Interbane wrote:TH: "How many corpses do you require, Interbane?"
Was this your attempt to win "debate points"? By throwing in an emotionally loaded rhetorical question?
I am trying, Interbane, to indicate the importance and seriousness of this topic. If you think the question is emotional, you should have the experience of being opposed by obtuse persons in matters of life and death.
Yet there's a problem with your classification of intuition, it's not knowledge, as you're claiming.
I am sure you misunderstand me. Intuitive knowledge is knowledge through
iconic signs. The sign has the qualities of the thing signified. A fingerprint is iconic with respect to a finger. Think how difficult it would be to fake a fingerprint on the spur of the moment. Not only would a complex pattern of ridges have to be faked, oils and fluids that are transferred in making the print would have to be faked also. DNA may be stolen and planted at a crime scene, but the capacity to fake another's DNA does not now exist. For this reason, iconic signs are trustworthy.
When I experienced the aforementioned laugh as being cruel, I mean that cruelty was inherent in the laugh. In English, a
sardonic laugh. Most anyone can come to recognize through subjective respose such malicious laughter, but it has not been described in purely objective terms that would permit machine recognition.
Many of life's important matters hinge on character expressed iconically. My objection to the theist--atheist spectrum is that the spectrum is a narrowing of attention that excludes iconic expression of character.
Tom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconicity