What if a being's physical makeup did not include "extension" into whatever aspect of reality is effected, acted upon, or otherwise capable being perceived by such property of the universe? Perhaps such a being could, indirectly be affected, acted upon, or capable of perceiving, indirectly, some other aspect of reality which was affected by the first aspect. But, not being able to experience or be affected by this aspect, it simply has no concept whatsoever of something which, were it able to be perceived or experienced, would be incredibly obvious as an indelible, integral part of existence? The simplest example I could think of was light, but this was not the best example I guess as the responses have proved.
I'm sorry that my example of not having eyes was not good. What if it was not simply of having eyes, but rather of not having any attribute which was affected by electromagnetism?
I'm sorry to those who replied previously but this is more what I meant. Its kind of like the idea of being a three-dimensional being in a four-dimensional world, only in my example it is not about dimensions, it could be about entire properties or aspects of the world which a being simply does not have extension into, hence would have no way of being aware of it except perhaps in only the most indirect way through some possible bleedover or leak-over effect.
Clearly it would be possible to sense heat. To the people who are trying to piss on my statement by saying that electromagnetic radation (in some form) could still be detected are missing the point entirely. Its not about electromagnet radiation, but just a metaphor that what a being is determines what it senses in a radical way.
That said, I really wonder though if, even if a being were to be able to sense heat, it would have any idea that stars exist, much less ever arrive at concepts like supernovae and black holes.
People will belabor the point in a kind of stubborn way, but then the whole idea of the reflection is already lost.
As if there is knowing to know. Maybe its just a matter of the presencing of being as it is revealed to us. We are only that which, in our very being, comports towards our own being.
I had this odd reflection recently: If you and your entire species never had eyesight, how would you know anything about light?
Think about this a minute. We know what light is so it seems extremely obvious. In fact, it almost *defines* what we mean by knowing in the first place: "To see the light"... "To illuminate" "Elucidate" Etc. Light is so synonymous with knowing, understanding, being aware of that we cannot just divorce our self from understanding it, or see from a perspective of there not being light (see? I can't even say a phrase like this without invoking light!).
But really think about it, and now think that there could be things in the Universe just like light which we simply do not have organs to perceive. How can we understand it? We have no conceptual framework for it perhaps. But it might be there. And it might be obvious - so obvious if we were beings who perceived it that it would be impossible to imagine existence being without it.
We are the primal tool. Just as Kant understood the limitations of knowing are intimately related with there already being the capacity to know inherent in the mind, so to the ultimate horizon of our understanding is primordially determined by our very being.
I agree. The meaning of "regulate" reminds me of the marks drawn on Gothic cathedrals in Europe - where markets still take place to this day - which indicated the minimum length of loaves of bread that could be sold. In this sense, regulation is really for the purpose of facilitating commerce which often requires standards.
Put a chip in every vehicle and have vehicles ranked in grades according to wastefulness. Fuel tax is based on grade. Fuel pump receives signal from embedded chip in vehicle and automatically levies appropriate tax rate based on vehicle grade. Thus, driver of Hummer pays $20/gallon. Escalade $15/gallon. Prius $2/gallon. Etc.
I wholeheartedly agree. This has been an immense waste of, ultimately, consumers' money over what amounts to crap. I don't understand how that judge in the UK could have sided with Samsung yet in the US the court sided with Apple. I love what the UK judge said too about Samsung not being as "cool" as Apple. LOL.
When Samsung's own lawyers were shown an iPhone and a Galaxy side-by-side, he could not tell them apart at a distance of 16 ft. thats pretty bad, don't you think?
No, because that's generally what small personal electronic devices look like. Having square corners on them is kind of stupid idea and I don't think that patenting or claiming trade dress on something not being stupid is quite valid, much less innovative. As for the first in not having a mechanical keyboard, whether that is true or not, that is just something that could be expected to be designed as devices evolve and model designs change. Laying some kind of "We got there first!" claim on something like that reeks of... greed.
