Terrapin Station

One possibility is that you do understand it when you read it the later time, but you assign "Joe" to it (or whatever). In other words, just because y...

Why would memory even be relevant to the issue though? There's an assumption something like "it's not a language if it can't be used just the same way...

Here's what I'm getting at--I probably wasn't being verbose enough about this: Say that your referent of "thoughts/beliefs about acceptable/unacceptab...

Hmm, why would you believe that? That depends on whether you're thinking of your decisions as constitutive of yourself. In other words, if you on a co...

What do you think might make it impossible? While they weren't languages of just one person, we do have examples of languages that no one has been abl...

The demarcation for me is the degree of suffering--the intensity of it, the ubiquity and persistence of it. Collateral damage matters for determining ...

I didn't get into details because there would be many different ways to do it--it just depends on the person's imagination, ingenuity, etc. Also, we w...

Well, because it's too broad. I'm anti murdering people, anti raping them and various other things, but "suffering" is too general/broad. A lot of thi...

I'm not categorically anti-suffering.

Right. But, re your opinion, so you just don't feel that that issue is worth bothering with?

It's about understanding why someone would have the views they have.

I'm not asking your opinion. I'm asking what it is that you think that people are doing in the debate, from their perspective? (So an answer would att...

Again, the point wasn't that one position or another is correct. It's that it's ridiculous to wonder how someone could be a naturalist (or a physicali...

C'mon, man. Read what I said instead of putting words in my mouth. if you were to ask me if science proves anything, I'd emphatically say "No." I like...

Basically the same question I asked above--what do you think the issue is, then, if we parse the "free" part of "free will" as simply the psychologica...

So in your understanding of the debate, what are we debating? You're arguing that everyone is really a compatibilist and there is no debate?

I don't know at all that "most are compatibilists" is true. What survey data are you basing that on? At any rate, compatibilists aren't determinists. ...

Look at it this way: In my opinion, beliefs in a "multiverse" are ridiculous. But I'd never say that I can't understand how belief in a multiverse cou...

Not many philosophers are determinists.

Not at all. What I was commenting on was that it's ridiculous to wonder how someone could be a naturalist and not a determinist. That shouldn't be a m...

"Determinism is hardly a moribund view in philosophy" is actually false, too, by the way, but I didn't want to pick on everything.

It is per the widespread consensus in the sciences for well over a century. Hence, it's ridiculous to wonder how someone could be a naturalist and rej...

As I just wrote and you seemed to ignore:"The point, by the way, isn't that one view or another is right or wrong."

That's false as well. I was making a claim about the widespread consensus in the sciences. Disagreeing with that would only reflect ignorance of what ...

If you claimed it's not true, you're wrong. I wasn't making a claim about every single person and however they self-identify. I didn't say anything ev...

I don't know if that's the case, though, unless you're using belief to necessarily refer to (beliefs) about externals.

And no one suggested as much, but the widespread consensus for a long time now is that determinism is not supportable any longer. The Laplacean view i...

Right, so you think that philosophers are determinists due to thinking that contemporary science has things wrong because? What would they be basing t...

That could be (that it's still alive and well in philosophy) but it shouldn't be the case due to folks being naturalists, unless they haven't cracked ...

Yes, indeterminateness or randomness, as opposed to determinism. I think it's worth bringing up, because we should know what we're even talking about ...

Naturalistic views of the world haven't had the world as a place with anything like Laplacean determinism for over 100 years now.

Are you putting "free" in quotation marks there because it's not really ontological freedom?

I like the brevity, at least.

At least you have some insight about that. :razz:

If I said that I'm surprised you didn't answer "Okay, so if we're not talking about literally having another person's perspective, what are we talking...

Sure. I'd just say that some part of the process--somewhere from the deliberation (when that's present) to the decision has to involve some ontologica...

Issues not addressed by Schopenhauer's epistemology: #1 How to know that one has found the best possible chestnut praline frappuccino.

Here's the question I'm interested in you thinking about: "Okay, so if we're not talking about literally having another person's perspective, what are...

I'm not sure I understand this. Say we define a position in time, say "August 3, 2004, 2:00 p.m. U.S. Eastern Standard Time" in terms of the phenomena...

Why are you mentioning an RNG? I said "I make a lot of decisions that are phenomenally 'random.'" That's all I said. Forget the earlier post.

I didn't ask you what I was suggesting, but what is conventionally being referred to. Okay, so if we're not talking about literally having another per...

This is why I don't like writing long posts. Sometimes it's clear I shouldn't write more than a sentence or two. You had written: "If you make a decis...

Yes or no, do you understand that no one is proposing that you'd literally have the other person's perspective? If you understand that, we can figure ...

That's basically just saying "ontologically we don't know what's going on, which one is correct."

At any rate, yeah, physicalism has no implication for free will.

I make a lot of decisions that are phenomenally "random." I do this on purpose. Sometimes I use a "random number generator" instead, but I can do more...

Are we pretending to be behaviorists for some reason? (So that we're pretending that the person didn't have something in mind?)

The same goes for assuming it's public. Assume the object constantly changes, but everyone's memory constantly deceives them. Both criticisms are of c...

In other words when I talk about "feelings" re what we're doing when we make utterances about morality, I'm talking about "thought/belief about accept...

What I was addressing was whether a private language is possible or not (and per the manner in which the "private language argument" is usually constr...