text:
Find an internet service provider in Nandigama
Stream videos, work and learn online, connect with anyone anywhere, and do much more with JioFiber.
This is what ultimate digital life feels like!
High-speed Home Internet
Non-stop Entertainment
Unlimited Video Calling
FREE 4K Set-top Box
Check availability in your city
Book JioFiber at the nearest Jio Store
Visit the nearest Jio Store, register your interest in JioFiber, and we'll contact you soon.
Internet Service Provider in Nandigama
JioFiber provides the best internet service near me in Nandigama, meeting all your streaming and browsing needs. It offers a fast internet connection for a seamless digital experience. Its superfast upload and download speeds make JioFiber stand out from all the other internet providers. Unlike other internet services which bring fiber only to the building, offering reduced internet speeds, this fiber internet technology of the future connects your home to the internet directly for the ultimate broadband experience.
With such fast internet speeds, you can stream high-definition movies, play 4K games without lags, enjoy uninterrupted TV video calling, and much more. JioFiber is one of the best ISPs, as it not only provides high-speed internet but also offers other bundled services.
In addition to high-speed internet, enjoy other services such as TV Plus, free HD voice, TV Video Calling, Gaming, Security & Surveillance, and Home Networking. Some of the services listed below provide a one-of-a-kind digital experience to JioFiber subscribers.
The TV Plus service offers a unique streaming experience that allows you to watch content from several OTT apps in one place. It enables you to binge-watch your favourite movies and TV series without having to search for them individually in different apps. Along with JioFiber plans, you get complimentary subscriptions to more than 10 OTT apps, including Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney+Hotstar VIP, Voot Select, Zee5, etc.
With a Jio set-top box, you can enjoy 4K gaming and play top games with your friends and family. Enjoy zero-latency gaming with JioFiber high-speed internet. If you're looking for the best internet service provider in Nandigama, get JioFiber broadband and enjoy unlimited entertainment and the best broadband experience.
- GST additional on applicable components.
- Customers will have to activate Amazon Prime and Netflix subscriptions once through MyJio to avail the benefits.
- All plans have symmetric upload and download speed.


text:
Welcome to macOS Server
macOS Server makes it easier than ever for the people in your organization to collaborate, communicate, and share information.
Profile Manager
Configure Macs and iOS devices so they're set up for your organization.
Create bots to automate the integration process of building, analyzing, and archiving.
Users can collaborate and communicate through their own wiki-powered website.
My Settings
Change your password and customize settings for your account.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This Compensation Disclosure has been provided for your protection and to fully disclose any relationship between this site's product or service recommendations and the owners of those products or services. It is always recommended that before you purchase products or services on the Internet, including those on this website, that you conduct your own research and exercise due diligence.
The owner of this website is required by law to inform you that a relationship exists between this website and the products or services it reviews, recommends, or promotes.
1. Material Affiliation
It is advisable to assume that any mention of a product or service on this website is made because there exist, unless otherwise stated, a material connection between the product or service owners and this website. It should be understood that any recommendation made by the owner of this site for any product or service has been made in good faith. These recommendations reflect the fact that the owner has either tried the product or service or has extensively researched them and can give an honest opinion to the merit of the product or service. When any website makes any recommendation of a product or service, it is advisable to assume the possibility of a material connection or relationship with the owners of those products or services.
2. Product/Service Partiality
Due to the material connection between the owner of this website and the owners of the products or services recommended here, it must be understood that a bias for these products or services might exist.
These biases, although based on facts, could have developed because of compensation for such recommendations from the product or service owners, although every effort has been made to provide accurate and true reviews of each product or service.
Regardless of whether the owner of this website has or will receive compensation from product or service owners, it should be understood that a relationship exists between the two, so there does exist, established or not, the potential for a material connection between product and service owner and the owner of this website. Before entering into any agreement or purchasing any product from this website, it is advisable to understand the potential partiality of the website owner due to possible compensation from the owners of the products or services recommended on this website.
You should perform your own research and exercise due diligence prior to purchasing products or services from any website.
3. Compensation
The owner of this website may receive compensation for recommendations made in reference to the products or services on this website. This compensation may be in the form of money, services, or complimentary products and could exist without any action from a website visitor.
Should you purchase a product or service that was recommended by this website, it is understood that some form of compensation might be made to the website owner. For example, if you click on an affiliate link at this website and then make a purchase of the recommended product or service, the website owner may receive compensation.
4. This Compensation Disclosure Statement
The compensation disclosure statement has been made to inform you of the possibility that a material connection between a product or service mentioned, reviewed, or recommended by this website and the product or service owner exist and that compensation to the website owner may be made should you purchase such product or service.
Every effort has been made to provide true and accurate statements in regards to any and all products or services mentioned, reviewed, or recommended by this website.


text:
Iowa State University Cyclones Bracelets
- Description
- Care Instructions
- Sizing Info
We offer the "IOWA STATE" and "CYCLONES" enamel tile bracelets, sold separately or buy the duo
- 7" is standard for women
- Handmade with ♥
- Avoid wearing in water as the materials may tarnish
Due to the craft of the tile enamel bracelets, our bracelets are not meant to get wet. Please remove them before showering, swimming, boating, exposure to rain/snow, or working out. To clean your bracelet, please wipe with a microfiber cloth.
Our bracelets are a one size fits most. Use our size guide. Most of our bracelets are stretch styling and are 7.25" in length. If you would like to request a custom size please reach out to us.
Free shipping on orders over $100
Custom options available
Need styling help?
Book an appointment with our virtual stylists! Chat now
Metal & Materials
La Lumiere New York uses hand-painted enameled metal beads. The metal consists of nickel and the paint is a non-toxic enamel coating. The elastic used is…and may cause irritation for those with rubber or latex allergies. Please discontinue wear if a reaction occurs.
Stacks & Style
Stacking style suggestions - there really is no wrong way to stack our bracelets. Feel free to mix and match… Start with a core element in your outfit and build from there. Don't forget to add a pop of color if you want to start a conversation or two, or keep it neutral for a more subdued aesthetic.
Customize Designs
We do offer custom designs upon request. Please send us an email so we can work together on a special project or need. Use our size guide to determine sizing needs.
Fast shipping
We offer a variety of shipping options which are calculated at checkout.
Orders are processed M-F, same day before 3pm CT of purchase. Custom order and pre-sale timelines are detailed on product pages.
Order tracking
You will receive an order confirmation email upon receipt of your purchase. Once the order if fulfilled we will send another email with your tracking information. If you do not see your tracking number please reach out to us.
Get in touch
We always want our jewelry to bring you joy and we are happy to do repairs to our stretch style and enamel bracelets if needed within the first six months after purchase. If it's been longer, please reach out and we will handle on a case by case basis. We may charge a fee to restring or fix bracelets as needed.
Concierge Services
We love helping you with all of your design and styling needs. Our favorite thing is showing our customers how to stack and mix pieces to really create a unique look. Reach out to us to schedule a one-on-one appointment!
Custom Resizing
Need a different size for your purchase? Contact us and we can create a custom size to fit your needs for a small fee.
*Not all bracelets can be resized due to the size of the beads.


text:
Anyone looking for a glimmer of bipartisanship in Washington might want to pay attention to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare. It took a notable, if largely symbolic, hit this week from the left and the right.
The 2.3-percent excise tax on devices ranging from MRI machines to pacemakers to stethoscopes was meant to raise $20 billion over 10 years to help pay for extending health care coverage to the uninsured under the Affordable Care Act.
But so far it has raised more ire than revenue.
In a Senate where the line of demarcation on tax issues between the parties has rarely been starker, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, teamed up to introduce a repeal amendment to the Senate budget resolution. That resolution passed Thursday in the Democratic-controlled chamber in a 79 to 20 vote. Every Republican and most Democrats voted for it.
Klobuchar's news release on the lopsided vote actually contained a quote from Hatch as well as her Minnesota colleague and fellow Democrat, Sen. Al Franken. Those are names you don't usually see in the same news release.
The vote was mainly symbolic, since it came on a nonbinding resolution. The hope, according to a Democratic Senate aide, is that the bipartisan supermajority vote will speed the inclusion of a repeal in tax reform or deficit reduction legislation that might be taken up later this year.
This isn't the first time Democrats and Republicans have been able to agree that they don't like some feature of Obamacare. Two years ago, Congress repealed a requirement that businesses report to the Internal Revenue Service every time they pay at least $600 for goods or services. Lawmakers from both parties (and President Obama) agreed that the provision was too burdensome.
But Obama hasn't abandoned the medical device tax. In a December 2012 interview with a Minneapolis TV news reporter, he said Obamacare would expand the device makers' customer base by adding 30 million newly insured patients, and that paying the tax was the least the device makers should do in return.
The industry disputes the president's argument, saying that there won't be a boom in customers because many of the devices subject to the tax are used on patients who are already being treated, and are uninsured, like some brought to an emergency room.
Klobuchar and Franken have been particularly vocal about the need to end the medical device tax because Minnesota is home to Medtronic, a leader in the industry, and other manufacturers. Medtronic is one of Klobuchar's top campaign contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Did You Outgrow Your Home in 2020?
It may seem hard to imagine that the home you're in today – whether it's your starter home or just one you've fallen in love with along the way – might not be your forever home.
Many needs have changed in 2020, and it's okay to admit if your house no longer fits your lifestyle. If you're now working remotely, facilitating virtual school, trying to exercise at home, or simply just spending more time in your own four walls, you may be bursting at the seams in your current house.
According to the latest Home Price Insights from CoreLogic, prices have appreciated 7.3% year-over-year. At the same time, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) reports that inventory has dropped 22% from one year ago.These two statistics are directly related to one another. As inventory has decreased and demand has increased, prices have been driven up.
This is great news if you own a home and you're thinking about selling. The equity in your house has likely risen as prices have increased. Even better is the fact that there's a large pool of buyers out there searching for the American dream, and your home may be high on their wish list.
Bottom Line
If you think you've outgrown your current home, let's connect to discuss local market conditions and determine if now is the best time for you to sell.


