tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post3760958076521520640..comments2024-03-28T14:07:18.682-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Oligarchy and aristocracy and powerDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80029348339076065432019-03-16T20:25:33.782-07:002019-03-16T20:25:33.782-07:00Are you tired of being human, having talented brai...Are you tired of being human, having talented brain turning to a vampire in a good posture in ten minutes, Do you want to have power and influence over others, To be charming and desirable, To have wealth, health, without delaying in a good human posture and becoming an immortal? If yes, these your chance. It's a world of vampire where life get easier,We have made so many persons vampires and have turned them rich, You will assured long life and prosperity, You shall be made to be very sensitive to mental alertness, Stronger and also very fast, You will not be restricted to walking at night only even at the very middle of broad day light you will be made to walk, This is an opportunity to have the human vampire virus to perform in a good posture. If you are interested contact us on Vampirelord7878@gmail.com<br /> Or Add up on Whats-app +233248104710Lord Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802168788305626209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38357193980339784172019-03-10T23:30:04.132-07:002019-03-10T23:30:04.132-07:00...These are the modern aristocrats...
Bingo!...These are the modern aristocrats...<br /><br />Bingo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33546090521017064192019-03-10T14:34:29.245-07:002019-03-10T14:34:29.245-07:00"Under those conditions, only one tax should ..."Under those conditions, only one tax should remain very high - taxes on destructive habits and sins we seek to discourage: alcohol, gambling and inheritance. Yes, you read that right."<br /><br />I think you meant to write "only one type of tax..." The jurisdiction I left last year enacted increased sin taxes in 2017 and I left before the litigation storm developed. I don't have a problem with sin taxes (easy for me to say since I don't smoke, don't gamble, and rarely drink). <br /><br />I disagree with you regarding inheritance taxes. I agree with you that inherited wealth can be corrosive and destructive. I also believe that we need to make the wealthy pay more taxes. However, the effectiveness of these inheritance taxes is greatly reduced because they encourage the most aggressive forms of tax avoidance planning. Most people have little idea how these taxes work. Its easy to say you want to tax inheritances; it is very hard to actually tax them. You will note that many of the world's wealthiest people support inheritance taxes; that is because they have already invested enormous amounts of time and treasure making certain that their estates will never be taxes.<br /><br />About 10 years ago, I had a chance encounter with a well-respected tax lawyer Bob Schottenstein who was running as a Democrat against John Kasich for a seat in Congress. Bob was friends with my parents we respected each other. He made a comment that doing away with the federal estate and gift tax would be a boon for people like Paris Hilton. My response to Bob was that the only reason why Ms. Hilton had any wealth was because the structure of the estate and gift tax encouraged her great grand parents and grand parents to make irrevocable gifts into trusts for yet unborn descendants in order to reduce the amount of such taxes payable. If there had been no estate and gift tax, any trust for Ms.Hilton would have been revocable and they would have eliminated her trust.<br /><br />A greater problem is dealing with people who get rich leveraging other people's money. By that I mean corporate managers and executives who control large corporations these days. They get paid obscene salaries and receive wealth in a variety of other ways. Then, they serve on boards of directors of other companies that decide on the salaries for their compatriots at the helm of other large companies. <br /><br />If you look at major companies today, you can see a divide between the senior executives (who receive enormous compensation packages) and the "plebes" who get paid nice salaries. I was recently interviewing at a multi-billion dollar company for a senior tax counsel position. I looked at the other people at that level (senior counsel) and one step up the corporate ladder. These people were paid in the $100K to $200K per year range and had a background similar to me. We were all hired out of the same pool. But then you go up 2 steps and you get people who are paid over $1 million per year. The people at that level were hired out of a different pool. These are the modern aristocrats. They have law degrees from Harvard, Yale, or Stanford rather than Ohio State, University of Florida, or Rutgers. They really aren't better than the rest of us...but they think they are.<br /><br />Sorry for the venting; I am preparing for a job interview this week at a govt agency where I hope to continue the fight. GMT -5 8032https://www.blogger.com/profile/04677459423995332529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91291657633517392292019-03-10T12:35:27.174-07:002019-03-10T12:35:27.174-07:00sorry, missed the onward!
