Terrapin Station

So "psychological time"? Yeah, that's highly variable.

??? Quality of life = how you feel about your quality of life. In other words, it's your assessment of your quality of life. I'm not saying it's how y...

Sure, no argument there, but those things just aren't the same thing as their assessment of their quality of life. Yes, that can be true, too, but aga...

But time isn't indeterminate in a particular frame of reference. It's just relative--due to factors such as velocity--when you compare different frame...

Economic growth isn't just about "material resources." And as mentioned above, even with material resources, there's a belief that we'll be able to ut...

It seems like you're thinking something like: * There's a "Master Time" that overarches all other time, * Those other times pass differently relative ...

What would you say the basis for the objectivity of that claim is?

Just curious what you're thinking there. Why would it be indeterminate?

It's not that they're right. They're not wrong, either. Right and wrong about such things is a category error. That's because what it is to get someth...

Seems kind of arbitrary, but okay.

I think it's worth casting judgment on the idea that academics can't spend a lot of time and effort on approaching a problem in a fundamentally "dumb"...

There's nothing difficult to flesh out about it. The inanity stems from wanting to avoid psychologism, wanting to avoid the subjective realm, wanting ...

I've never understood the issue here. We can imagine things that aren't the case. What's the big mystery? Philosophy has always seemed to approach fic...

Quote something I said that you specifically do not understand.

What would you say that has to do with the question I just asked? The idea isn't that A is necessarily B. It's that "A can not be B" is false.

When we say that A is B, aren't we either just calling it a different name or focusing on a different set of facts about it, a la morning and evening ...

The introduction to that is ridiculous: "But the brain plays crucial roles in promoting survival and reproduction, so the pressures of evolution shoul...

As I brought up in another thread, it's not difficult to understand "Being a part of 'everything,'" even though that has no opposite.

How to start a philosophical discussion, per typical Internet discussions: No matter what someone said, both (a) disagree with them, and (b) tell them...

The morning star can't be the evening star?

Per Psychology Today, for example, "A depressive disorder is not a passing blue mood but rather persistent feelings of sadness and worthlessness and a...

"Explanatory gap" talk is a red herring as long as we continue to not analyze just what is to count as an explanation and why, with a clear set of dem...

Very funny. ;-)

Then I'd not have an opinion on abortion.

So, for one, you seem to be taking me to be suggesting that "Who gets to make the decisions and why do they get to make them" is something that he'd n...

I wouldn't say you ever started. Of course, the problem is that you are finding something very simple to be vague. No need for me to diagnose that. I ...

The stuff in quotation marks. "There's a definition of blue by measuring the spectrum of light bouncing from that blue pen. The spectrum shows its gre...

Again, take "There's a definition of blue by measuring the spectrum of light bouncing from that blue pen. The spectrum shows its green. You are wrong,...

Right, so no, we can't get to that part of the sentence.

No it's not. You don't know what logic is. Learn 101 level stuff like that first.

Can we get to the rest of the sentence? "for us to know about it, note it, do anything about it, someone has to think and assert those things, right?"

What happened to the person who says "There's a definition of blue by measuring the spectrum of light bouncing from that blue pen. The spectrum shows ...

Why wouldn't it be obvious that it would be up to each person to decide for themselves?

Even if it were somehow possible for an argument to "decide for itself," we'd need to be able to recognize this, wouldn't we?

And so who decides?

I'm not sure what definition of nihilism you'd be using (especially so that it would be "destructive").

And we non-personally figure out if we've deduced a correct conclusion via?

To Joe, they lead to a justified conclusion. To Bill, they do not. Now what do you do?

The problem is that that's your opinion, and you incredibly seem to be assuming that we're all going to agree if we just, well, whatever aside from si...

How do we get to "This isn't factual and reasonable" if someone doesn't decide that?

One thing at a time for a moment. Not how. Who? Someone has to decide these things. Who is going to?

You asked if "A is different than B" is logical/illogical. The answer is that no, it isn't. "A is different than B" has nothing to do with logic. You ...

One or more persons' feelings could be hurt by anything conceivable. Anything you might say, anything you might wear, any way you might look at them, ...

It's alogical. Or in other words, it doesn't have anything to do with logic. Logic is about inference/implication--what follows from what, basically.

lol

Haha, no. How could you even do logic with variables then?

No. It's not a logical difference to plug different elements into variables.

Not any spacetime structure that's correct, though. I'm not saying that it's not a popular belief that time travel is possible, but the belief rests o...

That's not a logical difference. Logically, both are simply that x implies the necessity of y.

What is wrong with you that you can't simply spell out/specify what you take the logical difference to be when I request for you to do that?