Objectively, universally. — Dan

Oh, I see. You're yelling into the ether then...

The compression is actually allowed to lose a lot -- or even most -- of the information contained in physical reality. — Tarskian

Not if you want to reconstruct reality rather than a pale comparison. In any case, it sounds like you're apply concepts in data processing to "reality" which seems... off, to say the least. Is there a basis for it? I'm always interested in metaphysical speculation of that kind.

Don’t you mean because the world is perfectly non-ethical? — Fire Ologist

LOL, Yes, I suppose so. May not non-ethical, but ethically bereft/empty/inapt. I hope you groked what I was getting at though... Simply that there is no need for ethical thinking (and no humans would be just that). In fact, it may be that it's not possible in that scenario. But probably that leads into some kind of exegesis which isn't my bag. I say that because, having re-read my passage it would require a "view from nowhere". Speculatively, I don't see an issue though - we're not in that world :P

DiAngelo has been accused of plagiarising several passages from her PhD (and some subsequent) thesis. From POC.
Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Schadenfreude - I have to say.

For sure, there are many types of unpleasantness, and not every one is pain. "Unpleasant" is the wider concept. So not all unpleasantness is pain, but all pain involves unpleasantness. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it doesn't. I seriously do not think you are taking enough time to read these replies. I am directly, stringently addressing this point in each reply and you seem to miss it entirely. I have given you several inarguable examples of why pain is not always unpleasant and further that this isn't part of it's nature. If you reject this, fine, but you need to actually tell me why all the examples and reasons are wrong. You have not. The quote you used directly contradicts your position by my existing in this discussion. You can't be missing that, can you? You're replying, after all, to someone who does not always experience unpleasantness along with pain.

because one cannot have pain without unpleasantness — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes they can. Sorry.

unpleasantness does not imply pain — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed. This was never put forward. Unpleasantness infers (well, requires) discomfort to obtain. Pain does not require unpleasantness to obtain. It simply doesn't. I don't know why you're claiming this against empirical evidence of millions of humans experiencing pain without unpleasantness - and in fact, experiencing pleasure from pain. This is just... why are you trying to simply erase a load of facts about other people's experience, including mine? Are you trying to say I'm lying?

"Inheres" means existing within something, as an essential property. — Metaphysician Undercover

I got you the first time. You're just not confronting what i've said at all. My reply is directly relevant to this, and unfortunately, shows it to be wrong. Pain is a sensation directed at the host attending to an injury. Unpleasantness is just one mode of this occurring to cut through other stimuli. Pain is patently not always unpleasant. I experience this fact all the time. Why are you not getting this??? "hurts so good"

so pain does not inhere within the definition of unpleasantness. — Metaphysician Undercover

This wasn't suggested. I think you're maybe off on your own tangent now? All i put forward was that "unpleasant" sensation requires discomfort to be so labelled, but "pain" does not require "unpleasant" for hte same. And it doesn't. Sorry if you still think it does - this one isn't a "positional" disagreement. You are wrong. As I and billions of other's instantiate. If you've literally never felt a pain without also feeling that it is unpleasant, that's a shame - but understandable. It's a tricky thing. I absolutely, almost sexually, enjoy the pain of scalding water on the tops of my hands, my inner thighs, behind my shoulders and right on my hip bones (to the point that i had very midly burned myself many times in pursuit of it (opportunistic pursuit, to be sure)). It is definitely pain. But it is definitely not unpleasant. Its a tool telling me to stop fucking running scalding water on myself lmao. EVENTUALLY this can get unpleasant - as, when my skin starts melting, my brain kicks it up a few notches. Fair, too. I'm not exactly the most caring about my own body in this way. I self harmed for years. another notch on this club.

Have you not researched those two aspects yet? — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems you did not read that paragraph very well, as nothing you've said aligns with anything I've said. Huh.

If every red is a percept then it makes no sense to speak substantially about red percepts. The equivocation becomes more clear if you compare, "The red pen," to, "The red percept." If we follow your lead and reduce each statement consistently, then the first renders, — Leontiskos

This is a an opportunistic reversal of Banno's argument. We use language differently. Great! "red" conceptually is a percept (lets pretend) and "the red pen" or "the red percept" is a label which is conventionally used to cut-down the actual phrase "Items we use to write with, containing ink flowing to a nib, which reflects light in "such and such a range" so as to trigger, under normal circumstances, that percept referred to as "the colour red" as a property of the brain-generated image of the object viewed by the sensory organ". But we don't say that. We say "red pen". Not "because we say X, therefore, Y". That's just shitty reasoning that makes no sense unless you think that language literally creates the world (I think Banno does).

