Aha! Yes, thanks - silly me, I just realized that you said that only a few posts before my own.

I can't think of a reason to disagree with you, very good.

Sorry, but my time is extremely limited so a quick scan of this long thread may not have been very thorough, so I have questions:

Must we equate a lie with truth?

Would a lie simply be something other than ones actual perception of a situation for example:

Do you like my new hair style? Perhaps my perception is that the cut is not becoming to the person's physical charateristics however, that is my perception because I happen to like long hair not short, and I don't like long bangs with shor hair.

But others have told the person she looks great and I don't want to hurt her feelings, and I know that eventually she will change her hair again - so I answer in a positive manner - I like the color and it will be a lot cooler in the summer.

Did I lie?

On the other hand if asked a question or when giving information, I withhold something I know or if I simply state what I 'believe' to be true and it's not - is it a lie?

I guess the big question to me is - are lies always an attempt to deceive or misdirect and if not are they really lies?

Are lies only lies when the truth is known and not related completely?

If your values are that important to you, I would suggest making those specific values very clear in your profile.




That doesn't tell a person too much especially when you consider that today some 98% of Catholic women use birth control.

So you have to be really specific about what your values are because even though it's no longer required abstain from eating meat on Friday, I know a lot of Catholic's who still follow some of the old rules and I know a lot of current self-proclaimed Catholics who decide for themselves what part of the religious tradition and dogma to incorporate into their values.

By the way, I have question for a 'real Catholic'. When it comes to lent what do you think would be relavent to the Catholic values system for someone to abstain from?

Any cost that is affiliated with procuring an ID for the purpose of voting is considered a poll tax - quite illegal.

One of the Southern States can't remember which one, put in thier law that a State photo ID would be free. I find that very hard to believe - the cost to the state would be incredible and with no valid evidence of voter fraud, it's not likely that the voter ID law is motivated by anything less than discrimination.

Perhaps,like Texas, the locations to obtain state photo ID's are inaccessable to rural areas that are predominantly minority populated.

Student ID's have proved to be at issue because students are not always residents of the state in which they attend college. Oddly enough, most of the polls of college students indicate they are majority Democrats.

There is one state that allowed student ID from State Colleges but not from private colleges - the largest private colleges in the state were known to have quite liberal students.

It's difficult to read the courts reasoning for striking down these laws, and the legal documentation provided by representatives fighting these laws, without coming to the conclusion that there is an agenda and it is not to avoid voter fraud but to perpitrate it under the name of law.

MARCH 12, 2012: GONZALEZ COMMENDS DOJ’S DECISION THAT TEXAS VOTER ID LAW WOULD DISENFRANCHISE REGISTERED VOTERS
San Antonio, Texas – Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) blocked a Texas Voter ID law passed by the Texas State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Rick Perry last year from taking effect because the state failed to show that the law did not have a discriminatory purpose or effect on minority voters. With 81 out of 254 Texas counties lacking an ID facility, the DOJ also cited the extreme difficulty for Texans in rural areas to obtain the necessary identification. Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, a long-time critic of the Texas law and other voter suppression laws, issued the following statement regarding the Texas Voter ID law and the DOJ’s decision:

“The Department of Justice made the correct decision in denying the Texas Legislature and Governor Perry in their attempt to enact a law that would disenfranchise registered voters, particularly the young, the disabled, and minorities. Voter suppression tactics like these are the weapons of the War on Voting. Our right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution and the Department of Justice is right to defend it this way. Attorneys at DOJ collected broad evidence that this law would have a disparate impact on minority voters. The Department gave Texas multiple chances to disprove this and the state failed to do so.

“President Bush spent five years and millions of dollars and couldn’t find evidence of voter fraud to justify laws like this. In 2006 Texas Attorney General Abbott was unable to name a single case of fraud that would have been stopped by a voter ID. The Republican legislators behind Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law were equally unable to cite a single case. That’s because voter ID laws attempt to solve a problem that does not exist. But they create a very real problem, threatening the voting rights of millions of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Texans, and tens of thousands of San Antonians.

“The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to the Constitution all protect our right to vote. But even after today’s announcement, that right is still under attack and the War on Voting continues. Texas has sued the United States to gain permission to put this law into effect. Since the 2010 elections, states across the country have introduced and adopted laws making it harder for people to vote. Our rights are under attack and we must all work together to defend them.

“The right to vote is just that: a right. It must be protected.”

No it's not odd when you understand how your mind works. Remember, your mind fills in the blanks. It uses the images of stored memories as the filler.

How many times have you looked at something and then immediately questioned what you saw and have to look again. We do that so often we have a phrase for it; the double take.

The fact that we may not be 'cognizant' of what we are seeing does not mean that our eyes are not seeing. In fact if we are not cognizant of what our eyes are seeing and then later (even moments later) we are trying to remember what we just saw, we are likely to remember a memory rather than the actual object or event.

That's the reason perseption is not the same thing as seeing. There is a delay between what we see and the realization or understanding of what we have seen.

Dreams are often a product of sensual perception and the cognitive process. Our eyes may be closed and our awarness diminished by sleep, but the physiological responce to sound can cause our eyes to flutter. The brain immediately thinks there is something to see and be translated. Obviously there is not data coming from the eyes, so the brain processes all of the current sensual data, smell, hearing, sense of touch, and even the mental state that is driven by hormones and it takes all that information and fills in the blanks with bits of memories that might equate to the conditions the body is experiencing at the time. Of course it doesn't usually make any sense - and our cognitive process is in sleep mode.

When we awake and remember a strange dream, we may not really be remembering the actual dream becasue it would probably make no sense. So in the waking cognitive process of trying to remember a dream - the brain is filling in the blanks with something that makes more sense to us.

That does not account for all dreams or nightmares or sleep disorders. But its a great example to use when trying to explain why we do not perceive the world when or as we acturally see it.

Perception is the result of the conitive process that is often stimulated by sensual data.

I really will get back to respond to your last response to me, I've just been really busy.

There are always images in your head but sometimes parts of an image are stored in different places. When one is asked to give a description (example:) of a cup used frequently, it is possible that the description will depict details of the bowl part of the cup down to the a chip near the bottom, while at the same time, details of the handle may not match. It would not be surprizing to discover that the handle that was described actually belonged to another cup that had been broken.

Why the confusion? Could be several reasons.

If you look accross a table and notice a cup, you may see the image of your blue cup because that is what you expect to see. But later you discover that your blue cup is in the sink and the cup you actually noticed was one left there by your son.

It depends on the level of awarness that you are operating under when objects come into view. If you are preoccupied with other thoughts, what you perceive is often what you would expect and not what you actually see.

Our range of vision, including periferal, can seem quite encompassing but we actually have a very limited range of focus and our focus is further diminished when our mind is preoccupied with other congnitions.

There are exceptions of course. Those who have grown up with severe hearing loss compensate for the handicap by maintaining a constant awareness of all lines of vision. Their visual 'perception' far exceeds that of hearing individuals.

You know all those pictures in which we are asked to find 14 hidden objects - hearing people are absolutely no competition to a Deaf person. Their memory is also more reliable. Some studies have correlated this heightened memory capacity to sign language development because the language itself is spacial, & gestural and relies on visual cues of facial and body movements for syntax and grammatical connotations.

Studies of multi-lingual individuals, particularly those who have grown up fluent in more than one language, consistanly correlate a greater capacity for abstract thought, a more reliable memory and much quicker adaptation to new languages.

Which is one of the reasons why I am so opposed to the idea of a national language and support much greater exposure to other languages in all levels of education.

Earlier in this thread there was some discussion about language. Clearly, how we develop our language skills and the number of languages we learn at an early age does affect the way in which our memory storage & access and cognitive functions work.

I hope this was a nice distraction from the topic and that it was informative on some level.

