Looking four lost Turd

It’s not for nothing that lots of folks construe a definition as that which tells us what something is — what it is definitely.

But I’m not saying that he is by definition an objectivist. I’m noting instead that given the manner in which existentially “I” have come to understand the meaning of this word, “I” believe “in my head” “here and now” that he is one.

Does that distinction register at all with you?

What about others here? Am I making, say, one or another “category mistake”? :wink:

But I don’t have a one-size-fits-all-of-us definition of an objectivist. And James S. Saint is no longer around here to give you one.

I just wrote that I don’t expect a “carved in stone”, “perfect” or “optimum” definition. I wrote that I just want your definition to be used in this thread.

And you ask me if I “register” the distinction? #-o

To paraphrase Mr. Lucas Jackson, “what we have here is an inherent failure to communicate”.

I make that distinction between what many construe a definition to be and how I ascribe [existentially] a particular meaning to a particular word in a particular context, and this is the best you can come up with?

My advice: Consult with KT [or have maia consult with turd] and get back to me.

I try to give you plenty of leeway while still making some progress. To no avail.

What do you want to get out of these discussions?

The pause and reflection causes one to be in the minority in the first place. That’s why reflection is necessary to flee the center of the herd because “what most people know, ain’t worth knowing.” I think Twain said that too.

Idk but I read the most downvoted comments first, depending on the topic. New ideas are rarely popular and usually remain so until the composition of the population changes. Who said “all truths start as blasphemies”? GB Shaw?

You’re overcomplicating it. What’s true for everyone is a subjective interpretation of everyone that just coincidentally happens to coincide. What applies to everyone or if everyone happens to perceive the same thing, the fact that everyone is implicated has no significance. The number of people who see it does not define objectivity; it’s not a variable in the equation.

Yes. If god can take an objective view because he is outside the universe, then how can he take a view without connecting with the universe in some way? And whatever view he can take would be subject to that connection. Will it be in terms of EM radiation? Or some special spiritual continuum? Anyway, the objectivity is the same as omnipresence and omniscience which we disproved in other threads. The only way to take an objective view is to be everywhere and know everything.

Sure, I assert it and if you’re a subject adherent to logic then you will see it exists, and if you’re not, then I’m asserting nonsense. Every assertion has conditions it is subject to.

Idk, why does that matter? The idea is the sound travels in all directions. No need to get technical and account for standing waves and cancellation. The point is sound is issued to everyone, but does not exist to everyone.

Well, what is subjectivity a statement of? Observation, right? So what is objectivity except it also be a statement about observation, right? So what is doing the observation? It can’t be the object because that would make the object just another subject, so there is something different about the object in this juxtaposition: there is no subject and there is no observer, so objectivity is a statement about what is observed without observers.

“Application to everyone” is not a statement about observation, unless it be the assertion that observation from all possible viewpoints would have the same view, which would require omnipresence and omniscience to verify.

“What everyone sees” is a statement about observation, but what everyone sees is just a collection of subjective interpretations that may or may not coincide, and if they do, it means nothing.

That’s great, you do. One guy. And you have arrived, also, at a conclusion about global warming that would make the vast majority of the educated classes look down on you for. They’d likely suspect you of being sexist, right wing, racist and more just on the basis of it. You personally don’t care, because you think it will work out anyway with good consequences. But what you are saying in general is that marginalized ideas being marginalized doesn’t matter. But it does in those instances or long term patterns where people believing the wrong thing in general leads to problems. And that will often be the case with believing the wrong things. Automatic marginalizing reduces feedback on problems. Things that have little merit still have to run the gauntlet of the educated classes. But at least there is a chance that those with merit will get seen by a core.

Yep, the one you’re talking to :slight_smile: I concede you make good points. I stubbornly refuse to appear stubborn :wink:

I honestly don’t think they would. I think they would see my objections as valid, but not consistent with popular opinion, so their hands are tied. It’s a mutual respect kinda thing. That’s my impression from arguing with some bright guys at the liberalforums. Nobody called me stupid, but they couldn’t get their head around how I could reject so much consensus.

