Metaphysician Undercover

I think that makes a lot of sense. So my objection holds. Why would you mention, or bring up for discussion, something which you claim cannot be discu...

Perhaps, but I was just trying to get a handle on what is meant by "objective", in the sense of "of the object". I take it that you think this to be h...

No, we were discussing objectivity, what it means to be an object regardless of human understanding. Perhaps you joined into this discussion a bit lat...

Yes. Have you ever hit a nail on the side of the head, and watched it go flying off somewhere. Furthermore, I seriously consider the possibility that ...

I never broke rule 2. I never referred to any of the things listed in rule 2. I referred to the arbitrariness of "proper time", which ought not even b...

So to maintain a determinist interpretation, we just need to assume an infinite number of infinite numbers of universes?

Why not put that in the op then? Instead of a convoluted list of rules, simply state "Metaphysician Undercover, Rich, and any others who do not agree ...

The intellectuals are seen as responsible for the institutions, and the institutions are seen as fundamentally unrealistic. Let's arm the teachers! Hu...

It had already started when they turned their thumbs down to Transcendentalism, which was in many ways a response to degradation in progress. Perhaps ...

Oh I see the point of this thread now. You want to discuss the fact that relativity refutes presentism. Why didn't you just say that in the op? "I don...

You're just spouting random nonsense Pseudonym. I always try to maintain the attitude that I might fail, in any action which I take. This attitude ins...

That descriptions reference objects does not mean that the descriptions aren't entirely made up in the head. You seem to think that the descriptions a...

You're behaving in a ridiculous manner Pseudonym. It was your argument "that ten thousand years of presuming the world is deterministic and having tha...

https://emersoncentral.com/texts/essays-first-series/the-over-soul/ Something to note. This was a time after Lamarck had published his evolutionary th...

I found it an entertaining read. Have you read Emerson's "The Over-Soul"? I haven't and I don't think it's studied at all.

I think transcendentalism was so ridiculed that even transcendentalists started to deny being transcendentalists.

I think you have something mistaken here Janus. The second view, what it means to be an object cannot be changing or evolving, or else existence itsel...

Doesn't intention itself derive from such a "blurry notion". Suppose your particular, definite intent, at a specific time is to drop into the fast foo...

The point being that the explanations are description based, i.e. empirically verified. There is no scientific explanation of what it means to be an o...

I agree that science does not make such claims concerning "objectivity", as I said, that's what philosophy does. But you had made the contrary claim. ...

The whole legal system is designed around intention and free will. I think we know our own actions better than we know "the whole rest of the universe...

This is clearly wrong though. If you and I both agree that the sun moves around the earth every day, then this is not knowledge "of the object", becau...

To begin with, I find that there is ambiguity with "self" which I think I should try to expose to some extent. In most instances, "self" refers to an ...

That would be in relation to something. The judgement of inferior and superior would be a judgement in relation to some objective, as progress is towa...

It was not a quote of Plotinus, it was me describing Plotinus' metaphysics, in a very brief way. The assertions were mine, as part of my description. ...

Huh? You think that free will has been consistently denied in favour of determinism for the last ten thousand years? Are you blind to the evidence?

This is why we have different terms, like "real", "exist", and "being". Different philosophers would set out different semantic rules for distinguishi...

Look fdrake, either you're having difficulty understanding, or you're simply in denial of what relativity does to the ontology of time. Fundamental to...

So, on what basis then would a person with a science based worldview claim that things like flying unicorns, and gods don't exist? If whether or not o...

But isn't "proper time" simply an arbitrary designation, dependent on some pragmatic principles? Wouldn't it be contradictory to the special theory of...

So the things in concepts are non-existent? What about numbers and circles? But what about the concepts themselves? How would one make a falsifiable t...

By "somewhat present in general relativity", do you mean that the universal time is completely arbitrary? Isn't the "universal present" explicitly con...

I think that this is a misrepresentation. Meaningful things, such as God and the supernatural, are asserted by most of those who hold the scientific w...

OK, I'll accept that representation. The point is that the act of going to the store is not derived from, or caused by the belief. When "I am not goin...

The issue here, I think, is the question of where we derive moral principles from. Let's say that humanity has produced, with conscious minds, certain...

That doesn't work. What kind of ridiculous question is that? Looks like you're arguing for dualism now. But it's not the case that "not going to the s...

It's not a presupposition, it's a conclusion from inductive reasoning. All examples of beings, that I know of are particulars. If someone showed me ex...

There's a reason why we make rules of logic, and adhere to them. That's so we don't get confused by simple issues, as you have. I find it extremely do...

Because I view it logically, and you view it illogically? That's an adequate example. It's either a duck or a rabbit. To say that it's a duck and a ra...

I remember when they fired up the Hadron, there were some folks concerned that they might swallow the earth in a black hole. I wonder if scientists re...

I'm not talking about forms, I'm talking about objects. A form cannot be said to be an object unless it has substantial existence. Take your waves and...

Here's something you can try. Try holding an object between your thumb and fingers, above the floor, having decided that you will drop it to the floor...

OK, let's get going on those ten posts then. How would a context act to individuate an object? So an object, as a unity, is defined into existence? I'...

Sounds like basic determinism. Why would anyone believe it, when we know that our choices and actions come from within? We eat food, it gives us energ...

I'll repost my prior post But you adhere to process metaphysics, so you do not even recognize that any objects have real existence. Boundaries are vag...

You seek to do the logically impossible, to apprehend the object, and its parts, coexisting as objects, at the same time.

I don't think that you can actually get rid of free will like that. Suppose you are "determined" to go to the store, in a determinist sense. What allo...

That is the inescapable problem of "unity". Consider the existence of an object. We are inclined to say that the object is composed of parts. With our...

The significant difference between the thermostat and the human belief is that the thermostat necessitates action, and in the human being belief doesn...

So I'd say we agree on this point, and what would be left would be to work out finer details, such as the relationship between the self, and the flow ...