Nothing around this thread violates this. There's nothing circular about hte fact that we re-use, mis-use and multiply-use words - and can be wrong in how we use them. The convention "literally" has had to undergo a redefinition because of it's constant misuse. Not a misuse anymore, is it?? Because convention said so. Not in any way relevant to trying to tease out the basis of colour experience. This doesn't touch on any of the science/scientistic claptrap you lot are stuck on. However, Michael has made some mistakes... not my circus. I just reply where I can see a point.

We don't teach children what colors are by sharing are experiences of mental percepts of color — Richard B

yes we do. We literally compare items and teach children that the correlation in their mind between these items is due to colour concepts. Shades come after and probably fit better into what you're talking about. having raised two children, and specifically tasked with introducing the younger of the two to colours and hte understanding of them (as between objects) says I know that this is hte case.

"basic stuff" but you don't understand inferences, or fixing the nonsense you come up with sometimes. Tsk tsk.

You'll need to let me know what this has to do with AN first (i can save the time: It does not have more than an aesthetic resemblance to the issues AN wants to deal with). — AmadeusD

yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. — AmadeusD

I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons — AmadeusD

It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. Those who are currently living aren't relevant, — AmadeusD

There are clearly not. There are potential victims. — AmadeusD

If these people were not having children, and increasing the sheer number of sufferers on the planet, I don't think this argument would any weight as one's delusion becomes one's reality internally. — AmadeusD

(this one I've picked, because it clearly shows me saying something stupid, but still attests to your error.

There are plenty more i recall, but I don't want to go through pages, and pages when the search function isn't picking everything up...

ANists hysterically confuse 'preventing possible lives' with 'preventing (and reducing) harm to / suffering of actual lives'. — 180 Proof

So, in light of all the above, it is clear you're either misinformed or trolling, as these are standard AN fare. The suffering of those alive doesn't lead to any position for hte AN-er, other than to say most people already living have a rational interest in continuing to exist. For the most part, that isn't part/parcel of the AN position any given person might hold. It's an externality due to the A-symmetry argument. It seems you either reject, or don't understand it. It makes it almost impossible for an ANist to be motivated by extant human suffering because the purported results of hte view have nothing to do with those living people (except to the extent one might want to discourage procreation - but that's clearly not a motivating factor for the view). Perhaps it's just time you step away from a thread all you do is drive-by and say things that aren't quite right in lol.

If you have an argument against that argument — apokrisis

It has literally nothing to do with what's going on in this discusison. Its a total non sequitur. 'argument' against is inapt. You are simply putting words in people's heads. Sorry to tell you, but I don't look for problems. YOu need to just accept that, or accept that you're trying to mind-read.

But once you declare no line can be drawn, no balance of interests can exist, then that becomes reason eating itself. — apokrisis

True, and completely irrelevant. The balance is in the a-symmetry, for most ANists.

So does your AN charter need to add the clause of no sex at all as that is putting you at risk for breaking the faith? Do you need to go out and get sterilised because you could always get drunk one night or duped into performing a service for some cunning natalist? — apokrisis

One of those options would be preferable. This is not controversial. Non ANists do these things all the time for plenty of reasons - many, ethical (are you(not you, but rhetorically) aware you child might be missing a chromosome? Likely, you wont procreate. What's the difference there, but degree?)

The risks might be diminishing, but even a vasectomy fails 1 in 10,000 times. At some point do you not eventually get a pass on this? — apokrisis

It is almost certain you're arguing with a ghost. I've already addressed this. Certainty is not involved here. You are once again, wrong about the position and are arguing with no one

Does even the AN extremist accept that imperatives have their pragmatic limits? — apokrisis

I don't think even you know what you're talking about now. The only relevant point I could make, though it actually isn't relevant to what you've said - is that an ANist is concerned with not causing more suffering. Nowhere in AN does it posit that there is a 100% fool-proof way to do this. If your point comes down to the infantile suggestion that we can't guarantee that sex wont result in a birth, I have no idea why you think this matters. I can't answer for the extremist, but as Weinberg put its "the risk of a life time" is the risk we're talking about. The risk of sex resulting in a birth/pregnancy is irrelevant unless you're already an ANist. So, perhaps stay on topic. It is getting really tedious having to bring you back to something sensible in every reply.

We can get back to my commonsense position that what matters in regard to approaching reproduction ethically is not whether the prospective parents can have the baby sign off on the whole exercise in advance, but that the parents are wholeheartedly engaged in making it a turn of as a positive choice. — apokrisis

Hooo boy haha, there isn't a heads or tails to reply to here The bolded (whcih is the distilled claim from your POV) is absolute fucking nonsense and so the paragraph is empty. (no, I don't "not get it". You are literally talking non-sense).

One can have a productive ethical debate where there are two complementary imperatives in play – like risks and rewards — apokrisis

This is one of hte stupidest claims about ethical discussion i've ever seen in my life. That's... that's cute.

But if you set up your ethics on the side of a slippery slope fallacy, then why would you expect that to be useful or persuasive? — apokrisis

Haven't. You just are wrong in pretty much all the meaningful ways one can be in this discussion. You literally don't understand (or care) by your own admission what's being discussed. And your replies make this extremely clear. It feels like a child at the adults table, tbh.

But that is just your failure to understand my position. — apokrisis

You don't understand, or apparently care about ours... Yet you're constantly making sweeping, general proclamations about it, and then saying pithy but empty nonsense like this:

My core principle is that there is always a dialectical balance in anything that could matter. A trade-off. And trade-offs ought to be optimised in a win-win fashion. That is the answer that is worth seeking. My approach leads me to pragmatism. We do the best we can by reasoning. We should always expect a complementary balance to exist in nature. Complementary balances is after all how nature can even exist. — apokrisis

Sorry to say, but this is the form preaching takes. The bolded doesn't actually present any sense whatsoever. It's metaphysical speculation in the most strangely uninteresting form i've seen in a while. It's impossible to know why you're doing this, but it's enough now kiddo. Either get educated (and actually give a fuck) about the subject, or post in another thread. It is utterly bizarre that you would, several exchanges ago, point out that you don't get, or care.... and continue replying. I smell some rather obvious self-loathing, or dishonesty.

No. It was a misstatement which I've fixed. You're very much welcome.

really have the distinctive property that they do appear to have. =/= They are red. — Banno

Jesus christ lol.

If you would read what I posted — TonesInDeepFreeze

I did. It is appearing, more or more credibly, that you're not really doing the same, as there is clarity from comment one of this exchange and several attempts to end the clear horseshit going on here.

"Why did it take nine pages" is very, very clear indicator, if you're actually paying attention, that I assent to RussellA's position. And, our subsequent exchange made that explicitly, painfully clear directly to you.

If you still have questions, perhaps aim them elsewhere as I have answered anything relevant several times now - and that's ignoring hte spoon-feeding required being a problem.

It could have been better written. — apokrisis

LMAO, possibly, but your response seems to just be inapt, even on review. The core point was missed.

Well who gives a fuck when you put it like that. — apokrisis

You're trying to assert that mind-reading is a sound practice. Far be it from me my friend :)

Which is another way AN harms itself as a reasonable ethical system. — Fire Ologist

I'll try to sort out your comments below, but I do not see how that, in any way, harms itself. If the ethical goal is to no longer require ethical systems (because the world is perfectly ethical) then it is precisely, as an ethical system, that AN succeeds (obviously if you disagree with it then success is subjective, but I hope you get the sense in which I mean this).

If the goal of ethics is to eliminate ethics — Fire Ologist

I'm unsure this is the right description of the goal, but onward..

we could just ignore any pangs of morality now instead — Fire Ologist

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but this seems to violate the former idea: If we're ignoring moral pangs (though, I couldn't give a shit what your moral pangs are. Show me the results of your behaviour) then ethics would say this is unethical, in some sense. You are not attended to ethics in this case. The case I'm, at least superficially, putting forward as a goal of AN would be that there are no ethics to attend. I think there is a clear distinction, myself, because you're right - the conception you've described here is inapt, and probably self-defeating.

using scales of ethics and motality to help decide one’s way forward for sake of eliminating ethics is a bit like using math to show how numbers can’t exist (or in this case shouldn’t exist). — Fire Ologist

I do not see this at all, unfortunately. They are not the same thing, or comparable. To be fair, morality would likely only pertain to the acts of hte living. Ethics are to do with the effect of those acts so there can be a difference between the two 'scales' being considered, I think - though, I ahve written this on the fly while editing a settlement statement so go easy LOL

Not to sound rude, but did you actually read my reply? My position is that:

recognizing for problems — apokrisis

Is a more apt description. — AmadeusD

Your POV that we're 'looking for problems' is simply not the case. ANd, it is not for you to decide whether or not it is. We see things differently. You are not right. We are not 'right'. You are, however, wrong about the motivation. Recognizing, not seeking. If you do not accept this, that is pure bad faith. There is nothing to explain, from our position. You are simply wrong about what we are thinking, or motivated by. And you couldn't possibly know, so... yeah.