text:
Privacy Policy
When you view www.selfcateringshetland.com your visit and any dispute over privacy is subject to this Privacy Statement, Disclaimer and the Terms and Conditions of Use.
Self Catering Shetland recognises the importance of protecting the privacy of anyone who visits the Website. This Privacy Statement sets out the policy adopted by Self Catering Shetland towards the collection and use of information obtained from those visiting and using this site. By visiting or using the Website you consent to the collection and use by Self Catering Shetland of information about you in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and this Privacy Statement.
When registering with the site, completing a Contact Information Form or contacting us by e-mail, we obtain personal information (eg user's name, e-mail address, postal address, telephone numbers, etc.) from you. This information will be held on our database and will be kept secure. The information will not be not be made available for sale, and shall not be shared with third parties except where:-
- you have consented; or
- there is a legal requirement to do so
The personal information is used for notifying customers and partners of future updates to our products or services.
The web server also automatically collects standard information such as a user's IP address, browser type, operating system, access times, etc. Like many websites we use cookies, these are small electronic files which are placed on a user's hard drive to identify a user. You can check your 'Cookie' file and delete those you do not want. You can also Disable Cookies in your web browser so your computer will not receive them. The information received is used to monitor the volume, type and pattern of traffic using the Website. They are also used to track the contents of your shopping cart if you choose to purchase documents. Any such information held by Self Catering Shetland will not be disclosed to a third party.
This Website contains hypertext links. Self Catering Shetland are not responsible for the privacy policies operated by the owners of those sites and does not accept responsibility for any information obtained by third parties as a result of use by you of such hypertext links.
Self Catering Shetland reserves the right periodically to update or modify this Privacy Statement. Any changes to this Privacy Statement will be posted on this site so users are always aware of the information collected, the reasons for such collection and the purposes, if any, to which Self Catering Shetland may put such information. Self Catering Shetland encourages users who may have specific concerns about the gathering or use of any such information to view this Privacy Statement regularly.
Please contact us at if you wish to have your personal information removed from a particular mailing list or database at any time.


text:
Lancaster Locksmith Store - Locksmith Lancaster, TX
Locks have come a long way since ancient times, of course, and modern-day electronic locks are nothing short of mini computers that are highly resistant to external manipulation. Lancaster Locksmith Store is a professional locksmith service in Lancaster, TX area that can set you up with cutting-edge locks that will make even the most well-informed and well-armed thieves think twice about trying to break-into your property. As a 24-hour emergency locksmith, apart from installing new locks, we can also help with all regular locksmithing requests – including lock repair, rekeying, and making new keys for your home, car, or business property.
Lightning-Quick Response Times
When you are late for an appointment or have to shut shop because you can't get into your office, you need a competent locksmith to bail you out of trouble. Lancaster Locksmith Store is a fully mobile emergency locksmith service with unbelievably quick response times and wide area availability. Our service covers all of Lancaster and Lancaster, TX and we can reach you in as little as 20 minutes, usually. We realize how precious your time is to you and so we endeavor to resolve the problem you're facing as quickly as possible.
All-Inclusive Range of Services
You don't need to head to a local hardware store for your favorite brand of lock – just contact us instead! We can get you all the most popular locks in the market at very affordable prices. Apart from selling you locks, we provide an all-inclusive range of services for residents of the local community, including:
- High-security locks installation: We offer high-security locks with impossible-to-duplicate keys for homes and businesses. If you're looking for something innovative, we can install keyless access control systems on your premises.
- Locks repaired: Locks wear out with time. Sometimes they break because of improper use or accidents. We can prolong the life of your old lock(s) by repairing it and maintaining it. If it can't be repaired, then we'll replace it cheaply.
- Immediate help with lockouts: Time is of the essence during lockouts. We can get your doors, safes, file cabinets, car trunks, and other items opened in a short span of time, without damaging your property needlessly.
- Key copying: We can duplicate all kinds of keys, including transponder keys, at a very affordable price. It usually doesn't take us more than a few minutes to make replacement keys.
- Tenant eviction services: If you have made the requisite legal preparations, our locksmiths can help you get tenants evicted. We can also be asked to improve the security on your premises, if you want to be safe and prevent retaliation damage from disgruntled tenants.
- Master key systems: Master key systems are very convenient and help you build up a hierarchical level of access on your property. If your locks support it, we can rekey them to work with a single master key.
- Automotive locksmithing: Our car locksmithing services include repairing broken locks, extracting broken key fragments that are stuck, repairing ignition switches, and replacing broken car remotes.
- Panic bars for emergency exits: Fire exits can't be locked, by law. Panic bars allow people in the building to exit quickly during emergencies but still keep your property safe from external threats.
Talented and Seasoned Team
Lancaster Locksmith Store runs a team of highly skilled, veteran locksmiths that are a reservoir of knowledge when it comes to locks. Our locksmiths are capable of repairing even the latest electronic with little trouble. We ensure that our team is kept up-to-date with advances in technology in the locksmithing business by providing them with educational material and sending them for seminars ever so often. Our locksmiths are trained to be professional and friendly while working for a client, and no job is too small for us.
All our services are on-site and we don't require you to order locks or tools for us to use – we carry everything we need with us. Our mobile vans are fitted with machines and carry our tools, so that we can provide our services on-site. Our locksmiths are well-versed with the latest industry standards. Any work we do for you is double and triple checked to ensure that it stands the test of time.
Lancaster Locksmith Store is a legitimate, all-inclusive locksmith company that has been operational in the local Lancaster, TX community for close to a decade. Unlike many of our competitors, we don't sub-contract our work to strange locksmiths we barely know. When you hire us for any lock-related work, you can rest assured that you're hiring only the best and you'll receive high level of workmanship. Our team is handpicked, based on industry experience and technical knowledge. We have worked with innumerable home, business, and car owners and have always endeavored to provide an outstanding service without fleecing our customers when they need us the most.
You Can Trust Us to Treat You Right
- We pay attention to your needs: We provide a personalized service and the human touch. Our locksmiths are friendly and we will do our level best to satisfy you. If you need us to stay out of the way – which may be necessary if you run a commercial business – we can do that too.
- We have high standards: We don't cut corners and there's no shoddy, subpar work when you hire us. We offer only the best products in the market, handpicked for their durability and effectiveness. We also use state-of-the-art equipment for our work.
- Reasonable rates for all services: All our services are offered at highly reasonable rates. There are no hidden costs involved with us – we'll begin working only when we come to a mutual agreement. Unlike some of our competitors, we won't charge you extra for emergencies or nightly work.
- Ethical advice, for free: Our goal isn't to make a quick buck but to build long-term relationships with clients that are mutually beneficial. We offer free consultations and you can always expect genuine, helpful advice from our experts. Don't feel obligated to hire our services; you can call us if all you need is advice.
Reach out to us for all you lock & key needs on 972-512-6335 today!


text:
Thinking about change
- What is sustainable change?
- Success rates
- Does size matter?
Communities and museums as active partners
The Paul Hamlyn Foundation's Our Museum programme reflects our belief that museums and galleries should work in active partnership with their communities. This requires an organisation-wide approach, which
involves lots of changes across the service.
Initial research concluded that many museums and galleries currently bolt on short–term community projects to their other work. This does not result in genuine participation and means they are vulnerable to cuts in project funding.
As part of the Our Museum Initiative, several museums and galleries experimented in deeper partnerships and different aspects of organisational change.
This website is a collection of the learning and thinking from our initiative and beyond.
We hope they inspire conversation and action and encourage each of us to consider what our role could be.
Participation can be a confusing term. In relation to community engagement, it means more than simply taking part. It is a way of working in partnership with people outside the organisation to get a better outcome. Genuine participation involves sharing decision-making and power; acting and creating together; or supporting community-led initiatives.
Participatory methodologies are not new; they have been developed by practitioners and analysed by academics for decades. Although participation might feel like a relatively new idea for museums and galleries, it's well-established in lots of sectors including regeneration, health, and international development.
We hope these resources will also challenge some common perceptions about participation. For example, participation need not hinder financial growth; working with individual, targeted communities is not enough on its own; and bolted-on outreach projects do not amount to substantial participation.
These resources are a sort of 'travel survival kit', a guide to help organisations on their change journey, to become more participatory and build active partnerships with their communities.
Please download, show and share widely. Perhaps they will provoke discussion and inspire new ways of working across the sector?
How can I share these resources with colleagues?
Is this site just for museums and galleries?
My organisation does not want to change: Is this site for me?
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.


