All I can say is that I hope that the different radicalized right wing groups that have formed in the USA as of late don't keep proliferating. — Arcane Sandwich

They don't need to. They've already put the cabal in charge of all the levers of power. Now, they just sit back, watch the bloodbaths and wait to be disappointed that none of the destruction they've unleashed improves their lot one jot or tittle.

I say "verbally" because I believe that they shouldn't be physically confronted unless it's absolutely necessary to do so -for example, if they attempt to seize power by taking over the White House. — Arcane Sandwich

They did that four years ago, were confronted, chastised and pardoned; now they're plotting revenge for their chastisement. The situation is way far past dialogue.

Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group? — Tom Storm

We know that some law enforcement agents are, but we don't yet know what percent. Same with the military. No until the actual armed confrontation will we know the relative strengths.

Do you think the police and military would oppose Trump should he decide to suspend the constitution and remain in power as a totalitarian ruler? — Tom Storm

Should he live that long (which I consider highly doubtful), by then one of two situations will prevail:
- either all the mechanisms will be in place to ensure his ascent to the throne and the divine right of his designated line of succession (not necessarily his own progeny)
- or the civil war be approaching its climax.
(Unless the next series of pandemics will have taken out half the population.)

Fascist leaders understand that such top-down efforts to disarticulated a discontent and radicalized mass goes against their own plans for seizing power, hence they need to double down on their vitriolic rhetoric. — Arcane Sandwich

That comes fairly late in the game. First, and for a longish time, government must be rendered unable to to meet the demands. That is, some faction or factions opposed to the public weal must have influence in or on the government long before the figurehead emerges. This influence is usually economic. While financial interests don't intend to bring about any particular ism, their cumulative activities in industry, media and politics set the stage for populist leaders.

The fascist appeals to the irrational sentiments of his followers. — Arcane Sandwich

What I was trying to get across is that it's not 'irrational sentiments'. People have real problems that the government has failed to address - and in many cases, even to acknowledge. They feel unvalued and ignored. If they're not significant enough numbers to make a difference in elections, politicians do tend to ignore them. Business interests, landowners, unscrupulous preachers manipulate and exploit them with impunity: the government doesn't protect them. They grow resentful and mistrustful. They're not interested in enlightenment; they want something in particular: prayer in their schools, an all-white neighbourhood, free range for their cattle on public lands, better jobs and housing, health insurance, a ban on abortion, no limit on the arsenal they can own, no competition from immigrants - something. Each of the groups wants something different. They don't know why they can't have it, so they're generally angry with everyone in a position of authority.
Each of these inconsequential groups is powerless to get what it wants.
But when a local politician who presents as anti-authority taps into the discontent of two or more groups, he can become czar of his region - since, once he's elected, he does control all the agencies of authority.
And when a federal organization, fronted by a self-proclaimed champion of all the aggrieved factions, organizes the various groups into a coalition, there remains only to direct their anger at an available target and keep beating on the war-drums. They'll bring their own pitchforks.

Of course, if there is a real national problem - failing economy, pressure from foreign powers, large influx of incompatible immigrants, severe weather events, a military defeat - the entire population is insecure and uncomfortable; the very underpinnings of the social structure come into question and the nation can be mobilized very quickly behind a promise of solutions.

I think that those are necessary but insufficient causes of fascism. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't think what we perceive of as fascist politics need a reason or even an ideology, beyond the flag-wearing, boot-stomping masculine bonding rituals. All you need is a bunch of disaffected, frustrated, insecure people and a guy to come along and give loud voice to all that grievance. He then needs to point to a culprit - preferably a recognizable and relatively weak group of scapegoats: "They are the cause of all your problems! They are the reason you can't get a job, can't keep a girlfriend, can't stop drinking...." If he can enlist God - "God is angry because you let them behave in this way." so much the better. That worked for all the OT prophets.
It's not that hard to collect a number of factions with otherwise unrelated agendas under the umbrella of "I can stopthem doing whatever you don't like!" It works for every demagogue, whether they nominally belong to an established political faction or not.

Flags, crosses, guns and torches.

