3RU7AL

I believe we agree on this.  Gravity and space-time are not "things", but they are phenomena, and they are measurable (quantifiable).

I think I would say instead are a way to conceptualize the results of a measurement. 

Platonic forms are also imperceptible, they are "posited."

I would say that your skin and eye damage is exactly your perception. I believe perception is an action, I don't posit consciousness being necessary for perception. 

Your great-great-great-great-grandmother's choice of dinner on her 22nd birthday influences you.  HOWever, you can not perceive it.

Your perception seems to require consciousness, I don't think it is required. As perception is an action in response to something. 

I'll give an example: How do we know dogs are colorblind while cats aren't? (If that's right). It is because a dog will react the same way to two different colors while a cat will react differently, you can take that "reaction" all the way down to the neurological level, but, essentially, perception is only an action in response to something.

And, I don't think there is a way to verify which actions in response to something are consciously thought about or not.

Unless that person is a solipsist, which I can't really falsify.

In essence, any action is a perception. When my body falls if I jump, that is perceiving gravity. If you restrict it to conscious identification, I find that arbitrary and strange.

Identification is really self communication anyhow, so perception is that which we can communicate to ourselves, which seems arbitrary.

Again, as always, I can clarify further. 

Otherwise, that thing would be no different from God, in my humble opinion. 

Do you have some prejudice against the gods?

Nope none at all, but usually, gods such as the hindu gods or buddhist ones or taoist ones or greek ones or sumerian ones or mayan ones etc. etc. etc. would be falsifiable. They usually say we inhabit the same realm or at least can. They might be immortal, but exist within time etc. And speaking english has some weird baggage. 

1) We should NOT be funding illegal aliens with any sort of welfare.

Evidence of this occurring?

2) Congress does NOT represent people that cannot vote for them. If that were true, every boy would have endless candy and every girl would own a pony, and every felon would have free prostitutes.

Evidence of illegal immigrants voting... 

or Congress representing people that do not vote? 

If this is meant to contribute to the thread would you clarify the implication?

Space-Time exists and is rigorously defined Quanta.  We have uncontroversial tools which can measure it very precisely.

In physics, space-time isn't so much a "thing" as the distance between events to an observer, and is relative. And no one has been able to quantize spacetime and gravity yet rigorously and convincingly, if you were able to, that would be the theory of everything. 

This sounds a lot to me like Platonic forms.

And I don't think there is fundamentally an objective reality.

And the princess, with a fine-tuned enough measuring device, could discern from the top layer everything beneath, including the pea.

Like a hologram. Leonard Susskind has a very good talk on this. "The world as a hologram" i believe it's called.

But just because you can't identify your perception, doesn't mean you don't perceive it, in my opinion. I don't think you need to consciously identify to perceive.

But if all you are saying is that there seem to be things we can't articulate, sure, that seems reasonable.

If you are saying something necessarily exists outside of perception (perception being anything that influences your behavior), I can't agree.

Otherwise, that thing would be no different from God, in my humble opinion. 

I'm not concerned at all. It's in humanity's best interest to destroy inferior, unproductive people from the gene pool. The only people that need worry are the slow and the lazy.

Nothing can only be nowhere and can only have no size and no shape and exist for no time period.

Hm... in your opinion, does space exist? Does time?

However, while phenomena are defined specifically as "observable and knowable", noumenon by contrast is "not observable and unknown/unknowable" except in very broad, logically necessary terms.  The details of "what" noumenon "is" and or "how" it "works" are very likely unknowable.  Kant very specifically points out that we cannot infer any particular details of noumenon from phenomenon.

This is not my understanding of noumenon. And does an apple have a noumenon? Are there different noumenon for specific items? Or is noumenon the sum total of anything we cannot be sure of. If I cannot see color, I guess that would be part of my noumenon, but you can, so we have different noumenon? Again, I think we are disagreeing on a level more fundamental than what we are talking about here, so none of what you're saying makes sense. 

if that is true wouldn't that mean there's a huge number of illegals with fake or stolen s.s. #'s?  that sounds like a serious problem if that's the case.

you can't legally get a s.s. # if you are an illegal

if you don't have a s.s. # you can't legally work and they can't take s.s. taxes out

that is how I understand it works, is that correct?

Illegals should be taking zero benefits. Every remittance sent to Mexico and other shithole countries should be confiscated and used to build the wall until the illegals deport themselves. Coyotes should be eradicated instead of being a 20 billion dollar a year industry in trafficking humans to get free healthcare and free education in the USA as an illegal invader. The USA does not need to subsidize Mexican cartel coyotes.

Can you give examples of direct and indirect evidence?

Why is nothingness logically impossible. Maybe thatt will clear it up.

And i think i disagree of I'm understanding you correctly, that there something outside the phenomenal. If something affects the phenomenal world or could potentially, it is a part of the phenomenal world in my view

Jesus said nothing about supporting a tyrannical government that strips the wealth from Americans and hands it over to Non-Americans.

I think the tautology discussion we are having is probably inconsequential to be honest. But when you say "there is no such thing as nothingness" I'm saying that can be reduced to: "Something that does not exist does not exist"To deny this would be to say, something that doesn't exist, does exist. Or A=\=A. Self contradiction. All tautologies, can be reduced, i believe, in this way. 

As for perception. I wonder what you mean by primary individual field of perception. Where do you draw the line there? And does someone with aphasia perceive even if they can't express it? 

And we are disagreeing on existence too I believe, because I still am not getting your logic on why noumenon necessarily exist. That seems absurd to me personally. I'd like to understand your full logic there. 

We wouldn't even be discussing this if a tyrannical government was not forcing wealth out of the hands of Americans and placing into the hands of non-Americans.

nothing = non-occupied space

2. Every possible interpretation of the statement is checked and all lead to true. 

The second is impossible to do obviously,

meaning the first is how we can show a tautology. Contradiction happens by saying, in essence, A=/=A. So you are, in essence, saying the same thing twice, or saying the relevant information twice.

What you're calling "perception", I would call "hypothetical subtle imperceptible influence".

When I say "perception" I should perhaps substitute "comprehensible, identifiable input in the form of sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell".

But it doesn't seem to be hypothetical. Our experience is an amalgam of all these subtle things.

What we comprehend as smell is the combination of many individual sensations of molecules hitting our smell receptors, same with sight, touch etc. But we identify a combination of those things with, say, a grapefruit. It is the combination of many sensations that we assign and call grapefruit. 

So, if someone smells a grapefruit, but doesn't realize they are smelling a grapefruit, do they perceive the grapefruit? And to be nitpicky, humans have other senses.

Whatever the "probability wave function" "is" before we "observe" "it" is the noumenon.

But you again assume something is there before you observe it. 

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. [LINK]

Yes, saying the same thing twice. If the two things you said were different, the assertion could be false. 

Whether that knowledge is absolute or not.

If knowledge requires absolute certainty, or knowledge must be "true," then I don't think anyone knows anything.

If knowledge is familiarity with something (I know a person), then yes, I say people have knowledge of whatever they perceive. Maybe this is my romance language roots, but some languages have two words for "to know," which is why the difference is salient to me. 

Do you know how many people are currently riding bicycles on the planet earth?  No you don't.  But you can still be pretty certain the number is more than zero.  Things exist outside of your perception.

Ok, I'll explain what I mean by perceive. One can perceive without conscious ability to interpret. For example, if someone sprays that god-awful axe spray in the locker room, a person can walk in, smell it, and not be able to say, if they have never smelled axe before, "I am smelling axe spray," but they still smell it, I think we can both agree. In the same way, there are ripple/butterfly effects from the number of people riding bicycles at the this exact second in the world that affect me. That change the force of gravity on my body, or wind currents and many, many other things, that affect me, which would be different if one less person were riding a bicycle. So I do perceive them riding their bicycles, even if I can't express the number based on that perception because I have never been taught to read those perceptions in that way (and the perceptions would be so tiny and complicated as to require enormous energy). My perception isn't limited per se, it seems to be my ability to interpret my perception which is. If this is unclear, lmk. It's where I think we disagree mostly. 

Tautology isn't evidence, it is saying something the same way twice.

Logical necessity is actually pretty strong evidence.

Tautology is purely definitional. A tautology only occurs when you have said the same thing in different words. If there were a way to interpret the assertion as false it is because the two things you said were different somehow. 

The wave function =/= "nothing".

Again, wave-function is an after-the-fact description, it does "exist" before we measure it, or rather, entangle our measurement device with the system. 

When the wave function is measured, it collapses.  For example, [LINK]

I meant "doesn't." Let me put what I meant a little more clearly: A wave function describes the probabilities of where something we call a particle could be. It doesn't exist because it is a description. It is not nothing, as you say, but it is not what lies behind our perception, it only exists because of us here to interpret it. 

Even an "illusion" must have some "substance".  An "illusion" cannot be "nothing".

If you look at a cow then the cow is made of meat, but your perception of the cow is not made of meat. 

What physically exists is a pattern of neural activity that encodes {cow}, ie a neural pattern containing information such as 'big', 'brown', 'has four legs and two horns'.  Your brain has the as yet unexplained power (consciousness) that turns that information into 'awareness'.

So an illusion (or anything percept) is made of information.  So is information a substance? 

That I suggest that is not a matter of fact but of how one chooses to define 'substance'.  Information is not nothing but neither is it an ordinary, material 'substance' like meat.  As long as people agree whether the word substance includes information or not either convention can be adopted. 

I can't help wondering what unobservable evidence would look like...

Hypothesis:  A force gravity exists.

Evidence:   Observations of planetry movements are compatible with the hypothesis.

Hypothesis:  People are conscious.

Evidence:  Observations of people's behaviour are compatible with the hypothesis.

Seems the same to me.

Perhaps a good definition of evidence is 'anything compatible with the hypothesis'?

A tautology cannot be said to "exist." It is a statement which is just saying the same thing two different ways.

When I say, it is possible that nothing exists, I am not saying that there is a substance called nothing which exists out there, I am simply saying that no---thing can be said to have the properties of existence we normally talk about.

When I say I had nothing for breakfast, I am talking about a lack, not that I ate something called nothing. And your example here of a tautology if I may formulate it is like this: "I do not know everything" is equivalent to saying "There exists something I do not know."

I would respond by saying sure, depending on what you mean by "know."

And positing because of this statement something exists outside your perception, I disagree with.

My definition of perception is relatively broad, however, compared to most people's I think. The noumenon, I am not convinced by. 

I would say, if it is there, you perceive it. And as I said before, you can observe things that are like illusions.

From your perspective, you always tend to be the center of reality. But I would venture a guess and say you don't believe that. 

The wave function is an abstraction, but you are right it isn't nothing. The wave function can only be created after perception, however, so I wouldn't say that is what exists. Newton's equations don't float around, they are descriptions. 

Tautology isn't evidence, it is saying something the same way twice.

The way to falsify noumenon is to know everything.  If you knew everything, then noumenon would disappear in a cute little puff of logic.

You seem to think that "I don't know everything" is another way of saying "there exists a thing in itself that is not obtainable by the senses." I do not think this is the case. 

The wave function =/= "nothing".

Again, wave-function is an after-the-fact description, it does "exist" before we measure it, or rather, entangle our measurement device with the system. 

He's using the term "observable evidence" two different ways. In one sense he means "independently verifiable perceivable" and in the second sense he considers similar behaviors between himself and others as "observable evidence" of the other person's consciousness when in fact consciousness is not independently verifiable and perceivable (at least not at this time -- although I don't think we'll ever be able to).

Positing the existence of anything beyond your perception is faith.

The idea that there is a thing behind that which we perceive is, in my opinion, ridiculous,

...especially when you consider that things don't seem to have existence before perception (the so-called the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics).

There doesn't seem to be evidence (or a way to find evidence) for a noumenon, and if you did, it would be a phenomenon because you perceived it.

That is unfalsifiable. Sure you can say, well, things get muddled without noumenon, but that isn't a reason to have faith in it. 

You could, for example, believe the world is entirely incomprehensible... 

No, you absolutely could not believe such a thing and still maintain the ability to feed yourself and use a computer.

You could believe in it in approximation comprehensible. I believe I'm moving on a giant ball in space around the sun, that doesn't make me dizzy. I can believe something and act in a different way. I don't believe the sounds or symbols of the English meaning have inherent meaning at all, I can still use them to do what I need to do in life. Conventionally, things can be perfectly comprehensible, doesn't mean they need to be ultimately comprehensible. 

Why is fundamental existence indisputable? That's awfully faithful. There are literally plenty of philosophies which don't posit fundamental existence, that's not to say they're necessarily correct, but that being indisputable is a local idea. 

Even quantum physics seems to suggest Noumenon is a bad assumption. 

Please explain how exactly "quantum physics" "suggests" "the unknown-unknowable" is a "bad assumption"? 

Collapse of the wave-function suggests that there existing something objective before you measure it to be a bad assumption. Causality is preserved, but there are times when we can rationally disagree on the order in which events (phenomena) happen, what would that mean for the noumenon?

Are the movements of planets the same thing as gravity? The answer is no. Are the movements of planets observable evidence for gravity? The answer is yes.

Therefore unless conciousness is an illusion your behaviors lead me to believe that you possess a conciousness similar to mine and if conciousness is an illusion you would appear to be experiencing the same illusion. 

I'm just going to assert that virtually all actions are determined by personal incentives.  To advance here you move to an understanding that your family has a large impact on you and to support that community is practical.  From there you can see that your community can be extended to a lesser degree from family to local community to culture to ultimately being human.  I think this has been firmly established in the more hardened social sciences.  I'm a big fan of social economists for instance.

You can apply a natural empathy to see others struggles as the same as your own and be more inclined to help a stranger/s with some spare time or resources.

I do not think we will ever get to a point where we can care for others like we do for ourselves and that would be an attempt to deny what it is to be a semi conscious animal on earth.  It's not wrong to be what you are.

Unemployment and COBRA insurance is joke, but I guess that's another topic.

"The fact of the matter is Confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  "

Something appears to be leading to your responding as though you aren't reading what is wrote and to make gross generalizations in error.  For example, White Southerner =/= Confederate.  Maybe I am wrong, like you could just hate statues and your mind is already made up so you would be fine with any justification rather than taking in the facts in context.  Really, if its just a stupid statue, people can make whatever they want of it.  I am interested in what you are making of it.  

The linked article confirms that 23 states, twice that of the secessional states had Jim Crow.  Your statement is redundant.

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step

NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.

Why did you write this?

The company I work for just fired a bunch for H.I.P.A.A. violations.

Why do you think rich people are audited all the time by the IRS, but poor people are not...

Feds should concentrate mostly on military, be in charge of all facets to keep our country safe from threats. 

They should regulate certain things to a point...

but not impede on businesses decisions on how they pay their employees, there should be no minimum wage, just like there should be no cap,

they should, however, regulate to a larger extent companies inside the US that have locations outside of the US, and any business relations with other countries, and impose tariffs to keep things competitive yet have incentives for keeping employees and manufacturing in this country. 

They should investigate potential monopolies. 

There should be less departments, and state governments should regulate themselves more.

There should be no overlap on oversight, currently there are too many inspectors checking the same things at businesses that have different requirements. 

If anything, the government should be accountable for doing exactly the same things as any business (which they don't have to do anything that they require businesses to do if they don't want to), and it should be run with more of a business model so they understand the value of a dollar. 

Right now they do not, and feel they have an endless amount of money. 

It should be much easier for people to be fired for not doing their job.  Firing someone is almost impossible.

Sure, but you can imagine meaningfulness in a nihilistic universe .

Nihilism is true if humanity is the byproduct of mindlessness.

Qualia tends to be a term to describe our experiencing of agency.  That's similar to what you said, but I feel like yours wasn't restrictive enough. 

But they were still alive and still hated former slaves, and they created Jim Crow specifically in order to generationally disenfranchise them.

Who is they?  Be specific.

I've never seen qualia used in the way you just used it.  Care to elaborate? 

1. You are clearly making the same sort of fallacy is that racists do, putting your current train of thought in question thereafter

2. Confederates have already surrendered in the introduced context and many have died, or moved on post civil war.

3. Jim Crow is a national movement

4. Union States had slaves, and other forms of exploitation

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step

6. Disputing the quoted fact is futile.  Its a fact.

Right so you think that all value is endowed by humans.  Just for fun.  Would you say that motion has a value?  or weight? I realize the numbers themselves are chosen subjectively, but is there no value in motion? 

To reiterate, the fact of the matter is that confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  

If the liberated slaves received 40 acres and a statue of Jefferson Davis, I think I would be cool with that, but a mule would be more useful.

It doesn't make you a racist either.  He was banning countries, not a religion. 

These countries were all pointed out by Obama and his administration (this doesn't make him "not a racist" right) years earlier as the ones to keep an eye on for terrorist promotion, behavior, or alliance, as well as additional background checks, treating them differently than people from other countries.

All he wanted to do back then is put a ban on those particular countries until they could come up with a better vetting process, but it was challenged for way too long, until finally was upheld as being constitutional.  It has since been lifted. 

do you not want our country protected from possible terrorism?  All it takes is one person.

Oh, you mean like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, Jared Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffery Dahmer, Charlie Manson, Stephen Paddock, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold...

If they were all from one country, I'm sure that would have been on the list as well.  This makes no sense, they are all citizens of this country. You are just talking about crazy people.

Another, is that the ssoutherners were literally "fighting for slavery". Slavery was not going anywhere. but the political interests of the southern elite would predictably be undermined to an increasing degree.. Some confederate slave owners freed their slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation.

I am anti insurance, but we have to have it.  I am not 100% anti government.

Targeting majority Muslim countries for an immigration ban is "identity politics".  There are many other majority Muslim countries that were not on the ban list...

do you not want our country protected from possible terrorism?  All it takes is one person.

Look, industry left to "their own devices" we will inevitably end up in an industrial nightmare, exactly like we did in the Gilded Age when workers were pitted against each other, worked for peanuts (or scrip) and had zero safety protections or realistic legal recourse for mistreatment. 

That was due to an influx of immigration and people trying to find work, but people that were already here were making good money.  This is not something that is going to happen again, unless we really do open the borders.

My example was just trying to prove that we cannot provide free healthcare for all, and what the consequences of that would be.

How about an someone who served their country for decades, sided with their state, surrendered gracefully, commanded respect not only from their troops, but also their adversaries and union representatives, negotiated reasonable terms of surrender through mutual respect, and/or generally supported their country thereafter?  By comparing this to a serial killer I think you are taking this out of context and not giving your opinion a fair hearing.  For one, the civil war greatly accelerated the abolition of slavery in the United States which hadn't yet occurred throughout the Northern States.

Do you mean because they are dead, or because its just a stupid statue?  What's wrong with uncompelling some people?

You have to in order to get the census correct, but we don't practice identity politics, except when it comes to undocumented immigrants.

I don't believe in taking away money from someone who worked hard, very hard, for it, and giving it to someone who did not, but believes they are entitled to it.

People usually get paid based off of the complexity of the job and the hours they put in, some people are addicted to their jobs, or even married to their jobs. They should get paid more. 

But it comes with a price, making it hard to enjoy the money you make by always working.   If they want to give it to someone in their family or donate it to a certain cause, that is their choice.  The Government should never get involved with private companies decisions on how much they pay their employees.

(unless they have bailed that company out for some reason) like the banks during the recession.  None of those executives should have received their bonuses. 

I want limited Government, and free market. 

That is one reason our healthcare system is great,

because we have the ability of developing drugs using money from the free market for R and D.