Chip with simple program for Toy

[Lord Garth]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:ji8o13th2nie3lsspm7va73kil8cbk2m35@4ax.com...

Yikes! I eat out once a month, and the bill never exceeds $20. I
average
about $1 a day on food the rest of the month.



I have a friend like that. His grocery list... can of cat food, can
of beans, beer ;-)

He should be careful of that cat food as of late!

I don't see how a dollar a day can surfice with a can of
beans costing nearly a dollar alone.

 

[Eeyore]

Lord Garth wrote:

I don't see how a dollar a day can surfice with a can of
beans costing nearly a dollar alone.

Where do you buy your beans ?

Graham

 

On Apr 8, 2:20 am, Joe Durnavich <j...@earthlink.net> wrote:

part...@yahoo.com writes:

(Sorry for my late answer - I'm somewhat sick)

The software (or algorithm) may have many
different physicalisations (if that's the word) - the electrons in my
brain, the magnetic polarity on the hard drive, some electric states
of registers of the computer's memory (if that's it) - a lot, lot
different arrangements of these as there're a lot of programming
languages and different platforms. Don't you think these are all
manifestations of the same entity?

No. This only shows that we can treat several different physical entities
in the same way. There doesn't have to be yet another entity that stands
for them all.

And we do it by abstracting - dismissing the inessencial properties

of some objects, thus getting some abstraction which is certainly
different from the first entity. We can also abstract some object in
different ways, getting different abstracted objects. Each of them can
be studied as having properties and relations to other objects - just
like the first 'physical' object you started from. So in what sense do
you say they 'exist' less than the first? At this point it may seem
that it's all about what the word 'exist' means, so basically the
question is whether you can define 'existance' as to include your
first object and not its abstractions (of course you're not allowed to
define 'material existance' as 'existance' as it'll assume your point
of view...). Then we should ask what's the idea of defining things
this way, as in everyday life the abstractions seem more important
than the original objects in many case (the algorithm example again).

But we can note another point. when thinking of a 'physical' object,
we don't really think of its 'essence' but of the view is it
accessible to us, namely its properties related to our sences (how it
looks, sounds, feels etc.) - for example, on abject emitting yellow
light will appear identical to one emitting red & green. So it's a
kind of abstraction - we ignore certain properties and consider others
(the idea that the 'actual' object is meaningless, as we can never
'access' it without our sences/detectors which essencially perform an
abstraction, is known as a Kantian idea, but its roots can be traced
back to mediavel, and even earlier, philosophers). So, for you now, is
there any reason to prefer the first abstraction over the rest?
they're all abstractions, 'of the same kind'.

You could define materialism now as proposing that the
'real' (unreachable) object really exists, and all its abstractions
don't. But this way, it's really meaningless, as the 'actual' object
is theoretically undescribable and we can't make any statement at all
concerning it (except that it 'exists' according to this definition).

Someone (I think it was Bob M. about two weeks ago) proposed that
the definition of materialism is 'not accepting anything unless we
have philosophical and physical reason to'. That's a good definition
only if you count as materialists the Jews (who have a good
philosophical and physical reason to believe God, as a few millions of
them witnessed a revealation of Him at Mt. Sinai), the Christians (who
have a good p&p reason to believe the Ressurection, as three women
witnessed it), the Muslim (who have 12 Proofs that Muhammad Is A True
Prophet...) and any other rational being.

As kids we discovered a pinball machine that would accept either quarters
or pennies we flattened on railroad tracks. There doesn't have to a third
type of coin, some sort of "virtual coin", to explain why the machine would
give us credits for both quarters and flattened pennies.

There certainly is a virtual coin - the designer of the machine,

when 'teaching' it what a 'valid coin' is, gave it an idea of mass,
shape, size etc. which is an abstraction of a coin (only he did a bad
job). So as an abstraction, it certainly exists.

And what is a 'quarter'? you never held two quarters identical in
mass, size, shape or that contain the same atoms. So it's essencially
an abstraction. It isn't worse an abstraction than that virtual coin.
If you believe that quarters exist, and have meanings like 'you owe me
two quarters', you should definitely believe that virtual coins exist
just the same.

--
Joe Durnavich

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lord Garth wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:ji8o13th2nie3lsspm7va73kil8cbk2m35@4ax.com...
Yikes! I eat out once a month, and the bill never exceeds $20. I
average
about $1 a day on food the rest of the month.



I have a friend like that. His grocery list... can of cat food, can
of beans, beer ;-)


He should be careful of that cat food as of late!

I don't see how a dollar a day can surfice with a can of
beans costing nearly a dollar alone.

You shop in the wrong stores. Sav-A-Lot Food Stores has several
types of beans for about 39 cents a can. Their prices on can goods is so
low that I buy almost all of the canned items by the tray of 12. I
can't find everything I need there, but I start at Sam's Club to buy the
bulk restaurant supplies like spices. Then its on to Sav-A-Lot,
Winn-Dixie, and sometimes Kash&Carry or Publix. Some items are almost
twice the price in Publix for the same brand and size at Sav-A-Lot. My
typical breakfast is about 67 cents, lunch around a dollar, and the same
for supper. I could eat for even less if I wasn't diabetic, and had
high blood pressure.

http://www.save-a-lot.com/


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Lord Garth]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:461C37EE.7F7693CC@hotmail.com...

Lord Garth wrote:

I don't see how a dollar a day can surfice with a can of
beans costing nearly a dollar alone.

Where do you buy your beans ?

Graham

The local grocery store 1/4 mile away. 89 cents.
It far less expensive to buy dry, raw beans.

I live in Dallas, it's big city pricing.

 

[Lord Garth]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:461C52F4.242FD1E@earthlink.net...

Lord Garth wrote:

You shop in the wrong stores. Sav-A-Lot Food Stores has several
types of beans for about 39 cents a can. Their prices on can goods is so
low that I buy almost all of the canned items by the tray of 12. I
can't find everything I need there, but I start at Sam's Club to buy the
bulk restaurant supplies like spices. Then its on to Sav-A-Lot,
Winn-Dixie, and sometimes Kash&Carry or Publix. Some items are almost
twice the price in Publix for the same brand and size at Sav-A-Lot. My
typical breakfast is about 67 cents, lunch around a dollar, and the same
for supper. I could eat for even less if I wasn't diabetic, and had
high blood pressure.

http://www.save-a-lot.com/

Three of those stores aren't in Dallas possibly excepting Winn-Dixie. If
they are, it's nowhere near here or the adjacent 15 miles in any direction.

