ethical suppression of speech

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm
Age wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 9:56 am
Advocate wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:47 pm The further contention is that my formation is more useful, answers more philosophical questions, is a better definition and understanding that does more work. Apply your skepticism to that and i'm sure you'll be more that satisfied.
Is it at all possible that "another" has answered MORE philosophical questions than you and/or has BETTER definitions and understanding that does ACTUALLY work, then you have and do?

Or do you BELIEVE that 'you', the self called "advocate", REALLY are the "ultimate guru" and "true arbiter of truth"?
fuck i hate this formatting bullshit

No, it is not possible. If anyone else has a way to answer all philosophical questions they're either wrong (and my story can explain exactly how and why) or they're telling the same story in a different way.
Okay. So, 'you', actually BELIEVE that 'you' REALLY ARE the 'ultimate guru', and, the 'true arbiter of truth', correct?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm As for what a better understanding could be, that is also part of The Whole Story. As mentioned, it answers everything. (The answer to what it means to answer everything is also in there.)
So, very simply, what does it mean 'to answer everything'?

I do NOT need to read any thing other your 'very simple' clarifications here, to my 'very simple' clarifying questions, in order to ascertain if you REALLY do KNOW HOW to 'answer everything'.

Also, it was once written: If you can not explain 'it' simply, then you do not understand 'it' well enough. So, let us SEE just how well enough you KNOW what you allege you do.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm I am a Disciple of Truth.
I do NOT know of ANY human being that was born any differently.

Or, do you think or believe some human beings are born following, or looking for, lies and deception?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm I respect it and value it as my highest priority.
But you would HAVE TO KNOW 'It' first, BEFORE you could follow 'It', and let it lead 'you'.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm I understand it and can explain it at every level of detail.
But you have FAILED to do this so far. For example; your understanding of Truth is wildly different than "others" is. In fact your version of 'Truth' is more or less like the preachers and priests of by gone eras. When they are questioned in regards to what some thing is, and they have not the slightest idea what the actual True and Right answer is, they, just like you, replied like you do now, and just say some thing like; "There are some things we human beings can not know".

Will you explain how this is understanding Truth and explaining Truth at every level of detail?

To me, this just sounds like a pure cop-out for NOT knowing 'things'.

And, if one claims to be READY to explain a theory of Everything, then SURELY they MUST BE ABLE to explain Everything, properly, correctly, AND sufficiently. Saying; "There are some things we human beings can NEVER know", is NOT a sufficient enough answer, well to me anyway. Besides it being just a prophetical response, with NO actual evidence NOR proof of being True or Correct at all, WHY would you have such an low self worth of the 'human being'? Considering what they have discovered, learned, and come to KNOW, especially considering WHERE they have actually come from, TELLING "others" that they can NOT come to discover, learn, and KNOW some more things, seems like a rather VERY foolish and stupid thing to say, and claim.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm I do not own truth and i have seen many examples of people understanding it in part.
Do you write the letter 'i' in capitals some times and in small case at other times for a specific reason?

If yes, then WHY?

By the way, when you say you have seen many examples of people understanding 'truth' in part, then are you at all AWARE that that 'truth' is EXTREMELY RELATIVE? In fact that 'truth' is SO RELATIVE that what you are SEEING when you SEE people understand 'it', or not, is actually just your OWN perspective or version of what the 'truth' is, FIRST.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm I have never seen an example of anyone understanding it as completely.
So what?

This does NOT make you the sole and only greatest holder of 'Truth', as you BELIEVE you are. In fact, I actually posed the question; 'Is it at all possible that "another" has answered MORE philosophical questions than you and/or has BETTER definitions and understanding that does ACTUALLY work, then you have and do? to you, to SEE if you actually understood what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

By the way, YOU FAILED. SEE, if you Truly understood thee Truth, then you would understand and KNOW that you have NOT read, nor listened to, EACH and EVERY "other" person's thoughts, views, nor understandings, and therefore it is NOT at all possible for you to KNOW, at any given moment, whether or not that "another" has actually answered MORE philosophical questions than you, nor if they have BETTER definitions and/or a BETTER understanding than you have.

What is also SHOWED and REVEALED, from YOUR response, here is that once a human being BELIEVES some thing is true, like you do here, then they are NOT open at all to what thee one and only actual Truth IS, like you are SHOWING and REVEALING here, now.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm I do not call myself "the best philosopher" despite having a grasp on The Best Philosophy in deference to any others who may also be out there, undiscovered. The truth belongs to everyone. I'm just trying to explain it into usefulness.
I suggest when, and if, you are serious about trying to explain 'it' into usefulness, then STOP using the 'it' word. Because, if thee Truth be KNOWN, I have absolutely NO idea what the word 'it' refers to EXACTLY. OF COURSE, I could make an ASSUMPTION about what 'it' is that you are talking about and referring to, but, as I have previously explained, I do NOT like to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing at all. Because of just how easily ASSUMING ANY thing can lead one astray.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm When Utopia comes based on The Whole Story, you need not mention my name.
Maybe you're thinking of the same story from a different perspective? [/quote]

I am pretty sure, behind EVERY thinking, the EXACT SAME story lies. There are, however, just as many 'different perspectives' as there are human beings, which has to be sorted through and filtered to reach thee One and ONLY True and Right, Correct Story.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm As long as there's no woo (god, etc.), it likely could be.
If you think or believe that you can explain Everything, or a theory of Everything, which is what you call 'your story', and/or REVEAL how Utopia can be reached, or come to be, by NOT involving God, et cetera [whatever 'God, and 'et cetera' refers to, from your 'perspective'], then I think you might be sadly mistaken. If 'you' are going to not include 'God' or 'other things' in YOUR story, or YOUR theory of Everything, just because they do NOT fit in with NOR suit YOUR perspective, but they fit in with and suit the majority of human beings, then I am pretty sure you are setting "your" OWN 'self' up to FAIL, miserably.

But I do suggest that when, and if, you can explain HOW God, and EVERY thing else, fit together PERFECTLY, which then SHOWS and ILLUSTRATES, or REVEALS, a CRYSTAL CLEAR PICTURE of just HOW a Utopia can be Created, then, and ONLY then, Utopia CAN COME, to be.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm >I can back up AND support, with actual EVIDENCE and PROOF, what I say and claim. So, I suggest to "others" that they be able to do this ALSO.

As can i. There are some caveats:
I do NOT have any, so called, "caveats". Either I CAN or I CAN NOT, back up and support with evidence or proof. And, I am OPEN to EACH and EVERY clarifying question, and I would LOVE to be challenged on EACH and EVERY one of my claims.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm a) I won't respond to requests for evidence that are vague. "Prove it" is entirely too open-ended to admit of a meaningful response - it's a time waster and a space filler, not philosophy.
But OBVIOUSLY if your claim was SPECIFIC ENOUGH, then, to ' prove 'it' ', [the specific claim], would NOT be too much to ask for, SURELY?

Maybe the case is that your actual claim is NOT that 'specific enough', and that is WHY it is just too hard for you to PROVE to be true and accurate anyway?

Also, WHY not just back up and support YOUR claim with actual evidence and/or proof BEFORE anyone asks you to?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm b) appeals to statistics, etc. are a conversation-ender. You can prove or disprove anything with statistics and the conversation about sources is an infinite bog. The conversation has to stick close to logical necessity to be productive, and that must assume a certain core of common understanding at least in vocabulary.
I agree that statistics can be turned around in just anyway to back up and support one's ALREADY held BELIEFS.

Remember, that what one defines as being 'logical necessity' "another" one might not. This might, or might not be, because of each one's ALREADY held BELIEFS.

Also, if ANY one is going to ASSUME a 'certain core of common understanding' among "others", then that one will far more likely be far more MISTAKEN.

Only through Truly OPEN-ended clarifying questioning, and Truly OPEN and Honest answering and clarifying is thee One and ONLY actual "common understanding" found, and itself UNDERSTOOD.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm c) If the answer to the request for evidence is already in the original document/post. d) ?
If it is, then it would be so much EASIER for 'you' to PROVIDE that, so called, "answer" here, now.

Obviously, for 'you' to provide an answer here is far EASIER than "other" to go looking for some answer, some where.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm >What is your understanding of the words 'logically salient' here?

logically salient - the inherent and necessary rationality of the idea is immediately obvious
Will you provide a few examples of some of YOUR ideas, which are the inherent and necessary rationality of them is immediately obvious, to us?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm >To me, your, so called, "arguments" are neither sound, valid, or both. We are in a philosophy forum. So, if you do not like having this pointed out or are NOT YET able to back up and support your claims and arguments, then I suggest not producing them here, or going away and working on them and then bringing them back here.

You have never given me any indication of what sort of response might count as evidence for you.
I apologize. I AM VERY SORRY.

And, usually I would just say, Okay. For a specific reason, which will be explained shortly. However,

The response that would count as 'evidence', for me, is the actual available body of facts or information indicating whether YOUR proposition or claim is true or valid.

And, the response that would count as 'proof', for me, is the actual unambiguous and irrefutable body of facts or information indicating that YOUR proposition or claim is actually True AND Valid.

I hope I have provided you with enough indication now of what is being sort EVERY time I ask for evidence and/or proof. And, again, I apologize profusely that I did NOT make this CLEAR to you, previously. But, I was UNAWARE that you WANTED or NEEDED this indication. You, ALSO, have NEVER actually given me any indication that you have WANTED or NEEDED this information BEFORE. SEE, if you HAD, then I WOULD HAVE given this information to you EARLIER.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm I'm not willing to get all technical and specific and draw things out in analytical detail - that would defeat the larger purpose of The Truth being made accessible to all;
I wonder if a person was also NOT willing to get all the technical and specific and draw things out in analytical detail, because that would defeat the larger purpose of The Truth being made accessible to all also, then if The Truth; e=mc2, would actually make sense to "others"?

If you are NOT prepared to explain 'This Truth' of YOURS simply, NOR technically, specifically, and in analytical detail, then actually if This Truth of YOURS will EVER be accessible to all?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm and i'm not willing to throw shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Okay. I am NOT sure of the relevance of this though. Oh, and by the way, I am NOT really that interested either.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm >I have absolutely NO idea what this means.

>What is this in reference to, and what does this mean, to you?

Someone mentioned you self-identify as autistic so this could be an issue. I'll try to stick closer to ordinary speech but i have a habit of mixing metaphors quite freely, and The Whole Story is entirely a metaphor; a metaphor explaining metaphors. (I mention TWS quite frequently because everything else i say is a part of it already and that's the central reference point that ties it all together.)
What is the 'it', exactly, which you claim is "tied all together", through YOUR story, which you call and claim is "The Whole Story"?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm From an Autistic perspective, you might skip to the end - Universal Taxonomy.
Are the words, 'Universal Taxonomy', so called, "ordinary speech"?

If they are, then you have to stick closer to MORE "ordinary speech" if you want "others", like 'me', to understand you better and more fully.

If, however, the words "Universal Taxonomy" are NOT actually "ordinary speech", then you have NOT 'tried' to hard to stick closer to "ordinary speech", from my perspective.

By the way, you will define what the words 'ordinary speech' actually mean, to 'you'?
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm That's really just another lens for TWS but it's one that is, as it suggests, the complete organization of everything. That's appealing, right? However... that part of TWS really doesn't have anything in it yet. That was going to be the last bit i worked on as it's a project that is only just beginning. That's also the great appeal - getting in on the ground floor of it.
Well you appear to be VERY RIGHT here.

That is; suggesting to a human being to skip your whole writings and just go to the end part, which is titled 'Universal Taxonomy', which, to 'you', means 'the COMPLETE organization of everything' BUT which REALLY is a part that does NOT have anything in it, YET. So, from my perspective, you are VERY RIGHT:

That suggesting, by skipping and going to this, so called, "end" part, which is what you said to do, is 'an Autistic perspective', itself. You did, after all, say; "From an Autistic perspective" to do this.

Also, some would say that indicating to, and asking a self-identified autistic one, if 'the complete organization of everything' part is appealing, especially, when that 'part' REALLY does NOT have ANY thing at all in it, YET, is NOT the most wisest and smartest thing that one could possibly do.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm This is also a sneaky test because if you respond to this in a blase manner you're either autistic or unusually self-restrained. Someone who is not will probably respond with a heightened emotional state at having their inner workings publicly discussed by a complete stranger. Also, if you're autistic you'll probably appreciate my over-analysis of things.
But, from my perspective, you have NOT yet even begun to REALLY analysis things, at all.

