jkg20

No, it means it might be false and certainly a materialist is going to claim that it is false. I'm not a materialist, I invite those who are to respon...

Note the "tangible or concrete" in definition 2. Things which are tangible and concrete are generally put in opposition to those that are merely illus...

One can circumvent objections by changing the argument, which is effectively what I did: it is certainly not Jackson's original argument. It is an arg...

Premise 1 seems to be a contradiction, since under one understanding of "physical" things that are physical simply by definition are not illusions. Th...

I defined what I meant by being in possession of all the physical facts: it is to have the theoretical apparatus sufficient to predict every physical ...

an empirical condition of what?

Let's try to circumvent Churchland's attack without buying into the theoretical apparatus that Churchland and Jackson buy into: 1. Mary at time T is i...

To an extent, thanks, but I think what I really need to do is go back to CPR and look again at how Kant distinguishes images from schemata.

Well yes, if you continue to drop the adjective "scientific" into your definitions of what you mean, in specific cases, by the use of that adjective, ...

Indeed food for thought: Why can't I justify my claim to understand what a triangle is by drawing one? Why do I need to bring up a mental image, rathe...

There could be sighted creatures without visual cortexes, at least that seems possible. So even if you just meant by "mental imagery" "whatever goes o...

Just so I don't have to reread the thread from page 1 can you define what you take the phrase "a scientific answer" to mean? Can scientific questions ...

Is there an argument for this tenet? Perhaps there is mental imagery involved in my recalling how my shoe ended up tied, but that does not entail that...

To be perfectly honest, I do not know. I do remember once being amongst a relatively high number of people who bandied around terms like "mental image...

OK, I understand, you seem to be of the opinion, shared by quite a few philosophers and scientists it must be said, that every time we see anything, m...

Could you be clearer about the two questions you imagine to be here please, because under one understanding of what you are saying the "why" questions...

:up: So, on the Kantian view, even if noumena are possible, we have not , and indeed cannot have, the slightest reason for believing them to be actual...

If you want to define "noumena" as "whatever grounds appearances" go ahead, but it is completely topic neutral since even appearances can ground appea...

The problem with Mill's position, as I'm sure you know from Philosophy 101 is that if something is claimed to be possible, permenanently or otherwise,...

I know Trump was elected president, I just don't believe it.

Perhaps stop talking about noumena and "really real" things? I can think of some context where "really real", "actually real" and so on might make sen...

Isn't the problem with this, at least on the Kantian view anyway, that concepts such as "to produce", which are causal in nature, only make sense in t...

That needs arguing for, not just stating. That needs arguing for, not just stating.

Have you considered the idea that there is no such information? There is a distinction between ability based knowledge and factual knowledge, between ...

You're welcome. I wish you well. Maybe you can find some better midground between the harsh austereness of my paragraph, and the somewhat apologetic s...

And if you can't resist personalising it a bit, perhaps amend the final sentence to: Everyone, no matter their expertise or power, remains fallible, e...

Allow me, let us take the following paragraph of yours: Here is a first draft depersonalised version: The recommendation is not, though, to reject out...

I don't think your neurology is the problem, it's your philosophy.

There was never a standard model of brain function, at least not anything analogous to the standard model of particle physics. Consequently, there was...

Illusionists, in this philosophical sense, certainly have one problem, somewhat of their own making: that of explaining how it is that we are supposed...

:ok: Well expressed. Cheers. Next round's on me as well.

I am not sure you understand what de se reasoning actually is. If I state sincerely, "Peter wants to get elected" then that might be equivalent to sta...

@"Pfhorrest"Perhaps you have edited your replies without indicating as much or perhaps a short night's sleep has made me come at this with a fresh set...

Questionable advice, and in any case open to interpretation. The suggestion was not that you should, or even could, write without dropping in the odd ...

I did not say or imply that you were in it for the money. Publishers and agents are. You might, however; want your work published to reach a wider aud...

I like sushi has a point Pfhorrest. From experience of my own, here is some advice about seeking feedback on your writing; 1. Do not expect useful lit...

A material conditional that Wittgenstein would reject and provides plenty of grounds for rejecting. You seem simply to be gainsaying Wittgenstein, not...

Wittgenstein is trying to undermine the idea that for something to fall under a general concept, that thing must satisfy identifiable conditions which...

:ok:

This is a peculiar use of language. A camera might be placed to give a specific perspective on a scene, but that does not entail that the camera is a ...

Not sure how this gets around the problem. Remember you are trying to prove the premise of your argument, or at least my version of your argument, tha...

I'm reminded of an anecdote, I think of Bertrand Russell's, where he was talking about a letter he received from an amateur philosopher that began som...

But you are arguing for a position that there are not two such perspectives, aren't you? It seems incoherent to support a premise of an argument that ...

Last I heard on that topic, admittedly the best part of a decade ago, it was a philosophically contested claim. Back then, there were some philosopher...

:up:

You may be making some conceptual mistakes, but then again there might be something buried deep in what you are saying. If I try to generate something...

Yet if I were to propse that "the affect" is a grammatical mistake, a verb mistaken for a substantive pretending to be of any philosophical interest a...

You want us to do your homework for you? How about you present your answer to your question and then we discuss it?

Now we are agreed how we are using the term "anarchist", I think I might need to be a little clearer about my use of the term "socialist". I do not me...

Well, I certainly agree that Nozick spent absolutely no time engaging with anarchist thought, or much of any kind of thought for that matter. Generall...