From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2025-03-28, Richmond  wrote:   
      
   >>> I'm sorry to say this, D, after all your stringent efforts to support   
   >>> logical positivism, but your moral stance seems ivory-towerish to me;   
   >>> rather like oldernow's abstention from reality.   
   >>   
   >> The abstention is from the representation (of an assumed objective   
   >> reality) whose existence is nothing more than thoughts repeated in the   
   >> context of a thought/belief that they are not merely thoughts, but the   
   >> assumed objective reality.   
   >   
   > Why assume thoughts are thoughts?   
      
   Because symbols tend to be equal to themselves.   
      
   Programmatically:   
      
   thoughts == thoughts   
      
   (where '==' indicates equality)   
      
   One can actually tell by the spelling. See how each symbol   
   has the same number of the same letters in the same order?   
      
   FWIW, beer is beer too.   
      
   > They might be objective reality.   
      
   They might *represent* aspects of an alleged objective   
   reality, the way shadows represent alleged objects, but   
   are in fact the contrast of light blocked by an alleged   
   object (i.e.  absence of light) with light not blocked   
   by the same alleged object.   
      
   The shadows are not the objects, most certainly can be   
   taken to be the objects by an observer whose perspective   
   hasn't risen above their belief that the shadows are   
   the objects.   
      
   --   
   NPC's dutifully ignored.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)