In fact, you have even stated that you are: NOT willing to get all technical and specific and draw things out in analytical detail, which could be a CLEAR INDICATION that you actually CAN NOT, YET.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm But to take it back to the point - i'll try to use less metaphors with you so that the logical train-of-thought that i consider to be both evidence and proof is more obvious.
Well is it NOT YET OBVIOUS, to you, that if you REALLY want to SHOW and EXPRESS thee actual Truth, then speaking in metaphor could not be anymore ridiculous.
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:54 pm That's the kind of editing help i'm looking for with TWS too...
What exactly is the 'that', which is the 'kind of editing help you are looking for with The Whole Story, too?

If using less metaphors with The Whole Story is the kind of editing help you are looking for, then I would suggest; Using less metaphors, and, literally, speaking/writing more, literally.

Surely you did NOT help in REALIZING THIS, did you?

Remember it is YOUR story. So, it is ONLY 'you' who is the one who Truly KNOWS what thee actual Truth IS, which you are writing about, and writing about at the moment, metaphorically.

Also, remember, there are MANY upon MANY stories written, metaphorically, including MANY religious stories, which have NOT been, at all REALLY, successful in accomplishing what they were set out to reach and achieve, that is; Utopia, or 'world peace'. So, this is a STRONG and CLEAR indication that using 'metaphors', instead of what thee actual Truth IS, is NOT the best way to write YOUR Whole Story. But, being an 'ultimate guru', a 'true arbiter of truth', or one knowing how to answer everything, then 'you' would ALREADY KNOW this, correct?

Obviously writing just thee One and ONLY actual Truth, instead of writing metaphors, then you could NEVER be mistaken, and you could and would then be expressing what are unambiguous and irrefutable FACTS, ONLY.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm
Age wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:28 am
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm

Not too complicated; humans are social creatures by nature. Morality concerns how we interact with others. If you consistently, intentionally, offend others... you may find yourself alone and unhappy; lacking in eudaimonia.
What does the word 'eudaimonia' mean, to you?
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm There is difference between "offend" and harm".
What EXACTLY is that difference?
KLewchuk wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:58 pm




I may find your use of CAPITALS offensive, but I am not harmed by it.
But WHY, exactly, would a human being find letters written in CAPITALS 'offensive'?

How could, and how would, just EMPHASIZING some words, just through CAPITAL LETTERS, be 'offensive' to SOME people?

HOW and WHY may you find my use of CAPITALS 'offensive'?

What does the word 'offensive' actually mean, to you?
Does a person need to justify their feelings if the feel offended.
To me, NO.

I was NEVER even thinking this, let alone wrote any thing like this, which would imply nor mean this.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm How about a situation where a derogatory was used in CAPITALS.
What about that situation?

Obviously I was NEVER referring to NOR talking about that situation. My actual CLARIFYING QUESTIONS and what they were actually referring to, which I posed to you, can be CLEARLY SEEN.

KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm By using CAPITALS, it reminds me of the derogatory term and hurts my feelings.
'What' 'derogatory term' are you even referring to here, now?

You appear to have JUMPED from what I was asking, to SOME 'situation', which I have absolutely NO idea what 'situation' you on about.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm In case you think this is not a good thought experiment:
https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg- ... -students/
'What' 'thought experiment' are you now talking about and referring to?

And, what has that link got to do with the ACTUAL OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I posed, to you?

I REALLY do wish people would just ask the actual OPEN questions I ask them, instead of ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING ANY thing else.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm Eudaimonia is an umbrella term of all things conducive to well being in proper measure... see nichomachean ethics
Okay.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm If you say that you don't like my accent, I am offended... if shoot me in the head, I am harmed.
I will ask, again; What does the word 'offensive' actually mean, to you?

And now I will also ask; How, exactly, would you be 'offended', if some one said to you what they do not like?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
Can you please correct the quote function as the last three quotes of mine in your post are attributed to Advocate not to me

Where is [ it ] claimed that what exists HAS TO BE physical ?
Well physicality is a condition of existence and so is therefore contained within the actual definition
That is to say that anything that is physical has to be exist and anything that exists has to be physical


And what evidence and / or proof is there that this claim is absolutely without doubt irrefutably and unambiguously factually True ?
This claim is true because it is how those words are defined as I demonstrated above

You do not now use the term The Mind or you do not use the term The Mind in the way I do ?
If it is the latter then is the Mind or the mind physical to you in the way you describe it ?
If yes then what actual evidence and / or proof do you have that that thing is a physical thing ?
I do not use it in the way you do and I do not capitalise it either as you do
The mind is physical because it is how the brain actually functions or as you prefer to say thoughts within the brain
It is specifically a physical process rather than a physical thing but that distinction is academic as its still physical
The brain itself is a physical thing and its functions are also physical because they exist and can also be observed

I agree knowledge itself can be demonstrated and even agree that knowledge itself HAS to be demonstrated physically
However this does NOT provide an explanation of HOW nor WHY the mental itself is physical
How about you define to us what the mental is exactly and then show or reveal to us how this thing is actually physical ?
The mental is the physical because it also exists but just on a more subtle scale

I for one would love to see how what you claim here can be demonstrated at this particular point in time when this is being written
From my perspective from what I have observed so far I have NOT seen any evidence NOR proof that the mental which to me are just thoughts or the Mind are both or either physical or non physical . This is WHY I describe both of them as being non visible instead . But anyway if anyone can SHOW me either way then I would be most interested in seeing and finding out if they are either physical or non physical things
Thoughts are electrochemical signals in the brain caused by the firing of neurons so are most definitely physical
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Advocate »

>Okay. So, 'you', actually BELIEVE that 'you' REALLY ARE the 'ultimate guru', and, the 'true arbiter of truth', correct?

I am all that except "the". I am A Disciple of Truth. There may be others but i haven't met them. The philosophers i know of who "get it" only get part of it, so i could be The, but i don't claim it in deference to any who are also unknown. I have no ego problems as you might be used to and seem to expect. All of my contentions are backed by logical necessity but i don't care to spell out every EXACT in excruciating detail to get my points across. They're better understood in ordinary English anyhow, even the technical definitions i use. It's a practical story, not an academic exercise in logical notation tfs.

>So, very simply, what does it mean 'to answer everything'?

To address ("answer", refute, explain, solve, in various ways) everything.. either as a solution or an explanation of why it's not meaningful or an explanation of the contingencies that are necessary to go further.