onwardsorry, missed the onward!<br /><br />onwardLarry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17524805609510403592019-03-10T12:32:40.945-07:002019-03-10T12:32:40.945-07:00progressbot:
As such... your arguments looks for ...progressbot:<br /><i><br />As such... your arguments looks for me like you trying to prove that that wave pattern is some separate entity... and not mere result of some process.<br /></i><br /><br />I doubt that the wave pattern is conscious of its own being. If it is, then only "it" knows that for certain.<br /><br />Now, are <b>you</b> claiming that the wave pattern doesn't exist, or just that it isn't its own independent being? Because I never said anything about what <b>form</b> I exist in. I never said I can prove to <b>you</b> that I exist, or that <b>you</b> must accept that I exist. I only said that I know I exist. And I do, irrespective of any theories or attempted proofs to the contrary.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12040607335052728022019-03-10T11:32:28.533-07:002019-03-10T11:32:28.533-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11591965784198329612019-03-10T11:16:51.836-07:002019-03-10T11:16:51.836-07:00Lucious C, thanks for trying to make it work. I as...Lucious C, thanks for trying to make it work. I assert that it is likely that universal (and worldwide) transparency of ownership would result in (1) REDUCED tax rates for law-abiding taxpayers, both because of a spreading of the annual burden and because tectonic levels of abandoned property would allow erasure of most national debts, eliminating most debt-service costs. (2) If that happened then we could also get simplification.<br /><br />Under those conditions, only one tax should remain very high - taxes on destructive habits and sins we seek to discourage: alcohol, gambling and inheritance. Yes, you read that right. <br /><br />progressbot, you are doing much better, but you still leap to conclusions about what people mean in a foreign language. And your postings are too long and too many per day. Still, you are once again being interesting and a welcome participant.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55589565819283946742019-03-10T10:53:54.711-07:002019-03-10T10:53:54.711-07:00George:
"George Carty said...
Isn't the ...George:<br /><br />"George Carty said...<br />Isn't the main purpose of confiscatory top rates of taxation not to raise revenue, but to dissuade firms from paying extremely high executive salaries in the first place, in the hope that they will instead spend that money on R&D, or distribute it to ordinary workers (in higher wages) and/or consumers (in lower prices)?"<br /><br />I believe you are right. That is an important (if not the primary) reason for high rates. Problem is, the very rich can afford the best accounting and legal planning, and can afford the best legal talent in litigating tax assessments or tax refund cases. Many of the problems with the current federal income tax system stem from the days when there was a top rate of around 90%. We end up litigating "what is income" and "when is the income to be taxed" questions. Many of these tax avoidance strategies are outrageous and infuriating.GMT -5 8032https://www.blogger.com/profile/04677459423995332529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28039961990814449712019-03-10T10:48:09.189-07:002019-03-10T10:48:09.189-07:00Well, if we go with online voting, we might very w...Well, if we go with online voting, we might very well end up with virtual people casting actual votes. I look at the problems with spam email and phone calls that spoof caller ID; if we can't control that, how can we control similar tech and approaches spoofing our electoral process. The cure for that is to require actual people to cast actual votes - on paper either by mail (with some form of verification that the person actually exists) or in person at a polling place. But then, we get into the argument of whether these voter ID requirements are genuine or part of a voter suppression agenda.<br /><br />As for owning property, I will refer to David Brin's proposal regarding proof of ownership. As for marriage....what is marriage these days? We have marriage as recognized by the state and we have marriage as recognized by religion. My wife and I had a civil marriage in 2010 and a religious wedding in 2011. Having all the civil stuff out of the way made our religious ceremony much easier; the rabbi did not need to fill out any of the documents required by the state.<br /><br />So, did I pass your version of the Turing test?GMT -5 8032https://www.blogger.com/profile/04677459423995332529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59723088033101908412019-03-10T09:47:21.942-07:002019-03-10T09:47:21.942-07:00Mike Will:
I worry more about proof of my human-n...Mike Will:<br /><i><br />I worry more about proof of my human-ness. A term that's currently making the rounds in AI/consciousness circles is 'philosophical zombie'. It refers to a robot that appears perfectly human to the outside world, but doesn't experience subjectivity. It could pass the Turing Test without possessing 'real' intelligence. Frightening. Neitzsche's Abyss.<br /></i><br /><br />It seems to me that the significance of a proof (or lack thereof) of human-ness is in what derives from that characterization. Will philosophical zombie robots be allowed to vote? To own property? To marry?Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51902436796306043522019-03-10T09:47:03.461-07:002019-03-10T09:47:03.461-07:00>> Lucius Cornelius said...
Thank you for i...>> Lucius Cornelius said...<br /><br />Thank you for information about how it works in real world. Kudos.<br /><br />Well, I just like/prefer "get the facts" style of talks. Guilty.<br /><br /><br />>> Larry Hart said...<br />\\The consciousness which thinks that it exists must exist in order to think that.<br /><br />Did you saw how people on stadium starting wave thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_(audience)<br />From materialists POV supported by rich discoveries of science, consciousness is exactly such thing -- emergent effect of behavior of (very) complex system.<br /><br />As such... your arguments looks for me like you trying to prove that that wave pattern is some separate entity... and not mere result of some process.<br /><br />That's all. Well, not all... I just do not understand what merit you see in holding on that outdated view?progressbotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50248145341540410732019-03-10T09:11:14.544-07:002019-03-10T09:11:14.544-07:00Isn't the main purpose of confiscatory top rat...Isn't the main purpose of confiscatory top rates of taxation not to raise revenue, but to dissuade firms from paying extremely high executive salaries in the first place, in the hope that they will instead spend that money on R&D, or distribute it to ordinary workers (in higher wages) and/or consumers (in lower prices)?<br /><br /><a href="https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/7065.html" rel="nofollow">Interfluidity: The opportunity cost of firm payouts</a>George Cartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170378024031141482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50684579567803311552019-03-10T09:07:54.097-07:002019-03-10T09:07:54.097-07:00Re: Cogito, ergo sum
Others in here ruminate ove...Re: Cogito, ergo sum<br /> <br />Others in here ruminate over proof of their existence. I worry more about proof of my human-ness. A term that's currently making the rounds in AI/consciousness circles is 'philosophical zombie'. It refers to a robot that appears perfectly human to the outside world, but doesn't experience subjectivity. It could pass the Turing Test without possessing 'real' intelligence. Frightening. Neitzsche's Abyss.Mike Willhttp://scidata.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55971847085694695262019-03-10T08:32:39.883-07:002019-03-10T08:32:39.883-07:00What is the optimal top tax rate? I am a tax lawye...What is the optimal top tax rate? I am a tax lawyer and I have spent most of my career working for the government. I know, from bitter experience, that the uber-wealthy game any system for collecting higher taxes. Their lawyers go on the offensive and attack the system. The government ends up playing defense and the courts let them do this. Oh the irony of trying to defend the director of internal revenue during a deposition where taxpayer's counsel was on a fishing expedition for dirt in the tax department...issues totally irrelevant to the amount of tax owed. And during these depositions, I see pictures of the taxpayer's lawyer shaking hands with President Obama and Secretary Clinton. 20 years ago the system was not nearly as bad. I am burned out from the fight.<br /><br />Long time government tax staffers know that it is always hardest to collect money from the richest people or companies. The complexity of our current tax system makes matters worse. It is easier for the very wealthy to avoid (legal) or evade (illegal) taxation by making their transactions incoherent. <br /><br />I see wisdom in David Brin's proposal that ownership of property must be transparent. However, I will disagree with Brin if he proposes confiscatory tax rates. We want a top rate that is high enough to generate the revenues we need but not so high that the uber-wealthy wage war against the tax collectors. Large tax cases are extremely difficult to litigate. Often times, the government has to hire outside law firms to handle the cases for us. The government ends up spending millions of dollars to collect taxes in these cases. And sometimes, the taxpayers will spend large amounts on attorneys and accountants to fight extremely small cases. I had one taxpayer who is litigating a case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals over an $7,500 tax refund claimed (one where the government was willing to pay $5,500 of the amount claimed).GMT -5 8032https://www.blogger.com/profile/04677459423995332529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47170340993520161912019-03-10T07:42:37.172-07:002019-03-10T07:42:37.172-07:00Mike Will:
One of the nicest things about growing...Mike Will:<br /><i><br />One of the nicest things about growing up was escaping from the language police in school. Miss Hawkins warned us that starting a sentence with 'And' could lead us straight to Hades.<br /></i><br /><br />Back when such papers were typed on manual typewriters, I lost an entire letter grade on my term paper for accidentally spelling "through" as "thorough". Even when I pointed out later in the year that Andrew Marvell used the exact same spelling in his famous poem, "To His Coy Mistress", I wasn't able to claw back that grade.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8190986426260246972019-03-10T07:38:58.485-07:002019-03-10T07:38:58.485-07:00Like confusing 'Charlotte's Web' for a...<i><br />Like confusing 'Charlotte's Web' for an Internet Manual, our friend Bob_N makes an all-too common error when he uses the modern accretion of the term 'awesome' to connote "impressive, very good", even though this use was first recorded in 1961.<br /></i><br /><br />Similar to the all-too common error of using the modern term "United States of America" to describe a collection of British colonies even though this use was first recorded in 1776.Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74694745892566333502019-03-10T07:34:08.368-07:002019-03-10T07:34:08.368-07:00progressbot:
Problem is clearly seen -- hardly yo...progressbot:<br /><i><br />Problem is clearly seen -- hardly you can find objective standart of "being in pain".<br />So. Re-phrasing your claim -- you just now admitted that you are objective idealist. Another word, someone who assigns objective meaning to subjective experiences. ;)<br /><br />I have no problem with it. People are free to choose any philosophical doctrine they like. ;)<br /><br />I have issues only with ones who trying to pretend. Like. That core idealists, who try to argue that they are hardcore materialists, per se. :)))<br /></i><br /><br />It depends what concept we're talking about.<br /><br />I would never contend for example that "I think I can levitate a car over my head without touching it, therefore I can." But "feeling pain" <b>is</b> a subjective experience. I see no point in forcing the assertion "I feel pain" to conform to some objective standard which others can use to refute it and insist that I don't <b>actually</b> feel pain when that's what I am feeling. <br /><br />I think of self-awareness the same way. The consciousness which <b>thinks</b> that it exists must exist in order to think that. Nothing about the objective material world changes that fact.<br /><br />When I was in college in the 1980s, the newly popularized "internet" used to have postings by history professors of funny sentences that students actually turned in on history test papers. Things like "Sir Francis Drake circumcised the earth with a fifty-foot clipper." Anyway, one of them that I liked was, "Homer was not written by Homer, but by someone else of the same name." That's what it feels like you are trying to suggest to me, that I might not really be me, but instead I might be someone else who just <b>thinks</b> he's me. To which I would respond that, in that case, "he" knows that "he" exists. A distinction without a difference (or if one must, *sigh*, "A difference which makes no difference is no difference.")Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55235583910054616682019-03-10T07:20:13.112-07:002019-03-10T07:20:13.112-07:00someone who can recite every line of Evita says:
...someone who can recite every line of <i>Evita</i> says:<br /><i><br />People who mistake musical theatre for reality should not be lecturing others about either language or truthiness.<br /></i><br /><br />Heh.<br /><br />Seriously, dude, heal thyself. No one is <b>mistaking</b> song lyrics or theater* plots for descriptive history or how-to manuals. We leave that sort of thing to religious folks. But the subject at hand was how to communicate in quick sound bites that even viewers of FOX News might manage to comprehend, and you can't beat analogies and metaphors for that sort of thing.<br /><br />( * that's how we spell it in our country ) <br /><br /><i><br />The terms 'awful' and 'awesome' do mean exactly the same thing, insomuch as the root term 'awe' signifies reverence or dread and the modifying term 'fulsome' signifies a large or abundant quantity.<br /></i><br /><br />No wonder no one can understand you if you insist on using words as they're (get this) <b>supposed to</b> be used instead of the way other people are actually using them.<br /><br />You claim to be a medical doctor. Have you ever diagnosed or even discussed professionally a case of hysterical blindness? If so, did you insist that the cause must originate in the womb?<br /><br /><i><br />Like confusing 'Charlotte's Web' for an Internet Manual, our friend Bob_N makes an all-too common error when he uses the modern accretion of the term 'awesome' to connote "impressive, very good", even though this use was first recorded in 1961.<br /></i><br /><br />So you do know how to use metaphors? Ok, similes, but still, same concept. But Asimov's point about all wrongs not being equivalent goes right over your head. Using a word in a manner that the vast majority of English speakers have become accustomed to it for decades is "wrong" in the same sense that the earth is not spherical because it is in fact asymmetrically oblate. Mistaking "Charlotte's Web" for an internet manual would be "wrong" in the sense of thinking the earth could be a cube or a pyramid.