I once met someone who was disabled and who boasted to me about his new found source of income working with a lawyer filing ADA lawsuits and collecting. I find it totally disgusting. I think this has also been in the local news about how a lot of little businesses are being shaken down by these grubby lawyers and can't afforded the exorbitant amounts of money. Most of these businesses had absolutely no clue that their store was in any violation before getting the crap sued out of them. No friendly warning given. Just sued and extorted.
Not long ago I actually watched a multi-episode jdrama one of the main characters of which was a biologist researching the devastating effect a breakwall had had on marine life. A 250-mile long wall sounds absolutely disastrous from an ecological viewpoint.
Considering that assisted suicide techniques are well-researched and well-documented, it seems very strange that they wouldn't simply use any of the preferred, pain-free methods such as the exit bag. What gives?
I just wanted to add here that not only such an effect, but "the mind" (the word "placebo" is so bigoted) has been shown to be capable of powerfully modulating immune responses.
I think the standard should be whether or not a particular remedy is engaging in actual deception. Its one thing to say something like "this remedy provides relief _____" vs. saying something like "this remedy cures _____". Perhaps there should be a requirement of a more clear disclaimer such as "not intended for long-term treatment of ______" or "while providing relief, this remedy has not been shown to address certain underlying physiological aspects of ______"
I think the fact that people keep having this discussion with reference to "placebos" instead of perhaps a much more accurate, and scientific term such as "the role of the mind" is a form of bigotry.
The more I hear these discussions about "placebos" the more it makes the commenters sound like irrational bigots who have some major issue with accept the fact that there is in fact a vastly important, and quite scientific role which the mind plays in the processes of health and healing.
Slashdot Mirror
What if a being's physical makeup did not include "extension" into whatever aspect of reality is effected, acted upon, or otherwise capable being perceived by such property of the universe? Perhaps such a being could, indirectly be affected, acted upon, or capable of perceiving, indirectly, some other aspect of reality which was affected by the first aspect. But, not being able to experience or be affected by this aspect, it simply has no concept whatsoever of something which, were it able to be perceived or experienced, would be incredibly obvious as an indelible, integral part of existence?
The simplest example I could think of was light, but this was not the best example I guess as the responses have proved.
I'm sorry that my example of not having eyes was not good. What if it was not simply of having eyes, but rather of not having any attribute which was affected by electromagnetism?
I'm sorry to those who replied previously but this is more what I meant. Its kind of like the idea of being a three-dimensional being in a four-dimensional world, only in my example it is not about dimensions, it could be about entire properties or aspects of the world which a being simply does not have extension into, hence would have no way of being aware of it except perhaps in only the most indirect way through some possible bleedover or leak-over effect.
Clearly it would be possible to sense heat. To the people who are trying to piss on my statement by saying that electromagnetic radation (in some form) could still be detected are missing the point entirely. Its not about electromagnet radiation, but just a metaphor that what a being is determines what it senses in a radical way.
That said, I really wonder though if, even if a being were to be able to sense heat, it would have any idea that stars exist, much less ever arrive at concepts like supernovae and black holes.
People will belabor the point in a kind of stubborn way, but then the whole idea of the reflection is already lost.
No.
As if there is knowing to know. Maybe its just a matter of the presencing of being as it is revealed to us. We are only that which, in our very being, comports towards our own being.
I had this odd reflection recently: If you and your entire species never had eyesight, how would you know anything about light?
Think about this a minute. We know what light is so it seems extremely obvious. In fact, it almost *defines* what we mean by knowing in the first place: "To see the light"... "To illuminate" "Elucidate" Etc. Light is so synonymous with knowing, understanding, being aware of that we cannot just divorce our self from understanding it, or see from a perspective of there not being light (see? I can't even say a phrase like this without invoking light!).
But really think about it, and now think that there could be things in the Universe just like light which we simply do not have organs to perceive. How can we understand it? We have no conceptual framework for it perhaps. But it might be there. And it might be obvious - so obvious if we were beings who perceived it that it would be impossible to imagine existence being without it.