The co2 concentration is 0.04%. If we double it, it’s still insignificant. Is co2 a better insulator than wool? Do you think an extra 0.04% wool is going to keep you perceptibly warmer? How about a few strands of fiber glass between you and a fire? Nevermind the fact that plants will gobble up any excess, and if excess prevails, it’s because animals are thriving beyond the capacity of plants to keep up. CO2 always lags temperature because heat causes animal activity. All the greatest achievements of man happened in warm periods. CO2 is the effect of heat and not the cause, even though it’s a frequency dependent EM radiation filter, like a capacitor is to electricity, which defines it as an insulator, but not the best one and extremely dilute. I think stronger arguments can be made for the existence of god.

Next they’ll propose the snowball effect. Then it’s no longer an argument about 0.04% being significant, but that once a line is crossed, co2 goes to infinity and the world ends… apparently. Obviously this isn’t true since co2 is lower today than in the past at various points, so the level can come down all by itself.

From here they resort to appealing to authority and popularity and it’s a stalemate.

But the only reason co2 is correlated to heat is because heat is correlated to animal activity. It’s an effect and not a cause. Like a gas gauge is an effect of the fuel level and not the cause. Also, cholesterol is an effect of atherosclerosis and not the cause. Correlations cannot determine which correlated things causes the other.

Yes and sometimes I wonder if it is a conspiracy to hurry the transition to solar energy for the ultimate benefit of mankind, but I haven’t decided if such a thing could be orchestrated or even if they’re smart enough to see it. But whatever, I like electric cars and wish my atvs could be electric, but battery technology has not kept up with everything else because there was no profit in it. Well, thanks to the government, now there is.

So it’s bullshit propagated for the greater good like telling a kid santa claus is watching… or god is. Whether or not “they” know it’s bullshit is beyond me.

What bad can result from marginalizing climate change skepticism?

If not for Max Planck, Einstein may not have ever been noticed. Whew, that was a close one lol

In a certain sense, that’s all I ask for. I mean, I respond to people because by responding I find out what I believe OR what I might believe. I see what happens. I think I tend to make decent points - iow not idiotic ones, sometimes unique - but I am hardly expecting to change people’s minds (much anyway).

Good luck controlling how you appear. I find I am much poorer at appearing how I want than I’d prefer.

But they do.

But they don’t see your objections. And if they did, they might not be able to counter your points, but good luck getting anyone to notice that, let alone admit it.

Right. They can’t get their heads around it. I am not worried about you. I am not saying they will look down on you, so it’s poor you. You obviously have tremendous patience with poeple not getting what you are saying and not admitting things. More than I do. Well, I might be selling myself short. I used to have more patience, so there are long term effects.

I am more concerned, in this particular discussion, with the inability of the meme to travel. So it’s not Serendipper’s unpleasant reception by the educated classes, it’s their imperviousness. Because the idea is so marginalized. Because so few others who might, on their own, investigate some marginal idea, will now have to dig deeper - and will also have more cognitive dissonence to plough through.

I won’t get into the climate thing with you. I think I have not dug down in it because I am less worried about the outcome of the mainstream consensus.

Again, my not clearly presented point was: in this case you are calm because you think the lie is either noble or will lead to good things anyway. Other dominant lies are unlikely to have positive consquences. And then there’s the indirect effects of the habit of marginalizing valid criticism, even with global warmed where in the specific it may lead to good things, but in generaly we are creating more rage, more distrust, more habits of obfuscation, etc.

Right. There are close ones. Once you challenge paradigmatic habits, you are in for a battle. I don’t want corporations -expecially ones with close ties to the military-industrial complex - making decisions about what ideas should be marginalized, per se.

:confusion-questionmarks: :confusion-scratchheadblue:

Climate change? Are you two in the wrong thread??

The thread is about looking for Turd. He’s a pretty wide ranging poster. I’d say we’re as close as most people to the topic. Though I will say, I was a more general level then Serendipper.

