Banno

"Only the true Messiah denies his divinity" - Life of Brian.

Tha's what I was pointing out.

Content. What's that? Referentialy, extensionaly, they are identical. If you think there is a sense in whcih they are different it is up to you to pre...

Yes! Don't stop being a nurse to become a manager.

The error here is to think that fact has one meaning, one use, and our job is to fathom that. It ain't necessarily so. So a fact can be what is the ca...

And there is the issue.

A thing: a,b,c... A predicate: F,G,H... A fact: Fa, Ga, Hb Facts are not things.

What is the difference between the fact that grass is green and the green grass? Nothing. They are truth functionally equivalent.

Stop arguing and act.

Just fix your gun laws.

Cold reading.

You are civil. But would you believe them?

But the heavens are really big. Isn't there more than a modicum of hubris in thinking they reflect our mundane crawling?

SO astrology is not bullshit - there are those who genuinely believe that it does work.

So here is the serious question: How could Astrology work?

Why not? How could it work?

I'm interested in why you think that, and how you have looked into it. Have you read much on Astronomy? Or on Astrology?

I do believe it makes more sense...

And is it true?

You sure it's not "librarian"?

So who thinks cannibalism is a bad thing?

Mine, too. Although I quite like Time enough for love.

Nice.

Asimov's Foundation series was almost unreadable. A ridiculous premise and feeble, sexless characters.

I'm not a balanced individual.

Now that is a topic that might get us to 100 pages.

Is that your star-sign, of the sign the sun was in when you were born? Curiously, there are now 13 constellations in the Zodiac, including s constella...

Too wishy-washy? Too watered down?

He was pretty disparaging of astrology. I suspect he would have treated an intellectual who came ti its defences with disdain.

There. Quoted.

It's origin goes back at least to the 1500's.

The sun was in Aquarius when I was born.

The trouble with quitism is not the quiet, but the ism.

What would such a conjecture look like? Can an example be provided? I doubt it.

I quite agree. I only would add that many philosophical problems come from failing to recognise when we have slipped from discussing ineffability to d...

We say things like "I viewed Io exiting an eclipse at such-and-such a time", these are lived observations - are these so different to feelings? And ye...

An all-and-some statement, neither provable nor falsifiable, much loved by conspiracy theorists. What I am unhappy with is you insistence that truth c...

But, demonstrably, we do talk about feelings in the third person.

It's not as if those feelings were ineffable; whence poetry and art? Feelings have physiological explanations. Yes, there is a difference between feel...

I suspect that truth is too subtle - or too simple - to be trapped in an algorithm. You are referred to as apokrisis; it is true that you are referred...

Then I do not agree with your assumption that there is a something it is like to see. Rather there is the act of seeing, and this has a physiological ...

If you like; think of my comment as setting out which certainty interests me.

Shhh.

But theories of light and perception do tell us about how it is possible to experience trees. You nod at something more. What is the something more?

Stop yabbering and act.

It is not doubted; it is certain. That's a start. Here's my Reader's Digest history of epistemology. Descartes and Spinoza tried to find an algorithmi...

'cause I was writing in a hurry. Fixed.

More on certainty. It is a type of belief, not a type of truth. There are two obvious approaches. In the first truth is taken to be approachable only ...

A tree, perhaps? Folks tend to get hung up on notions of proof and evidence: don't believe it without some justification. The opposite can also be tru...

That's what I see as problematic. How do we explain the collectively established attributes? Why do they turn out to be the same for all ten observers...