this is not a coherent post capable of reasonable reply. I’m sorry

I maintain based on the evidence that it’s 3-7 degrees. But fair enough If it was looking at extremes, in concrete jungles. ‍♂️

no. That is an incredibly uncharitable straw man.

I explained myself completely. Have another go.

I appreciate the charity!

While I understand how you have read this, that is not a judgement about you. Maturity is not solely a personal attribute. I think the theory is immature - as in, hasn't been fully thought through/doesn't take all relevant issues into account. It is not a comment on you. I imagine this happens often? Please just ask me to clarify whenever you get that impression. I can almost guarantee it's not a personal judgement.

I have addressed the issue there, in this light. The attitude is an immature one that I think needs a bit more consideration. Science-derived information can be murky, messy, contradictory etc.. etc.. "settled science" is quite rare. But we need to know things all the time - and we certianly don't defer to labs and journals for most knowledge we have day-to-day.

My feet are at the bottom of my legs *shrug*.

I think that attitude while explaining a lot, isn't particularly mature. Understandable though

But those are all human observations - no part of science isn't anthropocentric in terms of what it tells us.

I guess also different traditions or even labs can give conflicting answers to important questions. I think deferring to science generally is admirable though - just testing some assumptions. I think it may not be as helpful as you take it to be overall.

This doesn't seem to mention or indicate any specific temperature increase? 12-15C is an absolutely catastrophic change that I've never seen claimed...

I think it might be best that if you see yourself having typed out more than 50 words you just put it in you drafts :lol: You do not seem capable of reading clearly, understanding context, understanding that your vitriol is boring and unhelpful or many other things that make you a precisely unproductive and combative member of this forum who rarely wades into substantive philosophical discussion. You may be incapable of understanding, But i've actively tried to come to terms with you several times. You want the drama. That's shit.

Take care Mikie. Let's hope hte new site has a block function

Ok - and in principle, yep. But there's no chain of reasoning for me to respond to in your OP (or, imo a coherent narrative even). So i'll stay with the original questions rather than moving on to further statements and questions that obscure the initial objection.

Why should I accept a theory of consciousness produced by that very same human consciousness? — Questioner

Now that's a good question - but this would apply to your own, no?

Yes, i understand. I doubt it was particularly moving besides your first point - finally having access to the fact that there are pre-civilised (as it were - horrid term) societies must have been a real upheaval.

I wasn't just an observer in my life. — Questioner

That wasn't suggested, but what Outlander is saying to you is a factual narrative of how morality comes about (in the absence of the type of claim you're explicitly not making: God made me moral).

I don't think you provided anything which I would call a chain of reasoning. I can't quite pull apart what I can't see is there.

Right-o.

they test whether you'll honor your conviction or yield to please them — RadicalJoe

This seems a surefire way to invite parasites into your life.

With this name swap effected, does my OP present a coherent chain of reasoning you can track from premise (Reality is a socially-embedded interpretation of physics.) to conclusion (Meaning is sentience dependent because its value exists in reference to the live or die fork.)? — ucarr

No.

No need to apologise - it seemed interesting, I just am not grasping it. Could be me!

Both about voter fraud — Mikie

Well, I'm telling you, point blank, it wasn't. You came into it late, and I am telling you that wasn't what was being discussed.

which are both exceedingly stupid. And being used to justify stupid new regulations. — Mikie

There is no end to your inabilities.

interested in facts — Mikie

Hehe.

Can you provide something that might support such an egregious claim?

The reasons are that you consistently crowd your mind with the concerns you are posting about, almost non-stop. The reasons are not those you list. These are excuses for not doing the toughest part of hte work, which is to just stop. Look. Listen. Instead of trying to mentally control everything - or, as it seems, searching for and soliciting ways to control everything.

Just stop doing that; stop reading philosophy looking for an answer and just sit in silence. Enjoy the sunset. Just shut up (internally, I mean). Its not that easy, but it is that simple. Everyone has said similar things to you. I can't see how you continuing down this path is anything but irrational self-destructive.

