The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
so far in December) that I saw.

Vote for your favorite.

== 1 ==================================================
In the category of, yes, yes, and ...

> Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
> new species came from.

== 2 ==================================================
In the Seeing What You Don't See category:

>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.

-------------------
In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:

====================================================
In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice

It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 2023-12-07 10:37 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
> mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter).  To catch up, then, here are
> the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
> so far in December) that I saw.
>
> Vote for your favorite.
>
> == 1 ==================================================
> In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>
> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
> > new species came from.
>
> == 2 ==================================================
> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>
> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>
>
>
> -------------------
> In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>
> ====================================================
> In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>
> It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
> for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
>
>
#2 please. A worthy winner in Sept.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:

#2, please.

>The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
>so far in December) that I saw.
>
>Vote for your favorite.
>
>== 1 ==================================================
>In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>
> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
> > new species came from.
>
>== 2 ==================================================
>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>
> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>
>
>
>-------------------
>In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>
>====================================================
>In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>
>It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>
>#2, please.

How ironic.

>>The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
>>so far in December) that I saw.
>>
>>Vote for your favorite.
>>
>>== 1 =================================================>>In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>>
>> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
>> > new species came from.
>>
>>== 2 =================================================>>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>
>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>
>>
>>
>>-------------------
>>In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>>
>>===================================================>>In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>>
>>It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
>>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>
>>#2, please.
>
>
>How ironic.
>
Really? In what way? I notice when *my own* posts go
missing, but I fail to see how that statement is generally
applicable to others' posts of which I have no knowledge.
Thus "Say what?"
>
>>>The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
>>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
>>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
>>>so far in December) that I saw.
>>>
>>>Vote for your favorite.
>>>
>>>== 1 ==================================================
>>>In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>>>
>>> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
>>> > new species came from.
>>>
>>>== 2 ==================================================
>>>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>
>>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-------------------
>>>In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>>>
>>>====================================================
>>>In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>>>
>>>It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
>>>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

How ironic; this post didn't show up, and I noticed it
didn't. Let's try again...

>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>
>>#2, please.
>
>
>How ironic.
>
Really? In what way? I notice when *my own* posts go
missing, but I fail to see how that statement is generally
applicable to others' posts of which I have no knowledge.
Thus "Say what?"
>
>>>The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
>>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
>>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
>>>so far in December) that I saw.
>>>
>>>Vote for your favorite.
>>>
>>>== 1 ==================================================
>>>In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>>>
>>> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
>>> > new species came from.
>>>
>>>== 2 ==================================================
>>>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>
>>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-------------------
>>>In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>>>
>>>====================================================
>>>In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>>>
>>>It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
>>>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02 PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:

Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
can?). Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?

>
> == 2 ==================================================
> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>
> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>
>

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>
>>>#2, please.
>>
>>
>>How ironic.
>>
>Really? In what way? I notice when *my own* posts go
>missing, but I fail to see how that statement is generally
>applicable to others' posts of which I have no knowledge.
>Thus "Say what?"

Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid. Your question
above illustrates your willful blindness of these facts. Any further
rationalization by you would follow Harran's illustration of willful
stupidity.

>>>>The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
>>>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
>>>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
>>>>so far in December) that I saw.
>>>>
>>>>Vote for your favorite.
>>>>
>>>>== 1 =================================================>>>>In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>>>>
>>>> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
>>>> > new species came from.
>>>>
>>>>== 2 =================================================>>>>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>
>>>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-------------------
>>>>In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>>>>
>>>>===================================================>>>>In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>>>>
>>>>It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
>>>>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>
>How ironic; this post didn't show up, and I noticed it
>didn't. Let's try again...

Yes it did, as my reply to it proves, which makes your "how ironic"
non-sequitur.

<snip remaining>

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>can?).

Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
recognize.

>Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>
>>
>> == 2 ==================================================
>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>
>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> >Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
> >can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
> >can?).
> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
> recognize.

I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy

> >Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
> >how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
> >
> >>
> >> == 2 ==================================================
> >> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
> >>
> >> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>> can?).

I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
something that is not there".

>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>> recognize.
>
> I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
> the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
> an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
>
>>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> == 2 ==================================================
>>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>
>>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>> --
>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>
>>>>#2, please.
>>>
>>>
>>>How ironic.
>>>
>>Really? In what way? I notice when *my own* posts go
>>missing, but I fail to see how that statement is generally
>>applicable to others' posts of which I have no knowledge.
>>Thus "Say what?"
>
>
>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid. Your question
>above illustrates your willful blindness of these facts. Any further
>rationalization by you would follow Harran's illustration of willful
>stupidity.
>
Perhaps you could set aside your personal acrimony long
enough to remember that CW *has* no context and references
no poster; the statement stands on its own.
>
>>>>>The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
>>>>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
>>>>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
>>>>>so far in December) that I saw.
>>>>>
>>>>>Vote for your favorite.
>>>>>
>>>>>== 1 ==================================================
>>>>>In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
>>>>> > new species came from.
>>>>>
>>>>>== 2 ==================================================
>>>>>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------
>>>>>In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>>>>>
>>>>>====================================================
>>>>>In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>>>>>
>>>>>It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
>>>>>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:41:11 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>>How ironic; this post didn't show up, and I noticed it
>>didn't. Let's try again...
>
>
>Yes it did, as my reply to it proves, which makes your "how ironic"
>non-sequitur.
>
No, it did not, at least not in my feed. Neither did your
claimed reply. The second repetition did, as did this one.
>
><snip remaining>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0600, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:

>On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>>> can?).
>
>I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
>something that is not there".
>
That does seem to be an interesting conundrum, doesn't it?
>
>>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>>> recognize.
>>
>> I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
>> the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
>> an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
>>
>>>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>>>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> == 2 ==================================================
>>>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>
>
>--
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0600, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>>>> can?).
>>
>> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
>> something that is not there".
>>
> That does seem to be an interesting conundrum, doesn't it?
>>
What would be added for someone to be blind to their blindness:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30844182/
“Cortical blindness is among the rare neurological conditions resulting in
binocular vision loss due to insult to the occipital cortex. Anton-Babinski
syndrome (Anton syndrome or ABS) is visual anosognosia (denial of loss of
vision) associated with confabulation (defined as the emergence of memories
of events and experiences which never took place) in the setting of obvious
visual loss and cortical blindness”

Adam Grant references this Anton’s syndrome in his _Think Again_ book as a
framing for his lead-in to that most famous of metacognitive blindnesses,
Dunning Kruger. In a nutshell people have cognitive blindspots but some
lack awareness of such, usually when their confidence outweighs competence:
incompetent overconfidence. In analogy to Anton’s syndrome this would not
be willful blindness. Maybe desirability bias is willful blindness.

As for Dunning Kruger, it has been ripped as a statistical artifact seeing
a patterned relationship emerge out of noise and ironically enough an
example of innumeracy.

https://youtu.be/LZvhZSrWT0Q?si=8WBqWxdM2MLD4cji

Grant alludes to this problem in an endnote and proceeds to use Dunning
Kruger anyway as a form of being blind to epistemic blindspots.

He also uses the ridiculous concept of a “lizard brain” as a way of
conveying an alleged amygdala mediated fight or flight response to having
one’s core beliefs challenged. He references this article on the “lizard
brain”:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420917687

Which tries to debunk the reptilian brain concept while also getting it
wrong. The “limbic system” construct was seen as mammalian not reptilian.

Other than that Grant’s book was pretty good.

>>>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>>>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>>>> recognize.
>>>
>>> I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
>>> the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
>>> an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
>>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
>>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
>>>
>>>>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>>>>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> == 2 ==================================================
>>>>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>> --
>>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>>
>> --

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
> >>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
> >>> can?).
> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
> something that is not there".

I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:

THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
streets. “It’s to do with signs.”

“Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls..

“Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”

“And how can you do that, sir, when they’re missing?” said Groat.

Ah, so there’s a clue as to why you’re still sitting in a rundown old
building making tea from rocks and weeds all day, Moist thought. Aloud he
said: “It’s a knack. Now, I could be wrong, of course, but—ah, we turn left
here…”

> >> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
> >> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
> >> recognize.
> >
> > I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
> > the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
> > an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
> > was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
> > at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
> >
> >>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
> >>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> == 2 ==================================================
> >>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
> >> --
> >> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
> >
> --
> --
> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

This one please.

>== 2 ==================================================
>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>
> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>

[...]

>>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.

Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
blind ;)

[...]

On 07/12/2023 16:37, Mark Isaak wrote:
> The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
> mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter).  To catch up, then, here are
> the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
> so far in December) that I saw.
>
> Vote for your favorite.
>
> == 1 ==================================================
> In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>
> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
> > new species came from.

I'd have put that in the category of saying the quiet part out loud. I'd
vote for it, except that the chez-wattery depends on knowing the
identity of the author.
>
> == 2 ==================================================
> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>
> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>
>
>
> -------------------
> In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>
> ====================================================
> In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>
> It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
> for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 15:41:33 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>>> can?).
>
>I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
>something that is not there".

Really? I am curious why regular T.O. readers would feign
unfamiliarity with "God of the Gaps", "Were you there?", and other
PRATTs used to deny evidence.

>>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>>> recognize.
>>
>> I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
>> the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
>> an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
>>
>>>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>>>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> == 2 =================================================>>>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>
>
>--

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>#2, please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How ironic.
>>>>
>>>Really? In what way? I notice when *my own* posts go
>>>missing, but I fail to see how that statement is generally
>>>applicable to others' posts of which I have no knowledge.
>>>Thus "Say what?"
>>
>>
>>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid. Your question
>>above illustrates your willful blindness of these facts. Any further
>>rationalization by you would follow Harran's illustration of willful
>>stupidity.
>>
>Perhaps you could set aside your personal acrimony long
>enough to remember that CW *has* no context and references
>no poster; the statement stands on its own.

Perhaps you could turn off your willful blindness to recognize that
Harran's CW is a consequence of his willful stupidity. As for your
expressed line of "reasoning", it's incoherent and non sequitur, as
your "*own posts*" don't inform the point or show what you claim it
shows.

>>>>>>The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
>>>>>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
>>>>>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
>>>>>>so far in December) that I saw.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vote for your favorite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>== 1 =================================================>>>>>>In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
>>>>>> > new species came from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>== 2 =================================================>>>>>>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-------------------
>>>>>>In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>===================================================>>>>>>In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
>>>>>>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 12:54:00 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> >
>> >Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>> >can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>> >can?).
>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>> recognize.
>
>I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
>the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
>an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
>was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
>at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy

I'd say "the blind" refers to a condition that is involuntary and more
or less permanent , while the "willfully blind" refers to a condition
of choice and so contingent. As such, the phrase alludes to three
monkeys rather than any Asian religious philosophy. YMMV.

>> >Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>> >how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> == 2 ==================================================
>> >> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>> >>
>> >> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>> --
>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 08:59:09 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, Mark Isaak
><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>
>
>This one please.
>
>>== 2 =================================================>>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>
>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>

Willful stupidity strikes again.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>
>[...]
>
>>>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>
>Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>blind ;)

Harran fails to take into account that he has no idea what he's
talking about and is proud of it. His posts about me are a
self-parody.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge