To continue my trend:

On my First Son by Ben Johnson, 1616

Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy;
My sin was too much hope of thee, lov'd boy.
Seven years tho' wert lent to me, and I thee pay,
Exacted by thy fate, on the just day.
O, could I lose all father now! For why
Will man lament the state he should envy?
To have so soon 'scap'd world's and flesh's rage,
And if no other misery, yet age?
Rest in soft peace, and, ask'd, say, "Here doth lie
Ben Jonson his best piece of poetry."
For whose sake henceforth all his vows be such,
As what he loves may never like too much.

Go over to Questioner's Poetry thread then (apologies if you;'re already there)

Didn't give one. It would be helpful if you didn't make things up as you go :) You've fallen into this habit recently - jaded, maybe? It doesn't matter. Its making for tortured reading, I can say that.

Nice - it is an extremely beautiful country with a rich history.

Unfortunately, I've seen some decent criticism of Cahill which turned me off him. He seems to derive a lot of motivation from theologico-historical commitment. You may not be aware, but Medh (or, Méabh) is not considered an historical figure, but a mythical one. Cahill simply interpolates things like Táin Bó Cúailnge and then goes forth. Likewise... Blackie I, personally, think isn't worth her paper. "mystic" is generally not going to be up my alley. I prefer historical accounts, myself.

You simply cannot make a deal with Trump. And that's why everybody is rapidly making deals with other (Canada with China, EU with Mercosur) because of Trump. — ssu

Unless i'm missing something big in what you're suggesting...

U.S.–China Trade and Economic Deal (general trade framework with commitments on market access, export controls, and agricultural/industrial terms)
Reciprocal Tariff Frameworks with Japan
Reciprocal Tariff Framework with the European Union (baseline 15% tariff and investment/purchase commitments)
Trade Framework with the United Kingdom
Trade Agreements / Reciprocal Tariff Reductions with South Korea
Trade Agreements with Malaysia
Trade Agreements with Cambodia
Reciprocal Trade Frameworks with Thailand
Reciprocal Trade Frameworks with Vietnam
United States–Pakistan Trade Deal
Trade Deals with Argentina
Trade Deals with Ecuador
Trade Deal with Guatemala
Trade Deals with El Salvador
U.S.–Switzerland and United States–Liechtenstein Trade Deal Frameworks

I'm unsure this is either accurate or even a meaningful comment.

The situation is that you've made a claim that makes extremely little sense and has rejected on those grounds. That has been gone over plenty of times, and your resistance boils down to this:

in a sense the same — Banno

This is imprecise, somewhat deceptive and does absolutely nothing for sorting these things out. This is the standard approach from that side of things. It's a shame really. "in a sense" is a weasels hole to slip out through. It is bunk.

It's up to you if you want to think otherwise and go on that way.

Suffice to say you're not even close to being in touch with what's going on there. As you were.

This tracks with your penchant for simply bashing anything you dislike. It is not surprising, given your stated worldviews rest on the assumption that everyone is wrong about everything you like.

I take a very pragmatic approach--knowledge is meant to be used to decide how to act. Both your understanding and mine focus on what it means to justify potential knowledge. For me, the requirement is adequately justified belief. I define "adequate" as providing enough certainty about outcome for us to make a responsible decision. — T Clark

INteresting - divorced from this wider thread's discussion (i guess) this seems a bit odd for me. If the purpose of calling something "knowledge" is to simply ascertain what best guides action (on this view, I don't think certainty is in play) then that fundamentally changes what we consider action-guiding information and the traditional concept of knowledge is lost. I have no intuitive problem with this, but it seems, like many problems, an attempt to semantically reduce an intractable..

Also, Trump is clearly a liar, a con man and a rapist (or, at least, a sexual predator). But how does one "stand against" that. He's already been tried and found guilty (in civil court) and fined hundreds of millions of dollars (for both the fraud and the sexual predation), which he hasn't paid. What else can we do?

My personal animosity toward Trump is based on his personality and his extra-Presidential behavior. I also despise his policies -- but I'm not sure they are more immoral than Obama's drone assassinations. Bill Clinton was also a sexual predator. Should we really let our political biases rule our hearts, as well as our minds? Clinton certainly had more charm than Trump (from my perspective). Perhaps our "love" and "hate" are (and should be) subjective. — Ecurb

The struck out is extremely important, imo. But besides this, well done. You seem to be letting your brain stay in your head :)
I also think anyone who thinks his civil conviction is worth the paper its printed on is lying to themselves. But there we go - different strokes :)

You seem to be intent on dismissing the idea that Indigenous peoples could come up with heart-driven philosophies on their own. I'm not sure why. — Questioner

No. I am not. You are not reading me clearly, at all. I don't wish to continue this.

At 346 pages, it is a detailed look. It was written by Rev. John Heckewelder, a Christian missionary who learned their language and lived among them for many years — Questioner

Celtic is definitely up there for me - being a Celt lmao. I should say, I don't think any prior society really gets in here. They all failed to take account of anything but their in-built belief systems and so we're restricted from true progress. I think that may be why most ended up conquered.

Other than Celtic, I think Rosicrucian society was pretty damn cool: invisible fraternity, scientific enquiry (albeit, hampered by Christian mysticism) - essentially a Christian-flavoured Enlightenment. Unfortunately, it is debated whether or not it existed hahaha.

Further, the Cathars: pushes toward vegetarianism, pretty much Gender equal, still mystic.

I would also say, if we can pinpoint certain groups which were not overtly patriarchal or war-like, some of hte Native American groups were extremely well-suited to their time and place and i imagine had things fairly right, in that context.

Honestly mate, at this stage "No". is sufficient to refute this flailing.

Take care.

My claim is narrower: that the epistemic primacy of experience is itself a substantive theoretical commitment, not a neutral starting point. — Esse Quam Videri

Ok, cool. Much more direct in terms of what to discuss. That's fair. I'm unsure its a theoretical commitment more than a (admittedly, semi-folk) default position of epistemic presentation, rather than something derived from theory. But I do see:

but about whether experience must be treated as epistemically primary in the first place. — Esse Quam Videri

as totally valid, and probably not amendable to true litigation. For me, experience is primary. It is the only (i.e the singular, only, there are no other) avenue to gain data from the world. I cannot understand where else we could place the priority, epistemically, unless we're giving up on human faculties as inefficient or inaccurate or something else. There's a tension here, but hte IRist has to accept the latter is trivially true - but I think the DRist does too, so you're right - there's no deal breaker. Thanks very much for this exchange my man - really, really fun.

I think it's a matter of good faith negotiation. We already knew each other from talking about music in the halls etc... and when I took his class he took me aside prior to the first lesson and just explained "Listen, we're studying Mozart's 41st this term. It's going to be really weird, and I'm uncomfortable, calling you Amadeus. Is that okay?"

"Oh, yeah, sure. Thanks for explaining".
Not

"I wont do what you're asking, and I wont explain without venom".

I did not read anything in the book that suggested this. — Questioner

This account does. I understand you don't see that, but it was a pretty common trope. James Mooney is a really, really good example of this with the Kiowa and other tribes. This isn't even to say there's nothing in what you're saying, but it is certainly not as simple as this would suggest (though, I take it you understand that anyway).

Overtly? — Questioner

Yes, sorry. Yeah, I am well aware - but a Christian missionary reporting this is extremely suspect given:

"Jeremiah 31:33 (Old Testament – “New Covenant”)
This is the foundational text:

“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

"Romans 2:14–15 (Paul, New Testament)
Paul extends the idea beyond Israel:

“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness…”

2 Corinthians 3:3
Paul explicitly contrasts stone tablets with the human heart:

“You are a letter from Christ… written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”

There's a rather direct and unavoidable intimation in this specific case, that perhaps a Christian Missionary would using overly (to them) Christian language to subvert the existing prejudices among other whites. This also happened in Ireland, with, as mentioned, Paul Mooney and many others across time. The syncretisation of South American is one of the biggest and tragic abject moral failures the western world ever undertook and it was almost explicitly for this purpose. Just giving context for why my suggestion is not wild, and may be supported. Many of your examples fail the directness test. Particularly the Egyptian one, as it doesn't even say the same thing. The concept of a Soul isn't quite as specific and direct as that which we are discussing, but you're not wrong either - its a common theme among all thinkers. Even in the modern, secular world many claims to morality rest on this assumption that, without any explanation, humans are inherently given moral precepts.

No, the "noble savage" concept is a European creation that reduces and simplifies the sophisticated societies the Indigenous peoples developed before the settlers got here. — Questioner

If you'd put "Yes, " at the start, this would be a totally sound response.

That's fair - I fundamentally disagree, though. I have understood (as may be clear in that previous substantive reply) that the main gripe between the two camps is one wants to lead with "be kind..." and one wants to lead with "be accurate..." (or, at the least, clear and actionable) "...in your speech". I can 100% accept that as someone from the former camp there's nothing wrong with that position morally.

Though, there's some truck to what Phil's saying there - people expecting, nay, commanding, me to participate in their chosen language game isn't kind at all. I don't want to (this isn't quite true, i'm just making a point). Making me is rude. My wee anecdote should cover whether this also applies to me - it does. In infact, a further anecdote appended to that one is that my music teacher in high school refused to call me Amadeus because it made him uncomfortable. Okay. No worries. We are still friends 17 years later.

What I've found is a strong tendency to comprehend Islam only by analogy to the same aforementioned WASP Evangelical demographic. — BenMcLean

I'm not entirely sure what you mean? Perhaps ignorance on my part. Help!

That's a lie and has always been a lie. — BenMcLean

It's an absolute fact, and the etymology commits one to this. It is the rejection of theism. Nothing more.
strong atheist" has been conceptualised and active belief in an absence. Atheist, proper, is not. I will not be further arguing this, because its a dead argument not worthy of time or effort beyond letting you know. In any case whatsoever this is what I am telling you i mean when using it. End.

Except they don't run popular culture. We've only recently seen some penetration into the mainstream beginning to happen with Angel Studios and a few others. For the most part, Christian media has been siloed off in its own niche subculture with little mainstream impact. — BenMcLean

Also, false as far as I can tell. I am unsure why you do not think outlets like Fox, Prager and the influence of Christian universities has somehow been sideline in a country which is mainly Christian. You're allowed, i suppose.

This contradicts my direct observations. That happens all the time. — BenMcLean

I would like to see that, rather than treating a fetus the same as a clump of cells which I suggest you're referring to. Also, ridiculous we we'd agree on that.

Such a thing would probably need its own thread. — BenMcLean

I recommend against it. There are no good arguments, and several extremely recondite posters here who will make it quite hard for you to continue that thread. This isn't a thread - it is simply saying don't waste your (valuable) time. I don't think this is somewhere you will get much from it.

In America, we're dealing with a zero-compromise demand for total absolute abortion on demand at any stage for any reason and that is the mainstream secular viewpoint. — BenMcLean

This is entirely false in a way that makes me think you are genuinely trolling. If not, your lack of understanding of hte opposing views and realities makes my above recommendation lean toward it being your problem, not ours.

America is so much more panicky about everything than in Europe — BenMcLean

Chechnya is in Europe. Russia (partly) is in Europe. Belarus is in Europe. Poland is in Europe. Latvia is in Europe. You are simply uninformed.

18th century New York (then a province, and not yet a state) and did extensive reading about the Haudenosaunee as well as the Lenape of Pennsylvania — Questioner

Nice, thanks for that.

At 346 pages, it is a detailed look. It was written by Rev. John Heckewelder, a Christian missionary who learned their language and lived among them for many years. — Questioner

This is quite the context. Are you sure this is the best source for what you're talking about? A Christian missionary trying to reduce harm to the indigenous would certainly try to align their beliefs with Christian beliefs (that quote "written on our hearts" is overly Christian). In any case, and interesting society to be sure - roughly speaking, the same sort of splits as the "noble savage" myth has us peddling. Hmm, perhaps that's just how it was. Cool!

Isolated example though, nonetheless. Plenty of Western societies has similar ways of doing things (Rosicrucians for example, wiped out by the Albigensian crusade).

They sound entirely correct, and infact, are correct. That is what coroners, expert witnesses, doctors and lab staff call dead bodies and dead biological material. It's in the name "biological material". If you don't like it, that's another thing.

You are simply ignoring reality in lieu of your personal views, and then running htem together. Suffice to say the world doesn't act the way you want it to. Nor should it. But I do understand the distinction you wish was imported to the words we use. It just isn't there.

Bodies are biological, living or not. Nothing interesting going on there. Your claim about "logic" appears to be just using words you don't understand to get points here. Also, uninteresting.

1. Yes, its an interesting theory but I don't thikn its realistic. Its the type of thing that lead to newagers claiming hte Native American's literally couldn't see boats on the horizon because they didn't have a word for a sea-faring boat. I can't really get on board with that - though, I get that there's some truck to it.