Yet you keep falling into the same trap of asserting you know how the body/brain works while at the same time asserting that we cannot trust our senses. — Harry Hindu

Not quite, no. I've addressed this apparent hypocrisy recently and wont rehash because I'll make a pigs ear of it.

How do I know that you read what you read about the body/brain accurately when you depend on your eyes to see the words? How do we know that some mad scientist didn't plant these ideas in your head, or that you didn't hallucinate the experience of reading "facts" about bodies and brains? — Harry Hindu

These are the precise issues I addressed in the referenced response.

So I 100% take that objection, — AmadeusD

Suffice to accept this part of it, at least LOL.

Just because someone can change the time on the clock to report the wrong time does not mean that clocks are useless in telling time — Harry Hindu

This is precisely the defence I've run, in other terms.

In other words, we can determine the validity of what one sense is informing us by using other senses, observing over time and using reason. — Harry Hindu

Yes, correct. This, despite not having any direct access, or certitude about our sensory apprehensions. Its a best-guess, and if that's the best we have, it's the best we have.

Huh. I think that's a very strange thing to say. Unpleasantness is exactly what "pain" indicates to me. It refers to a wide range of unpleasant feelings, just like the dictionary states. What does "pain" mean to you? Does it simply mean the sensation of touch? Are all touches painful to you, or do you have a way to distinguish a painful feeling from a not painful feeling? — Metaphysician Undercover

Very much fair, and I think this may illustrate what I'm saying: Clearly, as between you and I, there is not a 1:1 match between pain and "unpleasantness". Pain (i.e a sensation that indicates injury - physical, or mental (but mental is awhole different discussion I think)) doesn't, inherently, mean displeasure. Maybe that's clearer?
Perhaps you need to maintain my position (that pain is mental) to support the idea that pain is inherently unpleasant, as clearly, to the injury part (i.e the "physical" aspect of pain) this is patently not hte case.

It would take a great deal of benevolence to make up for the bilge he gets paid for spewing out into the public discourse. — Vera Mont

It was a bt of a cheeky quip - I don't think its possible to call someone an asshole from their public output, unless its criminal/socially criminal. I've seen some examples of that from him, but far more examples of him being compassionate, understanding and vulnerable. Again, can provide those instances if you're interested in them.
I think you're probably somewhat mislead by what you've seen, if this is the case. In his public life, he presents a character almost the polar opposite to that which is glommed onto for criticism purposes. ONe prime example is his talk about 'socially enforced monogamy' being misinterpreted as if he's advocating for forced relationships or something. Far from it. Just one eg... He's an incredibly effective therapist and his general self-help stuff is honestly really, really really good for our times, and for hte crisis he's trying to address in mostly men. That said, It's not in any way going to improve your life, I don't think hahaha. Just generally like to ensure people get both sides of something like that, when so much bullshit is bandied about.

some who understand the fascist relationship with economics might not agree with you — Athena

True - I suppose I would be looking for how you can instantiate an entire political mode from economics.. Though, i understand the 'slippery slope' aspect of seemingly-innocent policy changes.

However, someone as good-looking as your avatar doesn't have to know everything — Athena

AWww shucks :P

As someone on the autism spectrum, the question arises for me of whether in an afterlife I would be autistic.

If not, then it doesn't seem like it would be me in the afterlife.
If so, and for eternity, I expect I'd think the afterlife kind of sucks. — wonderer1

Interesting - I would never had thought to ask this, though, I am essentially not open to an afterlife that retains any personality whatsoever. INteresting, nonetheless.

Once you get into a mindset oflooking recognizing for problems — apokrisis

Is a more apt description. You may still think this is inapt for life in general, but it is certainly bad faith to attribute behaviours you're, in the sentence, deeming problematic, when that's not established - its just an appearance from your POV :)

projection and non sequitur — 180 Proof

Seems the modus operandi. I cannot fault, though, as it's likely I've come across like this most of the time to you also(and that's ignoring our actual disagreements lol. I just have ideas that are going to be sometimes bad).