Sincerely, someone who was clinically, chronically depressed for years and has attempted on their life several times.

I can't understand what you're getting at, sorry.

What if we try through the "other"? In other words, the other is the one who confirms the fact of our existence. — Astorre

This doesn't seem to be something one can respond to intelligibly. I do not mean at all to be rude, but I can't understand this.

The "liberal" individual rights proponents the modern right admires (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, etc.) borrowed "liberally" from Native American philosophers. — Ecurb

This is.... not the case. there's some vague, unfounded assumptions in Braeber among others, that travel reports were somehow assimilated as philosophically serious, and adapted to enlightenment thinking. That doesn't seem to be particularly well supported, although, the previous denial of any influence is also apparently not well supported.

Now, you claim, we don't know what consciousness is. Upthread, I already mentioned - we all know what it is, since we all have it — Questioner

Tell us then.

[q

But I’m guessing you won’t share it. — Mikie

Well, no. I'm not having a substantive debate here, and again, it isn't about those claims anyway (and, unless you're about to admit bad faith, its clear I don't take them too seriously or support some campaign to 'sort it out' or whatever). It is about the concept of unverified voting - which responses seem to indicate most people aren't happy with anyway, it's just that they aren't occurring. That's fine.

But what about Trump and Rogan? They couldn’t be screaming about these things for nothing… — Mikie

They certainly could.

literally repeated what you said — Mikie

You "literally" did you. You suggested, in your own words, an uncharitable claim i didn't make and didn't intimate would be my position. Check yourself.

Anyway, my advice to you elsewhere stands: why repeatedly embarrass yourself by wading into topics you know nothing about, like US voting? Stick to fluff. :up: — Mikie

You don't take my advice. I am loathe to take yours. You constantly comment on things you're clearly not up to. Apparently, so do i.

Onward we go Mikie. Smoke a joint and calm down.

You don't have to get the special ID to vote in my state. I don't think you can get a passport without it, though. — frank

That's cool. Can you vote upon some standard ID doc?

There is a rage growing in women. — Questioner

Speak for yourself, Questioner.

ancient instincts awake — Questioner

To attend protests? LOL.

Stop reading philosophy and go and enjoy a sunset.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

By all means attack the connection I have made, but please don’t imply that I haven’t attempted to make one. — Herg

While I appreciate your elucidation, with respect this is not what I asked for. You made a connection between two conceptions of one assumed fact (which falls back on the previous objection).

What I want is something like:
Kicking puppies causes them harm =
It is wrong to kick puppies.

I cannot conceive of this, other than just claiming (as ethical naturalists often do) supervenience. That's fine if so, I just wanted that clarified. Please do not feel attacked. These are discussions about ethics and its best we stay away from taking things personally. I feel you havent clarified yourself or provided the baove. That's all.

torturing B is painful for B, that pain is intrinsically bad, that T is therefore instrumentally bad, and that if A is exercising free will when he performs T, then T is morally bad. I am not simply associating the facts in my mind, I have argued that they are connected in fact. — Herg

Fwiw, it wasn't sufficiently clear to me that this was your fundamental form of claim. Apologies I missed it.

I can see that you're trying to make that connection, but the second bold collapses into my prior objection. Why is pain intrinsically bad? I think, unfortunately, this is just wrong. There are plenty of counter-examples. Enough to make it a little silly, don't you think?

My claim is that pain is intrinsically bad. Where pain is beneficial, it is instrumentally good, which does not contradict my claim. — Herg

That's fine and i fully take the point. There's no logical incoherence in that. What i'm claiming is incoherent is making the claim that pain is intrinsically bad. But that's somewhat for another time, tbh.