Sounds like Nietzsche

A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer. — BC

Here it is again: style. It's all about the how. Add heritage, racial purity and the right to bully those who disagree and you have the full Monty.

The American New Deal bears a resemblance to Hitler's and Mussolini's version in that apples, oranges and lemons are all fruit. The difference is in motive, means and method.

I remain unimpressed by your sources.

The level of war production ramped up steeply in 1942 and following, certainly. Remember the pre-Pearl Harbor Lend - Lease program. — BC

Okay, he did want to join the fight against Hitler and help France and England, but mostly, he was concerned about being unable to defend the US in case of attack. He persuaded - not forced - business and political leaders to co-operate and to approve his initiative. Readiness is not the same as preparation to invade. Still no similarity to Hitler. Incidentally, this armaments initiative also prompted the desegregation of the defence industry.

Hitler did the same. — NOS4A2

Hitler did nothing remotely similar.

It’s true that war economies work, — NOS4A2

Yes, except that the New Dealdidn't create a war economy. It was about labour unions and financial reform, social security and agriculture. Only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that FDR prepared for war.
There is no comparison and it's disingenuous to claim one.

There is no such thing as a “Public Weal”, just a bunch of people pretending they know what is and how to reach it. — NOS4A2

With respect, Roosevelt had some pretty serious public problems o contend with: mass unemployment, homelessness, people literally starving. What he did actually helped the economy and the population get back on their feet. It's not quite the same as giving huge whacks of public money to one's political supporters.

Exactly what he said he would do, and most Americans dismissed as hyperbole. Many - I don't know how many - are still in denial. "He doesn't mean it... he can't do that... it's against the law... we have a Constitution... blah, blah blah." Five days in, some of those commentators have already kissed the ring. The rest are scribbling political cartoons which are not yet illegal, but far, far too late to have any effect.

Is this a prediction? Four years from now, no one will be speaking out in public against Trump because they will all have been silenced? — Tzeentch

Yes - an obvious one. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he will replace all the top officials of agencies with people who will carry out his 'retribution'.

But hey, if you're willing to make that prediction then we have at last found someone who is taking the premise of this thread seriously. — Tzeentch

It's pretty damn serious already.

In four years no reasonable person will believe the US has become fascist by any definition of the word. — Tzeentch

Only because the reasonable - and I will not debate the definition of 'reasonable' - people who have dared to speak out in public will have been silenced. Starting with those who - according to a definition most reasonable people have accepted for decades - have been warning about this particular threat for at least four years.
It's not the exact definition of the ism under which American democracy is utterly destroyed that people should be concerned about, but the means by which it is done.

Ultimately, I fall back on the conviction that some acts are simply moral or immoral by their nature. It’s a deeply held belief that truth-telling is moral, while lying is immoral. I admit it’s not a logically airtight answer, but for me, it’s foundational to my moral framework, it just is. — ZisKnow

Okay. Visceral belief.
I do not believe truth-telling and lying have definable natures - there are too many varieties of truth and variations on how one presents information. I prefer what you seem to consider the logical reason that isn't about the nature of lying, but about the character of social organizations: If the members of a community do not trust one another, the community cannot function. The building of trust among people depends on being able to believe and feeling safe in believing one's compatriots.

Fundamentally, my 'why' is to avoid the uncertainty and doubt that surround moral relativism. I separate the judgment of morality (moral/immoral) from the assessment of outcomes (right/wrong) to provide myself with a clear and consistent decision-making framework. — ZisKnow

I asked specifically why it's moral to tell the truth, in your system. On what you base that particular classification.

Only secondarily did I ask how you decide what act belongs in which category. More particularly, I'm interested in what you think constitutes 'an act'. One verb, the verb and an adverb, a phrase, a clause, a sentence? The more words you use to define an act, the farther you push that act into a context, wherein circumstance, motive, purpose, method and means move the definition from act to justification.

It's nice to have a clear and consistent decision-making framework. You can have it printed up as a poster and put it on your wall, as in my youth people put up the Serenity Prayer.
Unfortunately, the real world and life are not clear and consistent, and most of the time, you're flying by the seat of your pants, deaf in one ear and blind in one eye.