>I do NOT know of ANY human being that was born any differently.

>Or, do you think or believe some human beings are born following, or looking for, lies and deception?

It's nothing to do with how they're born. Most children are extremely curious. Most adults are not. They settle for whatever surface level understanding is sufficient to their emotional priority.

>But you would HAVE TO KNOW 'It' first, BEFORE you could follow 'It', and let it lead 'you'.

Understanding the value of evidence is sufficient to approach Truth, in Bayesian fashion. For me truth is only a prerequisite for justice, but it's a prerequisite for everything else progressive too, so it's a de facto first priority.

>...your version of 'Truth' is more or less like the preachers and priests of by gone eras. When they are questioned in regards to what some thing is, and they have not the slightest idea what the actual True and Right answer is, they, just like you, replied like you do now, and just say some thing like; "There are some things we human beings can not know".

I don't do or say anything of the kind and i never have.

>Will you explain how this is understanding Truth and explaining Truth at every level of detail?

It's all in the epistemology section of The Whole Story. It's not a partial story ffs.

>Do you write the letter 'i' in capitals some times and in small case at other times for a specific reason?

Yes. It's a reminder to keep my ego in check. Same reason i don't typically claim to be the best philosoper even though it's almost certainly true.

>By the way, when you say you have seen many examples of people understanding 'truth' in part, then are you at all AWARE that that 'truth' is EXTREMELY RELATIVE? In fact that 'truth' is SO RELATIVE that what you are SEEING when you SEE people understand 'it', or not, is actually just your OWN perspective or version of what the 'truth' is, FIRST.

Perspective is only one of the contingencies. Salience and priority are the other two. I've accounted for all of that. to an extent. I try to stick close to Truth Wisdom (epistemology and metaphysics) where i can answer things completely. Over on the spiritual side i can only put things in context because of those contingencies. Every more complete answer must be bespoke.

>So what?

>This does NOT make you the sole and only greatest holder of 'Truth', as you BELIEVE you are. In fact, I actually posed the question; [u][b]'Is it at all possible that "another" has answered MORE philosophical questions than you and/or has BETTER definitions and understanding that does ACTUALLY work, then you have and do?[/b][/u] to you, to SEE if you actually understood what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

Having never met someone who understands it all is evidence that there is no one, because I've been scouring the philosophical internet and you'd expect to find someone, if they're at all accessible, under those circumstances. Lack of evidence can be evidence of lack when you would reasonable expect to find the thing you don't find.

Anyhow, it's not a strong claim. There may well be someone, i simply see no evidence that points to that being the actual case. ...and i truly hope to be wrong.

>By the way, YOU FAILED. SEE, if you Truly understood thee Truth, then you would understand and KNOW that you have NOT read, nor listened to, EACH and EVERY "other" person's thoughts, views, nor understandings, and therefore it is NOT at all possible for you to KNOW, at any given moment, whether or not that "another" has actually answered MORE philosophical questions than you, nor if they have BETTER definitions and/or a BETTER understanding than you have.

The claim you're refuting here is not one i make. I fully admit there could be a better story, i just can't find it. Whatever it is, it won't be a different story than mine, just better organised or written or the like. It's still the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[quote=Advocate post_id=469687 time=1599490481 user_id=15238]
When Utopia comes based on The Whole Story, you need not mention my name.[/quote]

Maybe you're thinking of the same story from a different perspective? [/quote]

Can you rephrase this?

>I am pretty sure, behind EVERY thinking, the EXACT SAME story lies. There are, however, just as many 'different perspectives' as there are human beings, which has to be sorted through and filtered to reach thee One and ONLY True and Right, Correct Story.

I agree with that, and i've done it.

>If you think or believe that you can explain Everything, or a theory of Everything, which is what you call 'your story', and/or REVEAL how Utopia can be reached, or come to be, by NOT involving God, et cetera [whatever 'God, and 'et cetera' refers to, from your 'perspective'], then I think you might be sadly mistaken. If 'you' are going to not include 'God' or 'other things' in YOUR story, or YOUR theory of Everything, just because they do NOT fit in with NOR suit YOUR perspective, but they fit in with and suit the majority of human beings, then I am pretty sure you are setting "your" OWN 'self' up to FAIL, miserably.

I don't go so far as to claim to know what utopia will look like but i can say with a good bit of logical necessity what it will Not look like. Perfection is a direction, not a destination. Nobody knows what it's will look like but almost everyone knows something about what's better than what we have now. I account for god fully, as a concept. Those who say god can be defined sufficiently to verify have the burden of proof to do so.

>I do NOT have any, so called, "caveats". Either I CAN or I CAN NOT, back up and support with evidence or proof. And, I am OPEN to EACH and EVERY clarifying question, and I would LOVE to be challenged on EACH and EVERY one of my claims.

Bullshit. You have exactly the same caveats as i do. You cannot spend indefinite amounts of time and energy on it, you cannot proceed if definitions aren't agreed, and you cannot "answer" any philosophical question any better than i have.

>But OBVIOUSLY if your claim was SPECIFIC ENOUGH, then, to ' prove 'it' ', [the specific claim], would NOT be too much to ask for, SURELY?

I operate from a theory of everything. Yes , asking for all the specifics of every point is too much, and also not useful, especially since most of what you ask for it's already in there!

>Also, WHY not just back up and support YOUR claim with actual evidence and/or proof BEFORE anyone asks you to?

I will be happy to fill in any gaps in TWS if i can ever find someone to help me edit it. No luck so far. The things you're saying aren't supported, are. The gaps that do exist, you haven't mentioned.

>I agree that statistics can be turned around in just anyway to back up and support one's ALREADY held BELIEFS.

Yes, but my point is more toward the fact that even if all parties are well-meaning and honest, there's just no bottom to the "prove it" well. That's why i rely on logical necessity

>Remember, that what one defines as being 'logical necessity' "another" one might not. This might, or might not be, because of each one's ALREADY held BELIEFS.

Yeah, but it's still what it is, even if No One recognizes or acknowledges

>Also, if ANY one is going to ASSUME a 'certain core of common understanding' among "others", then that one will far more likely be far more MISTAKEN.

Without such assumptions there's no starting point.

>Only through Truly OPEN-ended clarifying questioning, and Truly OPEN and Honest answering and clarifying is thee One and ONLY actual "common understanding" found, and itself [i]UNDERSTOOD[/i].

I would agree with the amount of rigor you want under different circumstances, such as After a general agreement was had, to iron out the details. Doing it as a matter of course is why philosophy is stalled. It's truly an infinite regress. Sure Enough is and must be considered sufficient. Enough for what is an empirical wisdom. What do you want to change about the universe?

>If it is, then it would be so much EASIER for 'you' to PROVIDE that, so called, "answer" here, now.

What you seem to consider an answer, i consider well beyond necessary and sufficient.

>Will you provide a few examples of some of YOUR ideas, which are the inherent and necessary rationality of them is immediately obvious, to us?

I have provided many but there are more skeptics than true philosopers here so it doesn't matter.

>The response that would count as 'evidence', for me, is [b][u]the actual available body of facts or information indicating whether YOUR proposition or claim is true or valid.[/u][/b]

Now that is pretty specific and i can say with actionable certainty that i don't concur. The body of facts i rely on is common knowledge, but that doesn't help given your formula. I don't rely on knowledge at all the way you imagine. I can explain what space, time, dimensions, causality, etc. are, but it's too much. That level of detail doesn't clarify anything.

The base contention is that my understanding answers all philosophical questions. One of the prime ways is does that is by Not getting bogged down in unnecessary details. If an answer is sufficient it doesn't even need to be necessary. They're is a very simple way to falsify any of my contentions, find a logical fallacy or exception. There are none. Completeness is not a valid criteria in the sense of filling all gaps. That would be a literally infinite project. They can be filled by logical extension.

But, even to the extent TWS is complete in that sense, it requires bouncing around from epistemology to ethics to metaphysics, depending on what the question is.

>And, the response that would count as 'proof', for me, is the actual unambiguous and irrefutable body of facts or information indicating that YOUR proposition or claim is actually True AND Valid.

That level of specificity is indeed possible for my version of The Truth but i don't see it's value and have no interest in being that specific. My contentions hold water, they do not need to proclaim so to the world in excruciating detail. Anything i've said had been said by many other philosophers many times, look to them for the details. TWS's value is in being the framework that holds all knowledge and understanding together, relationally

>If you are NOT prepared to explain 'This Truth' of YOURS simply, NOR technically, specifically, and in analytical detail, then actually if This Truth of YOURS will EVER be accessible to all?

Well, i happen to know it's poorly formatted ATM, so until i get that worked out it seems unlikely i'll find a philosoper who cares to read it will enough to understand why there Aren't any gaps, and until that happens, it won't be considered acceptable to anyone.

>What is the 'it', exactly, which you claim is "tied all together", through YOUR story, which you call and claim is "The Whole Story"?

The organisational framework that allows for universal taxonomy (in the ordinary sense of the word - tying All knowledge, wisdom, and understanding together by explaining it's context and relationships). It literally answers all philosopy questions, cohesively and with no woo or gaps. A less-than-full explanation doesn't count as a gap.. The line must be drawn somewhere and the more can be cut out as unnecessary, the better it will be accessible to all.

>By the way, you will define what the words 'ordinary speech' actually mean, to 'you'?

Some concepts like respect or mindfulness are typically misunderstood and in those cases i supply a specific definition with reasons. As for the rest, i find an ordinary dictionary definition (Google search) that doesn't have any obvious logical problems, and use it. There's room for mistakes when a word or concept has several competing definitions but nevertheless, an ordinary definition suffices.

>Also, some would say that indicating to, and asking a self-identified autistic one, if '[i]the complete organization of everything' part[/i] is appealing, especially, when that 'part' REALLY does NOT have ANY thing at all in it, YET, is NOT the most wisest and smartest thing that one could possibly do.

The appeal i see, on your behalf, is that that part is Not finished. The appeal is that there's work to be done that will fill all those gaps, not just the stuff i address but literally all knowledge!

Likewise, the Spiritual Math part is basically a graphical calculus for metaphors. That should be salient to any intellectual but especially for those who value organisation.

>But, from my perspective, you have NOT yet even begun to REALLY analysis things, at all.

I get it. You want things to be formulaic, essentially. That's a project you can take on. I've got a lot more core work to do with it than to spend time on the fringes adding extra details few will ever see or understand.

>In fact, you have even stated that you are: [u][b]NOT willing to get all technical and specific and draw things out in analytical detail[/b][/u], which could be a CLEAR INDICATION that you actually CAN NOT, YET.

Nope, that caveat is fully explained, and it's basically logistical.

>Well is it NOT YET OBVIOUS, to you, that if you REALLY want to SHOW and EXPRESS thee actual Truth, then speaking in metaphor could not be anymore ridiculous.

That's completely wrong. The truth IS a metaphor. Everything non-empirical is a metaphor and that includes all opinions, preferences, priorities, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, TWS is a metaphor. The answers to physics and economics are metaphors. Scientific answers aren't metaphors, but they're better explained that way.

>What exactly is the 'that', which is the 'kind of editing help you are looking for with The Whole Story, too?

I lost the context of what you're responding to there but it's something along the lines of rearranging it so a) it's easy enough to read that anyone bothers b) everything's in the right place so it's obvious of something is missing or not c) making sure nothing is missing

No, nothing is missing in the sense of not being represented, but it might be an idea that has tendrils in both aesthetics and metaphysics, for example. Or there might be a famous thought experiment that would clarify things better than i have, and so forth. In that sense it's Very incomplete.

The mind is a metaphor. free will is a metaphor. consent is a metaphor. Everything is a metaphor for life in one way or other, and it's the common language of most of humanity, prevent company excluded.

>Obviously writing just thee One and ONLY actual Truth, instead of writing metaphors, then you could NEVER be mistaken, and you could and would then be expressing what are unambiguous and irrefutable FACTS, ONLY.

It's a fact that metaphor is necessary to explain most of philosophy. Appeal to facts is only useful for ideas that can be materially measured.

Ok, that was a Long comment so hopefully i at least touched on everything that was important. There are more and less accurate and aesthetically salient ways even to present metaphors. I'm not sure how to go about working with that fact.. it's why i need to find an editor with the capacity to organise and not just refute.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

Age wrote:
Can you please correct the quote function as the last three quotes of mine in your post are attributed to Advocate not to me
Okay, already done. But if still not correct, then just inform me again.

By the way, what you attributed to me here in this post, and quote, was not me but you.

Also, remember that I have ALREADY informed you, a number of times now, that you continually INCORRECTLY quote me.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am
Age wrote:Where is [ it ] claimed that what exists HAS TO BE physical ?
Well physicality is a condition of existence and so is therefore contained within the actual definition
But WHERE, exactly, is this "condition of existence" for 'physicality' exist, itself? And, WHERE, exactly, is the 'definition', where this "condition of existence" actually is supposedly contained within?

WHAT 'definition' says that what exists HAS TO BE 'physical'?
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 amThat is to say that anything that is physical has to be exist and anything that exists has to be physical
Is this an actual actuality, evidenced and proven by some actual 'thing', or is this just what you accept as being true?

If it is the latter, then will you please PROVIDE the actual 'thing', which backs up and supports what you are claiming here.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am
Age wrote:And what evidence and / or proof is there that this claim is absolutely without doubt irrefutably and unambiguously factually True ?
This claim is true because it is how those words are defined as I demonstrated above
But I am still waiting for you to SHOW, EXACTLY, WHERE the definitions ARE, supporting your CLAIM, which you now claim EXIST, as you have NOT previously demonstrated any such thing above, at all.

What are 'those words'?
How are 'those words' 'defined'?
And, from what source, exactly, did you get those actual 'definitions', for 'those words', which I am waiting for?
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am
Age wrote: You do not now use the term The Mind or you do not use the term The Mind in the way I do ?
If it is the latter then is the Mind or the mind physical to you in the way you describe it ?
If yes then what actual evidence and / or proof do you have that that thing is a physical thing ?
I do not use it in the way you do and I do not capitalise it either as you do
Okay.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 amThe mind is physical because it is how the brain actually functions or as you prefer to say thoughts within the brain
This does NOT explain, to me, at all how the 'mind', to you, is physical.

In fact saying; "The mind is physical because the mind is how the brain actually functions", only distorts and confuses things further, to me.

How, exactly, does the brain actually function, to you?

Also, if I was to say, 'thoughts within the brain', then this, to me, is NO explanation at all of how the brain actually works, nor how the brain actually functions, and that saying also has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Mind being physical or not.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 amIt is specifically a physical process rather than a physical thing but that distinction is academic as its still physical
What does saying, "but that distinction is academic", actually mean, to you, exactly?

And, what is the 'it', which you claim is specifically a physical process rather than a physical thing?
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 amThe brain itself is a physical thing and its functions are also physical because they exist and can also be observed
I agree that the brain, itself, is a physical thing and that the brain's functions are also physical, but not just because they exist, but rather because they can be be observed to be physical things.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am
Age wrote:I agree knowledge itself can be demonstrated and even agree that knowledge itself HAS to be demonstrated physically
However this does NOT provide an explanation of HOW nor WHY the mental itself is physical
How about you define to us what the mental is exactly and then show or reveal to us how this thing is actually physical ?
The mental is the physical because it also exists but just on a more subtle scale
So, you will NOT define what the 'mental' is exactly, NOR will you show or reveal to us just how that 'thing/definition' is actually physical, correct?

I am still unsure WHERE this CLAIM that just 'because it exists', then it MUST BE physical comes from, exactly.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:03 am
Age wrote:I for one would love to see how what you claim here can be demonstrated at this particular point in time when this is being written
From my perspective from what I have observed so far I have NOT seen any evidence NOR proof that the mental which to me are just thoughts or the Mind are both or either physical or non physical . This is WHY I describe both of them as being non visible instead . But anyway if anyone can SHOW me either way then I would be most interested in seeing and finding out if they are either physical or non physical things
Thoughts are electrochemical signals in the brain caused by the firing of neurons so are most definitely physical
Okay. So, we agree that there is activity within the brain, which is known as 'electrochemical signals', which is caused by, or is, the firing of neurons. But, is there some actual illustrated, irrefutable PROOF that this 'firing of neurons', or that these 'electrochemical signals', is what 'thoughts', themselves, ARE, exactly?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?
Are you trying to make a point?
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Gary Childress »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?
I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.
Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.
I suppose if I published an article on how to build an atomic bomb in the local newspaper it might be a bad thing to do and worth it to keep it from being published.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Sculptor post_id=470357 time=1599740759 user_id=17400]
[quote=Advocate post_id=468974 time=1599068696 user_id=15238]
a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?
[/quote]
Are you trying to make a point?
[/quote]

Trying to ensure the conversation stays on point.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:48 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.
Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.
I suppose if I published an article on how to build an atomic bomb in the local newspaper it might be a bad thing to do and worth it to keep it from being published.
There is nothing secret about how to build an atomic bomb. Different countries keep specific designs secret of course, but the principles, with details, have been published long ago. If you prevent any knowledge from being published, since someone already has the knowledge, you are deciding who can and cannot have knowledge. Do you think that is right?
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Gary Childress »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:08 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:48 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am
Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.
I suppose if I published an article on how to build an atomic bomb in the local newspaper it might be a bad thing to do and worth it to keep it from being published.
There is nothing secret about how to build an atomic bomb. Different countries keep specific designs secret of course, but the principles, with details, have been published long ago. If you prevent any knowledge from being published, since someone already has the knowledge, you are deciding who can and cannot have knowledge. Do you think that is right?
Depends on the type of knowledge. If it involves a blueprint for making a weapon of mass destruction, I think it's justifiable to suppress it. Any value taken to an extreme becomes problematic. It's just the way life is. You can still have relatively free speech without the freedom to jeopardize society to destruction. Same with the freedom to do things. There are limits to the freedom to do things, although the limits are relatively extreme.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by RCSaunders »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:16 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:08 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:48 pm

I suppose if I published an article on how to build an atomic bomb in the local newspaper it might be a bad thing to do and worth it to keep it from being published.
There is nothing secret about how to build an atomic bomb. Different countries keep specific designs secret of course, but the principles, with details, have been published long ago. If you prevent any knowledge from being published, since someone already has the knowledge, you are deciding who can and cannot have knowledge. Do you think that is right?
Depends on the type of knowledge. If it involves a blueprint for making a weapon of mass destruction, I think it's justifiable to suppress it. Any value taken to an extreme becomes problematic. It's just the way life is. You can still have relatively free speech without the freedom to jeopardize society to destruction. Same with the freedom to do things. There are limits to the freedom to do things, although the limits are relatively extreme.
I can think of few things that would be more beneficial to individual human beings than the destruction of what is called society, the organized repression of individual freedom. Unfortunately, that will never happen. As for suppressing information, it cannot be done. Anyone who wants to disseminate it will find a way to do it and anyone who wants it will find a way to get it, and all the paranoid collectivists, who have staked their life on society remaining ignorant (to be safe), will be perpetually petrified. It is essentially fear of the truth.
KLewchuk
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by KLewchuk »

Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:26 am
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm
Age wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:28 am

What does the word 'eudaimonia' mean, to you?



