Terrapin Station

If you're saying that realists and idealists are saying the same thing, I don't agree with you.

A fortiori because there's no proof of any empirical claim, hence "proof" is a red herring. We don't endorse or reject any empirical claims on proof. ...

So first, the criteria are going to have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything that WE do. It's not as if anything's ontological nature ch...

You know that empirical claims are not provable, right? (Assuming that you're using "proof" in a more strict sense of that term.)

"We know how to measure this, and it's relatively easy to do so" isn't actually a criterion for something being physicall. You don't think that neutri...

Poetry is fine in literature class.

<Turns down the poetry knob>

lol--"you get" not in the sense of "you personally are producing this." The sense is akin to "one experiences."

See, Harry, you get people saying things like this.

It doesn't matter what we call it, but it matters what think it is/think what its nature is, etc.because we don't want to say things that are wrong, i...

The point isn't for it to have "weight," though, either. It's just to accurately describe the world in a way that's coherent/that makes sense. The ide...

I don't think anyone is a materialist/physicalist to be dramatic or edgy. What we're saying is simply that mental stuff isn't something different than...

What is its "charge"? I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

That could be fun :wink: but it would mostly just cover that the person has a reasonable understanding of things like the relevant chemistry, the risk...

What's an example of mentally-independent advancement or retardation of self-realization?

I've already explained why it's not a category error. What did I say? I don't want to have to keep explaining the same thing over and over to the same...

So velocity is weight in your understanding?

Physical things aren't limited to things you can weigh. You don't think that you can weigh wind, do you? But hopefully you also do not think that wind...

So, you had just written: "Some philosophers such as Jeagwon Kim have mustered arguments, such as the causal exclusion argument, in order to (1) infer...

Reading what into it? :confused:

One thing we could do is just have a DMV-type organization that grants licenses for all sorts of things, not just driving.

"Temporally" because the events occur "in time." If I don't specify "temporally antecedent" folks might have something they consider a non-temporal an...

I wasn't saying anything about whether they exist in nature (whatever distinction you'd be using for natural/artificial or whatever term you might be ...

Minus the fact that I don't actually agree that determinism is the case, yes, I think there is no need for such an argument, because there's no good r...

I'm a physicalist/identity theorist re the mind-body issue. So yes, ideas are physical, as is everything else.

As Jamesk noted, I meant temporally, and I'm pretty sure I typed temporally, but I was posting from my kindle and it often "autocorrects" to something...

I'm a nominalist. There's only one A and one B.

Philosophy continually makes errors by trying to avoid psychologism or subjectivity. You can't talk about semantics--meaning, reference, etc.--without...

He just explained one above.

What's an example of them occurring mind-independently in society?

Because I'm right.

So, if Kripke was arguing contra what I just said, then Kripke is wrong.

Yeah, really. Because that's the way the world is. No matter where you look in the mind-independent world, you'll not find any normatives.

Because that's what had to obtain for the effect in question. Say that A causes B, which causes C. Well, if A caused B but B didn't subsequently produ...

Re the post you're referencing there, it just depends on how you think about the name. If you take "Nixon" to refer to "Whatever was born on January 9...

So ability to consent, for example, where it's clear that the person can understand what they're consenting to, understand some possible consequences ...

The immediately temporarily antecedent action(s) or event(s) that produce a particular subsequent event.

Sure, but that wasn't what I was referring to above re multiple (simultaneous) causes being the only situation where I can see an "a" versus "the" dis...

In other words, two billiard balls can strike a third at the same time.

Because people often conflate the two.

In my view, yes, since I don't believe there are any nonphysical things. We can't say something about the "objective nature of nonphysical things" if ...

t least we have some similar sentiment about each other.

Again, I don't at all agree that a mere lack of something is sufficient to suggest that we have a moral issue at hand. So when we don't agree on that,...

One thing I definitely wouldn't do is make it a "mature enough" metric. I'd be trying to avoid making it anything about value judgments as much as pos...

If you're not making an assumption like that, then what's the mystery you'd be trying to explain. Some solution appears in your consciousness in whate...

I wasn't using "or" in the sense of "here's another word for the same thing." I was using it in the sense of "cats or dogs"--two different things we c...

The problem is that there are no objective normatives.

I mean multiple simultaneous causes, not sequential.

Good argument.

"A" versus "the" isn't at all a clear semantic distinction to me, aside from the context where we're talking about an event that may have had multiple...