text:
Las Vegas on the Move
Request More Information About Las Vegas »
View Available Las Vegas Homes »
Las Vegas is entertaining more visitors than ever before. The economic upswing is exciting. There is $9 Billion of building and renovations on the books for the next 3 years. Check out the Las Vegas Perspective snapshot of City and State econmic statistics - Download this PDF compiled by Applied Analysis.
Here are just a few of the growth factors for Las Vegas and Nevada.
- Population Growth Up 2%
- Population Up 1.7%
- Private Employment Up 4.2%
- Average Weekly Wages Up 1.2%
- State Employment Up 3.9% Only 11 states show employment up over 3%
- Visitor Volumne 41.1 Million Up 1.1%
- Major Investment $11.1 Billion including the $9 Billion
- Taxable Retails Sales Annual Growth Up 9.2%
- Taxable Retails Sales Up 6.5%
State and City officials are meeting monthly to make sure that Las Vegas and Nevada have the infrastructure plan to support the growth. The committee has many subjects to review such as improvement for Harry Reid International Airport, stadiums, arenas, event centers, highways, mass transit, and pedestrian movement within the resort corridor ( The Strip Area ).
According to Las Vegas Review Journal reporter Richard N. Velotta, the 11-member panel's mission is to recommend projects to keep Las Vegas at the top of the tourism industry worldwide and they will suggest how to pay for them.
Committee Chairman, Steven Hill said the committee would hear from experts before deciding on the recommendations that could lead to efforts to seek legislative assistance on federal, state and local levels.
Committee members include Hill, UNLV President Len Jessup, Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman, Clark County Commission Chairiman Steve Sisolak, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Kristen McMillain.
The resort industry is represented by Tom Jenkins of Caesars Entertainment, Bill Noonan of Boyd Gaming, Bill Hornbuckle of MGM Resorts International, Kim Sinatra of Wynn Resorts, George Markantonis of Las Vegas Sands and Mike Sloan of Station Casinos.
There are 6 nonvoting experts on the committee including Las Vegas City Manager Betsy Fretwell, Clark County Manager Don Burnette, Regional Transportation Commission General Manager Tina Quigley, Clark Country Aviation Director Rosemary Vassiliadis, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority President and CEO Rossi Ralenkotter and financial expert Guy Hobbs.
With the economic growth and strong job numbers, the housing market should continue to grow. And, the low interest rates are still hanging around - for now!
View Available Las Vegas Homes »
Request More Information About Las Vegas »


text:
Announcement of a job vacancy in Qatar, UAE and Saudi
The Three Human Resources Pvt. Ltd. company has an open vacancy. The position will be held by Limited in the role of Cleaning Supervisor, Commercial Sales Representative, Purchasing Representative Carpenter, Driver, Labourer, Painter and Plumber. A company in Qatar, UAE and Saudi with LT.258015, 258081 and 258043, will be your employer. According to your position, there are 36 vacancies and you will receive a salary up to 98,580. 6 days a week, a minimum of 8 hours are worked. The employment contract has a 2-year term.
Medical and insurance expenses in the country of departure will be covered by the company. Medical expenses in the country of application should be covered by the applicant himself/herself. Visas and plane tickets are free of charge through the company. service charge will be FREE and Rs.10000.
Particular | Details |
Recruiting Agency | Three Human Resources Pvt. Ltd |
Company Name | |
Country | Qatar, UAE and Saudi |
LT No. | 258015, 258081 and 258043 |
No. of Vacancies | 36 |
Areas of Specialization | Excellent in Similar Field |
Monthly Salary | Rs.98,580 |
Skills Required | Excellent in Similar Field |
Over-time Facility | As per rule of company |
Work time | 8hr/day & 6days/week |
Yearly Leave | As per rule of company |
Food & Accommodation | By Company |
Contract Period | 2 Year |
Pre-Medical Expenses in Nepal | By Worker |
Employment Insurance in Nepal | By Worker |
Employment Insurance in Foreign Country | By Company |
Visa & Ticket | By Company |
Service Charge | FREE and Rs.10000. |
Three Human Resources Pvt. Ltd |
Address: Battisputali, Kathmandu |
Phone Number: 014565394, 9823323577 |
Important Message:
- Do not forget to check LT information on website of Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security.
- Please find status and history of Recruiting Agency and Foreign Company. You can find more details information by simple searching on Google.
- You can also get more information by sending a SMS. Please type LT [SPACE] LT_NUMBER and send it to 34001.
Important Information from Dept. of Foreign Employment:
- Please deposit the money at employment office only after getting visa in your name.. Do not forget to take the receipt.
- Please make sure to have contact number and address of Nepalese diplomatic offices of that country where you are planning to go for work. These will help while you are in any trouble in foreign country.
- Please do not give extra money to anyone, only pay exact amount stated in this advertisement.
- Before going to any foreign country, you must have orientation or induction training program.
- Before going any foreign country for employment, Please be sure about the country, company, facilities provided and other conditions. Then only sign on contract letter. Do not forget to keep a copy of that with you.
- Please use Nepal's Airport while going to foreign country otherwise you might be cheated.
- if you need more details about this job advertisement, please contact Department of Foreign Labor, Tahachal, Nepal.


text:
A lot of theists will throw the phrase "intuitive knowledge" around and say things like, "I've got the self-authenticating testimony of the Holy Spirit," and "direct knowledge of God's existence and will through prayer," and the like. The idea seems to be that in this special case, it is possible to circumvent all the ordinary channels whereby one would gain knowledge and have some sort of direct, non-mediated, authentic experience of God. So having the experience itself and perhaps checking with yourself that it was authentic is all that one needs in order to know God. This intuitive knowledge is a sort of red-phone-no-switch-board line straight to heaven.
None of use should be tolerating this sort of conversational sleight-of-hand. There's a bit of conceptual gerrymandering going on here that should have been cleared up if these believers had exercised some restraint before galloping off to the premature conclusion about God.
We've been very clear about some basics concerning knowledge for 2,500 (since Socrates). At a mininum, in order to have knowledge, one must have a justified, true belief. What the red-phone theist may have is belief, although some doubts are cast on that because we have a number of good reasons to doubt that a person is a reliable judge of what they believe, and there is so much enthusiastic belief in belief out there muddling the issue. But beyond belief, it remains a very open question whether or not there is justification, and whether or not the belief is true. One hasn't earned the epistemic right to declare it knowledge simply in virtue of its feeling really, really true, or by simply checking with one's own thoughts. Justification takes far more than that. In ordinary cases, it takes empirical confirmation, cross-checking with others, substantial background knowledge, corroboration, and repeatability. Merely having a very strong feeling, and then confirming to oneself that yes indeed it is a very strong feeling that seems authentic is never enough. I won't trot out the long list of examples of powerful intuitions again that illustrates the point. But consider this problem. We know that people have powerful, intuitions, hallucinations, hunches, gut instincts, and divinations that some claim is true in a wide range of circumstances where that feeling isn't born out by the facts. That is, humans are highly prone to have strong intuitions that are false. And the problem is that from the inside, when they are having the feelings, there's just no way to confirm or disconfirm their authenticity by consulting those feelings alone. In too many cases, those feelings are overpowering, compelling, and veridical seeming, but then upon examination from the outside they are revealed to be wrong.
There might have been a time in history when we didn't know so much about the human cognitive apparatus and no one would have been the wiser about their authenticity. But we're in a different place now. You can't ignore all of those mistaken cases, bogus paranormal visions, hallucinations, and false intuitions that we now know about. You can't just ignore the lessons we should all learn from those and help yourself to the offerings of these compelling feelings in the course of our phenomenal lives. The world may look flat to the naked eye, and it sure looks like the sun is rising (instead of the earth's turning) in the morning. But you know better, and you can't go back. Once science and our analyses of paranormal and religious experiences are out of the bag, your being justified concerning those matters must take them into account. And once you do, any special claim to have knowledge on the basis of intuitive, subjective experience alone is undermined.
In order to be justified in believing the deliverances of these powerful feelings, one needs to be able to corroborate that indeed when I am having experience of a certain sort, it is authentic. We would need to be able to check and see if it's correct. And we would need to be able to distinguish those subjective experiences from the ones that are just like it, but they are inauthentic.
So the red-phone theist has got two serious problems. Justification isn't self-determined or autonomously corroborated. And until it is, they are not entitled to call those claims "knowledge." What they may be entitled to say is "I have had some very powerful, very real seeming feelings that appeared to be tied to God. But it remains to be seen if it really was." Futhermore, since truth is the other necessary condition of having knowledge, the red-phone theist is helping themselves to the conclusion that is precisely the point at issue—they're begging the question. And surreptiously labelling these experiences as "intuitive knowledge" in an attempt to do an end run around the hard work of cross-checking, and justifying their belief doesn't get them any closer to the conclusion than they were before. What they've got is a belief—and even that is debatable. Really what they've got is some powerful feelings, and they need to have the intellectual integrity and evaluate them carefully before deciding what's reasonable to believe about them. Until they can make some legitimate claim to truth and justification, calling it "knowledge" is cheating. The atheist who isn't scrupulous about these things, when she hears this "intuitive knowledge" claim, ought to just announce, "Well, I've got intuitive knowledge that your intuitive knowledge is mistaken—and no one gets to check that except me."
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Intuiting God
49 comments:
You continue to avoid answering just how "knowledge of how" works professor. Intuitive knowledge is also accepted by biologists and psychologists. Your tirade is academically dishonest.
- September 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM
You continue to avoid answering just how "knowledge of how" works professor. Intuitive knowledge is also accepted by biologists and psychologists. Your tirade is academically dishonest.
- September 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM
"The atheist who isn't scrupulous about these things, when she hears this "intuitive knowledge" claim, ought to just announce, "Well, I've got intuitive knowledge that your intuitive knowledge is mistaken—and no one gets to check that except me."
Atheists can't just say they have intuitive knowledge that the theist is wrong because that would be inconsistent. The atheist is supposed to rely on their reasoning and so cannot have intuitive knowledge to counter the theist. their is a difference in just saying an utterence and also believing in such
Sac state janitor - September 15, 2008 at 8:07 AM
- Matt McCormick said...
I'm not avoiding the question of knowledge how or knowledge by aquaintance. There's nothing there to address. Being able to distinguish between unicorns and gnomes doesn't entail that they exist. Having the ability to drive a car doesn't put one in the garage. Being aquainted with the ethereal and bizarre entities that one encounters on an LSD trip doesn't provide you with justification for thinking that they exist.
Your homework:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-acquaindescrip/ - September 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Would it be possible to disable comments under the name "Anonymous"? I don't mind anonymous/pseudononymous comments, but when there are several in the same thread, it becomes difficult to know if we are dealing with one person or several.
- September 15, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Dear MM,
I have no idea what you just said. Are you sure you have a PHD?
How about addressing the fact that intutive knowledge exists before you start another tirade. that way we can eliminate you believing its nonsense or irrational as implied in your intial post.
Sac state janitor - September 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM
RE: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD
how about you put your name up? - September 15, 2008 at 2:12 PM
- Samuel Skinner said...
Intuitive knowledge is NOT accepted- the fact of the matter is that for emperical claims only evidence is accepted.
"Atheists can't just say they have intuitive knowledge that the theist is wrong because that would be inconsistent. The atheist is supposed to rely on their reasoning and so cannot have intuitive knowledge to counter the theist. their is a difference in just saying an utterence and also believing in such."
Not all atheists are rationalists. You are confusing the two. A rationalist is a person who uses reason and accepts. An atheist is one who lacks belief in God.
"I have no idea what you just said. Are you sure you have a PHD?
How about addressing the fact that intutive knowledge exists before you start another tirade. that way we can eliminate you believing its nonsense or irrational as implied in your intial post."
The mans ID is in his profile- upper left corner.
Intuition is based on experience which lead to gut feeling and common sense which is based upon innate mental rules that have been programed in by evolution.
There is nothing special about it and in fact intuition and common sense have often been proven wrong- they are time savers, not logical thinking and as such they are NOT infallible. When they conflict logic and reason, logic wins. - September 15, 2008 at 5:17 PM
- Samuel Skinner said...
His other blog is... well, just look. Dude, that is awesome!
Are you going to have it be a statue or are you going to make the thing mobile? - September 15, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Just to be clear, someone ought to define wtf they're talking abut when they even say intuition. Otherwise, we're all just going off some, shall I say, intuition about what intuition is. From the tone of it, I would say that anonymous is Carlos from earlier since he's going on the same thread about knowledge. There has been evidence, particularly by linguists, that we have innate knowledge when it comes to language. That might have to do with our evolutionary traits about associating sounds with sights and feelings and the environment (link). We ought to be clear, however, that is characteristically different from what we mean by intuiting some truth by the mere force of it.
To be specific, this is most used by the Platonist as exemplified in mathematical realism. Granted, some ethicists jump on it to, but then again, they seem to paint ethics in the sense mathematical realists do. The question then, if we want to be precise about what we're talking about, is are we talking about intuition applied to real truths about the external world we interact with, e.g., do I intuit knowledge of gravity? Would we call that kind of revelation knowledge proper? Or does intuition reside to mental constructs like mathematical or abstract ethical "entities"? Is there a correspondence or link between the two or are they categorically different and unrelated?
Furthermore, and this gets to Matt's topic about self-justification, does intuition provide any kind of information? I ask this because when I intuit something about a mathematical problem I'm not gaining new knowledge. I may not have been cognizant of the answer, or just had an idea about what the answer might have been, but the "result" of my intuition will always be built from information I do have. Like a deductive proof, the force of the truth comes from the information already provided in the premises or construction of the theory. A deductive proof does not give you something more than what you already had given the axioms as the truth comes under the interpretation of those axioms (or theory). Intuition in this sense, whether about the world or abstract things, seems to be in the same boat.
But if intuition does not provide any new information, then how can we call it knowledge? I think the self-justification is the important part here, and to refer to John Searle, it would be instructive to consider being specific about what kind of descriptions we are talking about. Particularly, we have rational agents capable of claiming to have obtained some knowledge, and facts about and in the world. Interactively, we also have facts in and about the person and what they have about the world (intentionality). Given these three elements, we have quite a complex interrelation between what Searle refers to as first-person ontology and third-person ontology. For an oversimplified generalization we can say subjective and objective.
Since our, to overuse the term some more, intuition about subjectivism and objectivism should be rather common (I have some old blogs about it here and here and I expand on it here; I will have a new one improving and summarizing those issues in the near future), we should be able to recognize some obvious facts:
(i) The self-justification relies solely on a subjectivist (or internalist) system of knowledge.
(ii) The intuition, if it applies anywhere and to anything, real or abstract, is in the mind of the beholder, so to speak, and is subjective proper.
The first fact can have self-justification, especially if it resides solely as a coherentist model, but then what does this have to do with third-person ontology? Absolutely nothing. By its construction it rejects it. The second fact binds intuition to being rather useless save for a self-justified framework. If someone wants to adopt that kind of framework then they have to accept that they also think the world is closed to a first-person ontology and that subjectivism makes the world.
If we reject these two facts as being plausible theories of knowledge, even to the slightest degree, then we get a flood gate of externalist requirements of how internalist or first-person ontological claims correspond to the world of which information resides (even if we say the mind is independent or isolated, it has to get information from somewhere). The one standard we should all respect is that of falsification and accuracy. Even if one has a subjective intuition about what the truth might be, does it correspond to correct "hits" with real events? Is it random? Guessing? Is there a pattern of success? Furthermore, does what one corresponds these self-made claims to have any chance of being falsified or are they somehow beyond the reach of evaluation? I may intuit or have some first-person experience of angels and gods, but what does that have to do with reality? Unless one adopts dualism now, then the brain has to be reducible or correspond in some fashion to the materialist features (Note, Searle rejects the reducibility of the mind, but I don't think he means, what I think that says, and will have to investigate his research further since it seems more to the fact any individual first-person ontology is not reducible, which is true, but we certainly do reduce minds to brains, and being clear about the difference of those two is critically important).
To close my tirade, we cannot simply dismiss the importance of first-person ontological experiences since they play a crucial role in everything, including empirical justification (how the hell do you think we get information about the world and construct theories and methods of evaluation to derive third-person claims?! They don't make themselves). We need to have a system that corresponds the two. Even given a complex system (as my third link about objectivism above gets into), we still don't just have intuition that corresponds or says anything about the world. It is purely subjective and certainly internal. Does it count as knowledge? Only inasmuch as a first-person ontology provides information about the rational agent and their relation to the world (it is here that I think a reduction is important to correspond it to facts sensible to objective measures). For instance, Amatrya Sen's "Positional Objectivity" or any form of perspectival objectivity links these two opposing concepts into how they do provide information about each other, which is also useful. The point being that self-justification can provide third-person information, and to the first-person, that perspective can be critically important to their perception of the world. Does it justify something about the world? No, and it doesn't intend to (but if someone says it does, then they are just wrong and need to justify that!)
The point of this was that we need to be clear about what role intuition plays. I have argued it does not play a role in the externalist account of the world we perceive because it adheres strictly to a first-person ontology. This does not mean it doesn't play a role to the person. It will play a role in self-justification, which I think Matt does dismiss too easily, but to be clear, he is right about that inasmuch as it does not project any information or claims specifically about the world; but then, it never should be seen to intend that fact. Where is important? I would say, to the very least, when we discuss intentionality and the role those and related concepts play in the broader area of philosophy, but that discussion wholly escapes this comment, which is over extended to begin!
If we are going to talk about intuition, then, I ask we define what we mean by it, what role it plays, how it plays that role and what it is specifying about the world or the person or if you even acknowledge a difference. If you do not, then I have already provided an argument otherwise you can then respond to as the critique will apply. For more on Searle's biological naturalism account, see his document on it (link). - September 15, 2008 at 6:51 PM
looks like the last few atheists are blowhards. All that talking and no point other then "intution is stupid" mantra. Well Mr. skinner and Mr. goodyear tire please do some research before you speak on a topic you know nothing about
What is intuition?
A simple way of understanding intuition is to think of it as direct knowing; knowing without the use of reason or logic as we understand them.
http://www.lifesciencefoundation.org/inwhat.html - September 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM
A priori knowledge is intuitive knowledge. now dont you pseudo philosophers feel dumb!!
Sac state janitor - September 15, 2008 at 8:09 PM
The link you provided describes it as, "a specific skill in consciousness used to access information, knowledge, and wisdom." This coincides to the fact I brought up that it is part of the first-person ontology (i.e., to consciousness). No one should dispute that fact. But look at precisely how they regard it (and I find them accurate on this, even though it is still a rather general account of intuition). It is a skill to access information. But unless we become dualists of some sort and adhere to a kind of "above and beyond" sort of consciousness, then this mental faculty, this cognitive skill, to access information requires that information already been borne out. They also go on to say, "Ideally, intuition is logic's partner." Why is this? The goal is to make the best use of information and inference, however that is reasoned. It is not that intuition provides knowledge, but is a skill to access our already constructed inference, deductive or otherwise, to the conclusion. There's two things to be aware of:
(i) If we already have the information that ends up in the conclusion we intuit, then like I used analogous to deduction in my previous comment, there is nothing new added. The information is there, the intuition was nothing but the faculty of accessing it appropriately.
(ii) Intuition coincides to rational deliberation in that logic or reasoning is a conscious activity aware of the premise to the conclusion, to be general; whereas, intuition is unconscious.
Then is there anything fancy or mystical or special about this? It doesn't appear to be knowledge as we normally conceive of it (and neither does the website suggest that, in fact, they say it is different). It seems that it is an internal kind of activity which is only manifest to us in the conclusion. It is no different than conscious reasoning other than we don't get access to the antecedent information. If it is just "here's the conclusion" then where does justification come in? It is no different than any person rationalizing other than in this case it is only the conclusion. Rational inferences, arrived at knowingly or not, does not necessarily entail any kind of knowledge. There's no direct or necessary connection to reality (one can reason or intuit garbage--in fact, at least in reasoning we can identify if garbage is going on, intuition only throws it out). Furthermore, there is no direct or necessary requirement for it to be good reasoning on its own grounds since we have no way to deliberate it. All we can say is that it may or may not be accurate given future first-order information about its results. But even if that is the case, someone can have a completely random generator of "outcomes" that may get spot on for any given sequence or have a partially accurate model which just happens to get good hits, but we wouldn't say these models happen to capture what is going on. They would be "accidentally" correct. Gettier problem?
I appreciate the definition of intuition, but now I wonder how we can even call it knowledge. I mean, I would no more call that knowledge than I would call someone reasoning out some conclusion X to be knowledge. Even someone who reasoned well to some X may not necessarily just assent "X is knowledge." It seems all we have with intuition, in this way, is an identification of a mental faculty that is neither here nor there. If one can also intuit some conclusion, does that mean he cannot reason it? Be careful now, because some do make that claim, especially in mathematical realism or ethical intuition. In fact, the strong case of intuition is that it is specifically that which cannot be reasoned. If it could be reasoned, even if intuited, it is not intuition unless it is categorically unreasonable. Connotations aside, that is a strong requirement and makes it even more problematic. To note, these kinds of cases would be that moral knowledge is of the kind which cannot be reasoned (like the existence or whatever of certain mathematical entities), therefore it can only be intuited.
On that front, I ask what makes intuition knowledge if you, or anyone else, were to go that route? If it is not knowledge, then is it specifically disjoint from those kinds of inferences which can be done rationally or can it intermix? If it can be involved with rational deliberation, then what is special about intuition if we can just reason it out? In fact, it seems more the case that if we separate "aware" information from "unaware" information, then having more awareness of what we reason seems more important than having "unaware" information, which seems the kind intuition is, since we lack all antecedent information in that form, i.e., intuition only gives conclusions, reasoning gives the whole plater. - September 15, 2008 at 8:20 PM
To follow-up on your last comment. What justification is there that anything is a priori knowledge, information or true? The usual arguments are that some things can be known by reason alone, but that is clearly different from intuition since one is reasoning that conclusion, i.e., they are aware of the antecedent and conclusion. But even if we grant that, the truth of any statement, any tautology, e.g., "all bachelors are unmarried," stems from the meaning of the terms. Where do the semantics come from? The denotation would be For all x, x=x, since part of the definition of the first is the latter. There wasn't even reasoning going on, it was just identification of the meaning. But then the meaning doesn't even need to exist in that statement. If we adopt that it does have meaning, then it had to come from somewhere. That meaning comes from experience, the world, for truth comes under an interpretation and for that statement to be cogent requires it to be modeled to something, say, the world. Then it is a posteriori. If we say it is true by the power of its "form" is to say it is true simply by denotation. It is true without meaning! But then it is merely indexical and does not say anything true in the sense of being about anything. It is only logically true. Then that itself is rather tautological to conclude "a priori knowledge is true by reason alone when it is only logically true" since that logical truth is a rational construct, and it seems to not be the kind of "knowledge" or "truth" we are even trying to capture or refer to when speaking of reasoning or intuition. Granted, some might contend that last point, but then I would say they are talking about something categorically different. In either case, it appears a priori is meaningless and one would need to show we can have any information (which carries meaning) in any other way than a posteriori.
Anyone want to try and show we have information, or meaning, a priori? - September 15, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Uh ok bryan but it sounds like you are agreeing with the fact there is intutive knowledge but trying real hard to rename it (redefine it?).
Please read the link below. I think you will get it
The Powers and Perils of Intuitionhttp://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20021209-000001.html - September 15, 2008 at 8:44 PM
"Anyone want to try and show we have information, or meaning, a priori?"
If I take my mop and lopped you upside the head would you KNOW it?
Sac state janitor - September 15, 2008 at 8:57 PM
- Matt McCormick said...
Look, it's entirely possible that when someone has some gut feeling that something is true, like some feeling that someone is gay, for example, but they just can't say why or really offer any explanation (this is what I mean by intuition), they are actually getting it right. I'm completely open to the possibility that in some cases when we have these feelings they are actually correct. Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink has a case of some grad students applying a heuristic in a lab who get very good--90% accurate--at predicting which couples will be divorced within 10 years, on the basis of a similar intuition.
But here's the deal. If you find yourself having some feelings like that, all that you can reasonably say from those feelings alone is that you're having the feelings. Whether or not the claim is actually true is another matter altogether. And whether or not your are justified in accepting the deliverances of these feelings is another matter to. You can't really insist that your gaydar gives you knowledge of who is gay and who isn't just on the basis of what the gaydar is telling you. Whether or not your gaydar works will depend on who is actually gay and who isn't. And whether or not you are justified in accepting it will depend, as Bryan has pointed out, on how successful it is. If your gaydar gets it correct less often or equally often to random chance, then I think we should conclude that it doesn't work and you are justified (even if it happens to be right in some particular cases). But if, upon investigation, your gaydar is right 90% of the time, then we'd be crazy not to allow that you should trust it and I think you'd be justified.