The answer is 1994:

- Leon: The Professional
- The Crow
- Natural Born Killers
- Interview with the Vampire
- Four Weddings and a Funeral
- Corina Corina
- Legends of the Fall
- The Lion King
- Forrest Gump
- True Lies
- Ed Wood
- Bulets over Broadway
- Pulp Fiction
- Farinelli
- Clear and Present Danger
- Only You
- Black Beauty
- Don Juan
- Priscilla: Queen of the Desert
- The Shawshank Redemption
- The River Wild
- Stargate
- It Could Happen To you
- Immortal Beloved

I could go on. Surely, this is a personal opinion. But its note debatable either ;)

Same goes from albums. 1994 was an absolute watershed.

Seen some of his videos, gods help me! — Vera Mont

Ah yep, fair. Would you like any that show his other side? Well, tbf, he has several - but he is often, quite extremely misconstrued. That said, there are plenty of examples of non-misconstrued videos of his that are batshit. LOL. Wondered if you wanted the humanizing aspect.

Aren't we all? Isn't that the purpose of this present endeavour? — Vera Mont

LOL, yes I suppose so. Probably better if more and more understand these discussions to be such.

Do you know him personally? Or is this just sort of yelling into the ether "hes an AH"?

Thanks Dan. Unfortunately, I don't actually think you're being all that clear.

The choice between whether 1.one person loses their life or five lose their sight is morally important because it leads to consequences which are 2.good and/or bad. They are good and/or bad due to the gain and/or loss of 3.freedom (by which I mean ability of persons to understand and make 4. their own choices) involved. — Dan

All the bolded creates a murky, insufficiently direct sort of paragraph. By number, the questions I would ask to clarify (this, meaning I've understood you to be aligning with what I've said, just linguistically uncomfortable, so are re-stating):

1. Which person? The chooser, or (any one of) the subjects?;
2. For whom? The chooser, or (any one of) the subjects?;
3. For whom? The chooser, or (any one of) the subjects?; and
4. Whose choices?
-- ----- --------- ------ -----------

my stab at the answers, which, if true, mean you are saying what i'm saying:

1. Any one of the subjects;
2. Any one of the subjects;
3. Any one of the subjects; and
4. Any one of the subjects.

So, it seems the choice being made (i.e by the Chooser, not one of the subjects) has no moral value other than the way in whcih is adjusts the ability of the subjects to make their choice. This seems an exact, contextual, instantiation of:

It isn't because the choice itself is morally valuable that we should care which option is picked, it is because of the consequences. — Dan

This is all to say, if so, it was sufficiently clear in my first attempt, as I see it. But, I think you are not being particularly clear and I can now see how MU is getting what they're getting.

I did not say that, thank you very much.

was in response to about eight posts — AmadeusD

(your point is these posts were an exchange between yourself and RussellA - unfortunately for me, it was also a couple of other posters, not just you two. My point was distancing my reply from the personal aspect you're tied to).

You've taken the worst reading I can get from it (that, instead of what I actually did - which was distance my response from any personal comment) such that you now think I was responding to you (both) directly. That is not the case, or what I wrote. It was somewhat imprecise though. It was a comment on the previous set of comments, which were not to, about or for me - not a response to them. So I'll cop to that misunderstanding entirely - I apologise with no qualifier.

Otherwise, this is a roundabout. You misunderstood, I have clarified - you've accepted, and yet here we are. I reject your position on the basis its an emotional reaction to something you've read into my posts - and will now move on :) Didn't meant to offend, and don't really care about it anymore.

But as it stood, it was you making a snarky put down of something or other. So, a form of dismissiveness. It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope. Still nope. It is not. This is simply you outlining an ambiguity and then claiming the least-charitable version for your own ends. Not sure why you would, and it's not for me to explain.

It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yeah, but it was neither. Sorry pal.

You haven't addressed the specifics of my argument about it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes I have. Multiple times. I have, in fact, teased apart several direct misinterpretations you've made. But you're still here, intent on finding a way for me to have impugned you. A sad affair, to be sure.

But it's dishonest to pretend that one hasn't been sarcastic and to pretend that not even is it reasonable that another took you as sarcastic — TonesInDeepFreeze

Luckily, those two things are true, and I am not being dishonest.

You ought not put strikethrough across my words within a quote like that.

I said "naturally" and I did not strike it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That was the point my guy. You did not 'naturally' react. You misinterpreted, perhaps had your ego hurt, and assumed the worst in all three turns (the initial "Why did it take...", the "I can only laugh.." and my actual responses in this exchange).

You can only lead a horse to water. I tried to squash the 'beef'. Four times now, actually. You do not want to. So be it. I will treat you as you request. Though, I would ask that you do not consistently multi-post,. and just edit the initial post. I will notice.

