Terrapin Station

"Proof" is a red herring on both sides. How about just giving compelling reasons for belief?

I don't know if it's the case or not. The claim was that it is. So I'm simply asking for the supporting evidence for it. It's a fairly simple empirica...

My point in this tangent is that I was wondering what the evidence was for "At a physical level, morality is not a unified concept yet free-will seems...

You said, "At a physical level, morality is not a unified concept yet free-will seems to be"--which you just quoted again above. I asked you what a "u...

No need to get so specific. Just post a list of 100 books and I'll read them all on the remote chance that any of them actually provide the evidence I...

You know what would be cool? If what you typed there had something to do with anything I've said. That's certainly a list of words, though.

Physicists are only authorities in physics, only in their field of physics--not in other fields, and arguments from authority are fallacious.

Are you suggesting that we don't need evidence of an empirical claim?

Aside from the fact that you appear to be suggesting an argument from authority, you wrote, "The expert in philosophy... PhD (Physics)" haha

Which is aka asserting a belief. The belief is likely true and justified. Hence you know it; it's knowledge.

Not such a smart person after all. Belief doesn't imply certainty. Knowledge, which is a more limited, qualified type of belief, doesn't even imply ce...

As I've said a number of times, I'd not get involved in arguments based on whether something is explained or not if we don't first establish a general...

It's not a preference, it's knowledge--a justified, true belief, based on evidence. If I were doing ontology based on preferences, the world would hav...

I don't have any likelihood beliefs about anything that I don't have frequency data for, unless I think either it's 1 ("100%" or certain) or 0--imposs...

Because likelihood makes no sense if we don't have data re frequency of occurrence. Even then there are problems with it, but we definitely can't reac...

Yes. The question is how different from our own brains it can be, in terms of the specific materials, and in terms of its structure and function, whil...

I was more interested in talking about epistemology in general, and the idea of likelihood more specifically (although we never ended up getting into ...

The other issue is how we'd support that there would be some sort of mechanistic explanatory model by now.

Would you say then that you're also essentially arguing that "If matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on i...

Okay, so that's what you're basing it on? (If so, that's all I was asking.)

Let's not bypass this part, it's what I want to know (also because there's a more fundamental issue here I'm tackling): Someone says, " It seems highl...

Someone says, " It seems highly likely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its ow...

An abductive inference based on what?

Atheists who aren't philosophically-educated are just as troublesome in this regard, though, because they wind up saying silly things like "I don't ha...

It's not an argument, just the standard characterization of knowledge. And yeah, it's not "unsupported" because justification and truth are two of the...

Knowledge is jtb. If you're trying to provide an alternate definition, "Knowledge is knowledge (information) that you know" isn't a very good one.

Your initial post? I thought it was an ongoing conversation. You had defined knowledge as "information that you know." I pointed out that "know" is si...

What does that have to do with what I wrote, that you quoted just above this, and that this is apparently a response to?

haha

I'm just asking for the evidence of a claim. If you don't know, that's okay, but I would just say that.

"Know" is what we're defining. "Knowledge" is a grammatical permutation of "know" (or vice versa)

Okay, so what was the evidence, just a similar claim in another article or book? (Since you mentioned the bibliography)

What in the world are you talking about? I'm asking you a question.

That some people--not everyone--thinks it needs further qualification doesn't make any propositional knowledge not belief in widespread consensus. So ...

And the evidence of it? Was the evidence given in the article?

This is incorrect. The Gettier problem suggests to many that jtb needs further qualification. It doesn't suggest to anyone that either j, t or b shoul...

I haven't the faintest idea what any of that has to do with my comment above it. Say what? I was asking you what the evidence was for something that w...

Postmodernism indeed has its roots in the later 1800s. Two of the bigger influences on it were the realization that Euclidean geometry wasn't akin to ...

What do those folks do when they learn something about epistemology, where propositional knowledge is--as one of philosophy's most widespread consensu...

So we could say that there's a generally agreed-upon definition in the community. So first, what's the evidence that that's the case for "free will" b...

I really don't understand when people use "likely" that way. Likely based on what? It seems like it's just shorthand for "based on my intuitive precon...

Asking for evidence is basically asking for the justification for belief, where it's hoped that theists have some justification for belief. Evidence c...

I use "phenomena" to refer to any occurrences, especially as they appear or would appear experientially.

What would you say that it amounts to for a concept to be "unified" "at a physical level"?

You're seeing it as contra free will--and you made a comparison to aesthetic judgments? Do you think that aesthetic judgments are deterministic?

"Special" just in the sense of being different. I can't really think of an angle from which I'd say the computer example is similar to morality.

I don't understand, what do you see as the relevance of free will (and the responsibility issue with respect to it) to whether moral stances are essen...

I tend to be skeptical of claims of oppression in lieu of pretty solid empirical sociological research, and then I'd only buy the idea insofar as the ...

My concern with it is primarily the claim that someone can have the normal meanings in mind by the terms. I don't think that really follows from anyth...

Doesn't it seem like a pretty obvious straw man to say that reductionists have to be talking about parts without relations/processes, though? I mean, ...