Perhaps trans women and men want to be seen as the gender with which they identify. — Ecurb

It seems fairly squarely the case. The question is to what degree they have the 'right' (iffy word here) to ensure others engage in that "want". I think you have the choice to edit your own life in such a way as to support your self-image and desires, short of harming others. I'm unsure why there is even a discussion about involuntarily ceding ground in the same way. I think if some conservative guy refuses to use your "preferred pronouns" (metaphorically)fuck that guy and move on. Edit. Ruthlessly. Most of us do this, I think, without much problem.

Since names often indicate gender, if a trans person changes her (OK, the pronoun is controversial) name from "Al" to "Alice" would those objecting to the pronoun preferred by the individual insist on continuing to call her "Al"? — Ecurb

Names are different to indicators. But plenty would refuse the 'new' name. In fact, I'll give you a little anecdote: Amadeus is, on my birth certificate, my middle name. My first name sucks, don't ask.
In any case, around 13-14 I "transitioned" entirely to using Amadeus. It is what the government know me as, what employers know me as, what school knows me as and almost ever single person I interact with calls me Amadeus.

One person doesn't. My mother. She absolutely refuses, through pure stubbornness, to adjust to my preferred name. I don't care. She's not abusing me. She's not 'dead-naming' me (despite me being highly uncomfortable with my first name, and the period of my life to which it refers, in my mind). She is just calling me a different thing, which I understand she uses to refer to me. It simply does not matter. I can handle being called a name which isn't mind. Hell, call me Jennifer - as long as I know you're tlaking to me, who cares.

Not everyone shares this. C'est la vie.

It needs to adapt, become more intelligent, and start thinking about how it can work with the general populace instead of against it before its too late. — Philosophim

I am reticent to immediately say "yes" because it feels like a form of "white savior" type of thing, but my intuition is simply that its right. Ahh..

Good manners suggest that we should refer to people by the name they request us to use. — Ecurb

I fully agree. "morally" I think "we probably should" is the better position ,because it also leaves room to not engage with bad, or aggressive actors.

You're backtracking — Ecurb

I don't think that's fair, but you elucidate well what's in contention. The issue is that legally changing one's sex can objectively be considered false, whereas a name change cannot, at all, be considered 'false'. "male" and "female" are non-arbitrary whereas (at least first names) are entirely arbitrary. I'm unsure this moves anything - neither gives us a moral motivating for either case. I'm just clarifying what I think its a difference worth noting.

Why should it be one and not the others? — Ecurb

Clarity, and avoiding the utterly shitshow the last eight years has brought us with regard sex and gender. This seems to me a case of "you're lying to yourself", regardless of your position, if it's in your mind that less-clear, less direct abd less stable language is a better model for both social cohesion, interpersonal communication and policy. I cannot see any way that could be true, and that's based on the empirical results we see in the world, not some intuition or personal claim. It is not a response to say "well, those resistant should just be giving up and we'd be fine". That's essentially a fascist way of approaching the issue and not one I think either side should take seriously. This isn't to say you are wrong but it is to say that I thikn this clears up several open, but imo, stupid, rhetorical devices at play. It is interesting that the arguments to do with either asserting a clearly erroneous current meaning, or arguing for why its "right" that the meaning change for x reasons always come back to vague, amorphous rhetoric like "being kind". They do not seem serious.

I'm unsure this is in response to anyone but something has become clear to me from speaking with my wife over the weekend, as regards the OP and what's being sorted out: Gender must have a sexual component. There is no such thing as 'objective gender' and no one has ever, other that a 1:1 match with sex argued that there is as far as I know. Nothing but bundles of behaviour or disposition can be called "gender" if we're separating from sex. Ok, so far, so good and i'm unsure anyone but hte two extremes would have an issue.
But then the problem arises: What do those bundles indicate, in order to have them be categories, given that "gender" is not a set of categories, but a set of bundles. Its sex. The typical, perhaps historically manipulated, set of expectations for the underlying basis for the bundle: the sex from which it is expected. I fear this is simply restating something Phil has said several times. But this seemed clearer to me than anything i'd read through the two threads ongoing.

That's fair - but as I say, my overriding motivation to see it happening is that its cool or exciting. I don't/can't stand particularly strongly behind this, just explaining myself.

*sigh* a technology would. But this would require the body to be in some kind of suspension anyway, to then be able to be "encased" or whatever would be required. I am giving you speculative, sci-fi type stabs. They're are being taken far too seriously.

world government?? Let's perhaps not.