So suppose some intuitive theist announces that they have intuitive knowledge of God. Well, look--what we can agree upon perhaps is that the intuitive theist is having some experiences that feel--from their subjective perspective--like they are originating from God. And your gaydar was giving you very strong feelings like so and so is gay, too. But whether or not those experiences are really of God does not depend upon the experiences themselves. There can be no intrinsically, self-justifying experiences that have some mark of veridicality built into them. Even if the experiences have some kind of veridical feeling about them too, those are just more feelings that need to be checked against the world. So the truth is a separate matter, and the justification is going to be an externally confirmed matter too. The intuitive theist is being unreasonable if they think that these feelings are all that is required in order for them to have KNOWLEDGE. And again let me be very clear, I am not denying that people have experiences that feel like this or that they feel like God--for all I know, lots of people have them, and feel incredible and they feel very, very real, as if they couldn't possibly be coming from anything except God. But feelings are fallible--that's just the human condition. There is no escaping the prison, or the lens, or the fallibility of human consciousness to get to God directly. And checking truth and justification are going to be inter-subjective, public matters.
Oh yeah: and yes, Samuel, the R2 is going to be totally remote control with audio, lights, a spinning dome, and everything I can build into it. I made big progress on the feet and the legs this weekend. Thanks for noticing. - September 15, 2008 at 9:07 PM
I just dont know Matt. I think your denying what is obviously a case of knowledge in your gaydar scenerio. How can a perosn have useful knowledge (gaydar info) and yet we call it non-knowledge? i really think your compalint is with the reliblity of intuivtive knowledge because it does not have logical contraints.
If a group of chimps are communicating information about a stalking predator arent they actually commnicating knowledge? - September 15, 2008 at 10:16 PM
On questions which cannot be tested, there is really no way to achieve verifiable knowledge. Isn't the belief that there is no afterlife, or nothing supernatural (nothing outside what is known) also in the end an intuition, and deserves the same respect or lack of respect as the affirmative belief, albeit the negative belief is not subject to tests of logical consistancy (assuming we know which rules of logic to apply outside of this universe).
- September 16, 2008 at 5:29 AM
RE: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD
how about you put your name up?
How about if you read my first comment again and try to do it with improved comprehension?
Intuitive knowledge is also accepted by biologists and psychologists.
Do you happen to have any examples of that?
i really think your compalint is with the reliblity of intuivtive knowledge because it does not have logical contraints.
Also because of its poor track record. - September 16, 2008 at 5:41 AM
C, you say
If a group of chimps are communicating information about a stalking predator arent they actually commnicating knowledge?
I think this exemplifies your problem with defining knowledge (which I already asked you to do). You seem to be suggesting that if two organisms can communicate any kind of information and even react on that information, then they have knowledge. Yet, we see bacteria which almost act in a binary fashion, will respond when their population gets big enough by "activating" to, say, cause a sickness or in prettier cases, become luminescent. I will try and find the video or link to some data later on this.
Would you say bacteria have knowledge? You're rather grasping at straws there. I use that as an extreme example, but we can take any animal and have similar results. When does this mere information or reacting to stimuli of the environment, communicated or not, become knowledge? Your standards of knowledge seem rather loose if you're going to say responding to stimuli, the communication of another organism about a predator, means that the thing then has knowledge of a predator! No wonder you would throw intuition, a mere faculty of assessing information, into being a thing of knowledge. It was precisely my point that none of that qualifies as knowledge. Furthermore, not even reason alone qualifies as knowledge. So if we give intuition some kind of status, it would be no different than conclusions reasoned out. But then it seems, to me, rather lacking in comparison anyway.
So to answer your questions, no, I did not redefine intuition whatsoever. I responded directly to the link you provided as defining it. And if I were hit with a broom I'd have a posteriori knowledge of it. I don't see what the point of stating that was. - September 16, 2008 at 6:04 AM
I should add the caveat I'm not saying chimps are not ruled out as being capable of obtaining knowledge. My point was that you basically equivocated "communicating information about..." with "knowledge." How do you make that slight of hand? Even if we say they did communicate knowledge, that does not entail anything about the mere act of communicating specifying knowledge or converting mere information into knowledge. You might say that you've specified something rather precise by saying "about..." which would entail some kind of intentionality, which I find important to claim knowledge (but others may not). That begs the question, however, since it would be like saying they communicated knowledge therefore they communicated knowledge. If it depends on intentionality, or "aboutness," then where did that derive for the chimps to be able to talk about something or claim knowledge about that information?
This is why I said, specify what you mean by knowledge. What is it, precisely that you are trying to say? Otherwise, you're saying one thing and we're all saying that doesn't sound like what is generally meant by knowledge. I, for one, am not satisfied by the looseness which surrounds your use of the term, especially as a means to qualify your claim that intuition is knowledge. - September 16, 2008 at 10:20 AM
re: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said
I still don't see a name. just a moniker. Why are you hiding?
intuition is not only accepted by psychologists and biologists but many mathematicians and philosophers. try Google or take a college course. try being a little self sufficient - September 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Uh Bryan why do you ad nausum the same old tired line when people here have directed you to the definition of intuitive knowledge i.e. direct access knowledge? You even express acknowledging this in your own words in previous post and yet still try to argue. Are you dense or just really in denial?
You can disagree with the definition but you cannot say it hasn't been established. - September 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
for the calculator brain guy just in case his battery runs low
http://220.127.116.11/search?q=cache:nAFnX0dDq7cJ:www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Intuition.pdf+intuition+and+neuroscience&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us - September 16, 2008 at 12:11 PM
sorry to the professor for spamming his blog but your mindless followers really need to get a clue about whats going on with the rest of the world
Controlled vs. Automatic Thinking and Behavior
http://socialpsych.wordpress.com/category/controlled-vs-automatic-thinking-and-behavior/ - September 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Carlos, you still don't seem to understand a word I said in my post. Yes, you provided a link to a definition you assent to. I also explained how what they said established intuition as a faculty no different than reason. So now you have two things. Your claim that information, or communicating information, is knowledge and that merely obtaining a conclusion is knowledge. Do you assert that when one reasons to some conclusion their conclusion is knowledge or not? By what you have affirmed (see above) you seem to be forced to accept that or disaffirm intuition. But if you affirm merely reasoning to a conclusion is knowledge, then you're going to have to accept many queer results that whatever one reasons to is knowledge, like A→B, A, therefore B, and you can fill it in with anything you want and it is knowledge. You might say that I am avoiding the fact what fills these variables is important, that semantics is important, but I already showed above you neglect semantics altogether so I wont repeat myself again.
- September 16, 2008 at 3:36 PM
who the hell is carlos?
You sure like talking over people but your horrible aobut addressing others points.
refer to the links MR. verbose - September 16, 2008 at 7:44 PM
P.S. barry goodrich
instead of your tired ad nauseum make believe bullshit conjecture, how aobut you challenge their assumptions? i read your post and am surprised to see nothing but hot air. How about making a point? try referring to implicit memory or automatic thinkng processes. hell even your lover boy professor even admits to intution existing. he just thinks theist arent justifed in using it to establish their faith.
i am begininng to think you have already been hit upside the head witha mop. - September 16, 2008 at 7:58 PM
here ya go barney goodyrich...a scientist, a philosopher, and the guy who made the most expensive coffe maker
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
Albert Einstein
Intuition and concepts constitute... the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts, can yield knowledge.
Immanuel Kant
Mathematical reasoning may be regarded rather schematically as the exercise of a combination of two facilities, which we may call intuition and ingenuity.
Alan Turing - September 16, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Hey billy here is another
All human knowledge thus begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas.
Immanuel Kant
thats right! you got to listen to the german dude with the funny haircut! - September 16, 2008 at 8:23 PM
It is sad when one's only argument reverts to argumentum ad hominem and appeal to authorities. I never said there is no intuition, nor disagree with your quotations; in fact, I use it quite often as a mathematician. The dispute is not the existence of this thing called intuition; it is about knowledge. Unless I am caricaturing the argument, it seems to follow as:
a concludes that p by a's intuition; therefore, a knows that p.
On the surface of it, this is an unjustified statement. You have not provided any support for how intuition entails knowledge nor how what one concludes by intuition is knowledge proper. Consider one can reason from some premises to a conclusion, i.e., P├C, but does this make C knowledge, too? Once again, how?
I think it rests on what you are suggesting knowledge is. You rely on defining "intuition is knowledge." Fine, unless you want to be absolutely vague or circular, how do you define knowledge to make this a substantial fact? Even if I grant you that intuition is direct knowledge (again, I affirm there is intuition, but it is not knowledge) then what is knowledge? Intuition is merely "direct access" to it? Okay, that still doesn't explain what knowledge is since my reasoning "indirect access" to it doesn't make my conclusions knowledge. It seems you have redefined knowledge without explicitly specifying it and expect us to buy into this rubbish. My point is that even if I grant you intuition as knowledge, it is not the I'm trying to redefine knowledge, I'm saying it doesn't coincide with what we might call knowledge. So how do you fix that problem? What is knowledge? - September 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM
- Eric Sotnak said...
Our anonymous friend quotes Kant, thus:
"All human knowledge thus begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas."
Unfortunately this does not support our friend's claims regarding the epistemic status of intuition, as Kant is not using the term (g. Anschauung) in the same sense as that under discussion.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled slugfest. - September 17, 2008 at 6:46 AM
Hey barney rubble,
How many fallacies are you gonna accuse me of? sounds like you are desperate. And whats wrong with appealing to authorities? when did that become bad? dont you appeal to
some authority in your thinkng???
You do realise that not all the stimuli that enteres your brian gets treated by higher cognitition? the flight or fight reponse is such am example. the signal goes to the amglya which has no idea WTF logic or reasoning is. you just cant resolve your position which says only humans can have knowledge becasue we just can. while the information in the chimps communication is invaluable.
You also failed to address the nueroscience link or the psychology today article that shows the widely acceptence of intution as knowledge ie implicit memory, automatic thinking...
Listen barney, your stuff is so very tired. you back step, attempt to redefine what you said and conclude that you were always right. ist quite annoying
RE: Eric
you make no sense friend. you are disagreeing with the translation. your comment is irrelevent in that matter.
try disagreeing with kant rather than saying he didnt mean what he said.
because kant did in fact meant what he said
space and time
Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason - September 17, 2008 at 10:21 AM
- Tom said...
Recently I had a strong religious experience and I obtained a glimpse into the Ultimate Reality. It turns out that theism is false.
- September 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM
here is some more good stuff barney,
Intuitive knowledge is the irresistable and indubitable perception of the agreement of any two ideas without the mediation of any other. This is the clearest and most perfectly certain of all degrees of human knowledge. It accounts for our assent to self-evident truths and serves as the foundation up-on which all other genuine knowledge must be established. [Essay IV ii 1] Intuition is most common in our knowledge of identity and relation among clear ideas, but (following Descartes) Locke also supposed that each thinking being has an intuitive knowledge of its own existence. [Essay IV ix 3]
http://www.philosophypages.com/locke/g04.htm - September 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Cool tom! are you sincere in your disposition or are you just merely saying X is false?
For example i can say tom does not exists or that sqaure circles do exists but niether proposition i actually believe to be true. thus i have not offered a rebuttal but am merely poking fun...
please be honest here sir. - September 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
~ Albert Einstein
Oh no i am appealing to an authority again! Spank me! I am so very bad to appeal to authorities... - September 17, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I don't know where you get that I've "back stepped" and redefined anything. I think I've clearly just asked you to define it and show the relation to intuition, just like anyone who defines a system of knowledge relates it to our rational faculties, perceptual faculties, etc. As for appeals to authorities, they do not make an argument for you. Appealing to a scholar's work, concepts, proofs, reasoning, etc. comes as an adequate, or proper, appeal to that "authority." You have not done that, you simply say "he says it and therefore he's smart so it must be true." It's the tired trick Christians are seen doing by saying "all these scientists believe in God, therefore God is rationally justified." It's a "WTF?!" move.
In regard to the unconscious processes going on, they come as providing information, or bringing information "to the surface." This does not entail the communication of chimps is invaluable. The question is whether or not it is knowledge. Do you seriously not see the difference?
Look at it this way, even if we say the unconscious processing of information to some conclusion is a "hit", how do we know? That requires us to check it against the world. I may have an intuition that the solution to my math problem is X, but I don't know that it was even correct until I have proven X. It makes, to stretch the word, the intuition an epiphenomenon of this conclusion since to derive the truth of X I couldn't depend on intuition alone. If we don't have to prove X, then it comes out that our intuition may be correct, but is now epistemically inaccessible! What a queer result. The solution you, and non-cognitivist that believe intuition equates to knowledge, provide? "It just is knowledge." Really? Prove it. What's your justification for that claim beyond stating it axiomatically as if it's just a basic belief we all need to accept. You might as well say "God is right and beyond qualification, you just need to accept it." To be blunt, that kind of belief system is just retarded, and it is completely unconvincing to say we're wrong and have no justification to not accept this "dee dee dee" belief.
To be even more painfully clear, you equate intuition to knowledge, yet leave knowledge undefined. Until you can adequately define knowledge and show it fits in with your definition of intuition, you've basically said x=y, but haven't even stated wtf y is. Even if we say x is a valid statement to make in the system, you still have to prove y is, and that, in fact, x does equal y.
So I'll ask again and will not respond to you until you can further this trite discussion by answering. What is your definition or conception of knowledge and how does it equate to intuition as you have defined it?
If you go the chimp route and say intuition is just unconscious, biological, processing of information, then how does that equal knowledge? That would be the next step you need to take as that will be my first response regardless of what you say knowledge is. If it falls out of your answer to the first question, all the better. And note, I don't care that for some reason you can't contain yourself from throwing around insults needlessly in almost every one of your comments, but if we're all going to be intellectually honest, then man up and provide an argument like a rational human being and quite relying on your ad hominem approach (i.e., making your insult the argument). Otherwise, I can only conclude you're not a rational human being capable of such discourse and no one here will continue to play your childish games. - September 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM
> How about if you read my first comment again and try to do it with improved comprehension?
>> I still don't see a name. just a moniker. Why are you hiding?
Your comprehension is still poor.
> Do you happen to have any examples of that?
>> intuition is not only accepted by psychologists and biologists but many mathematicians and philosophers. try Google or take a college course. try being a little self sufficient
Apparently you don't understand what an "example" is.
Prof. McCormick, I think it's time to give banning a try. - September 17, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Hey bayesian buffoon thanks for saying nothing
thanks for playing
come again - September 17, 2008 at 7:27 PM
hey barry goodfella,
are there other types of knowledge or is there just one type for you? - September 17, 2008 at 7:28 PM
After reading through this hefty thread, I feel obligated to commend the good Dr. Anonymous on his argument for intuition as direct knowledge of the Universe. It is truly breath-taking to behold. I've been reading this blog off and on for a while now, and I must say, this truly is the most spectacular defense for the belief in the existence of God I have ever had the privilege to behold.
I first must congratulate you on your simply dynamite research. You've actually managed to find an organization of people that consider intuition to be direct knowledge. Astonishing! And because of this, therefore, you have conclusively proven that intuition is direct knowledge. And in following your example, I too have made a discovery of earth-shattering proportions that I would like to share with you.
I found an organization that believes the works of Tycho Brahe, a 16th Century Danish Nobleman, are true and that the Earth is, in fact, the center of the Universe. And because I have the awe-inspiring power to post a link to their their website, enabling you all to peruse the fabulous "Tycho Brahe Geocentricity Shop," Geocentricity, the thesis that the Sun revolves around the Earth, is true.
Next, let's move on to your stellar use of quotations. It seems you've discovered the lynch-pin in winning this argument: Googling famous people who have talked about intuition before. Good God Man, what a find! And it doesn't even matter if the quotations even have even the most minuscule modicum of relevance whatsoever: So long as they say "Intuition," your point is proven. Again following in your footsteps, I too have made a discovery of my own from a quotation I read when I was in 10th Grade:
"God does not Play Dice"
-Albert Einstein
Ergo, Gambling is Immoral. Man, taking unrelated authors' words out of context really relieves all the heavy lifting of making a coherent point. You and me should run for office some day.
Next, we'll take a brief interlude since I'm fairly certain you've stopped reading this and are currently looking for some Oppenheimer quotes expounding how much of an Asshole I am (A Claim I wouldn't DREAM of refuting. Ask anyone. I'm a colossal dick.) While we wait, I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about Bacon. Mmmmm Bacon. Gosh it's good. Thank God for Bacon.
Continuing on...
As if your Googling of quotations wasn't inspired enough, you've also taken the time out of studying for your Introduction to Psychology course to thoughtfully include some random articles with the word "Intuition" in them that you Googled as well. How Gracious! Never mind the fact that none of them had anything to do with the topic at hand. A cursory glance at the actual content of the articles would have been sufficient to tell you that. The one on Math is about what is taken as proof of the possibility of certain mathematical constructs, the Neuroscience link involved the means by which we develop and enact our intuition, and the "Psychology Today" article, while closer, really only focuses on our intuition's ability to read social ques with a fair degree of accuracy, not uncover direct knowledge of deep metaphysical truths. What's important here is that they had the word "Intuition" in the title, and in an argument about the justification for a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, that's all that counts.
While your argument may be bordering on infallible, there is one correction I feel compelled to proffer up. You said, and I quote:
"Uh Bryan why do you ad nausum the same old tired line when people"
Ad Nauseum is not a verb. Never has been. Never will be. It is an adverb modifying how something is done. So if I were to say "You incorrectly use the word 'Ad Nauseum' ad nauseum," I would be grammatically correct. Later, you used it as an adjective:
"instead of your tired ad nauseum make believe bullshit conjecture, how aobut..."
Its close, a good effort, and worthy of commendation, but still not quite correct. But don't worry Sport, You'll get `em next time.
You Truly are an astonishing Academic. I, and I'm sure I can speak for all of my fellow theists, am delighted that you have stepped up to be our spokesperson. I can think of no finer mind to defend the intricacies of our belief in God than you sir.
-Alex - September 17, 2008 at 8:19 PM
TO alexandria,
wut an incredible waste of space your post was
How about your opinion on inutuitve knowledge?
You say you are a theist. please describe your faith or reason for your belief in god...
Barry is that you??? - September 17, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Com'on barry just us your two cents. No blabbing about your own interpretations
and your girlfriend alexandira can throw in her opinion if she has one
PLEASE TYPE IN GOOGLE "intution and nueroscience"
OUT - September 17, 2008 at 8:57 PM
ok i just cant wait for barry goodwater and his girlfriend to do their own searching...lil ole me Mr. acedemically challenged bringing out the acedemic citations for intuitive knowledge
barry and alexia
Intuition: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach Matthew D. Lieberman Harvard University This review proposes that implicit learning processes are the cognitive substrate of social intuition. This hypothesis is supported by (a) the conceptual correspondence between implicit learning and social intuition (nonverbal communication) and (b) a review of relevant neuropsychological (Huntington's and Parkinson's disease), neuroimaging, neurophysiological, and neuroanatomical data. It is concluded that the caudate and putamen, in the basal ganglia, are central components of both intuition and implicit learning, supporting the proposed relationship. Parallel, but distinct, processes of judgment and action are demonstrated at each of the social, cognitive, and neural levels of analysis. Additionally, explicit attempts to learn a sequence can interfere with implicit learning. The possible relevance of the computations of the basal ganglia to emotional appraisal, automatic evaluation, script processing, and decision making are discussed.
Knowing before we know: Conscious versus preconscious top–down processing and a neuroscience of intuition
S.J. Segalowitza,
aBrock University, Department of Psychology, St. Catharines, Ont., Canada L2S 3A1
Intuition: a social cognitive neuroscience approach.Lieberman MD.
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, USA. firstname.lastname@example.com
intuition, neuroscience, decision making and learningEugene Sadler-SmithCentre for Management Learning and Development, School of Management, University of Surrey, UK. firstname.lastname@example.com Personal Reflections Written Following the Meeting of the Society for Organizational Learning-UK at the London School of Economics, June 23 - September 17, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Great read by Mr. king atheist bertrand russell. Brilliant man!
On intutive knowledge
it is so sad that people like billy goofpoop think they can spew conjecture rather than appeal to people, studies, and things!
----------->>> philosophers w/ out science ought to walk the plank - September 17, 2008 at 9:53 PM
I still do not see you making any sense. I told you that intuitive knowledge is nonsense because you cannot justify its course of action. Thus intuition exists but only when a person has direct access to an object. Only then are they justifed in having intuitive knowledge. So it just doesn't make sense. Get it?
- September 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM
that was awesome, seriously. You should come over to my blog (see link from my name), we could use someone with your wit to liven things up a bit. Note, there's lots of atheist discussions on Xanga, not that I'm pitching here! I also direct them to this blog. - September 17, 2008 at 11:30 PM


