropis in the lower garden because the hypothesis (that it did) is unfalsifiable — Nils Loc

But is science the sole guardian of truth?

Falsifiability is naturally built into our thinking. We don't need science to judge our thinking. I think you've put the cart before the horse. For example:

1) If my lucky shirt is any good then we should win this game

2) We didn't win this game

Therefore,

3) My lucky shirt isn't any good

See? Falsifiability is part of any hypothesis. Science is a subset of our hypotheses.

"Nothing is mere" Feynman said — Bitter Crank

(Y)

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a certified roll-out checker. — Mongrel

Good for you but I'll need to cross-check your certificate.:)

I don't want to believe in superstition. I'm quite comfortable in materialism. However, I've been troubled by the total lack of any spark in such a worldview. It's too dull and boring being a materialist.

So, I did some web surfing and there's a lot of stuff on the net about the supernatural. I don't know what their credibility ratings are but it intrigues me that there's so much supernatural stuff going on in the world.

I just wanted to link my materialism to the spiritual in the most reasonable way I could think of.

Argument:Explanation::Reason:Cause — Cavacava

I don't think that's always true.

1. IF you hit me THEN it'll hurt
2. You hit me
THEREFORE
3. It'll hurt

In the above argument statement 1 is a conditional that expresses a causal connection. Yet, it's an argument if you haven't hurt me yet.

There is a gap for some sorts of physicalism, in that 'belief' here seems an irreducible factor. And this is belief on all sides, including the beliefs of professional practitioners, which certainly influence such outcomes. — mcdoodle

Yes, that's what I'm referring to. We just don't know how, for example, the placebo effect works. Yet, we know it's real. Thanks. This is a very good example of when people close the gap between doubt and belief without knowledge of the causal process. In my favor, it shows how superstitions may be believed despite people objecting on the grounds that there's no known causal process that can explain them. Thanks again

One of philosophy's roots is an interest in doing something about snake-oil salesmen and the power of mystery religions. 'Be open-minded, but not so open-minded your brain rolls out.' — Mongrel

And who has the credentials to judge when one's ''brain rolls out.''? No one!

Perhaps the gap that separates us from belief in superstitions or what you all call magical thinking is the failure to see a mechanism that produces the results. For instance, to me, the placebo effect is simply a name given to this gap.

That brings another question to mind. Perhaps later...

Maybe. The point is that you can't decide exactly what happens as a result of blinking your eye. — Efram

The simple possibility that I could change the future of the universe is amazing by itself.

If you need to try and even dignify that question using philosophy or science, you ought to give up on both — StreetlightX

Just wondering...

Anyway, to make my point clearer, do you realize that top grossing movies are about science fiction and fantasy and these hold appeal even among philosophers like yourself. Doesn't that reveal something? I find philosophy to be more abstract than any other field - thinking, meta-thinking and all - thereby making you more open-minded about these kinda things. Even then, I tried to ground my idea on a scientific theory that allows for such possibilities (superstition, magic, sorcery).

Note, I don't believe in magic and sorcery but finding a scientific theory that admits of such possibilities is interesting.

(Y)

But...

For want of a Nail

It's an older version of the butterfly effect but the message is the same.

I was just wondering if I could change the future of the universe itself by simply blinking an eye.

That is, the universe cannot exist without having numbers. — A Son of Rosenthal

I agree.

Seems you're confusing numbers and quantities. There's also a lot more nuance to both of those things. — Efram

Please clarify. To me, quantity = number.

Does that mean a quantity (albeit 0) of extraterrestrial rainbow sheep has always existed in some form? Or does it make more sense that we just use the number 0 to describe the absence of something? — Efram

I agree with you. That's what I mean, existence or nonexistene, numbers can always describe the state. This may be a trivial truth, as in it's 3rd grade math - just simple counting. However, our world, if science is true, is best described in mathematical terms. I'm just wondering...

:D

I did say I was stretching the theory to its limits. May be too much in your view.

Why such a dim view of superstition? Is it because you think it's not rational or is it because, like me, you fear the consequences if it were true?

In my reply to @Bitter Crank I gave the example of Hitler who was saved from drowning as a 4 year old. Look what happened? I think the world is too complex, causation not so simple, and our ignorance to vast, for us to so (over)confidently dismiss possibilities.

Also, the Butterfly Effect is a scientific theory. I just want to explore its logical implications, one of which seems to allow for superstitions to be true.

Any answer to your question will be heavily anthropocentric. We suffer from God-made-us-in-his-image complex.

Thanks for the clarification. I was more interested in the very basic definition of ''definition''. I thought there was a circularity in trying to define ''definition''. Sloppy work. Sorry.

I think it's more of a duty than a right. Reminds me of Kennedy's quote ''ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country''.

No, I have completely appropriate and rational belief in science. You have too much unfounded faith in the fantastical world you see beyond it — Thanatos Sand

You could be right. I don't know. I've been having strange experiences last few years. Anyway...be rational but leave some room for spirituality. Not an advice, just a suggestion.:)

And there is nothing in Genetics pointing to identities being passed down genetically; so to think otherwise is anti-scientific — Thanatos Sand

You have too much faith in science.

What about magic and sorcery? I'll limit myself to weather because you think the Butterfly effect is relevant in that context.

Uttering a few magic words can and does alter the local airflow, humidity, temperature, pressure. Couldn't these small changes magnify into large scale weather systems? I know I'm straining the concept but what do you think?

Well, I was only trying to make sense of original sin - that we suffer for Adam and Eve's mistake.

Also, this is a topic where knowledge is scarce. So, I think it's open to speculation.