Guest
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:15:59 -0700 (PDT), "bigfletch8@gmail.com"
<bigfletch8@gmail.com> wrote:
And if the dairy farmers do it?
<bigfletch8@gmail.com> wrote:
And if the dairy farmers do it?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
John Fields
Guest
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:51:37 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:
Censorship of economic information isn't the issue, dodger, freedom of
speech is.
JF
wrote:
---Genius isn't necessary to admit to a self evident truth but only a
complete moron would try to deny one.
Problem with that is it's often complete morons who subscribe to what
they think are self-evident truths.
Well? ?Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
We're waiting for you to try to question -- not refute, not find a
counter example, only question -- the following self evident truth:
"Freedom of speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."
Are there any free trades in Singapore?
Is there any censorship of economic information in Singapore?
Censorship of economic information isn't the issue, dodger, freedom of
speech is.
JF
Guest
If a customer orders a "black box" do you think every vendor /Genius isn't necessary to admit to a self evident truth but only a
complete moron would try to deny one.
Problem with that is it's often complete morons who subscribe to what
they think are self-evident truths.
Well? ?Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
We're waiting for you to try to question -- not refute, not find a
counter example, only question -- the following self evident truth:
"Freedom of speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."
Try your best too clever by half word games and I'll milk them like
cows.
Do you ever do anything useful?
You don't think logic is useful?
Not unless it's applied to something.
designer always demands to know how it's going to be used?
Can you demonstrate some ability to focus on issues and beWhat's your day job?
functionally logical?
Here, we'll try again:
We're waiting for you to try to question -- not refute, not find a
counter example, only question -- the following self evident truth:
"Freedom of speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."
This time no dodgin'.
Bret Cahill
I
Immortalist
Guest
On Aug 22, 8:58 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
until they start reflecting philosophically, are naive realists. This
theory is also known as "direct realism" or "common sense realism".
Naive realism claims that the world is pretty much as common sense
would have it. All objects are composed of matter, they occupy space,
and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and
colour. These properties are usually perceived correctly. So, when we
look at and touch things we see and feel those things directly, and so
perceive them as they really are. Objects continue to obey the laws of
physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone
present to observe them doing so.
It has been characterised as the unquestioned acceptance of the
following 5 beliefs.
1. There exists a world of
material objects.
2. Statements about these objects
can be known to be true through
sense-experience.
3. These objects exist not only
when they are being perceived but
also when they are not perceived.
The objects of perception are
largely, we might want to say,
perception-independent.
4. These objects are also able to
retain properties of the types we perceive
them as having, even when they are not
being perceived. Their properties are
perception-independent.
5. By means of our senses, we perceive the
world directly, and pretty much as it is.
In the main, our claims to have
knowledge of it are justified.
The debate over the nature of conscious experience is confounded by
the deeper epistemological question of whether the world we see around
us is the real world itself, or merely an internal perceptual copy of
that world generated by neural processes in our brain. In other words
this is the question of direct realism, also known as naive realism,
as opposed to indirect realism, or representationalism.
Representationalism is the philosophical position that the world we
see in conscious experience is not the real world itself, but merely a
miniature virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal
representation. Representationalism is also known (in psychology) as
Indirect Perception, and (in philosophy) as Indirect Realism, or
Epistemological Dualism.
Naive realism is distinct from scientific realism. Scientific realism
says the universe really contains just those properties which feature
in a scientific description of it, and so does not contain properties
like colour per se, but merely objects that reflect certain
wavelengths owing to their microscopic surface texture. The naive
realist, on the other hand, would say that objects really do possess
the colours we perceive them to have. An example of a scientific
realist is John Locke, who held the world only contains the primary
qualities that feature in a corpuscularian scientific account of the
world (see corpuscular theory), and that other properties were
entirely subjectivity, depending for their existence upon some
perceiver who can observe the objects.
Of all the branches of human knowledge, philosophy might be expected
to be the best inoculated against the naive realist error, since the
issue of the epistemology of conscious experience is a central focus
of philosophy. However, modern philosophy is just as rife with naive
realists as are modern psychology and neuroscience. As in psychology
there is a recurring pattern of the occasional visionary who points
out the fallacy of the naive view, interspersed with long periods of
enthusiastic support for the latest naive inspired view, although
again the issue is generally not addressed directly but only
peripherally, as it is hidden in the details of various theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
Naive realism is a common sense theory of perception. Most people,Genius isn't necessary to admit to a self evident truth but only a
complete moron would try to deny one.
Problem with that is it's often complete morons who subscribe to what
they think are self-evident truths.
until they start reflecting philosophically, are naive realists. This
theory is also known as "direct realism" or "common sense realism".
Naive realism claims that the world is pretty much as common sense
would have it. All objects are composed of matter, they occupy space,
and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and
colour. These properties are usually perceived correctly. So, when we
look at and touch things we see and feel those things directly, and so
perceive them as they really are. Objects continue to obey the laws of
physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone
present to observe them doing so.
It has been characterised as the unquestioned acceptance of the
following 5 beliefs.
1. There exists a world of
material objects.
2. Statements about these objects
can be known to be true through
sense-experience.
3. These objects exist not only
when they are being perceived but
also when they are not perceived.
The objects of perception are
largely, we might want to say,
perception-independent.
4. These objects are also able to
retain properties of the types we perceive
them as having, even when they are not
being perceived. Their properties are
perception-independent.
5. By means of our senses, we perceive the
world directly, and pretty much as it is.
In the main, our claims to have
knowledge of it are justified.
The debate over the nature of conscious experience is confounded by
the deeper epistemological question of whether the world we see around
us is the real world itself, or merely an internal perceptual copy of
that world generated by neural processes in our brain. In other words
this is the question of direct realism, also known as naive realism,
as opposed to indirect realism, or representationalism.
Representationalism is the philosophical position that the world we
see in conscious experience is not the real world itself, but merely a
miniature virtual-reality replica of that world in an internal
representation. Representationalism is also known (in psychology) as
Indirect Perception, and (in philosophy) as Indirect Realism, or
Epistemological Dualism.
Naive realism is distinct from scientific realism. Scientific realism
says the universe really contains just those properties which feature
in a scientific description of it, and so does not contain properties
like colour per se, but merely objects that reflect certain
wavelengths owing to their microscopic surface texture. The naive
realist, on the other hand, would say that objects really do possess
the colours we perceive them to have. An example of a scientific
realist is John Locke, who held the world only contains the primary
qualities that feature in a corpuscularian scientific account of the
world (see corpuscular theory), and that other properties were
entirely subjectivity, depending for their existence upon some
perceiver who can observe the objects.
Of all the branches of human knowledge, philosophy might be expected
to be the best inoculated against the naive realist error, since the
issue of the epistemology of conscious experience is a central focus
of philosophy. However, modern philosophy is just as rife with naive
realists as are modern psychology and neuroscience. As in psychology
there is a recurring pattern of the occasional visionary who points
out the fallacy of the naive view, interspersed with long periods of
enthusiastic support for the latest naive inspired view, although
again the issue is generally not addressed directly but only
peripherally, as it is hidden in the details of various theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
We're waiting for you to try to question -- not refute, not find a
counter example, only question -- the following self evident truth:
"Freedom of speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."
Try your best too clever by half word games and I'll milk them like
cows.
Bret Cahill