Banno

And so you revert back to spitting. FIne.

Is that you agreeing that the question of what we ought do remains unanswered? That would be progress. If your question is now "what ought we do", the...

Time now to agree that the question of what we ought do remains unaddressed.

Yep. And?

It presents Energy/Information/Mind, three quite distinct concepts, in a vague and inadequate way.

There are limits on our choices, sure, obviously. But our choices are not fixed. We have options. My "belligerent presence" is simply pointing out tha...

The Principle of Relativity asks us to set out the laws of physics in such a way that they apply to all frames of reference. That is, to aim to set ou...

If the future is fixed as you suggest, there is no point to this thread, or any discourse about what to do. It will happen regardless. Which, of cours...

Talking of scaling, consider migration: Notice again that understanding what is the case does not tell us what you ought do about it.

Ok.

Just more spit. Personal attacks. I wonder why.

Cobblers. If anything I seek to direct discussions of scientism towards intentionality. I understand that. You focus on your "ineliminable subjective ...

Does "the world is what is the case" derive from Wittgenstein? That can't be a serious question.

The bit where I pointed out the narcissism of small differences. I'm not convinced that what I call realism is not what you call idealism. Simply beca...

The "reality" of the world - that some things are the case - cannot be called into question. There are things that are the case. There are true statem...

Well, you keep replying to my posts... Odd, then, that so much of what you direct at me is spit and name-calling. You could just ignore me, if you thi...

What? Then wipe your chin.

Not after two o'clock. That leads to late nights. More spit. Are you suggesting that there are folk for whom the world is not what is the case?

PF has managed to survive more than a dozen years of me despite my best efforts. Again, your arbitrary rules would dissuade participation.

If you think it trolling, stop trip-trapping over my bridge.

Bah. You are obsessed with rules. Looks to be an attempt to avoid the sort of spotlight @"TonesInDeepFreeze" shines on your logical misunderstandings ...

Yeah, it does: 1) Language matters. Forcing someone to rabbit on at length in order to meet an arbitrary word limit is not conducive to quality. And

I don't see any advantage in encouraging verbosity. Short is good. Yep. And 's suggestions would reduce participation.

No. Sure, "The cognitive process of world-construction is subconscious or subliminal. I'm talking about our whole 'meaning-world', the entirety of our...

I'm dubious concerning the use of "cause" in physics, let alone logic. Others hereabouts use "logic" quite broadly, but I am disinclined to follow. So...

"causality as imagined by logic"? What could that possibly be?

Notice the difference between the world being what is the case, and the idealist view that the world is what we believe, know, intuit, hope, doubt to ...

Well, not for the folk for whom the world is what is not the case.

No. I'm a bit surprised you think this of what has been said. The world is what is the case.

Deductive logic does not produce anything not in the assumptions. Inductive, abductive, and dialectic "logics" are quite different, and quite contenti...

Indeed, it remains a mystery how our beliefs might be coherent unless there is something - a coherent world - to keep them so. Cobblers. I'm showing h...

If "red" is just in your mind, when you ask for a red pen, how is it that the person you are asking hands you what you want?

I don't! I think I made that clear. What I have pointed out is the difference between what we hold to be true and what is true - between belief and tr...

:roll: I think it sets out my claim pretty well.

Logic is just how to talk with some sort of consistency. Well, without some presumption of coherence, at least. If the aim of physics is to produce a ...

Please excuse my butting in. I have no wish to "establish what the world would be outside your cognition"; it's a nonsense. And that's not "the myth o...

Ok. If you will not participate in a dialogue... Even to say that "In the absence of minds the universe such as it is, is featureless, formless, and l...

Who is that addressed to? Or should that be "what..."?

:wink: I can't think of a better example of "whereof one cannot speak..."

SO set out the inference, that we might be guided.

How can you possibly know this?

I'm not too keen to join the speculative physics hereabouts. I don't think it has been shown to be particularly relevant to the topic. Justice and fai...

:roll: Back to abstruse verbosity. I'll leave you to it; no doubt this post will be followed by another round of spit, but at least you now recognise ...

To use your own example, where is the synthesis between global and local? Is it the nation? The state? The city? the neighbourhood? All of these - and...

Thanks. I'm not reading that this morning. Maybe later. I'm only using formalism in order to set out with some clarity the argument at hand. Putting H...

Ok. To my eye, it looks as if my critique has hit home and there is no difference to be given between your idealism and my realism.

Such an approach might be interesting, but the link has little content and I could find little else. Can you say more? It might be interesting to see ...

Ok, tell me what I ignored.

...and back to spit and the one true faith. But it was worth it. :wink:

Pretty much. Esoteric stuff. Hence my lumpen emphasis on medium size smallgoods, the stuff of life. But the debate gives us something amusing for a qu...