Terrapin Station

I'm always open to the idea of being given more money.

Here's the way that it's not about vocabulary: There are people who posit that there is not only unconscious/subconscious brain activity, but that the...

The problem there would be an illusion or belief in control of one's mental content that doesn't really pan out that well. There would be no way to sh...

With dreams, it doesn't make any sense for us to talk about them but to say that they're not conscious. By definition, we'd have no awareness of them,...

Can I ask first why you'd start with there (and with those particular assumptions)?

I don't believe that morality works via transmission, though I think you can influence others' moral views in some ways (not necessarily the way you'd...

Just to clarify, the dispute isn't over whether the brain is involved in some way. It obviously is. The dispute is over whether there are mental pheno...

Right. So that's a claim. What's the support of the claim? (And I'm trying to avoid that you're phrasing that as if the mind is something different th...

I find it easiest to just start with a statement that is quite right. :razz:

The sort of teleological nonsense up with which I will not put.

I don't agree that the ontological argument is sound. It's not even valid. The argument doesn't seem to understand the distinction between a conceptio...

The question there is whether there's any evidence of mental content that we're not aware of (and how there could be (any evidence of mental content t...

I would say that's your consciousness doing that, hks. Otherwise you wouldn't be aware of it.

Okay, and that matter of fact hinges on?

I wasn't focusing on "legitimate* because one could have any arbitrary thing in mind for that term. "Legitimate power" isn't conventionally well-defin...

That part would make sense, but the part about a democracy is completely irrelevant to it. You might as well say, "You cannot have an underwear factor...

No. I'm not saying anything even remotely like that. Fukuyama said: If not-P, then not-Q. P was "a national identity" (of a nation state). Q was "legi...

But you just said that neither ball is more objectively well-suited to rolling. So if the principles are the same . . . ? The goal here isn't to score...

In your hammer and fish example, is one thing objectively more well-suited to hammering nails? If so, what definition of "hammering" does that depend ...

You seem to think that I'm asking questions about identity. I'm not. I'm challenging a purported logical implication.

Re "citizenship," conventional dictionary definitions work well enough. Citizens in the relevant sense, quoting Merriam-Webster, are members of a stat...

Sure, so in the scenario I presented, neither option is objectively better suited for rolling in your opinion?

This is the only part that addresses the question I'm asking. No one is positing people not relating to the state in any way. Unless you think that th...

Come on, now. You said you'd answer if I gave a definition of "rolling." I did that. The definition of "rolling" doesn't actually matter for the quest...

Sure, but don't you? You can't share anything that's already published/not just private communication?

I don't vote sometimes. In my case it has nothing to do with anarchy. At any rate, so we don't know of any public examples re people making the commen...

The standard dictionary definition will do: "moving by turning over and over on an axis." So what's the answer to the question I asked you?

I certainly didn't write anything like "I haven't read them" in anything you quoted. You're bizarrely interpreting that into what I wrote, indicating ...

First off, what are those quotes supposed to be supporting?

I don't agree with the notions of progress that you seem to be assuming by the way. In general, if I don't agree with what someone is saying, and espe...

Yeah, that's basically what I'm asking for. I was curious to look at some examples of people saying that.

Hence me asking why is rolling via less force, further, with less friction, more distance etc. "more well-suited to rolling" versus rolling via more f...

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, and I have read them to some extent--I was required to--but if you could quote where I said that, maybe I'm just no...

Could you give some examples of this?

Okay, so the next question is, why is rolling via less force, further, with less friction, more distance etc. "more well-suited to rolling"? You're cl...

First, I didn't say anything in the vein of "I haven't even looked at it." Aside from that, in my view it's a matter of "the emperor's new clothes" ba...

Yeah, that's not something I at all agree with. (Which probably should be obvious given what I was asking for.)

It just seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. Imagine we have a nation state, and for whatever reason, there's some conceptual block where the cit...

Sure. That much is obvious. What's not obvious is the notion that you cannot have legimitate power and a democracy in a nation state without a nationa...

Exactly--otherwise it's not an adequate definition. Hence why my definition of rationality would be synonymous --and circular --with rationality.

So starting with that example, "baldness" and "lacking hairs on one's head" are not synonyms in your view?

Say that you have two ball-like objects. One is so round, so smooth, with so little friction, that we can just tap it lightly and it will roll for a m...

How about "short, clear,to the point, that I'd agree with/that I'd think is not constructed in a way that suggests beliefs that are misconceived if no...

Rick Wakeman (primarily of Yes fame)

Yes re the hammer. A ball isn't objectively "good" at rolling. It has certain objective properties when it's rolling, and certain objective properties...

Even assuming that would be the case, and not exploring what's going on further, that would simply tell us that moral preferences are changeable, but ...

Let me just clarify, first, what an example would be in your view of resolving a moral dispute? I can propose examples, but I want to make sure that w...

Right. For one, because morality is judgments about interpersonal behavior, and that's not interpersonal behavior. That's not an exhaustive definition...

I don't either. Rather it's the complete lack of evidence of any other relevant phenomena that means that the preferences are all that's going on.

Right. There are objectively different states that it's in,. Counting state A rather than different state B as "malfunctioning" hinges on how I think ...