THE OP


My intermittent interaction in this thread has left me confused about the discussion thus far. I’ve had to start from the beginning to clarify where we are. I’ve reviewed the posts and even made a few notes, but I am even more confused than I thought I was.

Since I’m on spring break and I find this discussion interesting, I would like to pursue it, but I can’t until I understand what it’s about.

Forgive me, but perhaps if my earliest confusion is made clear, then I might be able to catch up.

1. discussion of illusion, early in the post

‘Pure illusion’ = what we ‘see’ that does not exist.
Optical illusion = what we ‘see’ that is not an accurate representation of the way things are (fact/reality)… due to the inherent limitations within our physiological sensory perception and/or the brain possibly overcompensating from the past habit of filling in for what is sometimes missing information.

What we ‘see’ is never more than a small percentage of fact/reality. The physical ability that allows us to see is ‘in fact’ a function that is very limited. We are also limited by the brain itself because the amount of data it can process for cognitive use is time sensitive. Sight must be transmitted to the brain and processed for cognitive use which does indeed require the brain to fill in the blanks.

Thus, our perceptions are the product of incoming sensual data and cognition.

Whether we are actively aware, dreaming or experiencing a mirage, we are responding to sensual data. To me, it does not make sense to differentiate between the illusive processes that lead to perception. Bias is always a part of the process, this is based on fact/reality and it’s the reason for the structured methods of scientific exploration.

". It is true that the hunter is making a sound that mimics the animal. It is true that the animal hears the sound. It is true that the animal thinks/believes that the sound indicates another animal.

If we proceed on the premise that there is a difference between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ then the difference has not been established at this point in the discussion .

However, if we proceed on the premise that truth and fact are synonymous then, I would agree.

It is not true that the sound is coming from another animal.
So, given this, the animal does not hear what is not true.

I think your logic is in error. Logic follows an order which I know your are well aware of. First you make the statement(s) then you draw the conclusions. You have included conclusions within your statements without providing conditions under which negation may operate.

For example: from the premise that truth and fact are synonymous: without conditions

An animal will respond to the sound of another animal
A man makes the sound of an animal
Therefore, ….

At this point there are several possible statements, for example:

Therefore .. an animal will respond to the sound of any animal OR an animal will respond to a man OR an animal will respond to a man making the sound of another animal….

The conclusion we reach about statements, based on logic, provide the truth value of the statements, whether the statement is factual or not, we can logically support our conclusions. This is true/fact and is only dependent on the logic we use to support the conclusion.

"The earth orbits the sun" is either true or false. "This sentence is false" is neither true, nor false. The difference between the two is that the former makes a claim about the world, whereas the latter is self-referencial and therefore is utterly meaningless.

If we proceed on the premise that truth and fact are synonymous and that any statement which makes a claim about the world is either true, not true, or (I would add) not known then, I agree that the statement “The Earth orbits the sun.” is either true or not true (but also) that the fact of the matter might not be known.

If we proceed on the premise that there IS a difference between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ and the difference has not been established at this point in the discussion, then we could concede that the truth of the matter is conditional or dependent on other statements or factors (context, for example).

As noted above – the statements made referring to the man and animal interaction were not logically set up from which to form logical conclusions.

However, if they were logically set up to form conclusions, than the conclusions we form may not be factual whether the statements being drawn to their logical conclusions are true or false..

This is the first stumbling block for me in this discussion. What is the premise from which we determine the difference between statements of truth and fact? That has not been clearly defined.

Later in the discussion there is the question of the effects of language development on the truth of statements. Are we really talking about language, or are we talking about the process by which the brain fills in the blanks of incoming data with pre-existing bias?

So, do we draw conclusions of fact (whether known or not known), differently than we draw conclusions of truth? If so please clarify.

The existence of truth is contingent on language because there is no 'truth' outside of language, there are only facts. Language is the way in which we convey messages about the world as we perceive it.

For us to even have a language requires that we label everything. Every label is categorized and mental contructs are formed. As we gain knowledge and become more proficient in language, the constructs continue to develop and we are able to interchange, exchange, and borrow from the various contructs for the creation and application of new ideas.

Let me ask you - can you think of any statements which (properly structured) are not informative?

Hey, I’m stressing over a mid-term and to relax before bed I was surfing for something other than NEWS. I found the following:

http://www.tutorgig.info/ed/Saul_Kripke#Truth

Saul Kripke – I like his view about statements and truth. He proposes that the truth value of a statement has to be grounded in some fact about the world. Facts can be falsified, while statements that are ungrounded have no truth value because they cannot be considered fact so they cannot be falsified.

I like it. It makes sense that language, out of necessity, would have been developed for the purpose of communicating information. Logically, information is only as good as its truth value and in the past, it was in the circles of the most elite and typically the most highly educated, who would be expected to engage in ethical discourse.

That means that people entered a discussion with the belief that those communicating did not intend to mislead or misrepresent, so other participants looked for the ‘truth value’ in statements because ethical communication includes representing ideas and opinions based on fact (truth). If a fact given, was known to be in incorrect, its truth value could be corrected and the speaker maintained self-respect and dignity rather than being called a lier.

But respect was not withheld from those who made ungrounded statements, it could simply be stated that the fact or facts related in the statements, could not be verified at that time and further discussion might simply have become a pastime rather than a grounded communication for the purpose of sharing information or drawing conclusions based on fact.

In summary: A statement must include facts, and if the facts are grounded and verifiable,then the truth value is upheld, if the fact is falsified and corrected all is still good. If the facts are ungrounded it can simply be dismissed as unprovable.

I've heard that a burka is suppose to solve that problem, for women anyway.

That was too funny! I've never been to the Onion before but it was certainly a break I might venture take again.

Barring believes which attribute consciousness and conscience to the universe itself, the only sense of good and bad are always relative to human perspective.

Human perspective however, is influenced by many things including, culture, religious beliefs, social and civil agreements and personal experiences. Rarely are we able to find agreement within a wide array of global societies on exactly what should be considered good and bad by all humans.

If there were such a thing as inherent human values which dictate a sense of what is good and bad, then it would be easy to have a world-wide consensus on exactly what ‘for the common good’ means, and what behaviors are valued most in order to achieve ‘the common good’.

Humans also have this phenomenal ability to adapt their notions of what is good and bad by making justifications for behavior when it no longer aligns with stated values. What was once bad becomes not quite as bad if… justification.

The habit of making such justifications has created a sliding spectrum effect which allows humans to ignore their own conscience and avoid guilt while still maintaining a value system by which to cast judgments on others.

The point is that we neglect to define words like, good, bad, evil and love in context to the interconnectivity between humans and humans, humans and other life forms, and humans and the environment.

Humans require other humans for species continuance, humans require a diversity of other, than human, life forms, and both humans and the other life forms require a rather limited balance within the echo-system which cannot be maintained without humans and other life forms.

Yet in determining the values that will guide human behavior, humans seem to have a rather egotistical view of ‘the common good’.

Therefore, humans tend to make good and bad strictly about what is good for humans and specifically, what is considered good in the context of a rather limited cultureal, social, and civil view.

Can a realist set goals and not be considered an optimist?

Is it realistic to be persistent in the face of failure?

Is it realistic to admit failure and give up or is it pessimistic?

Having insurance does not mandate that one puts it to use. BUT I'm 99% positive that religious exemptions can be had. Insurance is nothing more than placing bet against the odds and there are a lot of religions, including most Christian doctrines, that believe gambling is a sin.

So there are are at least two choices to 'opt' out.

But what if the corporate entity envokes religious protection?

Just as an example, what if the organization owners and board of directors all believe, based of their religion, that inter-racial marriage and dating is forbidden. Can the organization be allowed to discriminate in its employment practices? Why or why not?

I've reviewed this thread looking for some specific inforamtion that was not included.

How are you defining language?

