Terrapin Station

So we can't have a discussion about the question I asked?

I don't think that either time travel or eternalism make any sense. Or rather, at least not outside of fantasizing where we just ignore a lot of detai...

Yes of course. The first step in tackling "the hard problem" is setting out our criteria for explanations in a way that (a) the things we consider exp...

How can we know that there's a territory to map and that there's anything different than maps?

Pretty much an evergreen answer to your responses to my comments: What does that have to do with what I wrote? I don't know if you never understand wh...

Because aren't you arguing that there's something objectively wrong with them? Or are you just saying that you strongly feel that there's something wr...

Could you explain how you're figuring that it's a harm?

I'm not claiming that the map is (necessarily) the territory. Are you?

Weird that you'd see it as a pejorative. I did also use the word "judgment" by the way. At any rate, so the epistemological support?

Keeping things philosophical, epistemologically, what would be the support for their being something "wrong with them" where that's not about the feel...

Exactly, as well as aesthetic utterances.

What's not appealing in the sense that you're using that term is the suggestion that beliefs must have some merit just because they're strong beliefs ...

First, people don't normally just say "Yay pizza" or whatever. They say things like "Pizza tastes good," "Pizza is the best," etc. Do you believe that...

Smith is studied some in philosophy, but he's not generally a big focus. Ricardo, again, I'm not familiar with. I've read Marx--because my educational...

Re "other sociology," by the way, what mid-19th century stuff are you classifying as sociology?

That's part of the answer. It's the first step in answering it (hence "first," announcing that I'm starting there with you, but thats not the finish.)

I'm not familiar enough with Smith's writing, and I'm not at all familiar with Ricardo, to comment on that. First, aren't you familiar with the fact t...

It's primarily philosophy.

That's trying to paint Marx as doing anything in the vein of contemporary social science, which isn't the case. I'm not saying that as a knock on Marx...

I find it very strange that anyone would have ever considered Marxism science. I'd have to wonder what that person would think that science is, what i...

In my view, as a physicalist and a nominalist who doesn't buy genidentity (identity through time), the issue is simply if one is willing to consider t...

Since we have a "positive account" that those are ways that we think, we'd now need a "positive account"--in other words, similarly accessible empiric...

It's an empirical claim. As such, it requires empirical support.

Even if that were the case, anything with an intentional property isn't going to be objective, which is what he was shooting for, unless intentionalit...

Don't we have evidence that we do indeed think in terms of logic, mathematics, etc.?

Sure, and then what you'd offer as empirical support would be?

Conceivability needs a bit more detail than just stipulating that something is conceivable, no?

The spirit in which it's forwarded is akin to a scientific examination. It's not based on whether anyone finds it appealing or not. We want to know wh...

Insofar as people believe that moral utterances can be true or false they're simply mistaken. They have mistaken beliefs about the ontology of moral u...

Aren't you at all familiar with noncognitivism/emotivism? "It is wrong to kick a puppy" is akin to "Boo to kicking puppies!" Boo, and alternately yay,...

Those things are simply ways that we think.

A la you're thinking that I'm saying something about conventional language usage?

Producing an incoherent argument is worthless. The problem is that I couldn't care less if you don't realize that time is the same thing as change/mot...

I say evolution isn't proved. Because empirical claims are not provable. Not because I don't buy evolution.

Moral utterances aren't true or false, correct or incorrect.

Both are incoherent.

So your task would be to explain either how we get to "x is human well being" without it being a judgment, preference, evaluative property etc., or if...

I'm familiar with the Shoemaker paper. When the freezes coincide, no time passes anywhere until the next thaw. The only sense in which time passes whe...

If you're requiring soundness you had no argument either. Because it's false that time is anything but change/motion.

Actually it's a simple modus ponens. If p then q. P. Therefore q.

Conditional on some standard or value that's not a judgment, assessment, evaluative property, etc.?

What would the formalization of my argument be?

What would you argue that "good" is if not a judgment, assessment, evaluative property, etc.?

Man, you really, really don't understand what logic is.

Obviously I don't agree that you proved this logically, but given the sort of thing you seem to be shooting for, all I'd have to do to prove logically...

Okay, you can stop anytime you like. (of course)

Number one: Are you reading what I'm typing? (That's not a rhetorical question, I expect you to answer.) When I write that, answering is not optional ...

Are you now going to argue that rain is a judgment? You'd need to provide the definition you're using of judgment, which I asked a few times and you j...

This is why I asked earlier whether you thought that the world only consisted of judgments. You said you didn't, and that whether it was raining wasn'...

How can you ask that right after I type: "We can make judgments about whether it's raining, but rain isn't a judgment"? Are you reading what I'm typin...