<br /><br />But for someone who insists that the world is as it is, not as it is "supposed to" be, you're taking an awfully (but not awesomely) opposite position in regards to language. Try using the word "awesome" as you think it's supposed to be used in a conversation with anyone who came of age after 1961 and see how well your point gets across.<br /><br /><i><br />I cannot stress or repeat this enough, people!!<br /></i><br /><br />"It's not that I don't <b>understand</b> what you're saying. I just don't believe it. And I'll keep on not believing it no matter how many times you say the same stupid thing."- Dave Sim<br /><br /><i>Read Babel-17 & educate thyself, why not? </i><br />"People who mistake science fiction for reality should not be lecturing others about either language or truthiness."<br /><br />But then, whoever said that was probably lying.<br /><br />Larry Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01058877428309776731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59557033763755599792019-03-10T06:59:21.436-07:002019-03-10T06:59:21.436-07:00One of the nicest things about growing up was esca...One of the nicest things about growing up was escaping from the language police in school. Miss Hawkins warned us that starting a sentence with 'And' could lead us straight to Hades.<br /><br />I'm big now. I'll do whatever I like. And you can't stop me. Mike Willhttp://scidata.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23887606383131649042019-03-10T06:42:42.789-07:002019-03-10T06:42:42.789-07:00Our poor locum is still in need of his vitamins. I...Our poor locum is still in need of his vitamins. It's as if he thinks that by merely proclaiming something that makes it true.<br /><br />Again, words are not defined by their etymologies. And they mean, not what he wants them to mean, but what people use them to mean. That is how languages change. Any linguist knows that. In fact, he implicitly acknowledges that by noting the use of "awesome"--he actually acknowledges that it has a different meaning from "awful", and has since at least 1961.<br /><br />(PS. Read Babel-17 long ago and have reread it quite a few times. BTW, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that was woven into the book has generally not been supported, at least not very strongly, by scientific research.)<br /><br />Our host refers to Guy Deutscher and <i>Through the Language Glass</i>. Let me also recommend his earlier book, <i>The Unfolding of Language</i>, which is a fascinating trek through how languages evolve. Another place to learn about a bit of linguistics is the <i>Lexicon Valley</i> podcast by Columbia University linguist John McWhorter on Slate: https://slate.com/human-interest/lexicon-valley<br /><br />It's up to episode 156 now, so there is a lot to listen to.<br /><br />In linguistics, there are the prescriptionists (those who think language can be prescribed) and the descriptionists (those who think about all you can do is describe it, since it changes mostly without manipulation by experts). These days most competent linguists are descriptionists, but they also recognize the the prescriptionists do manage to impose a few things (like all those people who won't end sentences with prepositions, a situation up with which I shall not put). McWhorter recently had a guest with a new book about it (sorry, don't remember the exact episode) that hits what I thought (and McWhorter, too) was a good balance on what is really going on between the two. But of course, we see that the locum thinks, as in so much, that he is the last word on everything, and the most cunning linguist.Ahcuahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06514651362748555460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41014923641230158622019-03-10T06:23:55.503-07:002019-03-10T06:23:55.503-07:00Russia throws shade on Crew Dragon
https://arstech...Russia throws shade on Crew Dragon<br />https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/with-dragon-russian-critic-says-roscosmos-acting-left-behind/<br /><br />1969, we've missed you :)Mike Willhttp://scidata.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25694391237918025692019-03-09T22:51:09.574-08:002019-03-09T22:51:09.574-08:00Locum-baby. You just trying to explain words you k...Locum-baby. You just trying to explain words you know not so good, with words you know even less. And it is clearly seen. Linux is not programming language. And programming language is not a language. Because it do not carry semiotical meaning, e.g. you can't explain something with Lisp, Forth or BASIC. It's just convenience schema. Like garderobe hanger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13281815645472392782019-03-09T22:13:48.831-08:002019-03-09T22:13:48.831-08:00>> Treebeard said...