We are the primal tool. Just as Kant understood the limitations of knowing are intimately related with there already being the capacity to know inherent in the mind, so to the ultimate horizon of our understanding is primordially determined by our very being.
On this note, I was recently shocked to find out that in Japan it is illegal to home brew sake.
I agree. The meaning of "regulate" reminds me of the marks drawn on Gothic cathedrals in Europe - where markets still take place to this day - which indicated the minimum length of loaves of bread that could be sold. In this sense, regulation is really for the purpose of facilitating commerce which often requires standards.
Now they go down to Columbia and throw elaborate sex parties for the drug kingpins. All paid for by the American taxpayer.
Put a chip in every vehicle and have vehicles ranked in grades according to wastefulness. Fuel tax is based on grade. Fuel pump receives signal from embedded chip in vehicle and automatically levies appropriate tax rate based on vehicle grade. Thus, driver of Hummer pays $20/gallon. Escalade $15/gallon. Prius $2/gallon. Etc.
I think its better to use NoScript and just block the domains
I'm glad to see the EU handle Facebook as the disease that it is.
How are the Chinese American Family Coalition involved in this?
I wholeheartedly agree. This has been an immense waste of, ultimately, consumers' money over what amounts to crap. I don't understand how that judge in the UK could have sided with Samsung yet in the US the court sided with Apple. I love what the UK judge said too about Samsung not being as "cool" as Apple. LOL.
When Samsung's own lawyers were shown an iPhone and a Galaxy side-by-side, he could not tell them apart at a distance of 16 ft. thats pretty bad, don't you think?
No, because that's generally what small personal electronic devices look like.
Having square corners on them is kind of stupid idea and I don't think that patenting or claiming trade dress on something not being stupid is quite valid, much less innovative.
As for the first in not having a mechanical keyboard, whether that is true or not, that is just something that could be expected to be designed as devices evolve and model designs change. Laying some kind of "We got there first!" claim on something like that reeks of... greed.
Thank you! That was really cool!
I once met someone who was disabled and who boasted to me about his new found source of income working with a lawyer filing ADA lawsuits and collecting. I find it totally disgusting. I think this has also been in the local news about how a lot of little businesses are being shaken down by these grubby lawyers and can't afforded the exorbitant amounts of money. Most of these businesses had absolutely no clue that their store was in any violation before getting the crap sued out of them. No friendly warning given. Just sued and extorted.
I've never heard the term "trade dress" before. What does it mean?
Not long ago I actually watched a multi-episode jdrama one of the main characters of which was a biologist researching the devastating effect a breakwall had had on marine life. A 250-mile long wall sounds absolutely disastrous from an ecological viewpoint.
Not to mention the brutal slaughter of thousands of trapped dolphins every year.
I like the idea of being able to drive from LA to Tokyo.
Considering that assisted suicide techniques are well-researched and well-documented, it seems very strange that they wouldn't simply use any of the preferred, pain-free methods such as the exit bag. What gives?
I just wanted to add here that not only such an effect, but "the mind" (the word "placebo" is so bigoted) has been shown to be capable of powerfully modulating immune responses.
I think the standard should be whether or not a particular remedy is engaging in actual deception. Its one thing to say something like "this remedy provides relief _____" vs. saying something like "this remedy cures _____". Perhaps there should be a requirement of a more clear disclaimer such as "not intended for long-term treatment of ______" or "while providing relief, this remedy has not been shown to address certain underlying physiological aspects of ______"
I think the fact that people keep having this discussion with reference to "placebos" instead of perhaps a much more accurate, and scientific term such as "the role of the mind" is a form of bigotry.
The more I hear these discussions about "placebos" the more it makes the commenters sound like irrational bigots who have some major issue with accept the fact that there is in fact a vastly important, and quite scientific role which the mind plays in the processes of health and healing.