Wal-Mart / Sam's are nearby but I refuse to buy a Sam's membership.
Besides, huge Sam's size quantities aren't easily stored in an apartment!

I have Kroger's, Sav-on (Albertson's), Tom Thumb Flagship. The Albertson's
charges $1.59 for a regular can of Campbell's mushroom soup. And Kroger
was cheaper than Wal-Mart on some identical brands of canned soup. There
are both a Whole Foods and a Central Market for that no artificial
ingredients /
very expensive food.

 

[Lord Garth]

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:edlo13tq708ojrekq5r0qj9ljvgmlo1tiq@4ax.com...

punch line> *Nobody* eats parsley. </punch line

Ha! I love it!

 

[Glen M. Sizemore]

"Joe Durnavich" <joejd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6jin131tabr534mo37qfnn80h6hluaqfiv@4ax.com...

Glen M. Sizemore writes:

"Joe Durnavich" <j...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hu5j13l4o95klucmd9t746hdnn9kb2el4f@4ax.com...

I'm never sure, though, if "names" is the best concept to apply in
saying
that "the terms are names for behavior". I suppose in typical usage,
"mental" is a description of behavior.


Take "anger," for example. A child learns to say "he's angry" when he or
she
observes certain kinds of behavior (i.e., shouting, throwing things, etc.)
just as he or she learns to say "chair" in the presence of chairs. There's
no difference. Later, of course, we learn to say that we are inferring
anger, but this is not the case anymore than it is the case that we are
inferring chair. Obviously, the fragment "angry" occurs in many different
utterances, under the control of different variables, but one "usage" is
simply as a name for behavior-in-context.

OK. That is a good case for the word "anger" functioning as a name for
behavior-in-context.

At least sometimes. Behavior-analytic units are not defined by their
appearance but, rather by their function. The "naming" function is called a
"tact" by some. A tact is a verbal operant that is under stimulus control of
some feature or features (or overlapping sets of features in keeping with
the Wittgensteinian "family resemblance") of the environment, and is
relatively free of control by specific conditions of deprivation or aversive
stimulation. In the laboratory, in the sorts of experiments we are talking
about, this can be sidestepped, because the issue is the "tightness" of the
control by stimuli. In accounting for the global character of human tacting,
the freedom from specific conditions of deprivation and aversive stimulation
appears required. We are always ready to describe features of the world, and
some people do so incessantly. It is one of the things that is often said to
be lacking in the ape-language literature - spontaneous talk about the
world.

As an aside, you talk about the possibility of science studying such a
subject as anger. When you take the view that you do here in which anger
is something observable, you finally get a foothold on the subject. It
becomes less mysterious how an ecosystem evolved in which a dog growls and
bares his teeth at a cat that approaches his food and in which the cat
stops approaching in response.

Of course. But emotion-generating events are more than just events that
elicit behavior - they are events that alter the reinforcing efficacy of
consequences, and they also make more probable behavior that has been
reinforced by those consequences in the past. Not only does an angry person's
heart beat faster, and he or she sweats, but any response that causes damage
to the "opponent" is richly reinforced, and behavior that has previously
caused damage becomes immediately likely.

On the "anger is an inner state and behavior is just an outer display"
model, however, explanation for anger seems always out of reach. In such
a
scenario, one wonders if there was a time long ago when dogs and cats
walked around pissed off at each other, with their emotions bottled up
inside, but stuck with expressions of stoic indifference that provided
them
no means to telegraph such feelings of animosity.

Ha! Good one. But I'm sure that the indwelling spirits, err, brain areas,
knew just what to do with the "information" that was presented to them when
their outer dog became angry. Or maybe it wasn't the whole dog - maybe it
was its amygdala becoming angry and sending the information to the
hippocampus and the neocortex. "They'll" know what to do! I just need to
light a fire under 'em!"

I'm not sure exactly what you are driving at here, so I'll withhold
comment.

Nothing much.

You learn to say sentences like these:

A bike is in the garage.
A penny is in my pocket.

You then take advantage of this form you have learned and apply it with
sentences like these:

A pain is in my arm.
Thoughts and ideas are in my mind.

People tend to assume that language always functions the same way,
especially when it has the same form. Hence, you have people trying to
find pains, thoughts, and ideas, but always finding them seemingly just
out
of reach.

I guess I can stop wondering if we are mostly on the same page. I would
disagree, however, with a couple of things here; a "pain in the arm" is more
normal/colloquial usage than the sort of linguistic treachery that often
applies. Thoughts and ideas in the head seem a different issue.

It is disappointing and ironic. The view that perception is a matter of
seeing a representation is widespread, despite the fact that the language
game is not played the fashion that you say, but their other verbal
behavior is inconsistent with it. Certainly the overwhelming majority
of academics say that what is felt is "inside" and usually it is said
that it is "inside your brain."

I think people latch on to this viewpoint because it appears to them to
offer a ready explanation for why we are sometimes mistaken about what we
see: The brain has simply presented us with the wrong picture. When we
misread a word, the reason is said to be because the brain rendered the
wrong word in place of the right one (presumably in the same font and text
color). They explain optical illusions as cases where the brain has
fooled
us into seeing something that isn't there. Hallucinations--these folks
are
big on hallucinations--by a drug user are a result of the psychedelic drug
causing the representing part of the brain to take on an ability to paint
fantastic pictures. Apparently the drug has no effect on the "mind's eye"
portion of the brain, which sees the fantastic imagery with no problem.

There is no question that this is the driving force behind
representationalism. That coupled with the fact that we do use
representations - they're called photographs, movies, recordings, paintings,
maps, graphs etc. etc. etc. It is ironic that the motivation for the Greeks
was probably that they couldn't understand how the tree over there could be
touched from here and hence "known." Something must reach out and copy the
tree and bring that copy back.

Of course, when you consider perception as a skill, as a form of
achievement in the environment, you can find plenty of reasons why we are
sometimes mistaken.

Perception is behavior that is a function of a bunch of variables.