You are clearly making some extremely sensitive inferences that don't make sense. No idea why you would want me to be insulting you, but there we are. You're wrong, and clearly so.
In lieu of hand-holding you through it:

Oh, is that what you meant to convey? You have a curious way of communicating, I'll give you that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I can only laugh.

I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you. — AmadeusD

so I revert to the above appreciation. — AmadeusD

Take care.

the decision of which to save has a great deal of moral content/weight/import because it has consequences for the ability of persons to understand and make their own choices. It isn't because the choice itself is morally valuable that we should care which option is picked, it is because of the consequences. — Dan

If I am not missing your point, I think this distills it well in a way that clears the air for what MU has been saying (if not, for them proper).
You're talking about two different values. The value of the choice made (by the 'external' chooser) and the inability of the subjects to make choices about that which belongs to them (life, eyes) due to the choice made by the 'external' chooser.
The former only has moral value inasmuchas it restricts (or doesn't, depending the choice) the freedom of the subjects to make their own choices about that which belongs to them(eyes, life).

Is that right? I've been trying to follow but it gets a bit weedy at times.

clearly indicated at the time. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I maintain it was. It was not in response to you directly, or indirectly.

ou let out a fart of snark that would naturally be understood to be directed at me. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope.

And especially so since the poster you had been previously faulting was me — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yep, so naturally I would have replied to you, right? Whereas I didn't.

naturally counter-attacking and defending. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, and you've clarified why. Nothing makes it reasonable in context, despite your protestations. Given I already made two attempts to say "Cool man, we weren't having such a go at each other as it seemed" I can't be bothered further than saying so again.

Cool man, looks like we didn't intend to have a go at each other the way its been interpreted. Good.

Can we leave the guy alone now? It seems like he was just trying to be honest. — Baden

No, no. Keep it coming. It's entertaining seeing other people wishing I had a different opinion about my own experiences. Its bizarre and interesting that there are minds that twisted back on themselves.

OK, mate. I now understand why you always type and posy with such anger. Living in a country that you don't like is screwed, and maybe you are frustrated every time. Reading your posts, it is more an issue regarding your attitude than the existence of NZ. — javi2541997

I have no idea what you even think you're saying, but I don't post with, or carry any anger. If that's your interpretation of me, I'd just suggest you grow up and realise youre on an internet forum dedicated to argumentation.

It isn't. You complained about the public transport in NZ. I agree the public services of every country have pros and cons, and no one is perfect. — javi2541997

That is whataboutism. Sorry bud.

Again, don't be ungrateful, mate. — javi2541997

I am sorry Javi, but you have precisely zero standing, perspective, or right to make proclamations about my experiences and reactions to my own country. This is just risible on your part.

Just because it is a country that cares for people and doesn't allow you to use excessively the car, doesn't mean it is the "worst" country in the world. — javi2541997

Didn't say it was - what are you on about?

Only developed and rich nations. :lol: I will not see the crank trying to live in Andalucía, Cuba, Venezuela, or Morocco. Nah, everything is messed up in NZ but no way I would raise my kids in Seville. — javi2541997

So, either you're making absolutely no sense or you want me to buy into whataboutism again. No thanks. I'll maintain my actual stance on my actual country instead of making shit up.

No, no. You can't. Hating the country where you live is dumb. — javi2541997

No, no it isn't. It is the case. Clearly, you are not apt to understand that my position on my own country has precisely zero to do with you. It doesn't, and you'd do well to stop pretending it does.

The former, sure. But of hte thread (or at least the wider discussion beyond my contributions) - I just don't see a problem there.

I don't think the latter is dismissive at all.

Boethius' Consolation.

Anyone got notes?

LOL, i'm now genuinely confused. I was intending there to point out that "I can only laugh" was in response to about eight posts, none of which were at or about me best I can tell - it was discussion between yourself and RussellA. Hopefully that clears that issue up :)

(<--) I can only laugh :D

I exercise my prerogative to respond only to what I am motivated to respond to — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yessir, and I the same. I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you.

asking someone for information and then receiving it but without at least posting that the information was received and understood (or not understood, thus requiring elaboration) is also a kind of dismissiveness. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It wasn't aimed at me - the posts in question were responses to other people, so I revert to the above appreciation.

if one's God is not the supernatural being of most Christians' belief, can a person still be a Christian? — tim wood

Depends. Can one's saviour still be Jesus Christ? I'd think so, regardless of hte divinity instantiated from on high within the person of Jesus Christ.