The issue is that instrumental value is basically all we can actually assess. "intrinsically bad" begs a question. That means there is a basic, fundamental disconnect between what you'd call a natural fact "pain is bad" and the moral claim "it is wrong to cause pain". Far too much contingency in that for it to be a fact in any sense, imo.

evidence that (a) she was in a great deal of pain and (b) she had a strong negative response to the pain, which supports my contention that pain is intrinsically bad. — Herg

It absolutely does not. It supports the facts that a) she was in pain, and b) she had a strong negative response to the pain. This is personal discomfort, writ large. It does not follow, in any way, that pain is intrinsically bad. You've illustrated a single instance which cannot be extrapolated to every other instance. It says a lot more about your wife, than it does about the intrinsic nature of pain.

But why did she see it as bad? If you don’t think it is because it was intrinsically bad, then what was her reason? — Herg

Because she didn't enjoy it. People get the same feeling from eating food they don't like.

There is genuinely no connection in your posts between the claimed natural fact, and the moral claim such that
A. Pain is intrinsically bad; can be supported through to;
B. Therefore, do not pain.

And not true. they don't just register anyone who walks in the door. — Questioner

I have seen evidence which would support that claim. I'm not standing heavily behind it, but the entire argument is that people should be able to vote without being verified. In that context, what are you indicating there? I'm just plum unaware of what that process would be, sans ID or whatever..

So your conception is that somewhere in the universe, people are allowed to vote without any check on whether they eligible to do so. Is this really the argument you’re making? — Mikie

You can re-read and answer this yourself. Please do not put words in people's mouths. We're making some headway recently.

I understand it differently. — Questioner

That's fair, but I think its on you to reach across a divide in this case - the definitions proffered above are those used by the vast majority of people. "consciousness" is the abstract concept of first-person phenomenal awareness and then you can then fill it with fun stuff like bikes and empathy, the sky and Love and what have you.. Lots to be discussed there, closer to your conception, but on these initial steps I think you're certainly talking at cross-purposes with most people here. Just a heads up :)

I'm a fan. Didn't find it a slog at all. That said, I far, far, far prefer Crying of Lot 49.

By 2100, the average temperature in Jerusalem will be 14-16 degrees hotter than it is now. — frank

I'm going to look into this at a time where I'm not tied to a discussion about it, but is this statement something you truly believe? That the average temp in Jerusalem by 2110 let's say, will be 40C or 104f?

he idea that there is any significant number of illegals voting is simply ridiculous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok. That's not relevant to this issue, unless it is for you. Let's assume all the current speculation comes to fruition, and there's multiple legitimate cases about large numbers of ineligible voters. Let's just say that's true. Cool. I wont be mentioning it again.

They can't even get the eligible motivated! — Metaphysician Undercover

So what?

It's crazy to think that there's a bunch of ineligibles just champing at the bit, to cast a vote for nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wait; what? A vote for ...nothing? I cannot understand what you might mean. There are plenty of reasons for illegals to vote, if they're able.

Obviously, the need is to go the other way, make it easier for people to vote, not more difficult. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't difficult. That's the entire point. It isn't difficult, and most countries have no issues with these requirements. We do where I live. Want to know something? It was literally never spoken about, complained about or mentioned as anything other than a good for election security until BLM started getting international coverage. It's coattails.

As far as I am concerned, saying its fine for anyone to vote in federal elections without oversight or confirmation of eligibility is essentially ending secure elections. And, that is what it is by definition. So, it's not all that interesting to me whether people are doing it. It is that it shouldn't be allowed by the system.

On the other hand, what I actually have a problem with is people complaining about not being able to vote (when they probably wouldn't anyway if there wasn't social cache in complaining), due to regulations that apply to everyone. Everyone. It is fair. I think something I agree with NOS4a2 on is that the trust in the "system" as somehow uncorrupt, while discussing support for avenues for corrupt activity is bizarre.

I think probably that's an overstatement, but it definitely seems unfounded and mostly the arena for the gullible, yes. Luckily, for the argument supporting voter regulation, that's not really relevant.
The point is that allowing people to vote with no check on whether they are eligible is stupid. It is stupid.