The cognitive "scientist" still says "My dog sees a cat," and
would look at you somewhat funny for an instant when you said "Really?"
"Are
you sure?" "Did you see observe the representation of the cat on its
occipital cortex?" They would quickly catch themselves, though, and say,
"I'm
inferring that it is seeing a cat." Guess what? I'm not being silly here.

Heh. Perhaps they might say, "of course the dog might just be pretending
to see a cat..."

As to the use of "inner" and outer," I have dropped "inner" a long time
ago,

A wise policy.

The "inner/outer" metaphor has its uses in daily conversation, but it
quickly becomes limiting and misleading when applied to philosophy and
science.

though Skinner continued to use it. I just say "private."

"Private" has the advantage of being symmetrical with "public."
Another word I have seen suggested is "personal".

Sometimes, though, inner is tempting - where is a kidney stone?
If I feel a kidney stone am I not feeling something "internal?"

It's a shame that this term has become spoiled.

It would be misleading to refer to "a new set of behaviors in response to
injected drugs." Drug-discrimination (DD) procedures work like this: an
animal is injected on some days with, say, cocaine, and on other days it
is
injected with vehicle. On days that it was injected with drug, pressing
the
left lever produces food, and pressing the right does not. On days that
vehicle was injected, the opposite is true. Animals, of course, after a
fair
amount of exposure to these contingencies, come to accurately identify
drug
vs. no drug. Here the lever-press is an operant response under stimulus
control of the drug effect. Some aspect of the drug effect is the only
thing
that can discriminatively control behavior. This gives rise to the notion
that the animal is feeling some sort of "inner state."

OK. I think this experiment is a handy framework for a general
illustration
of awareness and self-awareness. It shows awareness and self-awareness as
skills you have to learn.

I have long ago dropped the language of states.

States are so, well, static. Perception and awareness is dynamic and more
of a closed feedback loop between the organism and its environment.
People
want to point to one thing and say "that state right there is the
perception." But there is not always a good reason to single out one
state
over any other in a active loop.

The cocaine alters the animals behavior and
the lever-press response is under stimulus control of the drug-altered
behavior, either overt or covert (I designed an experiment to ascertain
whether animals are responding to publicly-observable behavior or private
behavior, but it will probably never get done).

I consider perception as an ability to tell things apart. Here we have
the
pigeon able to tell drug and non-drug apart. Has this discrimination been
compared to, say, tasting the chemicals?

Not sure what you're driving at, Joe.



Glen

--
Joe Durnavich

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lord Garth wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:461C52F4.242FD1E@earthlink.net...
Lord Garth wrote:

You shop in the wrong stores. Sav-A-Lot Food Stores has several
types of beans for about 39 cents a can. Their prices on can goods is so
low that I buy almost all of the canned items by the tray of 12. I
can't find everything I need there, but I start at Sam's Club to buy the
bulk restaurant supplies like spices. Then its on to Sav-A-Lot,
Winn-Dixie, and sometimes Kash&Carry or Publix. Some items are almost
twice the price in Publix for the same brand and size at Sav-A-Lot. My
typical breakfast is about 67 cents, lunch around a dollar, and the same
for supper. I could eat for even less if I wasn't diabetic, and had
high blood pressure.

http://www.save-a-lot.com/


Three of those stores aren't in Dallas possibly excepting Winn-Dixie. If
they are, it's nowhere near here or the adjacent 15 miles in any direction.

Wal-Mart / Sam's are nearby but I refuse to buy a Sam's membership.
Besides, huge Sam's size quantities aren't easily stored in an apartment!

I have Kroger's, Sav-on (Albertson's), Tom Thumb Flagship. The Albertson's
charges $1.59 for a regular can of Campbell's mushroom soup. And Kroger
was cheaper than Wal-Mart on some identical brands of canned soup. There
are both a Whole Foods and a Central Market for that no artificial
ingredients / very expensive food.

My point was to shop around. Some items are cheaper in some stores,
and other items at other stores. For instance: I keep some canned meat
on hand for emergencies. I can pay over $3.00 a can for SPAM at the
higher priced stores, or $1.99 at Save-A-Lot. I can go even cheaper and
buy the Armour knockoff for $1.39 the same size can. At the end of
hurricane season it is usually given to a food bank, and replaced the
following year. A dozen cans, along with some canned vegetables will
get you through almost two weeks with no electricity. The stock varies
between 50 and 200 cans, depending on the time of year, or month.


I can't eat canned soup because of the excessive sodium. A single
can has more than a whole day's sodium. For tomato soup I use diced
tomato, onions and some spices. About the same calories, with a similar
taste and very little sodium.

Don't run all over town, but when you're already near a store that has
some bargains, stop in on your way home.

As far as bulk items, some things are stored in the bottom of a
closet. Others are stuffed in the kitchen cabinets, or linen closet.
If you are just feeding yourself, you can be creative. Fix a half dozen
meals at once and freeze or refrigerate the rest. A loaf of french
bread will make four sub sandwiches each, for under a buck each. Ham,
turkey, chicken, or even roast beef with cheese and a little pepperoni
or salami. Wrap it up and stick it in the freezer. 30 seconds in the
microwave and its ready to eat. Homemade soup or chili can be made in a
crock pot, and frozen, or refrigerated for about a week. Being
disabled, I can't always prepare a complete meal when I'm hungry, so i
do it when I can.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Joe Durnavich]

Glen M. Sizemore writes:

The cocaine alters the animals behavior and
the lever-press response is under stimulus control of the drug-altered
behavior, either overt or covert (I designed an experiment to ascertain
whether animals are responding to publicly-observable behavior or private
behavior, but it will probably never get done).

I consider perception as an ability to tell things apart. Here we have
the
pigeon able to tell drug and non-drug apart. Has this discrimination been
compared to, say, tasting the chemicals?



Not sure what you're driving at, Joe.

Injection puts the pigeon in contact with the chemicals. So would tasting
them. Let's say the experiment was performed so that the pigeon tasted the
drug and the vehicle and learned to press the left lever for food on days
it tasted the drug, etc. Would you still consider the experiment as "a
rudimentary animal model of the interpersonal communication of private
events"?

--
Joe Durnavich

 

[Lord Garth]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:461CE218.DAFB4BC1@earthlink.net...

