Terrapin Station

You could put it this way: "My credo is that if I don't have a point, I should kill myself..................but wait, that's a point, so I guess I can...

Exactly.

Yourself, your own mind. You create your own "point," your own meaning.

I recommend starting with overviews written from a contemporary perspective. Something like Donald Palmer's books, which are both very informative and...

We could easily accommodate far more people. What needs to change is how we engineer living spaces, food production and distribution, transportation, ...

Yes. Which to me suggests that maybe we need to trash the way we've been doing things and try something else instead.

For some of us who hate him, it's because he's an arrogant moron with a lot of views we strongly disagree with, where he's trying to bully those views...

What definition of existence do you think things need to meet and why do you think things need to meet the definition in question? Who came up with th...

In my view, your issues are caused by having a false picture of what morality even is. Morality is individual dispositions towards what (interpersonal...

I agree with you. I'm a free speech absolutist and I don't at all agree that free speech is only a legal issue, which is usually the opposing track ta...

Maybe read a philosopher who isnt just a big mishmash of gobbledygook instead. :joke: Staying away from the continentalists is a good idea in general....

It's a relation. Relations exist but don't necessarily weigh anything. It supervenient. Again, it's the extension of matter and the extensional relati...

Say what? Do you mean that you're describing how individuals think about something when forwarding a definition?

There is no "formless" matter. It has mass, but isn't "formless mass," which isn't coherent.

Which is essentially asking whether it's possible to persuade someone of something when the person in question has psychological issues, where either ...

Space is simply the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter. So it definitely exists.

English. How does it work?

That doesn't refute anything. Not that I'm an idealist of course, but that doesn't refute it. Neither idealism nor realism are refutable. It's just a ...

That's actually not at all true. I'm actually skeptical or outright reject a lot of claims that are fairly well-accepted in the sciences. I'm just not...

"Definition" is a linguistic issue. Equivocation is using a word in two different senses as if you're NOT changing senses, and it's particularly a pro...

I'm one of them.

Sign up for an ontology course.

Imagine if you were a musician and you were to go into a recording studio, and anytime you try to talk about or work on anything in that situation, on...

That shouldn't be the case if you imagine the world from the viewpoint of "scientific realism" (what's the difference between "scientific realism" and...

Equivocation is a semantic issue, and a fallacious one when used in an argument. You're saying that God is a semantic issue? (That's just the first pr...

You're making up stuff so that it's not simply something stupid to say. That's overly charitable--to a point where it's rather detrimental. It's bette...

The discussion intent is to get you to stop playing dumb if you are. My suspicion is that you are, because it's difficult to believe that you'd have t...

But that's what the passage says. "This is as true of the earth before there was life."

No more experience period. Your brain function ceases. Your brain decays. That's what experience is. It's a particular subset of brain functions. You ...

No, I'm describing what happens to you. Your consciousness ceases. No more experiences. "No more experiences" certainly isn't what happens to your sur...

Mr. Ossipoff can't read apparently.

That's what I answered. Your consciousness ceases and you have no experience any longer.

"Prior to life, the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding." Is that the case?

That's confusing that boundaries can be drawn in different ways and can change with the idea that there are no real boundaries at all. Boundaries are ...

Then you're equivocating?

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest hard-edged divisions between them, necessarily. The idea is simply to make it more of a meta-theory that fits whatever ...

I do a lot of things simply because I want to do that thing. I do not need a reason other than that.

The guy presented an argument for something that I think is obviously wrong. I pointed out a problem with that argument. He said he could meet that pr...

So it's an illusion that the cliff has a boundary and if he walks past it he'll fall and be injured?

That's fine. You see it necessarily as religious. Dfpolis does not. So when Dfpolis says that in his view there is evidence of teleology, and then I a...

The first thing I find curious is that you're apparently thinking of morality as something that it shouldn't be possible to act against, either litera...

They're all there to prevent suffering, where the stated goal is to prevent suffering in some wholesale way, per what?

Again, Dfpolis said that this isn't necessarily a religious thing in his view.

For example, if someone says "there are no trees" you can point out a tree to them. That thing you're pointing at is the thing that you're calling a t...

Insofar as anything would be based on suffering per se. A lot of it isn't, of course. I have a lot of other problems with the standard approach to cri...

Again, big surprise.

You're all over the map here. FIrst, you say "we all have a common ground," whereupon you (correctly) immediately note that we don't even all have tha...

I don't think that life is ultimately pointless. I just think that under a rock is the wrong place to look for a point. It's like looking for orange j...

Why isn't that obviously stupid? If the whole of the empirical world in space and time is the creation of our understanding, then how can that be "tru...

Solipsism is a subset of idealism.