Because there is an unexamined assumption that existence is not the basic good.
If we interrogate that, we have to confront some other questions. My take on the trolley problem actually takes this into account by saying that existence is not intrinsically good, and neither is life. Therefore, no decision is better than a decision which will, on my say so, kill that person, by my choice.

Not trying to argue that solution; simply saying that the trolley problem, as stated, very rarely gets people to discuss this aspect. It's just about responsibility for most.

Oh lol, yes. I think you may have responded to the wrong thing. I'm suggesting it does no such thing.

Thanks for replying to my post. — Herg

very welcome :) Nice to see you back, i suppose.

I’m an ethical naturalist, so I disagree. — Herg

Can you give me a 1:1 between a moral, and a natural fact? Bear in mind heavily that simply stating one of each, that you associate in your mind, isn't a respond to this particular query.

I shall show my hand slightly: This appears incoherent to me. They are of a totally different kind of "fact" if there even are any in either camp.

This is because I think it is a natural fact that pain is intrinsically bad — Herg

Can you say why? I know plenty of kinds of pain which are beneficial, or indicia of positive outcomes. This seems to falter here, already (this applies to physical and emotional pain, such as they are different).

Without free will, torture is still bad, but it isn’t morally bad — Herg

However, I can understand this statement IFF I saw a basis for the earlier claims.

The rest of this is a bit difficult to respond to in whole, so forgive the piecemeal nature..

My wife broke her thigh bone a few years ago, and when they were doing scans on her broken leg in the hospital, I had to listen to her screaming every time they moved the leg. — Herg

You are giving me your personal discomfort. Not a reason something is inherently bad.

I think she would have said the pain was bad — Herg

I agree. That doesn't make it intrinsically bad. It means, on that occasion, your wife saw it as bad.

the badness was just in her mind — Herg

Where is it?

Pain is bad because of what pain is like — Herg

That doesn't make sense. You then need to run this same exercise for whatever you decide "pain is like". If you're going to rely on a deeper fact, that also has to be supported in terms of the claim, I think. I'm not quite seeing the depth that could get you there, or more than opinion.

Back to you

I can't glean anything from this (which, now that I've edited my comment (while you were replying it seems) is ironic).

Could you perhaps try to say something I can respond to, if you're going to?

If they cannot make it free and easy for every citizen to get ID then it should be the government's burden to prove that a voter isn't a citizen and not a citizen's burden to prove that they are. — Michael

Yeah, got you; thanks for that. I understand the impetus.

I think that's utterly absurd and probably a cause for concern if you're ever in position to run any large number of people.

My reply would be that your actions in the world contradict this. — Sam26

I've never seen anyone do anythign remote closely to what Michael describes. One who's never left their room, but wears VR could be said to appear that way. This just, again, as always, misses the issue entirely. I suspect it's just not interesting to the likes of yourself, Essa and Banno - but then, why continue contributing?

When Banno claims he has, it makes no sense. He just claims it. Onward we go..

Because we're talking about the administrator of the website we're on who, despite any opinions, does more for the site than most us. And, in the face of dispute, there's a process, of a kind. I just think the process is broken, so I'm unsurprised.

No point talking shit about the guy running the place beyond noting that its not surprise others are having a similar experience. I doubt anything more could come from this thread anyway. Go to Feedback...

No. This follows from my premise, that the nature of the right is a political orientation towards elite interests. You may think that is bias. I think it is systematically true, and thus far I haven't seen a counterexample — hypericin

I could simply repeat my comment. You've not furthered hte position - just stated an opinion again. I gave you a reason why it appears to be bias.

Rhetorically, that these are offered is beyond dispute. — hypericin

Then you should have clarified, huh? :joke:

They absolutely should be allowed to vote.

All I'm hearing from you is "fuck poor people". — Michael

That's an extremely odd response to what he's saying.

Verified citizens should be able to vote. That's just an administrative no brainer. It has nothing to do with attitudes towards poor people. Are you saying that anyone, anywhere, without providing that they're actually legally able to vote, should be able to vote? I just want to get clear before making any further comments.