text:
Auction Bidders' Agreement
If you want us to bid for you, simply print off our Bidder Agreement and either fax or post it to us. We will also require your "bid price" in full.
Click here to download the Bidder Agreement
Terms and Conditions
Please note that all registration numbers are sold subject to the following terms and conditions.
- If you would like us to bid on your behalf in the next DVLA auction please confirm your maximum 'bid price' for the registration number/s listed. To your bid must be added the Auctioneer's fee of 8% + VAT plus then our commission of £175 + VAT and also £80 DVLA Transfer Fee.
- It is advisable that you put forward as high a bid as possible to increase your chances of a successful purchase, keeping in mind that you will only pay the 'Auction Price', not your bid price which may well be higher than the actual hammer price. A copy of the auction invoice will be supplied.
- A minimum deposit equal to your maximum "bid price" will be required via cleared funds either by cheque or bank transfer prior to auction. If your bid is successful, the balance of any monies owing will be required within 10 days after the auction has taken place. (Including our commission of £175 + VAT). If your bid is unsuccessful, we will refund all monies within 10 days and you owe us nothing.
- A telephone contact number is essential to allow us to take you through the bidding in the hall.
Auction Terms
- All Hammer prices are subject to 8% auctioneers fee, VAT @ 20% and £80 Department for Transport Transfer Fee. Our charge is just £175 + VAT, if we are successful in obtaining the mark for you.
- You the buyer agree to pay BOSSREG immediately in full for any successful bid or bids.
- There is no charge on our part if we do not manage to obtain the mark for you.
- You also agree to supply correct nominee details where asked on your Bidders Agreement before the auction.
- No refunds or changes can be made on any successful bid.
This Plate can be used to form the following words
Plate Information | |
Plate | 19 OWK |
Type | Dateless |
Price | Auction |
VAT & Transfer fees may apply |


