Terrapin Station

??? I don't think you're using causal connection I the sense that I'm using it. I'm talking about causality in what we could call a (direct) "physics ...

First, you need to make sure that you're not conflating "personal identity" with the more general, logical notion of identity. I'm not sure that you'r...

You don't need the brain state part. Just simply, any x at T1 isn't identical to "x" at T2. That's what it means to not buy identity through time. Tha...

Yes, since that's the standard definition of identity, and I said a number of times that I'm not using that word unusually.

You brought up the "law of identity." I wrote, "And yes, identity as it's used in the 'law of identity' is the same sense." Why doesn't that count as ...

Right. I don't buy identity through time.

Would you be up for an empirical research project on this? We need to set out just how we're going to define what counts or not, just how we're going ...

Yes, there area bunch of reasons. Let's take turns presenting some. You'll present your reasons for thinking it's nonphysical. My first reason is that...

Of course. It's countless, really, since it's always changing and since any way of counting it is going to be essentially arbitrary.

Hence why there's no conceivable reason that you'd need to ask me to explain identity to you. For a couple reasons. In my experience online, any "chum...

Since its dynamic, and since time is identical to change/motion anyway, brain states, just like states of anything else, are always changing. Re abstr...

csalisbury, Since everyone is pouncing on me, but people are ignoring a bunch of stuff I'm typing, I'm doing one point at a time mode: All states are ...

Identity in mind/brain identity theory isn't some special or unusual sense of identity. When you ask what identity refers to, I take you to be saying ...

For some of those, I don't see how you're figuring that they have anything in particular to do with quantification. But the point I made earlier is th...

The work that "dynamic" is doing is emphasizing that I don't believe that anything is really static.

Do Oh, you mean like just mentioning the PLA as if that's sufficient?

I'm not referring to anything unusual by identity. We can simply talk about objective definitions and usage. Definitions are different than meanings.

First, in philosophy of perception debates, do you understand that no one is saying that we don't perceive things, or that perception isn't involved?

You asked what a brain state even refers to.

By noting that, like usual, Wittgenstein is wrong.

No. I mean the general concept of identity period.

That in no way indicates that you understand nominalism. As if I'm talking about justifying anything. You don't seem to understand the stance.

It's not that I'm unfamiliar with nonphysical existent talk. It's that I think the talk is incoherent. Wayfarer is asking what identity refers to as i...

Is it that you don't understand nominalism, or that you're just kind of stubbornly insisting on a non-nominalist interpretation? I'm a nominalist. I d...

Hmm, I can't really ignore what I was ignoring in my earlier response here. I don't actually agree that multiple instances of sentences, say in differ...

Let's clarify first what we're literally talking about. When we create a quantitative model, what is the object that we produce?

Yeah, definitely, but what other option do I have if I can't begin to make the slightest sense out of what a nonphysical existent is supposed to be?

The first problem there is that I think "able to be modeled in terms of quantity" is problematic. Maybe we could make that not problematic somehow, bu...

(Ignoring some other problems I think this has) Why wouldn't they just be different kinds of physical things? The problem I have with it is making any...

What happened to saying that anything is contradictory? Or are you using words so loosely that "contradictory" is the same as "meaningless" to you?

What I'd be interested in for someone who thinks the idea of nonphysical existents is coherent to attempt to explain it to me so that I could make som...

<sigh> there's nothing contradictory about that. To even think that there's something contradictory about that suggests that you're way off base re ha...

Do I think that all experiences would have to be downloaded for what? None of them would be identical to the experiences that are being "downloaded," ...

There's a problem already there. I'm a nominalist. Two people can't literally share the same experience. Two people can have similar experiences, we c...

I'd agree that there's a limit to science, but I don't agree with either of the statements from you that I quoted. Its limitations are rather things l...

Well, I'm not going to mean that it's incoherent to the people who feel that it's coherent, haha. So yeah, it's incoherent to me (and to the other peo...

Don't you have any idea whatsoever what perception even is/how it works? Lightwaves stimulate your eyes, which send signals along your optic nerves to...

Which is the same physical world. You're just saying that you're limiting it to the world that you personally experience, and not, say, China (outside...

"Equal to" is "identical to," which implies that that's all that exists (on that view). But again, that you know about the world via your consciousnes...

Your comments are written as if you believe that the U.S. is a unified, thinking entity somehow.

Non sequitur. That you know about things via your conscious experience doesn't imply that only your conscious experience exists. And re the way you're...

The problem is that what you're describing is literally impossible, and we can stick to one simple reason that it's literally impossible: nominalism i...

It's important to note that we use "I" or "self" in a couple different senses, one where we tend to only be referring to our conscious experience, our...

The new Doctor Strange film, for example: US box office so far: $85 million Worldwide, non-U.S. box office so far: $240 million It would be better to ...

I'd say the mere fact that there is a PC (and SJW) culture means that it's out of control. Wanting people to exhibit better manners and even complaini...

Well, the first part of it is that the very idea of nonphysical existents is completely incoherent.

Nothing at all unusual, just the normal sense of "state:" the particular (dynamic) conditions, that is, the particular set of materials and their (dyn...

Well, as if it matters that some people do not believe it or feel that it's "established." No matter what we're talking about, some people do not beli...

Plenty of people do not believe it. Those folks have mistaken beliefs.

You can add me to that list, because that simply isn't true. It doesn't follow that if consciousness is simply a brain state, then everything is a bra...