Cite a few example of this. Such that we can all agree on that which constitutes “leeway” and “progress”.

Haven’t I made that abundantly clear time and again?

Generally, I am interested in exploring the philosophical parameters embedded in posing and then in answering the question, “how ought one to live?”

More specifically, I am interested in the manner in which others confront their own sense of self – “I” – at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. In a particular context involving particular value judgments in dispute.

And of late I have become increasingly more interested in determinism. And that profoundly problematic gap between “I” “here and now” and all that can possibly be known about existence itself.

Perhaps the cholesterol myth is a better example of a dominant lie with negative consequences, but uneducated masses aren’t fighting that one because when a liberal doctor tells them they need a pill to reduce cholesterol, suddenly they’re not so arrogant in protest anymore. Funny how “common sense” only applies when other people’s lives are at stake.

Climatology is common sense.
Physics is common sense.
Economics is common sense.

But medicine? Oh no, that’s not common sense, we have to listen to the government on that.

Climate change has valid criticism that is marginalized, but with positive consequences, yet the uneducated masses protest.
Cholesterol myth has valid criticism that is marginalized, but with negative consequences, yet the uneducated masses do not protest.

Actually I would think many conservatives do go against their doctors - sometimes rationalizing their habits which they cannot change, but also sometimes with arguments like ‘everyday they tell us in the newspapers that X is bad for our health. They keep changing their minds. I am going to eat what I love.’ A few adding things like ‘my grandparents lived to be 93 and they ate…’ I also see gut conservative reactions to hospitals as dangerous places - which is true, though what heuristic to guide one when to avoid and when to go there is a tough one to produce, I think.

Honestly, we must run up against different groups of conservatives. If we are comparing liberals and conservatives, I would say conservatives are more likely to go against consensus medical advice. This gets even stronger as we get to the margins, but then at the margins of liberals, you also get the lefy alt. medicince crowd.

They have more control of the latter. They can avoid this or that doctor. They can go to mcdonalds or even eat better cholesteral foods. It is individualized advice aimed at individual end users. The former will lead to policies. But people do focus on things in inconsistant ways.

Idk, conservative states get the most prescriptions.

Here’s antibiotics physiciansweekly.com/antibi … fographic/

Pain killers npr.org/sections/health-sho … tion-rates

Of course, they’re sicklier states too, but anyway they don’t seem to be going against their doctors.

Look at how cold it is outside. Global warming is a Chinese hoax intended to stifle US manufacturing.

Glad you brought up the obvious correlation. Most people listen to doctors. Most people want magic bullets. They don’t wait to change their habits. Alternative medicine takes to long and they’re brainwashed to think only patented chemicals are effective. And, yes, they are sicker, so if most of any group uses medications from doctors, then they will have take more prescriptions.

When science and philosophy finally pin down the precise relationship between mind and body, then we will know when something any of us might propose here is overcomplicated or oversimplified.

And, unitl then, an assessment such as this is just one more “general description”/“intellectual contraption” to me.

What on earth are you telling us here in regard to actual human interactions?

That’s my point too. Every assertion is embedded in a context. What can logic, a sound epistemology, and rational thought tell us about this context? I merely make that distinction between factual [and seeming objective] interactions in the either/or world and personal [and seeming subjective/subjunctive] judgments in the is/ought world.

Again, it’s not sound per se that intrigues me, but sounds that are heard by everyone/anyone in any particular context and reacted to in very different ways. Sounds that revolve around human speech for example. We can all listen in on Trump sounding off about the need for a wall on the Mexican border.

Is there a way that these sounds/words ought to be understood by all rational men and women?

When the turdman was here, he certainly seemed to think so.

Actually, this is not at all what I meant by a context. This is just another intellectual contraption.

This is totally amazing. The philosophy of Fixed Cross really did a number on this dude. That is power. But FC loves girls and squirrels.

I hope Turd is safe and sound in Shenzeng living the life of four men.