What EXACTLY is that difference?



But WHY, exactly, would a human being find letters written in CAPITALS 'offensive'?

How could, and how would, just EMPHASIZING some words, just through CAPITAL LETTERS, be 'offensive' to SOME people?

HOW and WHY may you find my use of CAPITALS 'offensive'?

What does the word 'offensive' actually mean, to you?
Does a person need to justify their feelings if the feel offended.
To me, NO.

I was NEVER even thinking this, let alone wrote any thing like this, which would imply nor mean this.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm How about a situation where a derogatory was used in CAPITALS.
What about that situation?

Obviously I was NEVER referring to NOR talking about that situation. My actual CLARIFYING QUESTIONS and what they were actually referring to, which I posed to you, can be CLEARLY SEEN.

KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm By using CAPITALS, it reminds me of the derogatory term and hurts my feelings.
'What' 'derogatory term' are you even referring to here, now?

You appear to have JUMPED from what I was asking, to SOME 'situation', which I have absolutely NO idea what 'situation' you on about.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm In case you think this is not a good thought experiment:
https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg- ... -students/
'What' 'thought experiment' are you now talking about and referring to?

And, what has that link got to do with the ACTUAL OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I posed, to you?

I REALLY do wish people would just ask the actual OPEN questions I ask them, instead of ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING ANY thing else.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm Eudaimonia is an umbrella term of all things conducive to well being in proper measure... see nichomachean ethics
Okay.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm If you say that you don't like my accent, I am offended... if shoot me in the head, I am harmed.
I will ask, again; What does the word 'offensive' actually mean, to you?

And now I will also ask; How, exactly, would you be 'offended', if some one said to you what they do not like?
Age,

This is getting tiresome. Offensive is a emotion of displeasure that is largely displeasure (see Hume). My point is that such subjective states were not evidence of guilt by some "offender" in the past. Now it is... read the newspaper.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:50 am
Age wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:26 am
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm

Does a person need to justify their feelings if the feel offended.
To me, NO.

I was NEVER even thinking this, let alone wrote any thing like this, which would imply nor mean this.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm How about a situation where a derogatory was used in CAPITALS.
What about that situation?

Obviously I was NEVER referring to NOR talking about that situation. My actual CLARIFYING QUESTIONS and what they were actually referring to, which I posed to you, can be CLEARLY SEEN.

KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm By using CAPITALS, it reminds me of the derogatory term and hurts my feelings.
'What' 'derogatory term' are you even referring to here, now?

You appear to have JUMPED from what I was asking, to SOME 'situation', which I have absolutely NO idea what 'situation' you on about.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm In case you think this is not a good thought experiment:
https://reason.com/2020/09/03/usc-greg- ... -students/
'What' 'thought experiment' are you now talking about and referring to?

And, what has that link got to do with the ACTUAL OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I posed, to you?

I REALLY do wish people would just ask the actual OPEN questions I ask them, instead of ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING ANY thing else.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm Eudaimonia is an umbrella term of all things conducive to well being in proper measure... see nichomachean ethics
Okay.
KLewchuk wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:05 pm If you say that you don't like my accent, I am offended... if shoot me in the head, I am harmed.
I will ask, again; What does the word 'offensive' actually mean, to you?

And now I will also ask; How, exactly, would you be 'offended', if some one said to you what they do not like?
Age,

This is getting tiresome. Offensive is a emotion of displeasure that is largely displeasure (see Hume).
But I asked 'YOU' for YOUR definition. NOT some 'hume' thing, which may NOT be able to reply back to me directly, in the days of when this is being written.

And, if this was getting tiresome, then IF you provided your clarifying definition the FIRST TIME, then LOGICALLY and OBVIOUSLY you would NOT have gotten so 'tiresome'.

So, 'offensive', or 'being offended', is just ANOTHER ONE of the 450 or so emotions 'you', human beings, have. And it is an emotion in relation to displeasure.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification, FINALLY.
KLewchuk wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:50 am My point is that such subjective states were not evidence of guilt by some "offender" in the past. Now it is... read the newspaper.
But WHY would I have to read the newspaper to KNOW what is ALREADY OBVIOUS?

Also, WHY are you making 'your point', which is ALREADY KNOWN and ALREADY OBVIOUS. What is also ALREADY KNOWN, and JUST AS OBVIOUS, is that, 'such subjective states that are not evidence of guilt by some "offender", in the days of when this is being written, WILL BE, in the future.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
WHAT definition says that what exists HAS TO BE physical ?
At dictionary . com exist is defined as to have actual being and physical is defined as relating to the material
Since anything that has actual being has to be material then anything that exists has to be physical

Also since the Universe is ALL THERE IS then everything within it has to be physical
Non physical things cannot exist therefore everything that exists must be physical

This does NOT explain to me at all how the mind to you is physical
In fact saying The mind is physical because the mind is how the brain actually functions only distorts and confuses things further to me
All phenomena are physical because they cannot be anything else and this also includes the functioning of physical things
And so both the brain [ the physical organ ] and the mind [ the functioning of that organ ] are both physical


So we agree that there is activity within the brain which is known as electrochemical signals which is caused by or is the firing of neurons . But is there
some actual illustrated irrefutable PROOF that this firing of neurons or that these electrochemical signals is what thoughts themselves ARE exactly ?
There is no irrefutable proof as science does not actually deal in proof [ other than in disproof ] but in evidence
And the evidence from neuroscience is that thoughts are electrochemical signals caused by the firing of neurons
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ethical suppression of speech

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:01 pm
Age wrote:
WHAT definition says that what exists HAS TO BE physical ?
At dictionary . com exist is defined as to have actual being and physical is defined as relating to the material
Since anything that has actual being has to be material then anything that exists has to be physical
But the whole essence of the word 'being' in relation to say the word 'Spirit' as in God, soul, et cetera is that they are non visible, and therefore might also be non physical as well. Besides this the 'being' part of the 'human being', or the 'person' or 'personal' or 'personality' part of the 'human being' might also be a non physical part. For example when a human body is cut open where EXACTLY is the 'person', or 'personality' part of that 'human being'.

