Oh, I wasn't retracting on the value of the distinction. However, you had made me realize that the descriptive project can record the fact of one partner pressuring the other to accept a categorical and not just a hypothetical value.

I think I need to retreat to a usage that involves logic/reason. My position is that this pressure cannot succeed at a logical argument for accepting a categorical but only a hypothetical. It can try, but it must fail. However, limbic, non-lingustic pressure to accept a categorical is found everywhere.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

It might not be necessary but you took the effort and I figured letting you know about it was in line with your original intention.

May the rest of your day look up from here! And the funny thing is, I think 'wort' was supposed to read as 'worst'. Ironically, I'm an avid brewer so a wort day is very good day indeed, lol.

> I remember in one of our earlier conversations, I proposed that "reason" should be turned into two terms: "cause" and "plan-given-knowledge". You weren't impressed.

Hmmmm....maybe I misunderstood....want to run it by me again?

> In general I do believe that separating out different senses is important for reasoning because logic cannot allow for one meaning in one clause and another in a different clause of the same argument. This fallacy is omnipresent in anything but the equations of hard science IMO

Exactly my point (I think).....and worse: based on my observations, many people seem to think that Science is The answer to all our problems (presumably because of its genuinely amazing track record of success, but only in the limited domain within which it practices), but don't realize that science doesn't really take into consideration the complex layers of metaphysical reality that do indeed exist, whether or not we have a means of measuring them. As long as we continue to ignore metaphysics, it will continue to fuck up our shit, and we will continue to blame it on literal fantasies.

> Yes, of course I identify with whorfism. I would go further than the strong version. Non linguistic Neural modules programmed by our society generate assertions and assent to them at very advanced points in the chain of reasoning. Foundationalism as a realistic model for human reason is quite laughable really.

Ok, that makes two of us. I think we need better marketing for this potentially transformational movement.

Thank you. I have never tried to use the feature before and was not aware of what the protocol was.

Do you think, BTW, that for older movie and such a general comment it is necessary to take this precaution?

Anyway, fixed it. If this had been the first thing I learned today, I would say that it was wort getting up this morning. But, thankfully, my day has been full of such experiences. ;)

I remember in one of our earlier conversations, I proposed that "reason" should be turned into two terms: "cause" and "plan-given-knowledge". You weren't impressed.

In general I do believe that separating out different senses is important for reasoning because logic cannot allow for one meaning in one clause and another in a different clause of the same argument. This fallacy is omnipresent in anything but the equations of hard science IMO

Yes, of course I identify with whorfism. I would go further than the strong version. Non linguistic Neural modules programmed by our society generate assertions and assent to them at very advanced points in the chain of reasoning. Foundationalism as a realistic model for human reason is quite laughable really.

The spoiler tag is messed up on the formatting, it didn't hide the actual spoiler.

Amazed that the article does not mention "Minority Report". Spoiler! >!The movie posits a future where the tech is so advanced, that the police know in advance when the crime will be committed. (Pity the movie turned to Psychics instead.)!<

If today the program can tell the neighborhood, tomorrow it will be the street. Will we hit quantum effects before we can tell which house and when?

However, algorithm and computing power are not the only parameters. If we add extensive and invasive data collection to the process, the path from today to that moment is quite evident.

The question is (1) Do we want to continue increasing the data collection levels (you could argue that it will correlate to safety for some) (2) Do we want to keep this data collection in the hands of opaque institutions? (OTOH if you make it more public the chance of a leak, arguably, increases)

One last point. You'd be amazed how useful "innocent" incidental data is. Just the expressions on faces or even clothing style and gait may correlate to other data in unexpected ways.

did you just read this?

[removed]

> The answer is false.

Excel disagrees.

> Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

Let's say someone asserts that there is a ticking time bomb planted at some location, and there is a dispute between people on the matter. As long as the dispute remains, does that prevent the bomb from exploding?

It also suggests that reality itself takes on the form that humans believe it to be, does it not?

> If truth is a socially-constructed concept developed to allow human coordination, then we learn from each other when to assent. The education process is more one-sided than "each other" might indicate, but in the long term it works by "pass it forward".

Do you think it would be useful for humanity to have a separate term for the oh so common (I'd estimate 75%++ of all discussions/beliefs) scenario where there is a distinction between ~"cultural/social truth" and actual truth?

Followup question: hard whorfism - are you a believer? (Arguing with linguists on that topic is....recursively interesting).

It depends if you are cloned and deleted or actually moved

On one hand: agree. On the other hand: most people seem unable to even seriously grapple with the notion of Truth, so from a pragmatic perspective I think it's very useful.

Do you have a superior proposal? I'm always looking for ways to improve.

Aka: unknown or null.

I don't think this necessarily applies though as definitions (implementations) can do an end run around it, like a tie having zero race leader or two race leaders....there is the objective physical state of reality, and the subjective perceptual/narrative state, but humans tend to conflate the two (the subjective state often appears to be objective).

It was fun, I think we were kinda arguing two related but distinct points simultaneously though.....Reddit sucks for serious arguments.

RL or not RL

What if there is no data feed for portions of the race? What value would one store for those timestamps?

>Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

>Because this is never the case...

So, the op article is true.... nothing is true!

It bothers me that mental constructs are so ambiguous and yet so ubiquitous.

Is that a true or false question? Are you asking if it is true or false the value exists? What is n, a number? If so, no the value does not exist. The answer is false. You can’t divide by zero. Next question.

Then I would not have a dog. The statement would be false.