Lord Garth wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:461C52F4.242FD1E@earthlink.net...
Lord Garth wrote:

You shop in the wrong stores. Sav-A-Lot Food Stores has several
types of beans for about 39 cents a can. Their prices on can goods is
so
low that I buy almost all of the canned items by the tray of 12. I
can't find everything I need there, but I start at Sam's Club to buy
the
bulk restaurant supplies like spices. Then its on to Sav-A-Lot,
Winn-Dixie, and sometimes Kash&Carry or Publix. Some items are almost
twice the price in Publix for the same brand and size at Sav-A-Lot.
My
typical breakfast is about 67 cents, lunch around a dollar, and the
same
for supper. I could eat for even less if I wasn't diabetic, and had
high blood pressure.

http://www.save-a-lot.com/


Three of those stores aren't in Dallas possibly excepting Winn-Dixie.
If
they are, it's nowhere near here or the adjacent 15 miles in any
direction.

Wal-Mart / Sam's are nearby but I refuse to buy a Sam's membership.
Besides, huge Sam's size quantities aren't easily stored in an
apartment!

I have Kroger's, Sav-on (Albertson's), Tom Thumb Flagship. The
Albertson's
charges $1.59 for a regular can of Campbell's mushroom soup. And Kroger
was cheaper than Wal-Mart on some identical brands of canned soup.
There
are both a Whole Foods and a Central Market for that no artificial
ingredients / very expensive food.


My point was to shop around. Some items are cheaper in some stores,
and other items at other stores. For instance: I keep some canned meat
on hand for emergencies. I can pay over $3.00 a can for SPAM at the
higher priced stores, or $1.99 at Save-A-Lot. I can go even cheaper and
buy the Armour knockoff for $1.39 the same size can. At the end of
hurricane season it is usually given to a food bank, and replaced the
following year. A dozen cans, along with some canned vegetables will
get you through almost two weeks with no electricity. The stock varies
between 50 and 200 cans, depending on the time of year, or month.


I can't eat canned soup because of the excessive sodium. A single
can has more than a whole day's sodium. For tomato soup I use diced
tomato, onions and some spices. About the same calories, with a similar
taste and very little sodium.

Don't run all over town, but when you're already near a store that has
some bargains, stop in on your way home.

As far as bulk items, some things are stored in the bottom of a
closet. Others are stuffed in the kitchen cabinets, or linen closet.
If you are just feeding yourself, you can be creative. Fix a half dozen
meals at once and freeze or refrigerate the rest. A loaf of french
bread will make four sub sandwiches each, for under a buck each. Ham,
turkey, chicken, or even roast beef with cheese and a little pepperoni
or salami. Wrap it up and stick it in the freezer. 30 seconds in the
microwave and its ready to eat. Homemade soup or chili can be made in a
crock pot, and frozen, or refrigerated for about a week. Being
disabled, I can't always prepare a complete meal when I'm hungry, so i
do it when I can.

Thanks Michael, I do many of the things you suggest. For instance, I like
the multigrain bread such as Earthgrains produces. When I go to a client
in the downtown area, I go 2 blocks off the path and stock up on several
loaves of various breads directly from the bakery. Price is $1.19 per loaf
while at the store it is about $3.79.

I stock up on canned and frozen veggies. I get the bags of skinless boneless
chicken breast and if I make spaghetti sauce, I portion it into serving
sizes,
zip lock those and freeze them in a bowl to shape the food into a pot
friendly form. I groove my ground meats so I can snap off a serving
size and I usually cook all the bacon at one time. I have yet to make a
good
soup but I'm getting close. Beans are hard for me too...usually not much
flavor.

I keep powdered drinks and bottled water on hand.

I found that a frozen chicken breast on a white plate, covered by a large
salad
bowl will cook in the microwave oven in 6 to 8 minutes. The food can be
seasoned
while it is still frozen as well.

I never stored much canned meat except tuna & a manual can opener if needed!

I definitely won't go out of my way to get groceries but I do stop when I'm
already
in the area.

 

[Joe Durnavich]

partso2@yahoo.com writes:

On Apr 8, 2:20 am, Joe Durnavich <j...@earthlink.net> wrote:
part...@yahoo.com writes:

(Sorry for my late answer - I'm somewhat sick)

The software (or algorithm) may have many
different physicalisations (if that's the word) - the electrons in my
brain, the magnetic polarity on the hard drive, some electric states
of registers of the computer's memory (if that's it) - a lot, lot
different arrangements of these as there're a lot of programming
languages and different platforms. Don't you think these are all
manifestations of the same entity?

No. This only shows that we can treat several different physical entities
in the same way. There doesn't have to be yet another entity that stands
for them all.

And we do it by abstracting - dismissing the inessencial properties
of some objects, thus getting some abstraction which is certainly
different from the first entity.

I suppose philosophers like to look at it that way. There is a more
economical way to dismiss inessential properties (which you do mention):
simply ignore them. You don't have to construct some sort of inner generic
Ideal cup to be able to use a variety of cups. Once you learn how to use
one cup, the next variant you come across is a little easier because many
of your skills apply to the new cup. Perhaps the new cup has a handle, so
you have to learn how to grip the handle. You don't have to worry that the
new cup is blue whereas the last few cups were red. You simply don't
attend to that difference. Somewhere down the line you will come across
cups that have a lid on top. As long as the novel cup is not too much
different from what you have dealt with before, you can learn how to use it
rather easily.

This is not a process of constructing an inner abstract cup, but of
attending to only those aspects of cups that matter to you.

We can also abstract some object in
different ways, getting different abstracted objects. Each of them can
be studied as having properties and relations to other objects - just
like the first 'physical' object you started from. So in what sense do
you say they 'exist' less than the first?

To be honest, I have no idea what you might be referring to here. It is
not clear what sort of entity would be left over if you took away all the
inessential properties of a cup and how one could compare it to some other
object.

What does exist, though, are actual cups with all their many properties. We
can gain the advantage of abstraction my attending to just those properties
that matter in our daily lives and not bothering with the rest.

At this point it may seem
that it's all about what the word 'exist' means, so basically the
question is whether you can define 'existance' as to include your
first object and not its abstractions (of course you're not allowed to
define 'material existance' as 'existance' as it'll assume your point
of view...). Then we should ask what's the idea of defining things
this way, as in everyday life the abstractions seem more important
than the original objects in many case (the algorithm example again).

