Terrapin Station

I don't see how we could possibly know this.

In my view, it's not possible to adopt someone else's moral view, willy-nilly, on authority, where it counts as a moral view that you're espousing. To...

It means that you can't just do an inventory of the "things"/objects in the world and have a complete picture of it. For example, you can't just list ...

Not that I'm a Randian, but because A=A. In other words, per logical identity/the identity of indiscernibles and the non-identity of discernibles, thi...

Okay, but as I said, good/evil for the individual is simply: Good = the (inter)personal behavior you approve of, the (inter)personal behavior you feel...

If you're trying to define x, you can't include x in the definition. At any rate, society itself doesn't think. What's "good for society" is something...

Hopefully none. Can't we talk about a more interesting topic?

Good = the (inter)personal behavior you approve of, the (inter)personal behavior you feel is recommendable, etc. Evil = the (inter)personal behavior y...

Why would we think of either relata or relations as temporally preceding the other? It seems obvious to me that they'd have to obtain in conjunction w...

Scientists and philosophers study any and everything that there's any good reason to believe exists. That would include nonphyhsical existents if ther...

Sure that makes sense, but how would you even begin doing the epistemic work necessary? Where would you start for discovering what would get you into ...

The problem is that if there is a Heaven and/or Hell, and one could spend an eternity in either, we have no idea just what would lead to spending an e...

I think to an extent that depends on a false view of time that sees it as some sort of real abstract that's infinitesimally divisible. Given that time...

The problem with this analogy, in my opinion, is that one can't be an expert on whether God exists in the same way that one can be an expert in physic...

We're talking about the same doorway and what, if anything, is there in the one case.

Maybe it could be, but maybe it couldn't be, too. How would we know? And why are we accepting "quantum potential fields" as real things?

You should think about trying to edit a journal, given the reading comprehension you're displaying. Good thing we're not attempting anything more comp...

"Phenomenon" - simply an occurrence, something that obtains. "Phenomena" is the plural.

Well, you know what we're referring to by the term "will" right? It's kind of hard to talk about free will if we don't know what "will" is.

Does that involve will phenomena?

So the support is a question-begging stipulation. Nice.

Free will is ontological freedom in conjunction with will phenomena. So no, your supposed support is question-begging.

As I pointed out above, and as would be clear to you if you had any experience with real people in the real world (which obviously you must have), peo...

Well, it's sort of a thoroughgoing nihilism, but "nihilism" is not necessarily a good word to use because it has so many different conventional connot...

Lol at the idea of that possibly being objective. Anyway, the explanation is that we don't have one hive mind. There are lots of different views about...

"Insanity"? Well, or "Being a high school student," maybe.

. . . As you then proceed to not discuss this at all.

Support?

Wait. Now you're deciding which empirical option is the case by definition??

This is ridiculously poor reasoning. You're concluding that the default epistemic stance for any claim is that it is false based on a supposed behavio...

No. What I agree with is this: "thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do...

I agree--and so should you if you were able to get through elementary school.

? He's agreeing with me, moron.

I want you to have a conversation where you don't have to pretend to not understand the idea of the five senses as you were taught that in elementary ...

Q: How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb? A: They'd never be able to change it, no matter how many you have, because they'd pretend...

Arguing that the distinctions should be other than they are is different than pretending that you can't even comprehend the standard view as such. So ...

Again, hopefully you're playing and it's not just that you're stupid.

Could you stop playing stupid so that we could have a conversation?

The answer certainly isn't that your tactile sense is identical to your nervous system. C'mon man. This is boring, because you're just playing stupid....

You must have really been confused in school.

Sure--the more of us the better. ;-)

You don't think that you touch, taste, smell, hear or see a stomach ache, do you? You become aware of it via your nervous system.

Correct. No. That's just nonsensical and would show zero understanding of our senses and how they work. That would suggest zero understanding of mater...

I can't make any sense out of "thought is external" though.

The definition of perception has absolutely nothing to do with any ontological stance. It's about word usage only. I simply wouldn't use that word in ...

"Perceptions" aren't the same as various senses either.

It's a toddler mistake to conflate perceptions and what's perceived.

Well, we could simply say something like "Both thoughts and perceptions are mental phenomena"

Why does it matter to you if I use the word "perceive" in a particular way versus a different way that I'm specifying?

"and why isn't your minds capacity to perceive thoughts another sense"