I know plenty, and it's clearly an issue in the younger generation. I have two (politically opposed) psychologist friends who routinely decry the fact that they have to hand-hold people between 12-25 through letting go of their erroneous self-diagnoses. It's a problem, collecting "conditions". My wife was caught it in for a bit actually (years ago, prior to my meeting her).

You may. They describe realities. I am extremely reluctant to alter veridicality for purposes of feelings. I am short. That's not a disability. But my friend who is missing his shins (roughly speaking - its not quite that simple) is disabled. No controversy there and a model which seeks to remove that distinction is bunk.

As long as it is believable, or the public can be persuaded that it is. — Punshhh

This is essentially hte basis (and sometimes goes awry) for defamation proceedings in most jurisdictions - truly held belief is one of hte only get-out-of-it cards and that wont be available here, so you're probbaly right that this would cover the same sorts of behaviours in regard to currenty generative AI.

This can increase the impact and where it is used maliciously to blackmail, or abuse a vulnerable person, it is a serious issue. — Punshhh

Yep, 100%

here have been reports in the U.K. of a rapid increase in the amount of pedophilia related material. Where the line between real images and AI generated images is becoming blurred. I heard reports that the photo’s of Renee Good were micro bikinied and spread in social media within hours of her murder last week.
Then there are people in the public eye being depicted with bruising, smeared in blood, or with tattoos. Where defamation may be involved. — Punshhh

Yeah, this gets interesting (although, it's morbid and tragic for some - I don't mean to be entirely detached). I don't necessarily think that Goode situation is something worthy of legal ramification, but I do think, Like with many other types of images, the family should have the right to at least enforce take-down orders even if actual criminal prosecution isn't really on the cards.

The latter is definitely an issue - although I, and I presume many on this forum, can either spot, or intuit through context, a fake image in most cases. It seems a bit odd to cater to the less-discerning in that sense - but that's because I'm not in that group and I know many friends who've fallen for these things. So i think your caution is totally warranted.

I am 100% with you here. Parfit looms large.

"I sat all morning in the college sick bay
Counting bells knelling classes to a close.
At two o'clock our neighbours drove me home.

In the porch I met my father crying—
He had always taken funerals in his stride—
And Big Jim Evans saying it was a hard blow.

The baby cooed and laughed and rocked the pram
When I came in, and I was embarrassed
By old men standing up to shake my hand

And tell me they were 'sorry for my trouble'.
Whispers informed strangers I was the eldest,
Away at school, as my mother held my hand

In hers and coughed out angry tearless sighs.
At ten o'clock the ambulance arrived
With the corpse, stanched and bandaged by the nurses.

Next morning I went up into the room. Snowdrops
And candles soothed the bedside; I saw him
For the first time in six weeks. Paler now,

Wearing a poppy bruise on his left temple,
He lay in the four-foot box as in his cot.
No gaudy scars, the bumper knocked him clear.

A four-foot box, a foot for every year."

- Seamus Heaney, Mid-Term Break
------
Devastating.

It means what it says.

I love everyone. That doesn't mean I like everyone, accept their choices or think their self report is accurate. "tough love" is a real thing - I will not lie to someone i love, and I don't care much that its discomforting to them to tell the truth (and in Kirk's mind, tihs is what he was doing..so..)

I have two children. You can't play that game :lol: (this, should be clearly in jest).

Edit: This is bordering on fun again.

The story is that Kirk was killed because he spread hate, and we might assume perceived hatred towards transgender people was particularly egregious to Kirk’s assassin, being that he had a trans lover. So to me the quote I’m caught up on seems quite significant. — praxis

Yeah, that's roughly the story. It might have been. But if that person was thinking along the same lines you are, are we surprised? You are predestined to justify reactionary irrationality because you've bought the biased media narrative about Kirk. it is trivial, and that's the problem with why he was killed. It was a trivial issue, and yet some mentally unstable weirdo shot him over it. Just denounce it already lmao.

for offensive things Kirk may have sai name calling — praxis

Which weakens the video, but its best to be accurate. He didn't mention that becuase he was responding to a person claiming God loves trans people and trans people are covered in the Bible to dunk on Kirk's religious affiliation. He obliterated that claim without giving a personal opinion. That this isn't clear tells me you've not seen more than the six seconds you're relying on. That he knows the person was wrong about the bible and, yes, was a dick about it, doesn't really tell me anything except he's vehemently religious.