And, just like the Mind is a non visible thing so to are the thoughts and emotions within a human body, and therefore all of these things, themselves, may actually be non physical things. Until the PROOF comes forward that these non visible things are either physical or not, then I, at least, remain OPEN.

After all it is said that the Mind, the thoughts, and/or the emotions, (that is; the non visible), is the part that makes the 'human being' 'being' what 'it' is said to 'be'. That is; being a ''father'' or a ''mother'', a ''doctor'' or a ''lawyer'', a ''pilot'' or a ''driver'', a ''footballer'' or a ''basketballer'', a ''muslim'' or a "christian", an "american" or an "irishman", et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And until it is PROVEN, once, and for ALL, that it is completely and utterly the physical parts of the human body which makes the non visible Mind, thoughts, and/or emotions come to 'be', then what might be discovered and found is that it is actually some or ALL times the non visible Mind, thoughts, and/or emotions, which actually make the 'human being' 'being' what 'it' is said to 'be'.

What thee actual Truth here IS will be found and uncovered, soon enough.

Remember just because your view some thing as being true, then this does NOT mean that 'what you think is true' is necessarily actually true.

By the way, your explanation above did NOT answer my actual question. I asked, WHAT 'definition' says that what exists HAS TO BE 'physical'? And, your answer was; At 'dictionary.com' states the word 'exist' is defined as; to have actual being.

Now, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is 'that definition' does NOT say that what exists HAS TO BE 'physical' AT ALL. ALL you have done here is provide YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION, and have NOT provided WHAT 'definition' says what I asked for.

Also, you mentioned that the word 'physical' is defined as; relating to the material. And, what is 'material' can be observed, or experienced, through any or all of the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, correct?

If yes, then how, EXACTLY, are the Mind, thoughts, and emotions observed, and/or experienced, through any of the five senses?

And to add to all of this, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that you have JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION, based solely upon what you think and/or presume is already true.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:01 pm Also since the Universe is ALL THERE IS then everything within it has to be physical
Non physical things cannot exist therefore everything that exists must be physical
You are, once again, JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, BEFORE actual PROVE is obtained. By the way, 'you' are doing this because you are basing this knowledge, or knowing, solely upon just what you ALREADY think and/or assume is true.

Saying; 'everything within the Universe 'HAS TO BE' physical', because, 'since the Universe is 'ALL THERE IS' ' does NOT logically follower, NOR is obviously a logical necessity. The two do NOT logically belong together. Just like saying;

'Non physical things cannot exist', therefore, 'everything that exists must be physical' does NOT logically belong together, EITHER.

What is OBVIOUSLY CLEAR is you are just expressing what you THINK and/or ASSUME is ALREADY true. And, you are 'trying to' word things in ways, which APPEARS to be logically correct and true. But, which OBVIOUSLY are NOT REALLY.

By the way, what you are proposing here is that the Universe, Itself, is just One physical thing, correct?

If yes, then WHY the apparent separate different physical things?

But if no, then what are you proposing the Universe, Itself, actually IS?
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:01 pm
Age wrote:This does NOT explain to me at all how the mind to you is physical
In fact saying The mind is physical because the mind is how the brain actually functions only distorts and confuses things further to me
All phenomena are physical because they cannot be anything else and this also includes the functioning of physical things
So, the phenomena of 'thoughts' and 'emotions' are physical, to you, because they cannot be anything else, correct?

If yes, then, to me, this is CLEAR and PRIME EXAMPLE of when one is just expressing what they ALREADY think or believe is absolutely TRUE.

Saying some thing like; ALL 'P's' are 'X's' because ALL 'P's' cannot be anything else, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one just expressing what they already assume or believe is true, without having any actual evidence nor proof for this assumption nor belief.

Also, exactly HOW does the brain actually function, which you sum up in, and by, the one word 'mind'.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:01 pm And so both the brain [ the physical organ ] and the mind [ the functioning of that organ ] are both physical
Okay. This is one way, and ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE, of "justifying" to one's self that what they ALREADY assume and/or believe is true, is true.
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:01 pm
Age wrote:So we agree that there is activity within the brain which is known as electrochemical signals which is caused by or is the firing of neurons . But is there some actual illustrated irrefutable PROOF that this firing of neurons or that these electrochemical signals is what thoughts themselves ARE exactly ?
There is no irrefutable proof as science does not actually deal in proof [ other than in disproof ]
Are you aware that 'science', itself, is NOT the only thing in relation to KNOWING, and knowledge?
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:01 pmbut in evidence
But 'evidence', itself, does NOT prove any thing. 'Evidence', as can be CLEARLY SEEN and NOTICED is just a word, which is mostly used to 'try to' "justify" one's own already held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true.

But considering your response, I will now rephrase my question, to you; Is there some actual illustrated irrefutable evidence, which suggests that this firing of neurons or that these electrochemical signals is what 'thoughts', themselves, ARE exactly?
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:01 pmAnd the evidence from neuroscience is that thoughts are electrochemical signals caused by the firing of neurons[/color]
What does the word 'evidence' actually mean, to you?

Do NOT FORGET, the human beings who work in the subject called "neuroscience" have to 'JUSTIFY' their 'work' or 'study' in order to continually obtain more money from "other" human beings. Therefore, those human beings in that line of work have to continually work hard at wording things, in very particular ways, to get what they 'want'.

People can generally, so call, "find" what they want to, and/or what 'it' is, in order to get what 'it' is that they 'want'.

The ONLY evidence there is is that there IS, what is called, 'electrochemical signals'. But, if these ACTUALLY ARE 'thoughts', themselves, is just an ASSUMPTION, or GUESS.

This same principle applies to there is evidence that there is, what is called, 'redshift', but what this ACTUALLY MEANS is just an ASSUMPTION, or GUESS. As is the same with the evidence that clocks read different, what is called, 'time', depending on there speed AND direction, but what this ACTUALLY MEANS is just another ASSUMPTION, or GUESS.

See, "time" slows down with speed, the Universe expands, and thoughts are physical are ALL just nothing more than ASSUMPTIONS, or GUESSES, which may or may not be true at all. But, sadly, are things which SOME people actually ASSUME and/or BELIEVE are factually true.
Post Reply