Ah, but you do wish to comment on me personally after all. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Due to your direct responses to me, yes. It would be completely wrong to take that as somehow retroactively meaning I meant to engage you directly initially. You took up the conversation, and I continued. There were several people posting between my comment and my previous comment (looking back, that is). I didn't tag you, or anyone. Clear indicator I am not talking to you so I am glad you've noted that.

I haven't tried to dismiss you. But you haven't interlocutorated much anyway. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You're doing it right here. Hilarious.

Did you enjoy McWhorter's book? — Leontiskos

1. Yes;
2. Your earlier assumption is correct, it's just a good elucidation with great referencing.

I agree regarding Kendi et al. I guess this is just a great counterpoint as its two prominent, intelligent black men basically saying 'not my circus'. It's neat.

A herd animal, by the looks.

Care to shoulder that burden? — creativesoul

Hmm... I get it's a quip, but i'm not quite sure what you mean - your account showed to me (though, I saw this prior) the limb doesn't contain the pain in either the non-, or the phantom case (. Not sure what else could be said here. It might come down to something further on here...

I suppose what I'm trying to get at, is that (this may be askance from Michael/Hanover - if so, please do note it because it seems a bugaboo for you guys) we can't know for certain what's going on. That's actually the basis for discarding certain positions that require it. We can't positively discriminate based on 'experience' but we can remove what's not possible. We can't even experience a situation where the pain is in the toe or the colour is in the pen because they are not experiences open to us. One would need to be a toe, or a pen, to have such an experience of pain or 'being red'. And that, even if possible, would just further complicate the matter for reasons that are cartoonish and irrelevant. No human has ever had an experience of pain without their mind. No one has ever seen a red pen without their mind. So, it seems either there's an inviolable relationship between the two (experience/mind) which is read as a single entity qua whatever qualia you're talking about (pain in a toe, eg) or the claim is that there isn't, and the mind merely imports experiences (i.e pain, colour, texture) from elsewhere. I cannot accept that as it doesn't seem open to me to claim on either the grounds above (i.e we cannot make such positive claims) or because it is in clear violation of several types of experience we actually can have (mental pain mediation is one example). There is no 1:1 when it comes to stimulus v experience. It is all approximate.

What we can do in this context is eliminate unsupportable claims (not unsupported - those could well be the case, but are not being presented correctly). The claim that pain is in the toe is not supportable. We need not be apodictic or even emotionally certain of this to know that our position is not supportable. In the cases in front of us, I see that both 'viewing a red pen' and 'pain in the toe' are mental experiences. This does not rely on any form of scientific claim due to 'objective' experiment. It is self-evident, and only needs itself. However, the issue of the scientific understanding of how pain works certainly presents room for 'us' to do as you describe and that does seem to be happening in other arguments. I don't think I require this viz. I am uncertainexactly what is going on, but I am certain it is not red being imported from without, into my mind, and same with the pain. It is not being imported from the toe to my mind - something else (similar to a radiowave) moves from the triggered area, through my body physically (which does not hurt - important) and arrives in my brain, where my mind is triggered to give me an experience which would seem to be pain the toe so that I know where to tell the doctor it hurts (or whatever.. just a vessel). I would assume, from previous replies, you're going to label this a redherring/strawman etc.. I cannot understand that, if so. It would be helpful if you can set that account right - so far, the above accords with all you've said. Nevertheless, that reliance on 'objective' measures is certainly an issue (and, If I've inadvertently, or simply prior to due consideraiton)

So I 100% take that objection, and pretty much agree that relying on something like the minutiae of scientific anatomy is not that helpful to make a positive claim if we're saying perception is non-veridical. But, perception is close enough to get a lot out of it. And, the 'lot', to my mind, is able to show that it can't be the case (rather than "it is the case that..*insert positive claim*) that pain exists independent of the mind perceiving it. If the argument you're using merely creates a, let's say, inviolable relationship between "actual pain" triggered by an instance of injury, and the purported 'hallucinatory pain' (excepting phantom limb issues, on the grounds you've used to link it to the former "actual" account of pain) then, while I disagree, I can't argue against that. It is a position which cannot be adjudicated on empirical grounds. And, that, is where I think the entire thing lies. Maybe what's going on with the claims positive to a certain mode of perception is that if the institution of 'science' is telling us something like "well, we've never seen X, so we're not saying it's the case" is being taken too far. But, in this way, Leontiskos is laying out a severe red herring. Hanoever is not exempting himself. He's (I think, wrongly) delineating between kinds of expereince of perception. Perceiving 100 experiments that give us the same result, is pretty good, even though digging down Leontiskos is right to say each individual scientist is at the whim of their perception. That is clearly true.

