Arcane Sandwich

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

No, that's not what I think. Why would you assume that about me? Why would you assume that I have ill intent? I'm being charitable towards you, am I n...

Should I? Why? I'd read your parts, but what Claude the A.I. tells you seems fishy to me.

There's a meme of someone who asked for the best way to use glue in a recipe for a homemade pizza, and ChatGPT gave her a list of instructions in whic...

Yes, I did. Not all of it, though. I skimmed through certain parts. My take on A.I. (if that's what you're asking, I'm not sure. Forgive me if not) is...

But that's my point. How can there not be? A past, that is. There was a past just yesterday. It was December 29, of the year 2024. That's a fact. How ...

I was understanding you (I think?) until this last paragraph. That's a real head-scratcher as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what to make of what ...

Taking your idea as a sketch, let me see if I can add some color to it. I would say: (a) This honey tastes sweet to a human being. (b) Therefore, this...

They're meant to be rights. Letter of the Law versus Spirit of the Law and all that. Define them however you want. They're something that physicists a...

It is for my argument, frank. I would like to have a better argument, but I don't. I'm all ears, though, if you have a better idea.

It means that it's an "all or nothing" deal, whatever we mean when we speak of "epistemic rights". Whatever they may be (the epistemic rights), there ...

What do you mean by that, @"frank"? I mean, in relation to the topic of Mathematical Platonism, formalism, and ontology? I don't get it. Can you expla...

On the discussion between Rorty and Eco that @"Count Timothy von Icarus" contributed to the discussion on Mathematical Platonism, specifically in rela...

I meant traveling to the past. It's not possible even at the level of theoretical physics?

Are scientists sure about this? Time travel is not possible at all? Like, imagine a professional physicist, who understands theoretical physics to the...

Are they, though? Not trying to be a contrarian just for the sake of it, I actually have a different impression here. I mean, I understand what you're...

But it's somehow "unsatisfactory", innit. I mean, if that humble first-order formula is all that I can possible contribute to this conversation, then ...

Honestly, I don't want to monopolize the Main Page of the Forum. I already started three OP, and I'm actively discussing in about half a dozen or so. ...

There's scientists working on those sorts of problems, that's all I can say about that, honestly. We don't know the exact, detailed mechanisms of such...

Argentine: "You want some land, mate? Just travel to Argentina, it's yours." Australian: "Nah mate, I'm good." Argentine: "You want some money, mate? ...

It's option (4). I am effectively saying that your mind is simply what your brain does, because the mind is a process (a neuro-cognitive process) that...

My own view on that topic is actually far more extreme that what you said, and that's precisely why I'm suspicious of my own view. I shouldn't feel so...

Thanks. But I think that there might even be a third option, which would be the three terms as individual constants, and then to use a three-place pre...

Muchas gracias, debo decir que este es el mejor Foro que jamás he visitado, lo cual es curioso, dado que me registré hace menos de media semana. De Ca...

Does it? It just takes us out of the Math & Logic Room. We're in the Ontology Room when we discuss the topic of existence from an ontological POV inst...

Here's how I might go about this from a formal point of view (again, I might be wrong about this, so, grain of salt and all of that sort of cautionary...

What do you mean by that, @"Wayfarer"? I can definitely see a convergence between them, but perhaps I would articulate it differently. Not that it mat...

No Corvus, brain does not tell mind what to do. Brain does mind. Brain undergoes a process, and that process is mind. And that is what my brain is tel...

Sure. Existence is an ontological, or metaphysical concept, if you will. It's what analytic philosophers working in the field known as "Metaphysics of...

Thanks. Let me preface this by saying that I'm from Argentina. I'll also tell everyone a silly anecdote, just to ease up the mood. So, oddly enough, t...

I don't think it does. It seems to have a missing operator. Take a look: https://www.umsu.de/trees/#U(x)~3((Gx~5Ax)~1(Ax~5Gx))

Understood. Everything I said about transcendental idealism specifically, applies to phenomenology in general. Having said that, phenomenology is not ...

Of course I do. I might articulate such a notion differently, but I agree with the substantial part of the claim, not necessarily with the details of ...

But here's the problem. Let's try to translate that to first-order language. You can't. You literally can't. Why not? Well, the closest you could get ...

@"Wayfarer" understood, thank you for the clarification. So how can I help? What do you need me here for, philosophically? There does not seem to be a...

@"Banno", here's the response that you wanted from me (well perhaps it's not the one that you actually wanted, but this is the best I got on this, mat...

Quine didn't have a problem with quantification. If that's how what I said came across, then I apologize for the confusion, I did not intend it like t...

Allow me to quote Meillassoux at this point, @"Wayfarer" and @"Janus". It might help, but I'm not so sure of it myself. I'll quote it nonetheless: And...

No, I meant the good old, classic ? from first-order logic. Let me show you what the problem is, with the notion that this quantifier has ontological ...

It's what Meillassoux calls "speculative materialism". Contingency is necessary, as absurd as that sounds. I think it's absurd, and false. Meillassoux...

Yes, I'm the author of the 'factual properties' thread: Hello there. Thanks for your posts in that other Thread, they contributed much, and I found th...

Hi. Can non-Australians participate in this Thread and can they voice their opinion? Because I, as a non-Australian, have something controversial to s...

Thanks for the reference. I'll take a look at it. I'm familiar with this topic of conversation, though not with that specific reference, so thanks for...

It's a very small step, though. I'm not sure that it brings us any closer to reaching a general agreement on the status of Mathematical Platonism. It'...

I'd recommend Quentin Meillassoux's book, After Finitude. You might find his concept of "correlationism" interesting.

And with that, you are now officially reported to the moderation team.

No, it isn't. Because Artificial Intelligence means whatever the Merriam Webster Dictionary says it is, and ChatGPT is exactly that. So what did you a...

Mate. ChatGPT is an Artificial Intelligence. That's a fact. That's what people call it. Is that what you want to debate? Semantics? And you have the n...

Then what premise are you actually denying, mate? You said that you denied premise one. If that's what you deny, then my strategy for arguing with you...

What a sound thing to say. Brilliant, even. I'm not trying to be funny, I agree with the realism here.