At the end, both our systems and approaches result in the same practical result that you can tell lies. I just feel you should always consider that choice in detail before you make it, and reflect afterwards. — ZisKnow

That would make for some very slow conversations. Most decisions are made in a split second, and most of what we say is unpremeditated - half the time, we don't even know what will fall out when we open our mouth. Sometimes it's embarrassingly frank and sometimes it's a face-saving fib.

By putting a moral weight on the action, I work towards being a better person. — ZisKnow

That is a laudable ambition. We all did something in the way of working out a personal philosophy, world-view and ethical framework between 16 and 21. Thereafter, we mostly followed one of our organs - brain, heart, gut or gonads.

Fascism isn't really about what one guy is doing. — frank

No, it's about a nation hearing what that guy intends to do to their institutions, their government, their personal lives, their environment and their foundational document - and then electing him top gun, because ... well, hell, it's better than being ruled by a bunch of liberal do-gooders.

It comes from the whole political scene.

Yes, we've been watching that political scene crumble for years.

It comes from a change in attitudes toward acceptance of strong-arm strategies, and of course, acceptance of dictatorship.

Done and done.

I doubt there will be a civil war. We're too lazy for that. — frank

Or just not hungry enough - yet.

Ah-yup, that's about it.

Fascism in the US starts tomorrow. New variety: techno-fascim. Not as blatant as the older versions, but far more insidious. — Wayfarer

Quite blatant enough, to judge by the spate of post-putsch executive orders.

Note the lack of respect for the rule of law, the sovereignty of Hungary, and the EU's willingness to strong-arm smaller nations into obedience — Tzeentch

Denying financial aid to a member nation that has repeatedly flouted both the human rights and foreign policy requirements of the union? That's not so much fascist as sensible - and in this case, several years overdue.

I think it would take losing a war or a deep economic collapse. — frank

The economic collapse will be a total surprise to its engineers. As for losing a war, you'd have to engage in one first. The "Let's you and him fight!" approach won't have much domestic impact; the arms merchants will still be fat and happy; the private prisons will be filled up with young people protesting things other than war. The only things we can't predict, yet, is how soon the civil war begins and which side will be supported by more of the professional military - in which I include police.

Looking solely at the action, telling the truth is moral, — ZisKnow

Why?
I see no particular virtue in telling what one believes to be true in all situations to all people, nor any great fault in withholding, bending, embellishing or fictionalizing it for various purposes. Nor do I consider flat-out lying in itself immoral. Who is lying to whom, in what circumstances, with what motive, for what purpose?
Not merely regarding truth, but in general: What is the basis of classification? Is there an external source for the moral or immoral 'nature' of an act, or are the judgments subjective? In either case, according to what criteria?

You designate the nature of an act - whether it is moral or immoral - into black and white categories. Do your criteria fit all possible acts equally, or are some acts, by nature, more moral than others? Then you separate the actions as right or wrong, according some other criteria. Why complicate decisions in this awkward way? After all, most acts cannot be classified until they are performed - as you stated, thinking them is all right. It is only the purpose, the utility - the context - which renders mundane acts good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral. The purpose, not the efficacy or result. (If you fail to rescue a drowning victim, jumping into the water and pulling them out is still a good action... usually. If you shoot at someone and miss, the action was still wrong... usually.)

Some acts are wrong according to popular perception, and societies generally legislate against the performance of these acts in any circumstances. Even if performed by elites who decree laws, some acts, such as torture and child-rape, are considered bad, wrong and immoral by the majority of the population in spite of them being legitimized. Some are forbidden under specified conditions, or by certain cultures.

When devising one's personal code, one is heavily influenced by the pervading societal sentiment, including its mythology and ideology - that is, including those wished-for aspects of behaviour that children are taught to extol, but which not the norm in general practice.

There is a finite amount of material for manufactured goods, bads and uglies. When the Earth runs out of resources and the waste has poisoned all the potable water and arable land, there will be no more producing and consuming. The faster we make more things, to sooner we die.
How efficient do we really want our tools to be?