Creative, you have twins - did they ever exhibit 'silent' twin-speak or a moment in which they both seemed captivated by something and then one looks at the other and smiles and almost simultaneously they begin a race for the object. Perhaps they were still crawling at the time or perhaps this occurred prior to their exhibiting any kind of speech patterns.

Were they thinking linguistically? Were they responding to an unspoken true/false statement?

Or do we just attribute the phenomina to wife's tales about twins?

Is it necessary to hear or read such a statement or can the statement be made, understood, and responded to without oralism or written words?

Many people are here to be an irritant, fortunately some are here to provide comic relief from the stress of having to deal with the irritants.

Narrow minded focus often comes from those who hold a previous bias toward an issue and for those who do not consider the issure critically with a broad lenz.

The narrow mind assumes that birth control used by a woman benefits only the woman and because it's call birth control, it's assumed the woman is promiscuous.

How many women AND their monogamous partner have made that choice together - because they feel their financial situation is not stable enough to bring a child into? Why is that not considered responsible action?

BC is also used for hormonal value and there are many young girls that benefit greatly from this therapy, I did myself. But many parents cannot afford to pay, even a co-pay for medicine.

Responsible sex is not just something a woman needs to consider. Men can say - it's not my problem you got prenant, I'm outta here, because it's the kind of thinking that a lot of men have. The woman gets slammed both, because she didn't use birth control and because she wants to use birth control. MAKE UP YOUR F..NG MINE MEN.

BC is NEVER an issue for only a woman or only a man, there is much more to consider. Those who strongly oppose abortion must also consider that fewer would occur if (the more responsible party) which men seem to be claiming should be a woman, preempts the situation with birth control. But there still that narrow mindset that only women have illicit sex while men are some invisible second party to the act.

EDIT: Let's not forget that pregnancy can also be an accident due to the failure of BC of any kind. We cannot be the judge of such situations (as being an accident or not)and because all medical issues are a private matter - there should never be an unknown nosey party telling anyone that abortion should be illegal.

Abortion is either a legal medical procedure, subject to all the privacy laws over medical procedure, or it is something that is subject prdominantly to a male court review. Those should NEVER be the only two choices in a country that considers half the population (women) equal to the other half.

I’d like to agree but I’m concerned that the “obvious” answer may not apply in less obvious cases.

For example: FEC strictly regulates the following: Limitations of Individual contribution, small businesses/sole proprietorships, and it makes it illegal for businesses whose profits are partially supported by federal government contracts to make contributions at all.

Limitations on Corporations ???? it’s difficult to determine because I have not been able to find the specific guidelines that should have required amending since the decision in Jan 2010 of Citizens United.

I have found bits and pieces of FEC comment through media articles and some blogs but Nothing in a more ‘legal’ format.
If anyone has found this information, please pass it on here



I may not have gotten the whole message but the you tube seems to be saying that corporations have always had the ability (and do take advantage of it) to target their ads in political ways.

So the question is, what’s the difference and the big deal with allowing a corporation into the same political election arena as individual citizens.

If that’s the point, --- well that’s the point of this discussion – what is the big deal?



The quote above may be in the wrong thread, but it may be that AB is relating the OP question to another thread about the Catholic hospital’s opposition to providing certain health benefits to women.

In either case, the quote has a legitimate place here because it was while I was doing research on that particular topic that I began to question the Court opinions that regard corporations as individuals (persons).

If the Court considers corporations as a single-minded entity for the purpose of being involved in the election processes of governing officials, can corporations also be considered a single-minded entity from a religious view?

If a particular corporation is headed by a board that happens to ‘believe’ in some particular religious doctrine, let’s say that race and ethnicity are subject to segregation (no inter-marriage or dating) will they get away with discriminating in their hiring practices?

Consider other issues of discrimination, against homosexuals, transgendered, women in the workplace, men & women who are divorced and so on and even people of other specific religions.

Those are the blatant and most obvious kinds of issues but it runs far deeper than that into areas most people probably haven’t even considered.

What lines separate Corporatations from religious conviction given that the Court (in Citizens United) has created an abstract construct of corporate personhood?