My dominant hand, the right. Specifically the pointer finger. Sometimes, if my right hand is occupied, it will happen with my left hand. However, I usually get upset if it does, because it feels like I'm messing something up. I hate how bizarre this sounds, but it's as if my hands are speaking in homophones and the left hand has a slower, deeper pitch, so the word/gesture has a different meaning when coming from the left hand.

Enjoyable shivers down the back of the spine

First I heard that it might not be universal was someone's comment here a few days ago. Not sure if it's a mental or physical difference though.

The other effect is that it seems to function as some sort of intra-brain communication.

This is not so surprising. Intra-brain conflicts are well-established neuro-psychological phenomena, primarily on account of the presence of two hemispheres being thinly connected by axon fibres. There is a degree of modularity in the brain, because each hemisphere tends to work within its own sphere as a general rule.

I am curious to know: which hand/finger generally exhibits these non-verbal cues for you to recognize and label particular thoughts consciously?

The answer is only true if the measured quantity has continuous spectrum, therefore not applying to the only explicitly mentioned example of the cat. Furthermore I don't follow your subsequent reasoning.

Uncountably many. Consider that on the scale of the Omniverse (which contains only this one particular universe among uncountably many) the probability for any event is 1. It is also so, because it is absurd to suppose there is a universe in which something, if there be anything, does not exist. Furthermore, even if the probability for an event in our universe were 0 that would in no way serve as an impediment to its occurring in the long run.

When did I say that color was a near-universal attribute? I said that there were near-universal attributes associated with certain parts of the visible light spectrum, not that colors themselves were universal. You are right though--for that claim to make sense colors also have to be assumed to be near-universal. And near-universal is probably too strong a term to describe the kind of weak color assocations I'm thinking of. Any studies that showing such effects (like red and yellow being associated with hunger) were probably Western-culture-based and should be taken with a grain of salt and a Big Mac.

I do know about the examples to the contrary that you mentioned. Color perception can vary from person to person, and naming conventions for colors are REALLY not universal. However, notice how color blindness and tetrachromacy are considered exceptions to the norm. These exceptions are largely the reason I specified near-universal for humans rather than simply universal for humans. And while different cultures divide their bleggs and rubes by different rules, it does not diminish their ability to perceive the variations of shades within the individual blegg and rube bins.

Unlike color-blindness. Colorblindness will diminish that ability.

Ontological Argument:

1. {X} is conceived of as perfectly {Y}.

2. To be perfectly {Y}, {X} must exist.

3. Therefore, {X} exists.

I guess it wasn't clear, C1 and C2 reffered to the reasonings as well as the conclusions they reached. You say belief is of no importance here, but I don't see how you can talk about "defeat" if you're not talking about justified believing.

For the first bullet: no, it is not possible, in any case, to conclude C2, for not to agree that one made a mistake (i.e., reasoned invalidly to T) is to deny the truth of ~T which was shown by Ms. Math to be true (a valid deduction).

I'm not sure if I understood what you said here. You agree with what I said in the first bullet or not?

Second bullet: in the case of a theorem, to show the falsity of a conclusion (of a theorem) is to show that it is invalid. To say there is a mistake is a straightforward corollary of the nature of deductive inference that an invalid motion was committed.

Are you sure that's correct? If there's a contradiction within the set of axioms, you could find T and ~T following valid deductions, couldn't you? Proving ~T and proving that the reasoning leading to T was invalid are only equivalent if you assume the axioms are not contradictory. Am I wrong?

P1, P2, and P3 are axiomatic statements. And their particular relationship indicates (the theorem) S, at least to the one who drew the conclusion. If a Ms. Math comes to show the invalidity of T (by F), such that ~T is valid (such that S = ~T), then that immediately shows that the claim of T (~S) was false. There is no need for belief here; ~T (or S) is true, and our fellow can continue in the vain belief that he wasn't defeated, but that would be absolutely illogical; therefore, our fellow must accept the truth of ~T and admit defeat, or else he'll have departed from the sphere of logic completely.

The problem I see here is: it seems like you are assuming that the proof of ~T shows clearly the problem (i.e. the invalid reasoning step) with the proof of T I previously reasoned. If it doesn't, all the information I have is that both T and ~T are derived apparently validly from the axioms F, P1, P2, and P3. I don't see why logic would force me to accept ~T instead of believing there's a mistake I can't see in the proof Ms. Math showed me, or, more plausibly, to conclude that the axioms are contradictory.

It's surely a fallacy, but I'm not sure it's the typical mind one.

"It's either the typical mind fallacy, or it's not. 50-50!"

EDIT Somewhere between reading the post and clicking comment I seem to have switched from "mind projection" to "typical mind". Darn: that makes it 33-33-33 instead.

Odd, human-centric example:

I used to think that everyone had the same favorite internal color-experience and we all just grew up calling the colors different names, blissfully unaware that your "red" is in fact my yellow, or your cousin's green. After all, how could someone NOT like my favorite color as much as I did? Clearly, they all liked purple and just grew up calling it a different color...

It's weird how I managed to both avert and run smack right into the mind projection fallacy in the same thought. I realized that everyone could, in theory, have a different internal experience and attach it to the same outer word or thing, and yet I still insisted that the "favorite" attribute was universal.

I don't believe it anymore, but I still think about the mind projection fallacy in terms of it. There really are attributes for colors that are near-universal, for humans. Red has very good reasons for being associated with passion and aggressiveness, being the color of blood. But think if my pet theory had been true, and someone else experienced it as a calm sky blue? It wouldn't BE calm for them--they'd have the same ingrained emotional reaction for it that I have for my version of red. So however much it feels like red is a passionate and aggressive color in and of itself, the passion and aggressiveness really only comes from me.