text:
Spider-Man: Homecoming
A young Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tom Holland), who made his sensational debut in Captain America: Civil War, begins to navigate his newfound identity as the web-slinging super hero in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Thrilled by his experience with the Avengers, Peter returns home, where he lives with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), under the watchful eye of his new mentor Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.). Peter tries to fall back into his normal daily routine – distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man – but when the Vulture (Michael Keaton) emerges as a new villain, everything that Peter holds most important will be threatened.


text:
2-Pack Kenmore / Sears 59677596802 Refrigerator Water Filter Replacement
Please Note: This is a Denali Pure brand replacement part, not an OEM product. This product is not affiliated with any OEM brands and is not covered under any warranties offered by the original manufacturers. Any warranties for this product are offered solely by Denali Pure. All mentions of brand names or model descriptions are made strictly to illustrate compatibility. All brand names and logos are registered trademarks of their respective owners. Any product that state NSF 42 certification is certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 42 by WQA
- 2-Pack Replacement Kenmore / Sears 59677596802 Refrigerator Water Filter
- MICRON RATE: 0.5 Micron OPERATING TEMP.: 1-38 Celsius / 34-100 Fahrenheit OPERATING PRESSURE: 30-120psi / 207-827kPa FLOW RATE: 0.5 GPM = 1.9 LPM FILTRATION LIFE: 6 months/300G *Depends on water quality and level of contaminants.*
- NSF 42 certified refrigerator water filter retains beneficial nutrients in water while removing the taste of chlorine and odor leaving you with a fresh and clean tasting water.
- Cut down water bottle waste and save money while also helping the environment by using water filters. For the highest quality water and best contaminant reduction replace the filter every 6 months.
- For a list of other compatible models, please click here.
We Also Recommend