But we can note another point. when thinking of a 'physical' object,
we don't really think of its 'essence' but of the view is it
accessible to us, namely its properties related to our sences (how it
looks, sounds, feels etc.) - for example, on abject emitting yellow
light will appear identical to one emitting red & green. So it's a
kind of abstraction - we ignore certain properties and consider others

This is an excellent example, in fact, of how abstraction does not have to
involve a separate entity of some sort.

In the case of spectral yellow versus red and green, we simply cannot tell
them apart. Simplifying, spectral yellow falls midway between the spectral
responses of the long- and medium-wave photoreceptors in our retinas. Both
sets are activated by the spectral yellow light. A mix of red and green
light also activates the long- and medium-wave photoreceptors. We lack the
means to tell spectral yellow and a red-green mix apart. We say they look
the same.

(the idea that the 'actual' object is meaningless, as we can never
'access' it without our sences/detectors which essencially perform an
abstraction, is known as a Kantian idea, but its roots can be traced
back to mediavel, and even earlier, philosophers). So, for you now, is
there any reason to prefer the first abstraction over the rest?
they're all abstractions, 'of the same kind'.

It's true that as my eyesight weakens with age, I may no longer be able to
make out the writing on my favorite coffee cup. But that doesn't mean I
cannot discriminate (tell apart) lower frequency (less detailed) features
of the cup. I don't have to form and then perceive an inner cup that
contains only a subset of features of my actual cup. I simply see less of
my actual cup.

You could define materialism now as proposing that the
'real' (unreachable) object really exists, and all its abstractions
don't. But this way, it's really meaningless, as the 'actual' object
is theoretically undescribable and we can't make any statement at all
concerning it (except that it 'exists' according to this definition).

If the world is really indescribable, why are you trying to tell me so much
about it?

Someone (I think it was Bob M. about two weeks ago) proposed that
the definition of materialism is 'not accepting anything unless we
have philosophical and physical reason to'.

I say let's just start with what we have before us and then go from there.

As kids we discovered a pinball machine that would accept either quarters
or pennies we flattened on railroad tracks. There doesn't have to a third
type of coin, some sort of "virtual coin", to explain why the machine would
give us credits for both quarters and flattened pennies.

There certainly is a virtual coin - the designer of the machine,
when 'teaching' it what a 'valid coin' is, gave it an idea of mass,
shape, size etc. which is an abstraction of a coin (only he did a bad
job).

Actually, the designer simply cut holes in sheet metal that would allow
various-sized coins to pass through. (I don't know how they really do it
in pinball machines, but bear with me.) Engineers have to work within the
constraints of budget, time, and available materials. The engineer came up
with the most economical trick that would allow the machine to tell apart
the coins most likely to be placed in the machine.

So as an abstraction, it certainly exists.

Can we agree that what exists is a machine with a limited ability to tell
coins apart?

And what is a 'quarter'? you never held two quarters identical in
mass, size, shape or that contain the same atoms. So it's essencially
an abstraction. It isn't worse an abstraction than that virtual coin.
If you believe that quarters exist, and have meanings like 'you owe me
two quarters', you should definitely believe that virtual coins exist
just the same.

I generally don't take the time or make the effort to tell quarters apart.
(I do, however, when I look for coins to put in my 50-state display of
quarters.) I abstract quarters in the most economical way possible: by
being too lazy to attend to the differences.

--
Joe Durnavich

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lord Garth wrote:

Thanks Michael, I do many of the things you suggest. For instance, I like
the multigrain bread such as Earthgrains produces. When I go to a client
in the downtown area, I go 2 blocks off the path and stock up on several
loaves of various breads directly from the bakery. Price is $1.19 per loaf
while at the store it is about $3.79.

I stock up on canned and frozen veggies.

Save-A-Lot has a house brand bag of frozen sliced peppers and onions
for stir fry. A one pound bag of red, green and yellow peppers, with
thick slices of onion for 99 cents. I love to use it in my chili. I
make the chili in one of those new large oval crock pots, and cook it on
the lowest heat all day to get the best flavor.


I also buy frozen peas, corn, green beans, mixed vegetables and lima
beans for my homemade vegetable soup. i cheat when it comes to the
potatoes. I either use a bag of frozen shoestring cut fries, or instant
mashed potatoes. Carpal tunnel has made it too painful to slice
potatoes into tiny chunks. I also buy a restaurant supply bottle of
chopped, dried onions for the same reason.

I get the bags of skinless boneless
chicken breast and if I make spaghetti sauce, I portion it into serving
sizes,
zip lock those and freeze them in a bowl to shape the food into a pot
friendly form. I groove my ground meats so I can snap off a serving
size and I usually cook all the bacon at one time. I have yet to make a
good
soup but I'm getting close. Beans are hard for me too...usually not much
flavor.

If you mean soup beans, you need onions. Sweet onions, or if you can
get them Vadillia onions, when they are in season. There are no burning
eyes or strong odor with Vidallia onions. They are so sweet that I've
seen people slice and eat them.

I keep powdered drinks and bottled water on hand.

I found that a frozen chicken breast on a white plate, covered by a large
salad
bowl will cook in the microwave oven in 6 to 8 minutes. The food can be
seasoned
while it is still frozen as well.

I never stored much canned meat except tuna & a manual can opener if needed!

I definitely won't go out of my way to get groceries but I do stop when I'm
already
in the area.

It sounds like you're on the right track. I just thawed and cooked a
couple pieces of Tyson Boneless Skinless chicken breasts for supper. Its
about $2.05 a pound at Sam's Club in a 6.5 pound bag. ten minutes on
defrost, and ten minutes to cook. I have to take a lab sample in two
days so I can't have red meat or almost anything else I normally eat for
a few days, so its just chicken and potatoes for a few days.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Lord Garth]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:461D9F1A.7294F64F@earthlink.net...

Lord Garth wrote:


Save-A-Lot has a house brand bag of frozen sliced peppers and onions
for stir fry. A one pound bag of red, green and yellow peppers, with
thick slices of onion for 99 cents. I love to use it in my chili. I
make the chili in one of those new large oval crock pots, and cook it on
the lowest heat all day to get the best flavor.