This is on part with the way that our culture treats science as an omnipotent and inscrutable god, such that the word Science may as well always be capitalized. — Leontiskos

I would agree. Yet, you're not able to make the claims you're making on these grounds, so I'm unsure where that would lead... Will let Hanover actually answer instead of my speculation above.

It does not follow that no pain is located in limbs. — creativesoul

Yes, it does actually. In any case, we can actually jettison this entire part of the debate (I am well aware of what I see as erroneous arguments earlier in the thread from yourself - i am not coming at this in bad faith (you may think bad reasoning; so be it)). The disagreement is deeper than an issue of 'pain' and of reducibility, and demonstrability.

What we can do is simply ask:

Where is the pain? If it is in the limb, you can show me.
But you cannot show me pain.
You can show me potential stimulus for pain.
That's all. I need not take this much further to be quite comfortable that your position is not right (yet..)

Further, in this passage:

Hallucinations of red pens never include red pens — creativesoul

You are making a couple mistakes here(on my account - read all as such. I am not here to make absolute claims. I am, and will continue to often be wrong):

This is plainly wrong. An Hallucination, if it is of a red pen (so called), then that is what is present in the hallucination. Your position relies on your position. Which is to say, it is tautological. IFF hallucinations do not include anything they purport to represent (I take this as incorrect for reasons askance from this particular issue) then your point is extremely apt, loud, and clearly made in such a way I could not dispute it other than on grounds of linguistics (though, I wouldn't. That would be clear to me). But, it seems you rely on that there is a strict difference between the image conjured by the mind when eyes are cast, and the one conjured when no eyes are cast. I disagree. There is no solution to this disagreement, as it stands. You think they're not the same, and I do. We're in the weeds now. Onward..
The "red pen" in the hallucination is the same as a "red pen" gleaned from casting your eyes toward the object we (by convention) call a 'red pen' which, importantly, is just denoting it's function, not what it 'actually is'. It is a label indicating what it will cause in the perceiver.
Given this position, yours simply makes no sense. I can't understand why you think the 'red pen' in the Hallucination is not the same as the 'red pen' when one's eyes are cast on an object which, by convention we call a red pen. It might seem silly, but again, on my account they are the same, let's call it, mental image, triggered in different ways. A red pen can be inferred from any writing implement, and an experience of the colour red (mentally speaking). And, that is what the object is actually attuned to, as a conventional object. It is created to induce the experiences we have labeled variously as "(such and such of/for/and/before/after/because of etc)... a red pen". If you hand me what you think to be a red pen, and my experience looking at it is not red, you cannot tell me I am wrong. That is, in fact, what the object triggers in my mental space. On your account, this is an hallucination? (genuine Q, as it's a role reversal from your point about hallucinations not including hte object of their image).

But again, these all make sense on my account - not on yours, so I'm not trying to do some "You're an idiot" type thing here. I think we see things differently enough that we couldn't come to terms. Several of our competing points are independent of our disagreement about that particular point and simply go back to whether a mental image is it's object. I say no, which Hallucinations are a prime evidence for. If a mental image is not synonymous with it's object (which it couldn't possibly be, right?) then we have no appreciable difference to instantiate in some account. Nevertheless, It's probably worth my addressing:

This poor argument is at the bottom of so much confusion on TPF. — Leontiskos

I agree, but you are the confused one. Hanover is exactly right. This is how the body/brain works.

I did not tag you in it. I assessed the page of the thread, laughed, and responded in kind.

You seem to want some kind of insult to land. It wont, because I don't find hte context apt to insult me. So, not sure where you're going - just think its pretty distasteful to do what you've just done in an attempt to find some ad hominem-esque reason for dismissing an interlocutor. Fine. You do you boo.

The pain is in the limb, not the brain. — creativesoul

And yet

despite no longer having a physical extremity located where the pain seems to be coming from — creativesoul

Obviously, pain is not in the limb. That para honestly felt like trolling... Is it?

Oh, and there are no colorless rainbows, nor colorless visible spectrums. — creativesoul

These are aspects of visual world of a perceiver. If you're suggesting, in these terms, that colour inheres in the Rainbow... hehe. Nope. Try changing your terms around to be idependent of perception. Could make some headway..

If you feel the need to respond, directly, in this way, I can only laugh harder.