Jerry

I think I'm the one you mean to be speaking to lol. I read your comment and was going to respond, but never got around to it. Allow me to address your...

I think I agree with you that there isn't really a difference between "will" and "free will". So just understand that I'm really just using the term "...

I hate to keep derailing the conversation with new points but there was another observation that I had that I want to ask about: Is it not possible fo...

Isn't every philosophy that wants to speak about the nature of the world systematic? Because nature/reality is systematic? Another way of saying it is...

Just busy, and trying to figure out how to respond to the points being made lol. I mean, I feel like most of our disagreements are kind of semantic, w...

I'll be 100% honest, and maybe it's just because I'm quite tired, but I'm having difficulty extracting the meaning of the definitions you gave in your...

Sorry for not responding to anyone in particular or addressing specific points, but I think my comment is relevant to each of your responses in some w...

Let me highlight one of the questions I had asked initially: What would a non-determinant world look like? I could theoretically imagine a world where...

So do you say we do have free will, or that free will does exist in our world? What do you mean when you say free will? Because you say a free will wo...

I sent that by accident, I didn't finish. But I think I got the point across thankfully. Have I made a mistake in my thinking somewhere? Please let me...

I'm interested in what you have to say, but you don't seem to be interested in sharing, as evidenced by your refusal to clarify further than your, rat...

What I speak of (and in general, the principal of the ethics I'm outlining here) can be exemplified by a quote from "A Game of Thrones": Given the kno...

Pretty much my whole point is to reject this claim. First of all, "flourishing" is too vague. What do you mean by it? Flourishing for society? Flouris...

Probably a good reason why I now prefer more virtue-based ethics than consequentialism. While context is pretty much always required when evaluating w...

Let's try taking this one at a time. I'll just go ahead and ask, why ought this be the goal? You say the grounding for it is, from what I understand, ...

Still, you're speaking about the way morals formed as part of our evolution, I'm more concerned with moral systems as they take place now. By foundati...

Extend this further, if you will. Are we ever obligated to help by doing a good deed, or only when we feel the urge? I'm pretty sure acting in accorda...

This sounds like a fine assessment of the fact of the matter, but this doesn't address the foundations for the moral system. For example, are you sayi...

I'm not sure I'm versed well enough to speak on these conceptual schemes of Davidson. I'm not sure what Banno means here by: I'm not entirely sure if ...

So then it seems an omnipotent being can cause themselves to lose their omnipotence, and that doesn't contradict their nature of being omnipotent? In ...

I think you missed my point, not that it was entirely clear. I mean to claim that there are paradoxes that arise in a single omnipotent being, so if t...

What paradox arises from two omnipotent beings existing that doesn't with just one? For example, how do you personally justify the "Can God make a bou...

It's not clear to me why this is the case. Are you viewing it like there are two omnipotent beings having an arm wrestle and one of them has to win?

I think there's a small but major difference between our claims. It's correct to say that there are no falsehoods without conscious entities, but that...

The philosophy I've learned about which I think deals with these sorts of ideas is structural realism, more specifically ontic structural realism. Jam...

Isn't that just a Dillahunty saying? Although I suppose the sentiment is typical of skeptics.

For some reason this question contextualizes truth better for me. When we say things like "I want to know what's true", I feel like we mistakenly trea...

Am I out of the loop? Because I don't know what shamanism is and nobody seems to have bothered to explain what it is in a discussion about whether or ...

My first thoughts on the matter of truth is that truth seems to be a human construction. All there really is is reality, things happening and existing...

Except a gamete isn't a living, conscious thing with emotions that can feel pain? It's not until we choose to make it a baby that it does so?

That's not a dichotomy. But I suppose you think I'm saying humans are so exceptional that there can't be a natural explanation for it? Not quite, I'm ...

Don't know how that relates to be honest.

I think a point that should be discussed more is the quality of life itself, as that is what some of these arguments are hinging on. I believe did con...

I was skeptical about your statement at first, but I have to agree that there's something exceptional about human consciousness. Although I'm not sure...

I'm not sure if I'm thinking of "in common" in the same way. Take the True/False relation example again. You could say that they don't have anything "...

Just a random related question: approximately what percent of people in this forum are onboard with antinatalism or related sentiments? It seems like ...

Can't say I understand everything being said here. I'm personally a fan of the Identity of Indiscernibles and PSR. I've never really seen how Maxwell'...

I think this is one of those cases where a comma would be handy. Although I think slightly differently about these "things" and "relations", which goe...

My primary explanation was sort of that too, that it was when we stopped treating mathematics as uncovering truth about the world or as something real...

I read the beginning of chapter 13 of the book linked. It does mention the -1 : 1 ratio argument, which was put forward by Antoine Arnauld and discuss...

The curious thing to me about the cogito, which is somewhat inferred in my answer, is the observation that our senses can be deceived. Firstly, doesn'...

I'm a little confused by the question because to me, the only truths we can know most absolutely are those immediate to our human experience. For exam...

That Euler and other great mathematicians thought such things was the whole point of this thread in the first place. Is there no insight to be gained ...

I want to focus on one particular aspect of this discussion, which is the matter of "context" required when manifesting negatives in nature. At first,...

My point isn't quite that there aren't applications of multiplying by a negative, physics has it all over the place, and computer programs can also ma...

This is an example of introducing context to make sense of negatives, which I described here: Now it could be the case that regular counting has its o...

Disappointing we seem to have a stalemate so soon. I feel like I've sufficiently expressed the "exceptionalism" of humanity, not just in relation to o...

Tossing aside the creator talk for a second, I would offer that one reason there may only be one overtly intelligent species is because once there is ...

Thanks for the compliment. You know, I think I have to disagree here. I think that there is, in some either cosmic or objective sense, something signi...

@"TheMadFool" Interesting that you would say a burden of proof falls on an agnostic. I don't think by the standard understanding of the burden of proo...