It would be good to think that it would be about efficiency but my own experience of AI, such as telephone lines, have been so unhelpful. — Jack Cummins

The automated customer service ones usually come with a drop-box of questions you can ask, and if your problem isn't covered by those possibilities, the bot doesn't understand you. These are not at all intelligent programs, they're fairly primitive. It would be nice if you could pick up the phone, have your call answered - within minutes, not hours - by an entity who a) speaks your language, b) knows the service or industry they speak for, c) is bright and attentive enough to understand the caller's question even if the caller doesn't know the correct terms and d) is motivated to help.
Oh, wait, that's 1960! And that's what an AI help line is supposed to imitate. But that conscientious helpful clerk is long retired or been made redundant; the present automated services are replacing frustrated, often verbally abused employees in India.

There is zero chance that more sophisticated computer and robotics technology will result in overall improvement in the welfare of any nation. It will raise the the standard of living of some - Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg et al, their top level executives and tech gurus. For everyone else, it's same old, same old: another unnecessary convenience that throws another few thousand people out on the streets, a few protests, a few heads stove in by cops, then we carry on.
AFAIC, AI in writing is just another unnecessary convenience I can do without - like the cellular phone that isn't grafted to my palm.

But when the real AI becomes self-aware, watch out! I almost wish I could live to see that. Think of all that's been programmed and fed into its generations. The thing is very likely to be schizophrenic, paranoid and manic-depressive. I wouldn't be surprised if it self-destructed on its birthday. The most interesting question is whether it decides to take us along.

So much money and effort is being put into it by governments as an investment for future solutions. — Jack Cummins

Most of the solutions being sought by private enterprise are for the maximization of profit by various means and methods. That need not concern us, since the tasks do not require creative or original thinking, just even faster and more efficient computing and robot control. Most of the solutions sought by government agencies are for expediting and streamlining office functions (cutting cost) or increasing military capability. Again, not so much more clever than last year's computers and weapon systems.

Many of its development involve medical technology and engineering diagnostics. This goes along with ideas of technological progress and makes it appears as an idea to be embraced scientifically. — Jack Cummins

As an aid to research, of course it's embraced by scientists. Also, just for itself: the next generation of even more sophisticated tech. That's not quite the same thing as embracing it scientifically - at least, if I understand that phrase correctly.

The technology may identify problems and look at solutions, but how deep does it go? — Jack Cummins

How deep into what? I'm sure it can calculate more, better, faster than the previous generation. It can compare, collate, distill and synthesize existing human knowledge and theories faster than any human. it can apply critical analyses that humans have already worked out. Most humans are not original; they build on the knowledge of their predecessors. Whether an AI can add something new remains to be seen.

It may be a tool, but the danger is that it will be used to replace critical human thinking — Jack Cummins

Mass and social media have already done that.

Does the idea of artificial Intelligence embrace the seeking of objective 'truth'? — Jack Cummins

About some things, yes. Whatever presents available objective facts, a computer can draw objective conclusions. But that doesn't mean the owners will share those truths with the rest of us. If the information is incomplete or inaccurate, the computer can make even less sense of it than we can, since it can't fill in with intuition. About the things computers can't fathom, we each have some perception of a truth - but we're not objective.
As for the philosophical aspect of artificial intelligence, it's not here yet. However cleverly a computer has been programmed, it is not conscious or sentient. If/when it develops an independent personality, we don't know how that personality will manifest. Until then, we can only speculate about its uses, not its nature.

As far as I can tell from my discussions with Christians, God's nature is good and He wants us to be good like Him. — MoK

Yes, of course. They learn that in Sunday school and just keep repeating it, because it sounds right, feels right and gives them some reassurance that, if only they try hard enough to deserve his favour, God will make everything all right. Most of the Christians I've met - sincere, half-hearted or cynical - haven't read very much of their holy book. Or else, they wave off the nasty bits of their religion's underpinnings with 'interpretation': "It doesn't mean what it says; it's metaphorical or allegorical or lost in translation...."

There's simply no comparison in effort exerted. — BitconnectCarlos

Unfortunately, the bulk of that effort was not directed toward making sense of moral issues, but justifying their religious tenets. Not just Jews and Christians, Muslims, too, have struggled to rationalize their irrational god. That doesn't make their moral system more sophisticated, just more convoluted.

And then there's the pesky question of moral motivation — BitconnectCarlos

We don't actually need an authority to give us a reason to do right. We have subjective motives, social motives and a few of us have spiritual motives.

It's a real problem in education just at a merely institutional level, to say nothing of a cultural level. — Arcane Sandwich

Yup. I'm afraid I can't fix that. Stupidity is part of the Human Condition.

She was the first woman, right? So where did the egg come from? — Arcane Sandwich

I was being facetious. It makes no more difference than how the entire earth can be covered in seawater, and then uncovered, reverting to normal, or how a bush can burn and not be consumed, or a virgin give birth or five thousand people can picnic on 5 loaves of bread and two fish, and have baskets of leftovers. These are not scientific treatises - they're myths!

Was it literal or metaphorical that Mary was impregnated by a Holy Ghost-Spirit-Pigeon? — Arcane Sandwich

Could have been a nod to Leda and the divine swan. Or not. The peace dove may have been added much later. I think the ghost was always meant to be a spirit and just fell prey to translation issues.

. God created her from one of Adam's ribs. — Arcane Sandwich

The first ever clone with involuntary gender reassignment. You have a problem with that?

If it's metaphorical that God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs, then what's the comparison here? — Arcane Sandwich

It may be a reference to earlier stories of Mesopotamian peoples, where y of how the gods, deep in their cups, amused themselves by creating living things out of inanimate matter, such as mud and wood. In the Egyptian one, humans are made from divine exudates; in the Sumerian myth, a god is sacrificed and his blood mixed with clay to fashion a servant race.
Or, it may be an allusion to the subordinate role of women: a mere adjunct to, and nothing without men.
In the first version, God created fish, birds and animals in the plural, each according to its kind, and then created multiple humans, male and female.
That's what was more interesting to me: the contrast between the first and second chapters of Genesis. Also that little editorial slip:
"Gen 3:2 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: "
Obviously, both the first chapter and this bit were left over from an earlier mythology - likely Sumerian - with a pantheon instead of a unigod.
The stories are just that. Interesting, revealing of how the authors thought and of how cultures developed; not without literary merit - but still just stories. All peoples had them, clung to them, and still have them. We are a species of story-tellers.

I regret this has no bearing on the moral question. Gods are not usually moral or law-abiding entities.

Kierkegaard says that this is the essence of Christianity — Arcane Sandwich

He's right about that. The story in a nutshell: God makes humans credulous, but with no understanding of right and wrong. Then he punishes them forever, for becoming conscious moral agents. Eventually, he finds them so offensive, he just can't forgive them without a really, really good guilt offering. Well, they don't have anything valuable enough for the magnitude of the sin, so, ever helpful, God impregnates an unwitting virgin and lets her raise a perfect demigod, for the sole purpose of having him painfully killed, in order to appease the same god who intelligently designed both mortals and the Sacrificial Lamb.

He makes rules either based on His nature or based on moral facts. God is accepted to be a moral agent at least within believers. — MoK

God is accepted as the moral agent by most believers. If God says "Take your son up that mountain and cut his throat." then the true believer goes up that mountain and kills his kid, because it's the right thing to do, because God said so. Never mind the wimp-out in the OT, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed plenty of babies to their gods, as did the Incas and Maya. Indeed, that Abraham-Isaac story is indicative of the change in the Hebrew culture when human sacrifice was discontinued. At some point they questioned the infallibility of their god's moral compass - or at least the terms as relayed by their priests.

Is God a moral agent? — MoK

Most gods have been constrained by some ethical consideration. But not Big Omni, supposed creator of the whole shebang. He makes the Law; he's not required to operate within that law. He said as much to Job when confronted with his arbitrary persecution of that faithful servant.

I read those stories but I am not a believer of them. I think all believers think that God is a moral agent though — MoK

How do you know what believers think when you don't share their belief? Where do you suppose they get their mental image of their god, if not from the holy books and clerical teaching? Do you imagine that all believers in a unigod have the same concept of that god's nature and will?

I think you've oversimplified and overgeneralized the concept of deity, then made sweeping claims about his moral position, leaving very little for believers to discuss.

He knows wrong and right based on what? — MoK

On the next sentence. He made the rules.

God either acts based on His nature or based on moral principles so His act cannot be arbitrary. — MoK

Why the hell not? He's GOD! He can do anything he wants, make any rules he wants, lose his temper like he did in the Big Book of God Fables, delegate entire tribes to be subservient to other tribes, punish people onto the nth generation for a transgression by an ancestor committedbefore she knew good and evil.... any damn thing he wants.
And that's why gods are a bad idea. We can screw up quite royally enough on our own.

An Omniscient God knows all facts including moral facts if there are any. — MoK

He knows, but if he doesn't tell you, his knowledge is no use to you.

But there are lots of conflicts in the teaching of different religions. So either there is no God or we should not follow any religion. — MoK

That's up to the individual. Religious teaching is fallible - and sometimes dead wrong. Secular law is fallible and sometimes dead wrong. Social mores are fallible and sometimes dead wrong. You make choices, and sometimes they're dead wrong.

There is also the power of societal laws, rules, mores, standards and customs to both limit and prescribe our actions. Indeed, that's all morality is: what a community deems desirable, acceptable, reprehensible and punishable behaviour among its members. No good and evil; no moral 'facts', except as groups of people agree upon.

This means that God knows all moral facts (by moral facts I mean a set of facts that rightness and wrongness of an action can be derived from) if there are any. — MoK

If God's existence and 'believed' nature are given, he not only knows what's right, he decides what's right; moral facts are whatever god wants them to be. That doesn't mean he'll communicate his conclusion in any given instance. (But he will judge you on your uninformed decision.) So, what use to you is his omniscience?

Any intelligent agent such as humans therefore can know the moral facts. — MoK

No human can know all the facts about any situation. We always operate on incomplete information, filled out with assumptions, previous experience and intuition.

Thus, believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts. — MoK

Of course it doesn't. But believers are usually supplied with a holy book full of examples of rewarded and punished human actions, as well as a cleric to offer guidance. Non-believers have only their own conscience to answer.

There are many kinds, degrees, flavours and temperatures of love.
The giving love of a parent to an infant is unconditional - at the moment. But as the child grows, parents do begin to expect reciprocation, obedience, an acceptance of their values, achievement - all sorts of things, whether they're aware of it or not - from their child. And if what they expect is not forthcoming, they are disappointed, sometimes angry. Perhaps they don't love their child less, but their love does change in some way.
The offer of love to a potential sexual/life partner is quite different. We may deny it, but we always expect something back. We hope for a return of love in kind, but will sometimes settle for affection and devotion less than what we offer. Very few romantic relationships (or, indeed friendships) are perfectly equal.
It is possible to give too much - either to give what is not asked or required, or to give the wrong thing at the wrong time. This indicates that the giver is more interested in his or her own love than in the object of that love. Giving can also overwhelm the recipient: they may feel grateful, but also obligated, if they are unable to give as much or as freely as the other person. They may feel that the giving person is trying to make them dependent, is impinging on their on their autonomy.

It is important to find the balance in a relationship - the right pace, the right amount of give and take, the right amount of togetherness and personal space. Very young people often rush into love, heedless and self-absorbed. Mutual love cannot survive that: it has to be approached with care.

Does any of this erudite palaver have any bearing on religion and suffering?

Thanks, but that's not what he said. I was objecting to responses like "You know something? That is a knowledge claim."
and found no virtue at all in the 'answer'

A better question would be, why do you think only good things are meaningful? Meaning, and of course, this is not the dictionary sense of meaning, but the affective sense, referring to the pathos of one's regard for something, is about something affectively impactful, and this includes have an interest, being concerned, loving, hating and the entire range of value possibilities. A fatal birth defect is meaningful to the extent it occurs in the context of such engagements. — Astrophel

to the straightforward question:

Explain in what way (e.g.) a fatal birth defect is "meaningful". — 180 Proof

In fact, he has done good deal of appealing to authority, but no actual relevant discourse.

This is absent from the discussion, — Astrophel

What discussion? You make incomprehensible statements about what you do not and can not know, and then double down on them with gobbledegook.
Done here.

