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

Terrapin Station

Comments

Time does not equal our counting. I never said anything suggesting that. Time is real. It's the real changes or motions of matter and structures of ma...
January 09, 2017 at 20:48
Oaky, so a few examples: The property of being ionized obtains via an atom or molecule gaining a positive or negative charge via gaining or losing an ...
January 09, 2017 at 20:38
Come on, now. Did you not see where I explained what properties were above? Sure. Another is that it's a fact that there are no objective aesthetic ev...
January 09, 2017 at 20:03
Yes, those are phenomenal experiences. I didn't say the idea was useful for anything. It's simply the way in which we can be not be mistaken about our...
January 09, 2017 at 19:51
They form a time unit for x, for one. Is discrete time temporally contiguous, with no "gap" in between? It has nothing to do with whether reality cons...
January 09, 2017 at 19:45
But what I'm referring to with "phenomenal experiences" is exactly what, and only what, you're aware of. So whatever you have "access to" as you'd put...
January 09, 2017 at 19:28
You can say whatever you like, of course. What I'd say if you were to say that is that it misunderstands my view. Particularity isn't instantiated at ...
January 09, 2017 at 19:23
I wouldn't say that it's unconnected though, and as I mentioned awhile ago re the issue of discreteness in general, I'm agnostic on it, and I don't th...
January 09, 2017 at 18:53
If that's what you call "discrete," then sure, it's aletheist-discrete. I'll take it that you're not literally asking what we can say about x with res...
January 09, 2017 at 18:33
You've been resorting to vulgarity for quite a few posts now, with the extremely rude, arrogant way you interact.
January 09, 2017 at 18:25
How about not being an asshole and answering the question I asked you instead?
January 09, 2017 at 18:21
You'd only have x for a time measurement. It would depend on how many changes you want to count as your time unit. You could say that a million units ...
January 09, 2017 at 18:20
I'm just asking you a question. I'm simply trying to clarify that you wouldn't say that changes that are occurring are literally in the past. And if y...
January 09, 2017 at 18:12
What I was curious about was this: Okay, but the changes that are occurring aren't in the past, are they? If you're not interested in answering that, ...
January 09, 2017 at 18:05
There is only time, including the present, when the change from F to not-F happens. A past would only make sense in the context of further changes.
January 09, 2017 at 18:05
Okay, but the changes that are occurring aren't in the past, are they? You know that in English, when we speak of the past, we say changes that occurr...
January 09, 2017 at 17:54
So you'd say that there are no changes that are occurring?
January 09, 2017 at 17:49
That was YOUR view that you were asking for agreement on. I wrote this (although I added it as an edit so maybe you didn't see it) in my second to las...
January 09, 2017 at 17:41
What view, specifically, are you referring to? (I'm asking because I'm not confident that you could answer this, because what you say after this isn't...
January 09, 2017 at 17:25
If the present IS the changes that are occurring, where is the above claim coming from? And actually, this discussion has been helpful re clarifying o...
January 09, 2017 at 17:05
It's not a property because of what properties are. Properties are characteristics or qualities of matter/structure/process relations, what matter/str...
January 09, 2017 at 17:04
Yeah, no problem.
January 09, 2017 at 16:52
I'm the one who'd be teaching you what philosophy is about.
January 09, 2017 at 16:47
Look, I'm just repeating myself, because it's like you're not paying attention to or not understanding (and not caring that you're not understanding) ...
January 09, 2017 at 16:45
It's the "it doesn't make the present the same as the past and/or future" that doesn't sink the ship. You need to read the entire sentence.
January 09, 2017 at 16:42
Said as if you didn't even read this sentence: "That doesn't imply that there's no relative fuzziness there, either, but it doesn't make the present t...
January 09, 2017 at 16:35
Maybe you could be more patronizing. Why are you assuming that I haven't thought this through far more than you have? It's not a want. It's what the w...
January 09, 2017 at 16:26
What it has to do with it is that the only way that something can not be a particular, then, is by there being something that's identically instantiat...
January 09, 2017 at 16:24
Again, "particular" is the opposite of there being something that's identically instantiated in numerically distinct entities. Are we clear on that? A...
January 09, 2017 at 15:48
Okay, but time is (identical to) change or motion, so there is no "particular time" without change or motion. There are no real points, period. It's j...
January 09, 2017 at 15:47
It's not that that they're mistaken. Rather, their feelings can change. You can be wrong with a prediction. That's not the same thing as being wrong a...
January 09, 2017 at 15:41
It's not that the present is something at which changes are occurring. The present is the changes that are occurring. It's like you guys can't help bu...
January 09, 2017 at 15:27
Represents? Anyway, I wouldn't say that's it's not a state or that it's not the present. States are dynamic. I also would say that it's a "reimagining...
January 09, 2017 at 15:23
Why would you be trying to peg an "instantaneous non-motion" though? Again, the present is the changes that are occurring from a particular reference ...
January 09, 2017 at 14:31
The problem with this is that all there is to anything being better or worse than anything else is how an individual feels about it. It's not somethin...
January 09, 2017 at 14:02
Well, what sort of suffering is it if you're not aware of it? If there are no negative emotions involved, it seems to miss something important re the ...
January 08, 2017 at 22:47
But the only differences available in this scenario are minor differences.
January 08, 2017 at 22:45
Okay but you're keeping in mind that they have some overlap of friends, they mostly see the same films, etc. right? So you'd be arguing that minor dif...
January 08, 2017 at 20:49
I was referring to some other boards I post on, and especially a film board I post on. I've basically given up on the Philosophy Now board. Its too di...
January 08, 2017 at 20:41
You said this before, and so I asked you to give some specific examples of what you think would be different in their histories that would be behind t...
January 08, 2017 at 20:34
That question suggests that despite being an apparently competent speaker of English, you have no conception of what preferences are. I have preferenc...
January 08, 2017 at 20:32
I explained this earlier. The might makes right thing is descriptive. Actual moral judgments we make are not descriptive.
January 08, 2017 at 20:28
Yes. I've never said anything like that, and in fact I've explicitly said a number of times that this describes no relativist/subjectivist in my view....
January 08, 2017 at 20:26
Sure. For example, "Murder is wrong." "Rape is wrong." "Murderers and rapists need to be separated from the general population."
January 08, 2017 at 20:21
Subjectivists do not say that one can be mistaken about morality or that one can be objectively wrong, of course, but why would that amount to not hav...
January 08, 2017 at 20:14
What I'm looking for is an explanation, under the umbrella of your view, and re specifics, how the siblings would wind up having such different stance...
January 08, 2017 at 20:07
. . . then "fundamental physics" has a serious flaw.
January 08, 2017 at 20:03
Yeah, I've not seen it here. it happens on some other boards I post on, though. In those cases it's trolls who are trying to disrupt the boards.
January 08, 2017 at 19:16
Starting a shitload of more or less substance-free threads, one right after another, or to a lesser extent, posting a shitload of more or less substan...
January 08, 2017 at 18:49
This wasn't a rhetorical question:
January 08, 2017 at 18:42