You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Terrapin Station

Comments

As a form of mental representation, no. But I certainly accept qualia as a mental phenomenon.
July 11, 2017 at 21:50
lol -- classic
July 11, 2017 at 19:47
You really should consider fleshing out your replies a bit more.
July 11, 2017 at 19:28
Is it a coincidence? No. Here's why a penny is considered one cent: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cent
July 11, 2017 at 17:25
I think maybe you're using the term "logic" in a fairly non-philosophical way. In philosophy, logic has to do with the formal relationship of statemen...
July 11, 2017 at 17:22
Not all the time, in all respects if we're talking about persons. It's viable some of the time in all respects, and all of the time in some respects.
July 11, 2017 at 17:15
I think that perception is non-conceptual at times, or rather, all the time to some extent (but not all the time in every aspect). It's simply a matte...
July 11, 2017 at 15:22
In: Fate  — view comment
That would only follow if (a) determinists necessarily believe that there was a starting point of the universe, and (b) determinists necessarily belie...
July 11, 2017 at 14:21
It would help if you'd explain what you're talking about here.
July 11, 2017 at 10:50
That would be every example of causality per most interpretations of conditionals.
July 11, 2017 at 10:48
In: Fate  — view comment
That supposed distinction doesn't make any more sense in my view--what's the difference between "open to the possibility" and "could have been." I can...
July 11, 2017 at 10:45
You're claiming that every woman you have a relationship with says this?
July 11, 2017 at 10:41
In: Fate  — view comment
That was already explained to you by others earlier in the thread.
July 11, 2017 at 10:40
Not true. That's just an excuse. If you're having problems getting a relationship started, you need to keep working on yourself, keep trying different...
July 10, 2017 at 21:11
In: Fate  — view comment
And what I'm asking is how there could have been a different past or different laws under determinism? What is the answer to that? Simply claiming tha...
July 10, 2017 at 21:08
In: Fate  — view comment
"Fate" has connotations aside from "not having complete control of one's existence"
July 10, 2017 at 21:04
You're not "in a body" you are a body.
July 10, 2017 at 17:39
Your reply seemed to completely blow by what I was interested in. You're considering lack of consent, pain and opinions to be very different things ap...
July 10, 2017 at 17:39
No one said that no one has those views. What I and others have pointed out is that not everyone has those views, not everyone values things the same ...
July 10, 2017 at 12:56
I wouldn't phrase it that way, at least. I'm not denying value or saying that it's arbitrary. I'm just denying the category error of seeing value as s...
July 10, 2017 at 12:53
That would be a waste of money, in my opinion, because value is subjective.
July 09, 2017 at 23:36
Here's the problem I have with your argument: in my view there is no intrinsic value. There is no real, objective value. Value is subjective. It's sim...
July 09, 2017 at 21:33
In: Fate  — view comment
Saying that the distinction is that fatalism doesn't involve causality, and that under it, everything is simply set in stone as a brute, more or less ...
July 09, 2017 at 21:28
In: Fate  — view comment
No I don't buy fate.
July 09, 2017 at 21:22
In: Fate  — view comment
But how, exactly, could the causes have been different? Didn't they have causes that determined them?
July 09, 2017 at 21:21
You had said: "A can be true even if B is false (Caesar could've died without being murdered)" That's correct. That's a possibility. "therefore it can...
July 09, 2017 at 18:19
Wait--aside from switching "event" out for "entity," you're arguing that that it can't be the case that x just in case it was possible that not-x.
July 08, 2017 at 22:34
Do many people have a life full of pain and suffering? Even if someone has a physical condition that would normally cause pain, doesn't the human brai...
July 08, 2017 at 21:05
Pleasure, I suppose.
July 08, 2017 at 21:02
It should be obvious that atheists see religious folks as believing myths, superstitions, etc.; believing things that atheists take to be clearly fals...
July 08, 2017 at 21:01
We really have no idea if things like constants could even be other than they are, we really have no idea if the world would or wouldn't work anything...
July 08, 2017 at 14:29
Morality doesn't have to be focused on harm, suffering, etc. Those need not be hinges or criteria for any moral stances. Many people <waves hand> find...
July 08, 2017 at 12:17
This doesn't make any sense to me. It seems like either you'd consider lack of consent, pain, AND opinions real things, or you'd not consider any of t...
July 08, 2017 at 12:11
The expression rather makes me think that he's saying something like, "Damn--now how am I going to get both a G# and a C natural on top of this F# cho...
July 07, 2017 at 17:48
Not surprised that you can't answer.
July 07, 2017 at 16:14
Right. We know that. How about we analyze what it would amount to for it to make sense to you? Or is that a problem because you haven't read anything ...
July 07, 2017 at 15:47
So how about actually answering the question re what making sense amounts to for you in a case like this?
July 07, 2017 at 15:17
What does making sense of it amount to for you in a case like this? Surely not having the same opinon, right? How would any arbitrary opinion about ei...
July 07, 2017 at 15:04
We can also have an option that's realist but that admits ignorance: Namely, particles are something real, but we don't really know their nature very ...
July 07, 2017 at 13:29
Yeah, I agree with that. It's not obvious that buying both (a) and (b) would be a problem, and the paradox, especially in light of buying (a) and (b) ...
July 07, 2017 at 12:40
You wrote: " so it follows that the conjunction of a. and b. cannot obtain." That's false. The conjunction of a and b can obtain. The conjunction of K...
July 07, 2017 at 12:25
I'm skeptical of the last two, at least as something that would necessarily be the case. The first two are probably sufficient. It seems unclear in ma...
July 07, 2017 at 12:19
What you need help understanding is that there are no facts re whether something is a (strict) liability or not.
July 07, 2017 at 12:09
Re this: "you cannot know that P and also know that nobody knows that P (since you do know it), so it follows that the conjunction of a. and b. cannot...
July 07, 2017 at 12:07
The problem with that approach is that it seems to completely ignore the ontological issues re causality (in the physics sense).
July 07, 2017 at 11:59
My user name is a Grateful Dead tune. My avatar is artwork from the box set version of the Dead's Europe 72: The Complete Recordings.
July 07, 2017 at 11:49
Re option 2, I don't see your cons as cons. We simply have to have theories of communication, understanding, etc. that reflect what's really going on ...
July 06, 2017 at 20:53
You don't seem to be getting, or you don't agree with yet you're not presenting any arguments about it, that there are no facts re whether something i...
July 06, 2017 at 19:58
Yes. It's my body, after all. it's not someone else's.
July 06, 2017 at 19:40
Again, I didn't say anything like that, and I'm clarifying that I'm not saying that there's anything special about sneezing versus other involuntary b...
July 06, 2017 at 19:24