If you mean soup beans, you need onions. Sweet onions, or if you can
get them Vadillia onions, when they are in season. There are no burning
eyes or strong odor with Vidallia onions. They are so sweet that I've
seen people slice and eat them.

I'd say you're lucky to be at home all day to do that but we know it's not
fun being injured / ill.

The beans are pinto and you must pick out the small rocks that are often
with them. I intend to made refritos (re fried) beans out of them. I
usually
put in yellow onions and garlic with chicken broth or buillion cubes.

I had a friend in Piqua, OH near Dayton and we used to go to the Hamvention
in April / May. His Mom made us vidallia sandwiches. This was my first
exposure to that great variety. There is a somewhat weaker similar onion
here
in Texas but I only have the produce sticker, no name.

On another subject, I recently received a letter indicating I was only 63
questions
away from an extra class license as the FCC has dropped all morse code
requirements.
That reminds me that I need to chase down the reason my audio amp in the
radio
has no volume. I'll bet an electro has gone bad. Until then, I'm on the
HT.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lord Garth wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:461D9F1A.7294F64F@earthlink.net...
Lord Garth wrote:


Save-A-Lot has a house brand bag of frozen sliced peppers and onions
for stir fry. A one pound bag of red, green and yellow peppers, with
thick slices of onion for 99 cents. I love to use it in my chili. I
make the chili in one of those new large oval crock pots, and cook it on
the lowest heat all day to get the best flavor.

If you mean soup beans, you need onions. Sweet onions, or if you can
get them Vadillia onions, when they are in season. There are no burning
eyes or strong odor with Vidallia onions. They are so sweet that I've
seen people slice and eat them.


I'd say you're lucky to be at home all day to do that but we know it's not
fun being injured / ill.

The beans are pinto and you must pick out the small rocks that are often
with them. I intend to made refritos (re fried) beans out of them. I
usually
put in yellow onions and garlic with chicken broth or buillion cubes.

I had a friend in Piqua, OH near Dayton and we used to go to the Hamvention
in April / May.

I used to live an hour south of Harra Arena, and probably hit the
dayton Hamfest 20+ times before moving south. Now its a 2000 mile round
trip.

His Mom made us vidallia sandwiches. This was my first
exposure to that great variety. There is a somewhat weaker similar onion
here
in Texas but I only have the produce sticker, no name.

On another subject, I recently received a letter indicating I was only 63
questions
away from an extra class license as the FCC has dropped all morse code
requirements.
That reminds me that I need to chase down the reason my audio amp in the
radio
has no volume. I'll bet an electro has gone bad. Until then, I'm on the
HT.

One of my projects is a complete rebuild of a National NC-183R HF
bands amateur receiver. One EE tried to "Fix" it, and gave it to
another. He took a good look at it and gave it to me after he decided
not to tackle it.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Lord Garth]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:461DAAA8.9AD6FBBF@earthlink.net...

Lord Garth wrote:


I used to live an hour south of Harra Arena, and probably hit the
dayton Hamfest 20+ times before moving south. Now its a 2000 mile round
trip.

Oh the memories! The ham babes (choke)!
I was on the committee through most of the 90's but if you didn't need
a press pass, you'd only have seen me carting one of the reporters in
a golf cart. Though it was I that located Clif Stoll in the flea market one
year. We asked him to be the guest speaker at the banquet for the next
year,
which he did. It was the same year that Shoemaker Levy 9 hit Jupiter.
Since Clif was then an astronomer specilizing in planetary atmospheres,
it was quite interesting speaking with him as we drove him from the airport
to his hotel. He is as animated in real life as we saw on Nova!

In reference to the people that mount a mobile antenna on a hard hat,
I wanted a 'This is your brain' followed by pic of fried bacon, 'This is
your brain on 440 MHz' T-Shirt.

One of my projects is a complete rebuild of a National NC-183R HF
bands amateur receiver. One EE tried to "Fix" it, and gave it to
another. He took a good look at it and gave it to me after he decided
not to tackle it.

What do you typically find wrong with the older receivers?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lord Garth wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:461DAAA8.9AD6FBBF@earthlink.net...
Lord Garth wrote:


I used to live an hour south of Harra Arena, and probably hit the
dayton Hamfest 20+ times before moving south. Now its a 2000 mile round
trip.


Oh the memories! The ham babes (choke)!
I was on the committee through most of the 90's but if you didn't need
a press pass, you'd only have seen me carting one of the reporters in
a golf cart. Though it was I that located Clif Stoll in the flea market one
year. We asked him to be the guest speaker at the banquet for the next
year,
which he did. It was the same year that Shoemaker Levy 9 hit Jupiter.
Since Clif was then an astronomer specilizing in planetary atmospheres,
it was quite interesting speaking with him as we drove him from the airport
to his hotel. He is as animated in real life as we saw on Nova!

My last visit was in 1987, the year I headed south.

In reference to the people that mount a mobile antenna on a hard hat,
I wanted a 'This is your brain' followed by pic of fried bacon, 'This is
your brain on 440 MHz' T-Shirt.


One of my projects is a complete rebuild of a National NC-183R HF
bands amateur receiver. One EE tried to "Fix" it, and gave it to
another. He took a good look at it and gave it to me after he decided
not to tackle it.


What do you typically find wrong with the older receivers?

If they are untouched, its usually just a good cleaning, and a bunch
of bypass and coupling capacitors. If they are paper capacitors,
replace them. If some heavy handed "know it all" has been into it, it
can be almost anything. There are some bad pots, dirty switches and
variable capacitors, along with an occasional open coil. The worst is a
bad power transformer where some hack continued to use the equipment,
even though it had problems.

Bypass and coupling capacitors were usually paper, and even worse,
high acid paper. It breaks down with age and the capacitors become
leaky. The mica and silver mica caps are USUALLY ok, so they are only
changed, as needed.

Some carbon comp resistors may be out of tolerance enough to require
replacement, but most are 10% or 20% tolerance. Very early radios may
have been built with 50% tolerance resistors, and they have the same
markings as 20%

Follow up with a careful alignment and its ready to go.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Joeseph P. Blow]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:51:53 -0700, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:07:43 +1000, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> Gave
us:


Well then, that'll save you a little cash & bench space, won't it? ;^)


You don't get to act like everything is fine after being such a
goddamned retard, boy.

What are YOU going to do about it, tardlett?
--
Just your average Joe

 

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Apr 8, 11:06 am, Joe Durnavich <j...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Allan C Cybulskie writes:
On Apr 7, 11:23 am, Joe Durnavich <j...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Allan C Cybulskie writes:
This is what my objection is: Pain can't just be the behaviour
normally produced by pain because that behaviour can be produced in
cases where pain was not experienced. So pain is something more than
that, and you cannot simply claim -- at a minimum -- that if something
acts as if it is in pain it really is. It may not be.

I think the problem is in the question itself: What is pain? Philosophy
tends to ask such questions, but they mislead you into looking for a
distinct "something" that is the referent of the word "pain". Notice here,
Allan, that you talk about pain indirectly: Pain must be something other
than behavior.

That's just a reply to Daryl, pointing out that pain is something, but
that it isn't just behaviour.

You need to be careful of the indirect argument, which pervades these types
of discussions. It is common to hear something of the form, "It is not out
there, so by process of elimination, it must be somewhere inside of me."
Such deduction hold only when you can demonstrate that there are only two
alternatives.

Well, first, certainly nothing in what I said above implies that.

Second, the onus is ALSO on the person denying that to provide the
additional alternative, should they think one exists.

Third, phenomenal experience seems at least mainly subjective, and
that implies some sort of "inside of me" notion. If it was external,
other people could see it. So asking me to be careful here seems odd
since you haven't given any reason to think that dividing it up that
way causes any problems.

When it comes to terms like "pain", it doesn't have to be the case that
pain is like a thing that has a home--be it in inner experience or in outer
behavior. It may be that people just use the term as though they were
referencing a distinct something. So, pain doesn't have to be out there or
in here. You have to open up to the possibility that language functions in
more complex ways than you may at first realize.

But my analysis isn't based on language, but on my experiences OF
pain. I'm not relying on -- generally -- how people TALK about it,
nor using lingusitic analysis to argue for it being internal or not.
Basically, I see little benefit to following the standard naturalistic
approach and claiming that how we talk about things really does
indicate how things are. I'm not going to accept defining pain on the
basis of the best aggregation of all the ways that people talk about
pain.

In short, he just hasn't explained it yet.

As for pain, I'm not necessarily calling it a specific thing.
Basically, pain is an event, but an event that has certain qualities,
which we basically call "an experience". What that maps to is still
an open question.

I inevitably get this response in these types of discussions. People
accuse me of totally missing the key thing, the important thing, and then
claim that what I say does not explain pain or whatever. Fine. But when I
press for details on their view, which is supposed to offer an explanation,
they balk and say it is still an open question. In other words, I get a
"Trust me. The experience will explain it. I'll get back to you when
science has the details worked out."

Um, I'm a dualist; I'm not convinced science CAN get the details
worked out on this issue.

The reason why you get this response, I'd wager, is because you
constantly attempt to subsume the actual phenomenal experiences under
some form of physical theory ... that doesn't account for them. So
when we ask what causes the phenomenal experience, you have nothing to
point to except "It's in the brain, somewhere", ignoring all the
potential problems with that. And it seems clear that if you are
going to explain consciousness, you are going to have to explain
phenomenal experience ... and handwaving simply will not do, since
it's a critical component of it.

Could I be trained to act as if I was in pain even if I felt, say,
pleasure at all painful things? Certainly. This is one of the
reasons that most people claim that it's the specific TYPE of
experience itself that matters, and not how you react to it. How one
would tell the difference in these cases is still an open question,
but its possibility precludes "how you act" as being the litmus test
for pain.

Notice that you could not answer my question directly and had to rely on an
indirect (and circular at that) argument. You suggest that the type of
experience itself is the important thing, but you try to demonstrate it by
merely beating up on a behaviorist position.

No, you are misinterpreting my argument. My argument is that it is
indeed quite possible that everyone is reacting to a different
specific sort of experience when we react to "pain". How you feel
pain and how I feel pain may not be the same. However, we expect that
if you and I are both indeed feeling pain that there will be at least
some similiarities in how we experience them. Basically, how you feel
pain will not be how I feel pleasure. Or, at least, that's the hope.
And since we know that people can indeed have the opposite experiences
and be trained incorrectly on them, this is not an unreasonable
argument.

This is what proves that the "behaviourist position" can't be true.
Since it is quite possible and known that we can act the same way in
most if not all ways to completely different phenomenal experiences --
see colour-blindness -- we know that simply pointing to a behaviour in
no way indicates what phenomenal experience the person is having. And
explaining phenomenal experience is critical for explaining
consciousness.

For your argument to work here, you need to demonstrate a real difference
between behavior-with-pain and behavior-without-pain.

This will depend on the definition of pain that you are willing to
accept. The actor is a good example of ONE case, though. If an actor
could act as if he had a broken arm well enough that it would be
similar to what people would do in that case, most of the time, then
you MUST have a difference. And you cannot include the arm being
broken in the behaviour you are trying to justify.

By the way, you cannot always mimic pain behavior. I had back spasms once
where my body was making sure I didn't move around by seizing up my lower
back muscles when I tried to move. I don't think you could fake such
intense muscle contractions.

But why would you think that those muscle contradictions are in any
way part of "pain behaviour"? You cannot include the damage and
reflexive bodily reactions in the pain behaviour and expect to say
anything interesting about consciousness; those things can happen
while the person is unconscious.

(That is not to say that the muscle contractions are what pain is. Again,
my view in this debate is that there is no one thing you can point to or
refer to that will answer the question: What is pain?)

And why do you believe that, and why do you reject the phenomenal
experience as being such a thing, at least for ME to say that about
MYSELF?

The problem, and I see a bit of it with Daryl, too, is that you both want
to reduce pain to a specific "something". But pain-language doesn't lend
itself to that except, perhaps, metaphorically. Daryl, however, recognizes
that the wider context is what is ultimately relevant.

And I disagree. If you jump to the wider context, you leave the
phenomenal behind. Attempting to then claim that you've explained the
phenomenal -- which is all that it means to be conscious for most
people -- is an invalid move.

