These are two somewhat different objections, I think. To the first, we can't call the ascription of a property "ridiculous" but also accept the OP's t...
We are indeed having a difficult time, but our quick successes with various aspects of the Easy Problem lead me to be optimistic. It's like nibbling a...
Yes. I know you probably don't care for that conclusion, but I think it's exactly what happens. There are indeed different construals and attempts at ...
Yes, you and @"litewave" both crossed posts with me. But I still have questions, above, about the identification of property with set, for litewave to...
Well, yes, but nonetheless physicists get on with the work, even given this conceptual unclarity -- and progress is made. Couldn't the same thing appl...
I beg to differ. You're talking about interpretation, not about what (non-theoretical) physicists actually do. One of my friends is a physicist, and d...
Yes. So what, if anything, would we want to say about identifying such a set with some property? I take it you don't want "being in set X" to count as...
Would that mean that "being in that collection of objects " is a shared property? Can an object "wander in," so to speak, and partake of that property...
Good OP! This -- and the earlier queries of @"Count Timothy von Icarus" and @"Hanover" -- is where my attention is drawn as well. The extension, let's...
This is an interesting observation; I think it's both true and not. A scientist doing science is not going to worry about whether an atom of hydrogen ...
This is good, and relates back to a discussion on Descartes I was having with @"Ludwig V" a while back, based on Bernard Williams' book about D. There...
Exactly, and I find that unsatisfactory. Even if the m's and p's are correlated, it doesn't necessarily mean that "p1 causes p2" is a good explanation...
Good, the Nietzsche passage is right on target, thanks. Appreciate your response. What you describe would be the OP I want to write, but I need more b...
Thanks for this clarification. (And yes, Owen Flanagan coined "New Mysterians" as a deliberate reference to the 60s band "? and the Mysterians".) If w...
Thanks, I'll check it out. I'd settle for even an article, even a chapter, about mental-to-mental causation. Isn't it bizarre that the subject doesn't...
Yes, I thought about referencing poor Mary! (Or is she poor? :wink:) Yes, at the moment. But I think you're suggesting that the blind spot is methodol...
Can't remember. I took a quick look through the book but couldn't find anything. Not to say it isn't there -- the book has an unusual set-up -- a long...
This is me speculating about his position. He may not think this at all. Yes. Do you know Galen Strawson's book, Consciousness and Its Place in Nature...
This is a great graphic, thanks. Yes, yet another aspect of the impossibility -- not only do we have our experiences, but we have our attitudes toward...
I'm fine with the "one story" aspect -- an explanation that allows for other explanations isn't complete. But we have to be careful with "components."...
No, I think we both grasp the point, but are coming at it from different analyses. The "eye" metaphor arose from your quote, "The eye cannot see itsel...
Thanks, we always have to remember that animals belong within our circle of identification and compassion. I have a friend who's coined the term "The ...
Take a look at this video, especially starting at 3:40. Chalmers explains what the hard problem is. "What is the relationship" doesn't really get it -...
A deep question, certainly. I would say no. You say, "All explanations are given in causal terms," but you're thinking of a type of common physical/sc...
He's giving a description of what he means by consciousness, not a definition of the hard problem. It is, in fact, a pretty good description of what s...
No, that's not the hard problem. Chalmers says: This is a different problem from "What is it like to be conscious?" The latter problem is associated w...
Like you (and I think @"Pierre-Normand"), I don't believe consciousness or mind can be reduced to the physical. But I'd like to see a clearer discussi...
I'll leave that to you and @"Wayfarer", but my 2 cents is that Wayfarer is saying something a bit different. Your general point, however, is that "min...
Yes. Again, I have issues with those particular terms but that's irrelevant to the point you're making, which I think is extremely important. I'd like...
As usual, there's a lot to unpack in Rodl, but I've generally found it worthwhile. Let me start with a simple question (and I don't want to take us to...
Works for me. What would be interesting, then, would be to investigate the ways in which the elements of the theory are different from its objects. If...
Thanks for taking the time to parse my rather terse "which direction" question! I could try to say it again, better, but your takeaway is pretty much ...
Reading your response, I think I might not have been clear. I was saying that, if we talk about numbers as "real", we likely don't mean "as opposed to...
Well, yes, that works for many, perhaps most, contexts, as I was discussing with @"Janus" and @"AmadeusD", above. But would you import it into a consi...
Some further reflections on keeping truth and justification separate. . . When we say, “The world pushes back,” what are we describing? What if we cha...
Glad you agree. And this is the result we want. You make a strong case, which also has the advantage of replicating very closely what we actually do w...
Clearly I need to improve my social group! :wink: It's been a long time since I've been part of a debate about "what is reality" that didn't involve g...
Good. So what we want to know is, does the coupling of the methodologies for determining what is true and what is genuinely justified result in a vici...
I admire the clarity of this position -- many thanks. As you no doubt know, there is a question about JTB concerning whether "true" and "(genuinely) j...
What follows is an excellent summary of the epistemological story, and how it has changed over time. You really do have the gift of concision. And . ....
This exchange gives us a good view of the issue, I think. (And thanks for hosting the discussion, and being so willing to hear how it strikes others.)...
That's right, and the philosophical structure that results from this is intricate and, for me, often persuasive. My beef, if I have one, is with termi...
Interesting response, thanks. Here's a possible way to approach the problem: Is "real" more like a name, or more like a description? Compare "donkey"....
Well, that's right, technical terms are kind of a drag to use, especially when they don't originate in English. The Continental stream you point to is...
Yes. I'm not implying that this is some easy task that philosophers have inexplicably shirked! It certainly is. I'm not sure how much "univocal" cover...
The advantage of dropping words like "real" and "exist" is that it would allow us to replace them with more precise terms that might avoid equivocatio...
Comments