:lol: If he did it would be easy to find. — praxis

*sigh*. I have (there is a correction to your inference here below) given you ample explanation why you might not have found it - I am beginning to think its mostly on you, though.

You have manipulated that exchange. Here's what you said:

I did a search for "Did Charlie Kirk ever say that he loved transgender people?" — praxis

He routinely said he loves everyone. Are trans people not people?

Besides this, I've given two examples and have invited you to ask for the clip described. I see you are not quite willing to be honest about this now that I've begun presenting the evidence for my claims. Okay, but that's not very fun.

Would, if you see it, the clip of him speaking directly to a trans student, claiming to love, support and want the best for them, that change anything for you?

What indigenous group/person? I am extremely skeptical of a quote like that from a category of people known to be amenable to superstitions and creator myths.

I’m not assuming direct realism in order to know that there is error. What I’m rejecting is the assumption — which I take to be doing a lot of work in the IR picture — that error must be identified by comparing experience with either a mind-independent phenomenal property or an inner experiential surrogate. — Esse Quam Videri

Good charge, but I think misguided. In either theory there can be aberration - and generally, this would be represented by the exact 'error' you're pointing to - in perception precisely because it is indirect. Neither theory branches here - they both predict error with reference to shared experience - not external objects. That was what I took to be the claim for the DRist - error must be as held up to the "real world". Otherwise, we're not looking at error. We're just looking at disparate experience and error with this frame of reference is trivial. It seems you've given an IRist concept in support of rejecting IR. Perhaps not.

To me, the difference comes in where, for DR a mental event of perception could only be labeled an error for practical purposes - which is something I want to avoid. I want to actually know the relationship between my experience and the world - not other people's experiences. I just take it we can't know, or can't be certain. I don't see a problem with that conclusion unless its emotionally unsatisfying.

I think it might be worth dealing with a couple of common objections to IR that I think fail, and are being brought to bear here in complex discussion, instead of just stating them...probably because when stated just so, objection is easy.

Experiential transparency:
We must admit that the an anatomically indirect visual complex is at the base level of our descriptions (seems no one denies this part) and that we should not work backwards from psychological impressions to a theory. We need to work from the ground up to something which also fits our psychological impressions or we should adjust them. This is why experiential transparency is a red herring to me. It does literally nothing but say that humans tend to assume they are directly in touch with the world. So much is trivial. It doesn't help. Simply stating that it feels like that cat you see is "the cat out there" isn't anything so much as a lack of curiosity (or, ignorance).

Phenomenology of acquaintance:
There's no explanation of how this fixes the problems of content or accuracy. It just re-describes the above in a specific domain (felt sensation). It, also, seems to be a mere label in service of a couple other of the concepts below..

Disjunctivism:
In claiming that the object is constitutive of the veridical perception event, it accepts that there is a disjunct and cannot explain commonality in phenomena between minds without regression - which i find far less satisfying that "we can't know". Either way, its immensely underdeterminative and not supported by the neuroscience indicating common proximal causes of phenomenon. Also, what's the criteria for a disjunctive experience? Sort of begs the question..

Action-guidance:
IR predicts this just as well as DR. It seems to confused metaphysical structure with functionality/functional success. IR accepts the latter as well as DR.

Anti-skepticism:
Do I need to? LOL.

These seem to cover most motivations for clinging to DR:

- suspicion of representationalism or similar ruffle. The thing is, IR rejects antirealism, even if it accepts a basic framework from which it springs. Confusing these is poisoning the well I think;
- resistance to epistemic internalism and hte risks it presents;
- preference for ontological parsimony - not always the best answer. In fact, its only usually a good starting point, when we have conflicting data;
- desire to dissolve skepticism rather than answer it - fair, but again, about comfort not what's being argued.

Its just incredibly underdetermined. For me, far, far more questions arise from DR than IR. But more risk arises for IR than DR, epistemically. I understand that impulse, but it seems almost anti-philosophical.

Great to see you still around. And I agree. Love is not all there is.

Yep, definitely! :pray:

Oh, no I'm aware they aren't cranks. They aren't required to be cranks for it to be bollocks.

If it ever gets to Zero, you can eat my hat :)

HAving just charged someone with using weasel words this is ... astounding. As you were.

Personally, taking that seriously is a bit of a orange flag.

C'est la vie :P

Fair enough. I agree that the layperson expectation of such comes from there (aptly, reading Discourse on Method currently). I'm unsure the philosophical position is derived from that - I think its derived from the intuitions Gnomon is putting forward (though, having re-read a couple of substantive exchanges, but then I had to cringe at the use of Ghosts. There's a massive leap there that's unwarranted and probably unsupportable. Sorry for missing that in my initial response - I didn't quite see that the analogy was propping some of his claim up.

I don't have a problem with an in-concept dualism, but the problems it presents are as bad, or worse, than those strict physicalism faces imo.

Hm, With respect, from a third party, I don't think youve adequately addressed much of anything in his post/s.

E=mc2 doesn't help with bridging the material/immaterial gap. It simply remains.

You may as well stop. You are wrong. I have shown this to be the case. You continue to prevaricate and make unfounded claims. That's both uninteresting, and you cannot pretend that's being polite. It's you trying to get out of it.

I have provided you ample evidence for what I'm saying. You retreating in to the (mild) ad hominem of having to cope by saying it sounds like AI doesn't do anything.
It would be better if you could actually address the evidence i've given you. At this stage, you are wilfully ignoring that.

I responded exactly to what you said, Banno. These sorts of drive-by quips aren't helping :sweat: Let me clarify:

No. The content of my experience is the cat, the ship, the smell of coffee. Not my neural processes, and not my neural representations.

That, if we must make use of "content of experience". — Banno

Bold: I said, no it isn't..Direct reply.
Italics: I said there is no cat in your eyes or mind. Your experience is in your mind (i could have added this). Therefore, no cat in your eyes or mind. It is not the content of your experience. It remains on the mat, while your brain represents that fact to you (i.e neural representation). So also, direct reply there.

Formally, that is all that is available to conscious experience. You seem to have accepted this formal reality at times**, bt continue to claim that your mental images are the items they are of. Very odd. However,

Rather, **having an experience is having that flood of electrical data. What you experience, if we must talk in that way, is the cat. — Banno

This is self-contradictory. I shouldn't need to point that out anymore. Its self-evident. It isn't the cat. In your own terms.

At risk of inviting vitriol, I don't think we're at risk of a catastrophe so its hard to use that analogy :P

But yeah, fair enough. These theoretics are so intensely out of reach that's a reasonable take.

LOL. Tbc, I am joking with both of these next lines as it seemed you were:

Thought we agreed to avoid each other? The condescension is a nice touch too ;)

Please bear in mind here, we're both on the "non Charlie" side of life. I do not, and did not, enjoy his rhetoric and tendency to become what would be called unprofessional at times.
I'm merely trying to sort out unfair charges (in my view). In this case, fairly egregious and used to support justifications for absolutely disgusting stuff like being ambivalent to his murder (or pretending his activities were anywhere in the same universe as his murder).

Well, you've shot yourself in the foot here I think. I'll explain that and then walk you through the rest (see? Nice touch).

You say that Kirk loved people regardless of what he thought of their choices and lifestyles. How could you possibly know the heart of another person? Have you even met Kirk? — praxis

Have you? How could you know his heart? yet you've claimed to know both his, and his followers hearts apparently. You now seem to reject that, but the consistency is a huge problem. For me, I take his words at face (see below). For what it's worth, No, i have not met Kirk - but i have, at least, listened to him outside of manipulative sound bites. You, self-admitted, have not (has this changed? Important if so). This makes it extremely hard to understand why you think you have a clue about this stuff beyond a 'impression'. Lets run through why.. (other than the obvious - you are uninformed by definition in this case). So, now that the (unintentional, i'm sure) hypocrisy is writ large, let's go through where you're simply factually wrong:

Kirk said, multiple times, God loves all people specifically talking to his detractors, or those he personally disagrees with. Here's another example, albeit I need to explain this one: There is a viral clip (i'm sure you'll be able to find it) in which a trans women (from memory) comes up to Kirk at one of his campus events and asks for advice (in good faith). Kirk responds in good faith and is quite emphatic that this person is loved, deserves respect and support - just not the support you would choose. He was extremely clear about this. If you continue to deny it, I will just ignore it becuas its counter to reality.

which means that God is disgusted by them and hates them. That's what 'abomination' means. — praxis

That's true, and an extremely awkward wording which does not sit with his personal beliefs. See how that works? He outlined the Biblical position, which is juxtaposed directly with his personal belief that God loves everyone and he was frequently vocal about that (there's also, though this is offtopic, tension between God and Jesus despite them being hte same guy. Fucking Bible). You are caught up on a matter which is trivial in the large discussion, uninformative and is honestly kind of a red flag in terms of your ability to see things clearly. You are holding on to a concept that seems both unimportant, and wrong about Kirk (rather than his take on the Bible).

If he loved them regardless of their choices and lifestyles then why didn't he say it? — praxis

He did. That you didn't find it in your search says potentially three things:

1. You aren't quite across how best to search specifics (no shade - most people aren't. I am trained in this due to legal work);
2. You ignore/avoid that which you're looking for in service of continuing an erroneous line of claim (I presume not, out of good faith); or
3. It is difficult, because of the biases at Google or whatever, to find information directly relevant - I've found this to be the case and it was proven, somewhat. Assuming these are accurate, it would be compounding on your resistance to accepting the (hypothetical) that Kirk didn't hate trans people. That's fair to think (particularly your insistence on using that one, context-less clip as support. It does push one that way - no shade. I'm just showing reasons you wont have found these things which clarify and contextualise).

I don't know which is true, but you have missed several crucial items. Two given above ( if you care, DM me I'll find the specific clips I'm talking about - unfortunately, even great search skills wont pull up instagram clips, partially due to the above but partially due to saturation of click-baity things creating supreme amounts of noise in search terms - But those clips lead us to their 'parent' sources, so just giving some lay of the land).

That would have been really powerful, and it would have shown a loving spirit. He would probably have lost a lot of his audience and income, but it would have shown a loving spirit. — praxis

Yeah, I totally agree particularly in light of what you're taking from him prima facie. The thing is, he did. He did show a loving spirit. Constantly. You have admitted that you do not, and have not, made any effort to go through his material besides biased clips(pending above question on this). Do you really think its reasonable to think you have a line on Kirk's beliefs in this case? the answer is that you do not. You don't even have the resources to hand to intimate such. You have only the pre-prepared clips and attitude to come the conclusion you have. I could be wrong, but I am at least well-informed.

As I mentioned, I took another look at the Williams video and it's even worse the second time around. The first time I missed where he was defending Kirk saying that Michelle Obama and other black women — praxis

Careful - this one was extremely specific and has been broadly cut to make it look racist. It was about specific people - and not becuase they were black, but because DEI is not a good way to hire people. That much is true, but I was also uncomfortable with that exchange. However... You're making a gross, gross mistake:

Michelle Obama graduated salutatorian from High School, ... international law firm before moving on to public service. — praxis

None of this says much about intelligence. I think Kirk was wrong, anyway, so we're not arguing there. But his point, and it's a good one, is that credentialism is bogus. I know plenty of lawyers. Top flight lawyers. KCs; judges and general practitioners. Some are the dumbest people I've met in my life. I know judges who you would not believe were judges, given their inability to apply general logic or remove their emotional outbursts from their opinions. I am not decrying Michelle Obama. I am saying that his point was sound - he was probably talking to the wrong person. But I don't know Michelle Obama. I've seen her say some utterly batshit crazy stuff that makes me think she's probably not all that intelligent. Her degrees and job don't have a lick to do with this.

Kirk was a community college dropout and he's criticizing her intelligence?! Williams defends what Kirk said, saying that it was Kirk's opinion, and he then tries to support Kirk's opinion. — praxis

There's nothing wrong here. Not sure what you're getting at. Being a college drop out has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact, you could argue Kirk was more intelligent to drop out given the life he was able to lead after doing so. For him, that was an extremely good move. The fact he got killed has nothing to do with it - a crazy person shot him for his views. Not interesting or relevant to the intelligence issue.

Williams is talking about hte Newman effect as a tool critics use - assuming the worst in others.

You're doing that right now. He did not. I'm unsure what you wanted there.

P.S on the issue of deadnaming: I don't give a fuck. Deadname whoever you want. It isn't interesting to me. People call me shit I don't like all the time. There's a specific, identity-driven reason for this but it's a bit personal. I can tell you, I know what the fuck being deadnamed is like and how it feels. I seriously doubt you have a concept of it other than being told what to do. Kirk is more than welcome to say "I don't not believe you are a woman, and so I will refer to you as a man. Your name as a man was "x" and so I'll use that".

You disagree, clearly. That's fine. But it isn't an argument.