But you are not explaining the phenomenal either. If I press for details
on your explanation, you will just give me a rain check.

But I'm not CLAIMING to explain it, and certainly not physically, so
this objection simply misses the mark. All I'm saying is that if you
want to explain consciousness, you have to explain the phenomenal, and
to explain the phenomenal, you have to engage the phenomenal, and
jumping to the wider context GENERALLY means that you refuse to engage
the phenomenal.

Once you consider the wider context, you appreciate the amazing complexity
of the ways we get along in the world. If consciousness is about anything,
it more about this rich interaction than it is about an inner experience
you have while standing alone inside a dark closet.

And why is that? I've considered the wider and the inner and my view
is that for consciousness the inner is paramount because THAT'S WHAT
IT MEANS TO BE CONSCIOUS. I am as conscious in the dark closet as I
am in the "wider context".

 

[Allan C Cybulskie]

On Apr 8, 9:12 pm, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:

Allan C Cybulskie says...

stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
No, I don't eschew introspection, but I don't believe that it
is an infallible guide to what is going on, either. I take Dennett's
"heterophenomenological" approach. The fact that I am able to
distinguish between two different situations, and that I call one
"feeling pain" but not the other is indeed an important clue as
to what's going on. Any complete model of the human mind must be
able to explain why people claim to be in pain in some circumstances
and not in others.

By casting it this way, you eschew introspection.

No, I don't. Introspection is necessary to be able to *describe*
what things feel like.

Okay, so through introspection I can look at the qualities of my
phenomenal experiences -- ie how things feel like -- and classify them
based on those introspected qualities. Then why doesn't the answer to
the question: "Why do we say that we are in pain in some cases and not
in others?" devolve to "I had an experience with qualities [blah] in
the pain case and not in the other case"? And even the actor case can
be explained by appealing to certain other internal experiences and/or
habituating training.

Why wouldn't we take the obvious answer to this based on our
introspection and say that people claim to be in pain because
they have a specific experience -- like the one _I_ have in
those cases -- of pain?

I don't see how that is an answer at all. The question is
what does it *mean* to have "the experience of pain"?

I fail to see why you think THAT is the question. How can you ask
what it "means" to have an experience of pain? Isn't that like asking
"What does it mean to see a red car?"? What does it mean to
"experience"? Tell me what I can appeal to to explain experiencing in
general, when all my knowledge comes from experiences themselves?

If you are on about the SPECIFIC experience, it should be clear that
if you accept that we can introspect about those qualities then we use
the answer I mentioned above, with no need to appeal to behaviour at
all (in any meaningful way).

It may be possible that rocks have feelings, but so what? This does
not mean that "feelings" haven't been defined, BTW; it's defined as
the phenomenal experiences that you have.

That isn't saying anything. What *is* a phenomenal experience?

You can't define ANYTHING below that level, it seems to me,
so demanding that we define experiences seems to demand
something that can never be done.
Either you have experiences, or you do not.
If you do, then you know what I
mean when I talk about feelings and phenomenal experiences.

No, what I think that you don't know what you mean when you
talk about feelings and phenomenal experiences. You know
what it is like to be you, but that *doesn't* mean that
you know what the phrases "feelings" and "phenomenal
experiences" means when applied to someone besides you.

Either they have experiences OF THE SAME TYPE as me or they do not. I
don't know the specifics, but since I believe that phenomenal
experiences have a critical subjectivity to them, that's not a
problem.

Look, even if no one else has phenomenal experiences, I DO. And that
means that you can't explain them to me without engaging my own
experiences and understanding of them. That being said, if YOU can
use introspection -- as you claim above -- SO CAN I.

If you are relying exclusively on introspection for your primary
notion of what a "feeling" is, then I don't see how you can ever
generalize that notion to someone besides yourself. On the other
hand, you certainly can generalize to others by using functional
roles: What plays the same (or similar) role for another person
that feelings play for you.

Who says that I'm TRYING to generalize that notion?

If you ask whether someone else has feelings, then you
are talking about someone besides you. So you are generalizing
beyond your introspection. The way to avoid generalizing is
to only refer to your *own* feelings and pain.

I'm simply asking someone that I think HAS these experiences

You can't *talk* about "having these experiences" without
generalizing beyond your introspection. Your introspection
shows you what things are like for *you*. To talk about
someone *else* having "feelings and experiences" means
that you are generalizing from your own case. Which generalizations
count, and which ones don't.

Sigh. I am asking you to introspect ON YOURSELF with my examples, not
simply applying mine to you. As I have said elsewhere, I grant it to
you strictly on structure, and then ask you to examine YOURSELF
expecting that if you have phenomenal experiences, you'll have an
experience of at least the same type as I do in those circumstances.
I've never claimed that that could not be completely wrong; I don't
think the Other Minds problem can be solved.

And your argument is totally off-base. I have phenomenal experiences,
and when I talk about them THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I make no
generalizations to you. But if you have phenomenal experiences -- and
you claim you do, remember -- you have ones of at least the same TYPE
as I do. And if you don't, then my own experiences are still what I
want explained; I care very little about yours.

You are trying to ascribe a position to me that I have NEVER held.

I actually argue that the Other Minds problem can't be solved
except by assumption of similar structure, so why you'd think
I'm trying to generalize it is beyond me.

I don't understand. Talking about "similar structure" *is*
generalizing.

But not of the type that you think is "invalid", nor is it any sort of
certain argument. I claim that I GRANT it to others, not that I KNOW
it about others. You seemed to be arguing against the move that I can
claim that I KNOW what it's like for you to experience pain. My
appeal to structure is in no way a knowledge claim.

It's not what I really mean, because that assumes that the
word "mind" has a unique referent, which isn't at all clear
to me. You can say that it is perfectly clear to you what
*YOUR* mind is, but that doesn't actually mean that the
word "mind" as applied to others *BESIDES* yourself has a
clear referent.
But since I don't make that claim, this is irrelevant.

Then what are you talking about when you talk about
other people having experiences?

Simply assuming that they have a mind that they can introspect on. I
have no idea if that's the case or not for others. In short, I DON'T
claim that from MY angle, a mind has a clear referent in others, and
never have. I DO claim that if they have a "mind", like mine, it will
be similar in type to mine, but that is in no way giving it any sort
of "clear referent".