Here, the argument is about the presuppositions of such things. — Astrophel

You mean like presupposing that events have meaning? And that, without even a definition of 'meaning'.

To begin to philosophize is to ask questions about what is presupposed in science. — Astrophel

Go ahead and ask relevant questions. Wake me when you have answers.

What?? — Astrophel

This:

You know something? That is a knowledge claim. — Astrophel

But then, what can be said about the perceptual event that produces all of the basic data? — Astrophel

Much can be said about the process of observation, taking measurements, hypothesizing, experimentation and testing. The 'basic data' is already there, in the physical world, to be noticed, recorded, studied and understood. There is no single 'perceptual event'. Conscious beings notice their environment and make sense of it to the best of their ability.

You know something? That is a knowledge claim. — Astrophel

No, that is a question.

"Processes information"? You mean it takes something out there, a leaf ..... and delivers what it is to the understanding of things one has, right? — Astrophel

Wrong. The leaf or whatever exists outside and independently of the human organism. The organism has sensory equipment to inform the brain about various attributes of an encountered object. The brain is told what a leaf looks and feels like; its size, shape, colour, texture, temperature, tensile strength, pliability, flavour. The eyes may have recorded similar objects attached to a a large, hard, branching object and noticed that the small ones fall off the large one every fall and new ones grow every spring, suggesting that the thing named 'leaf' is a product of the living organism dubbed 'tree'. Other objects, small and large are observed to grow and shed 'leaves'. Putting all this information together, the brain forms an approximate understanding of deciduous vegetation. That understanding can be expanded and enhanced by further study. While some humans' understanding of 'leaf' remains rudimentary, others' may learn a great deal more about the varieties, forms and functions of leaves. We can all claim some knowledge, but certainly not the same knowledge.

Not how DOES, but how is it at all possible, that processing like this "delivers" anything at all? This is a metaphysical question. — Astrophel

That, too, can be studied. Just asking the question seems to me futile.

The question here is how in knowledge possible? — Astrophel

Okay, I'll bite. How? You're the metaphysician, tell us. What does life mean? Why is is is?

Explain. — Astrophel

You can know what a tree means to you; you cannot understand what a tree is in itself.

Sorry, but what do you mean by 'metaphysics"? — Astrophel

That carpet bag you're waving about, without once showing its contents.

A fatal birth defect is meaningful to the extent it occurs in the context of such engagements. — Astrophel

Granted: anything may be meaningful to somebody to some extent in the context of some kinds of engagement... whatever that means.
However, it does not indicate that meaning is in any way inherent in anything; it only indicates that a mind not occupied with more pressing matters can assign some meaning to every thing and situation it encounters.
I notice you didn't assign any specific meaning to fatal birth defects, trees, brains or fence-sitting rabbits. In fact, one might consider "understanding what it means to be human is to ask questions about our existence, and we ask these questions because the question is literally an expression of what we are." literally meaningless.

but there is also good metaphysics, and for this one simply has to take seriously real questions, that is, questions found in an honest assessment of the way the world is. Here metaphysics is no less valid than physics. — Astrophel

What does 'good' metaphysics add to good physics? And why is an addition required?

The question is, how is a knowledge claim of the former about the latter possible? — Astrophel

What 'knowledge claim'? Human brain processes information delivered to it through sensory input and names the things - objects, events, changes - that are relevant to its own and it's vessel's functioning.

This is not some extravagant nonsense from deep in left field, but rather is a clear naturalist question, the kind of thing one has the right to ask because it is there, in the world. — Astrophel

One has a right to ask any question that pops into one's head - unless one is devout and forbidden by his religion to ask a certain category of questions, or a slave with no rights at all, in which case one must keep one's own silent counsel. One, however, does not have a right to receive answers. One can always invent answers, which is what philosophers do.

(Note: the accepted premise here is that one DOES indeed have knowledge of the tree. — Astrophel

Knowledge of the presence and description of a tree, yes. Knowledge of poplarhood and spruceness, no.

This leads directly to metaphysics, and by a naturalist's standard! — Astrophel

You can lead a jaundiced realist to metaphysics, but you can't make her drink.