\\How funny that someth...>> Treebeard said...<br />\\How funny that something calling itself "rationalwiki" is full of spin and snarky propaganda. Is it a self-parody site?<br /><br />Then, well, maybe you'd like https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia more?<br />Well, then, I see no point in talking with you. :)<br /><br /><br />>> David Brin said...<br />//The director clearly wanted to IMPLY that it was capitalist exploitation fora gold. I can understand, but it was not honest.<br /><br />As I said, they have plausible denial for that -- such info was regarded as "state secret" or even "war time secret" to share it even with officiers. So it's totally historically correct. Do you prefer film with historical background mangled with up to date political correctness? :) Like "Tuskegee group" members called "afroams" instead of N-word? ;)<br /><br />Well, they still shy. And still, while in propaganda over for russians only news media, in words blurted by higher ups(and Put_in himself) and "free" blogosphera could rise that question to crescendo <i>"It is *not* we ove them, it is they *ove us*!!!"</i>... it is not that obvious in public media, not as blatant as NK anti-USA hysteria, clearly seen from abroad.<br /><br />That is my core point -- you in USA, just have no access to complete information.<br /><br />It's say, to compare it, like if you'd have no footages of raged mobbing muslims, or have one, but without translation. So you'd not know that they screaming condemnations and bragging about 9/11 per se.<br />And saw it only as "well... those russ... muslims, and their quirky behavior". :\<br /><br /><br />\\I was able to follow the story and the characters - especially Vasily<br /><br />Well... he was clearly for comic relief. As in anecdotes about chukchas.<br />Do you have anecdotes about native ams?<br /><br />Do you want spoilers\explanations? ;) Or better not?<br /><br /><br />>> Larry Hart said...<br /><br />You just ignore his direct words.<br />"""Alfred Differ said...<br />Larry,<br /><br /><i>a) Of course it does. How could it be otherwise.</i>"""<br /><br />We are *not* androids. We are totally with you on that matter. But subjective experience... it is still, subjective.<br /><br /><br />\\...he insists that words have a specific meaning and no other, no matter how other human beings actually use those words in conversations.<br /><br />I commented that Hampty-Dumpty effect not that long ago. And not in conjunction with Locum. And with you too, actually. And was called "rude".<br />So I'll refrain from it. For now. :)<br /><br /><br />>>\\I think we're still talking past each other, having two separate conversations.<br /><br />>>That's because you ignore link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain<br /><br />\\No, it's because you're saying you can't know whether I exist or not, whereas I'm not claiming that I can prove to you (or anyone else) that I exist. Only that I know that I exist by virtue of perceiving myself.<br /><br />Thank you. For exact example of "talking past each other". :(<br /><br /><br />Problem is clearly seen -- hardly you can find objective standart of "being in pain".<br />So. Re-phrasing your claim -- you just now admitted that you are objective idealist. Another word, someone who assigns objective meaning to subjective experiences. ;)<br /><br />I have no problem with it. People are free to choose any philosophical doctrine they like. ;)<br /><br />I have issues only with ones who trying to pretend. Like. That core idealists, who try to argue that they are hardcore materialists, per se. :)))<br /><br /><br />>> locumranch said...<br /><br />Well. You could start from simpler example. Like, from what time "cool" became cool? ;)<br />But it'll be double-edged sword. As it clearly shows that meaning of words are not given to us by gods... but constantly changing by the way we are, as humanity, using them.progressbotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17616305497367030432019-03-09T22:07:47.600-08:002019-03-09T22:07:47.600-08:00David Brin thought:
"Unable to parse even .....<br />David Brin thought:<br /><br />"<i>Unable to parse even ...</i>"<br /><br />Actually, this was a fairly sane statement:<br /><br />lowsemenherder thought:<br /><br />"<i>human languages are programming languages</i>"<br /><br />I know, shocked, right? Last year, read "Through The Language Glass" by Guy Deutscher. He performed an experiment on his own daughter Alma, where he never mentioned the color of the sky. Then one day, they were traipsing about calling out the colors of things, he pointed up and asked "What color is that?" She said "white".yananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14699011402544910262019-03-09T21:38:13.483-08:002019-03-09T21:38:13.483-08:00Unable to parse even the concept of color, he lect...Unable to parse even the concept of color, he lectures us about shades of red & pink.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com