text:
Thousand Foot Krutch – Phenomenon (Pre-Owned CD) Tooth & Nail Records 2003
- Pre-Owned CD
- Tooth & Nail Records 2003
Every Pre-Owned CD is shipped in original packaging and is guaranteed to play perfectly. On some occasions we will replace the jewel case if the case does not hold the item correctly. On occasion CDs may not play in your CD player but 99.99% of the time it will play without any issue. Some pre-owned CDs may have jewel case cracks or abrasions or missing teeth that hold the CD in. We do not guarantee jewel cases will show up new. Those should be replaced at your own expense. They can easily be purchased for about .99 each. The CD condition is usually listed above using the standard G=Good, VG=Very Good, VG+, NM=Near Mint, etc. We don't list open CDs as mint. NM is the best grade we will give a used/pre-owned CD regardless of how perfect it looks. If your product does meet your expectations, please contact us immediately.
We strongly encourage you to purchase Insurance for your order at checkout. It will cover your entire order for lost, stolen or damaged while in transit, not just this item. Without insurance your product will not be replaced or refunded.
All of our New CDs are factory sealed direct from the manufacture, distributors or bands. We sell pre-owned CDs as well which will be labels as pre-owned in the title, bullets or description. We do not sell CDRs or Syntax Creative that you get when you order CDs via print on demand from Amazon, yes those are also CDRs.
Record Grading
Record and CD grading available here


text:
Mercedes Matter: A Retrospective Exhibition
This first major museum exhibition devoted to the Abstract Expressionist artist Mercedes Matter (1913-2001) spans her career from 1922 through 2000. Matter was the daughter of the famous American modernist Arthur B. Carles, and during the 1930s, she studied with the prominent art teacher and Abstract Expressionist master Hans Hofmann. She also worked for the mural division of the WPA (Work Projects Administration), assisting Fernand Leger with his mural projects. In 1939, she married the renowned Swiss graphic designer and photographer Herbert Matter, and the couple became active within the emerging avant-garde art scene in post-war New York. They were close friends and artistic collaborators with Jackson Pollock, Lee Krasner, and Willem and Elaine de Kooning.
Beginning in the early 1950s, Matter embarked on a successful teaching career; she taught at the Philadelphia College of Art, Pratt Institute, and New York University. In 1963, inspired by her critical views of standardized art education in the United States, Matter founded the New York Studio School of Drawing, Painting and Sculpture, an alternative institution dedicated to fundamental principles of artistic training patterned after the European atelier system.
Influenced by the artistic precepts of Hofmann, Matter was a proponent of painting directly from nature. Her works are characterized by vigorous angular marks and geometricized rhythms. Many of her pieces represent a unique fusion of advanced gestural abstraction and a sensitive perceptual observation of landscape and still-life motifs. As an indication of the Abstract Expressionist artists' respect for the creative vigor and innovative character of her work, Matter was the only female artist invited to become a member of The Artists' Club, a group of progressive artists, critics and poets associated with the New York Studio School in the 1950s. The club organized formal discussions on topics ranging from art theory to philosophy. This exhibition devoted to Matter is part of an increasing and significant art historical trend to examine the work of important women within the Abstract Expressionist movement, such as Lee Krasner and Hedda Sterne.
Through January 2, 2011
Learn more about the companion exhibition The Artistic Legacy of Mercedes Matter: The Knox College Students of Matter, located in the first floor orientation gallery at the museum.
Learn more about a special opportunity for your group or organization to explore this exhibtion dedicated to the influential femaie artist and teacher, Mercedes Matter. Lunch buffet is provided before or after tour.
Read a review in the Wall Street Journal or Artforum about this exhibition.
Artwork labels for this exhibition have been provided by Alpha Graphics.


text:
Black Panther Wallpaper, Movie, Best Avenger Theme
Best Black Panther Wallpaper HD & 4K Backgrounds extension by LovelyTab. Install it for the greatest browsing experience. Open interesting news, facts and play games for free while enjoying your favorite HD Theme and Wallpapers.
- This New Tab extension is so simple and just by clicking on Add to chrome – it will be added automatically.
- In the upper left corner, click on settings to customize all options according to your needs.
- Enjoy best wallpapers and free widgets while browsing
- Local Time Option – changes no matter where you are
- The weather will match your current destination as well
- Bookmark favorite websites with just one click with our new Black Panther Wallpaper HD Theme extension.
- Play games for free by clicking at the joystick in the upper left corner
- Read related news and interesting facts - this awesome New Tab Background allows you to customize and add/remove these options
Within this extension, you will find almost all related backgrounds and you can enjoy browsing with your favorite themes, fanart, apps, cool wallpapers, full HD images, and even 4K material.
- Click on the horizontal three dots in the upper right corner of your Chrome Browser, go to settings, click on 'Extensions' and find the one you want to install. Click on the trash can icon and that's it, or
- Just right click at the heart-shaped button in your toolbar and click on 'Remove from Chrome'
Black Panther Ultra High Resolution Theme is an extension made by fans for fans and the copyright belongs to the respective owners of the material. It is unofficial and if there should be any problem please alert us and we will resolve it.
Download more free extensions with awesome full HD wallpapers on https://lovelytab.com


text:
bytes - Perl pragma to force byte semantics rather than character semantics
This pragma reflects early attempts to incorporate Unicode into perl and has since been superseded. It breaks encapsulation (i.e. it exposes the innards of how the perl executable currently happens to store a string), and use of this module for anything other than debugging purposes is strongly discouraged. If you feel that the functions here within might be useful for your application, this possibly indicates a mismatch between your mental model of Perl Unicode and the current reality. In that case, you may wish to read some of the perl Unicode documentation: perluniintro, perlunitut, perlunifaq and perlunicode.
use bytes;
... chr(...); # or bytes::chr
... index(...); # or bytes::index
... length(...); # or bytes::length
... ord(...); # or bytes::ord
... rindex(...); # or bytes::rindex
... substr(...); # or bytes::substr
no bytes;
The use bytes
pragma disables character semantics for the rest of the lexical scope in which it appears. no bytes
can be used to reverse the effect of use bytes
within the current lexical scope.
Perl normally assumes character semantics in the presence of character data (i.e. data that has come from a source that has been marked as being of a particular character encoding). When use bytes
is in effect, the encoding is temporarily ignored, and each string is treated as a series of bytes.
As an example, when Perl sees $x = chr(400)
, it encodes the character in UTF-8 and stores it in $x. Then it is marked as character data, so, for instance, length $x
returns 1
. However, in the scope of the bytes
pragma, $x is treated as a series of bytes - the bytes that make up the UTF8 encoding - and length $x
returns 2
$x = chr(400);
print "Length is ", length $x, "\n"; # "Length is 1"
printf "Contents are %vd\n", $x; # "Contents are 400"
use bytes; # or "require bytes; bytes::length()"
print "Length is ", length $x, "\n"; # "Length is 2"
printf "Contents are %vd\n", $x; # "Contents are 198.144"
chr(), ord(), substr(), index() and rindex() behave similarly.
For more on the implications and differences between character semantics and byte semantics, see perluniintro and perlunicode.
bytes::substr() does not work as an lvalue().


text:
Instant FREE SHIPPING on Orders over $49
Need help?
Enter your e-mail and password:
New customer? Create your account
Lost password? Recover password
Enter your email:
Remembered your password? Back to login
Please fill in the information below:
Already have an account? Login here
Spend $ 49 more and get free shipping!
Your cart is empty
19 products
Secure Payments
Credit card data is not stored. Transactions are encrypted and Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliant.
Free Shipping on Orders over $49
Subject to conditions and applies to continental USA.
Satisfied or refunded
All purchases at OktoberfestHaus.com may be returned up to 30 days of purchase.*
Have a Question? Contact Us!
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Toll Free: 855-371-0066
Fax: 541-488-1896


text:
submission for One Image A Week over 2015
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on our website. However, if you would like to, you can change your cookie settings at any time. Continue Weigeren