I've thought about this issue, and I've come to realize that the problem here is not with ambiguity in the word "intent", or "final cause", or the wor...
Have you never read Aristotle? Final cause is clearly defined in his Physics as "that for the sake of which" 194b. Walking is for the sake of health, ...
As I understand, the soul is not the form of the body. It is an immaterial form, prior to the body. This is where dualism comes into play, and where t...
United as one, does not deny identifiable parts. It means that the two named things exist within one united being. Different attributes are united as ...
Well that's not really "spontaneous" then. That little nudge is the cause. And so it's just as I say. the lipid's tendency to behave in this way, upon...
I suppose we need to define "spontaneously" then. Does this mean "without a cause", or does it mean "voluntarily"? If the former, then finality is exc...
So this is what you call our "best" approach to avoiding the cited problem. It doesn't avoid the problem though, so we ought to keep looking for a bet...
The point is, that I don't agree already, so why should I read a book concerning what follows from a premise I don't agree with? The point is, that af...
You don't seem to understand final cause. Final cause requires intention, the non-physical. So to say that global organisation occurs "spontaneously" ...
You know, that just because it's written in a book doesn't make it true. Didn't I just demonstrate the first principle of the book to be wrong? Why wo...
"Most appealing" in the sense of capable of creating very entertaining science fiction? Fiction is very appealing to most people. So when you inquire ...
As I explained to Read Parfit, both the evidence and the logic indicate that the correct direction for speculation is into the nature of the non-physi...
Oh my God. Are you seriously asking whether science fiction movies represent something correctly? It's fiction, fantasy. It's not meant to represent a...
You ought to consider that any "laws" are just human constructs. like any other concepts If you think that the "laws of nature" are some independently...
But my point is that after any "symmetry breaking", there is no such thing as a dichotomy. "A dichotomy" may refer to a symmetry, but the symmetry has...
If it's true, then where is the evidence? Where are all these lipids which are spontaneously forming in the right conditions? Or is it simply the case...
Do you see, that this process which you describe is not suited to a dichotomy as you define it? The process might be a movement toward a dichotomy, or...
It's a political presupposition, not a metaphysical principle, therefore not a "first" principle. So what am I supposed to try, to turn it into metaph...
OK, let's start from the beginning again, and see if I can understand what you're laying down. You have given me two distinct dichotomies, the dichoto...
So I was right then. You talk about the discrete and the continuous as if there is some real difference between them. But when you describe the way th...
No, (b) is not what I meant at all. When I uncover a presupposition, I said I seek to validate it. I do not mean to "prove" it, but to uncover the fur...
Hey, you brought it up, not I. It is your subject, look: Remember that post? It's not my fault that when I try to engage you on this subject, you simp...
I don't question the existence of presuppositions, I recognize that they are common place. My claim is that no matter how deeply buried the presupposi...
I'm educated in high school chemistry, biology, and physics. The existence of lipids is not caused by "atomic forces". You really don't seem to know w...
OK, so it is exactly as I argued, there is absolutely no difference between what you call "physical time" and what you call "metaphysical time". What ...
I would call that magic. OK, you leave my argument inconclusive due to ambiguity as to the difference between living and non-living. That's fine for t...
Any concept, in the sense that it is "a concept" is metaphysical. Do you not agree? Unless you subscribe to Platonic realism, in which concepts are et...
OK, I think I understand what you are arguing now. You are saying that some metaphysicians such as presentists, claim that human beings experience the...
OK, but our subject is the question of the existence, or non existence of the discrete and the continuous. Unless we relate this to the talk of contai...
OK, so I had it all wrong, let me try again then. We were talking about the discrete and the continuous. These two make up the limits, so this is what...
Eternalism does not deny that the human subject experiences the passing of time. It just does not provide an explanation for this experience. It appea...
Could you explain this? I don't see your argument. I never claimed the principle is free of presuppositions. As a principle, established before my tim...
Here's what I find in review of the book on Wikipedia: Notice the quote "speculation far outpaces evidence in many of the book's passages". As I expla...
I could start with the first principle established by Aristotle's cosmological argument in his "Metaphysics" Bk.9. This principle, produced from a com...
I'm not saying "more real", I'm saying "both real". The problem is that you talk about the contents and the container as if they are separate things, ...
What bothers me, is that through your process philosophy, you have assigned to the limits (discrete and continuous) the status of not real, non-existe...
Metaphysics. But let me be clear, as it appears like you misunderstood. It is not that the presuppositions are not there, or that they are not "involv...
Sure, but they are already lipids. I used "magic" to refer to apokrisis' description of the appearance of the membrane, as if it just suddenly appeare...
SR doesn't threaten ,my position at all. I don't know why you keep saying such things. It's just another metaphysical principle which ought to be doub...
So you are arguing that neither, the continuous nor the discrete are real? They are ideals and reality stands in between. But then what is reality if ...
It is exactly this "constant local speed measurement" which makes SR a ,metaphysical assumption rather than empirically proven. It has only been empir...
That's probably the core issue, the relationship between the continuous and discontinuous. But the problem is that they are both real, just like the r...
Oh, you had said that presupposing is the same as taking for granted. But "grounds" I take to be the evidence for something. When we take something fo...
As you don't seem to understand, let me explain why the special theory of relativity is metaphysical. Einstein took the existing theory of relativity,...
Presuppositions are exactly what the skeptic questions. Descartes for example questioned the real existence of the material world, something which was...
Let me rephrase C then, if you want to nit pick. No inanimate physical thing is capable of doing such organizing. C, as is customary in premises of de...
I don't know what you're talking about. All I have said is that special relativity is metaphysical. If this is my "metaphysical view of time", then pe...
But this is not necessarily the case. You cannot start with the thing, unless you take it for granted that "the thing" is something real. But taking '...
Comments