No disagreement there. That's not what I said, though. Anyway, for an equally stupid (in my opinion) argument, we could simply say: "If we can't conce...
Which it obviously is. But they're not conceivable unless one just ignores details, or changes assumptions, or doesn't understand the details, etc. On...
It's conceptually necessary that it's a physical fact, given physical facts as they are. That's the whole point. You can't have physical facts as they...
Fallacies are only pertinent to logical arguments (whether formal or "informal"). When you give your definition of something, you're not presenting a ...
In my opinion it isn't conceivable though, unless we do the same thing we'd have to do in order to say, "Imagine an acoustic guitar that's exactly the...
"x yet y" --means that something is x, but still it's y too. "x rather than y"-- something is x instead of y. In other words, it's not y at all. It's ...
I don't think it helps to say that, especially in association with conceivability, however. After all, we could thus say that anything is conceivable,...
With respect to (1), you're then saying that Sellars is agreeing with them that it doesn't make sense to speak of unveridical sensations? Also, I'm cu...
What you'd just said is something about hypothesis verification. That's not the same thing as what you're saying here. At any rate, show me an example...
What? "Either or better I declare"? That doesn't make grammatical sense to me. Wait--there are a number of problems with this, but the first one I'm c...
The p-zombie argument rests on the idea that creatures physically identical to humans, but with a difference when it comes to whether they have sentie...
I don't agree with that requirement. If you had some sort of particle isolated in a vacuum, that for some reason couldn't not be in that vacuum, in pr...
We see the brain activity of such things via fMRIs for example. 1 + 1 = 2, for one, hinges on the idea of units--you have two units of something. That...
Okay, but again, he says both (1) "These philosophers believe that it doesn't make sense to speak of unveridical sensations" (paraphrased, according t...
By saying things like, "Is that Stratocaster blue?" and the other person going, "Yeah, that's blue." The fact that both people don't have exactly the ...
You realize that she'd agree that there can be no broken cup without there having been a cup, right? If "created by accident," especially in the conte...
No, I didn't imagine anything causal about it, and it's not about imagining things anyway. It's simply about logical possibility. There's nothing cont...
Say that we have a red ball. Randomly/acausally It disappears and is replaced by a green ball. That's a change, but it's not causal--in fact, we just ...
There can't be anything extant outside of time. And time isn't causality, but change. Change and causality aren't the same thing. And what sort if thi...
X is eternal if x exists for all time, and time doesn't have an end point. We don't know either that (a) time has no end point or that (b) there is an...
What does that have to do with her argument? That would only be relevant if something in her argument hinged on the idea of there being no requirement...
I'd say that I know we're not thinking the same way, because numerically distinct things (such as one, my thinking, and two, your thinking) cannot lit...
Supposing it would be blue if you were to look (it might not be, of course--it could be sunset, it could be a gray, cloudy day, etc.), then it's also ...
Seeing is sensation unless Sellars is using the quirky apparent distinction he tried to make that I detailed above (quite a few posts ago, in comments...
Types are the conceptual abstractions in question. That's all there is to what a "type" is. In other words, types/universals are concrete particulars....
No, of course you can't perceive others' meanings. We can't make mental phenomena third-person observable period. No, you can't perceive any meaning t...
Ah, then he's not saying "Unveridical sensations which strike these philosophers (I took "strikes" rather than "strike" to be a typo/oversight) do not...
But that's what meaning is, how it works. Either someone assigns meaning personally to something or there's no meaning (for them) No, it's YOU putting...
But individuals create meaning, and different individuals can do that in response to different things. So would you only be saying that you're referri...
Well, the first part isn't at all clear to me: --I have no idea why Sellars thinks that that doesn't make sense. Also his "It is the fact" is grammati...
Comments