Terrapin Station

An analogy that's entirely different than what we're analogizing?

Ah, okay, so in a possible world sans the blue mug, is there a spatial location of your computer, for example? So that you'd be saying that spatial lo...

Logically, yes. Traditionally, in logic, any argument with contradictory premises is valid. That's because the logical definition of validity is that ...

Right, your self is not identical through time--nothing is.

I have no idea what that's supposed to have to do with our last two posts.

Right, and that's my view, too. It was refreshing to see it just assumed on a show like that, because it gets so much opposition here.

Yeah, your self is dynamic, too.

I see everything as equivalent to the Herclitian river, really. ;-)

"Just" = "only" = "it's not something else than" In other words, it's not really the same thing. That's only an abstraction. It's a way we think about...

It starts with trying to make sense of the notion of any nonmaterial existent. No one who posits nonmaterial existents will even posit any positive pr...

Sure. But that's just an example of abstraction.

I'm not just assuming for no reason that possible worlds can't exist nonmaterially. It's via reasoning that we justify that they can't exist nonmateri...

I thought it was interesting that on the new William Shatner-hosted "Unxplained" show, the episode on unusual manifestations of consciousness--it cove...

Not that I'd say it has much to do with telling us what possibilities are--those are arguments about whether possibilities are material or nonmaterial...

1.There are possibilities 2. They can’t be grounded nonmaterially in the nonphysical world 3. So they must be an upshot of material facts 4. If they’r...

People will reason from stances that they take to be foundational in a given instance (what people treat that way can change on different occasions). ...

You've made claims to that effect, sure. I've made claims you don't agree with, too.

What is wrong with you? It's the exact same thing you're doing. Are you trolling?

Wait, I could just state mine as: 1. There are possibilities 2. They can't be grounded in the nonmaterial world Then And do the exact same thing

??? It's circular because your support for 2 is just a restatement of 2. Circularity has nothing to do with other people disproving anything, etc.

I don't even think that your view is coherent.

It's neither correct nor incorrect to allow or disallow hate speech. Correct/incorrect is a category error here.

You're not equivocating moral right/wrong and right/wrong in the sense or correct/incorrect or accurate/in error here, are you? When I say that this i...

Your 2 is that one can't describe the way that possibilities are grounded in the physical world, so if that's your justification for 2, that's circula...

Wait, we're not really getting to why you're thinking that physicalists would be determinists, though. Are you thinking of physicalism as being or hav...

I don't know why you'd be thinking that physicalists have to be determinists. Could you give some info on how you arrived at that conclusion?

If they can be any stance imaginable, how do we get to any being right or wrong via reason?

?? If I don't think that this is something that it's possible to be right/wrong about, then obviously I don't think that I'm right.

Obviously I don't agree that I'm wrong and others are right. I don't believe this is something that it's even possible to be right or wrong about.

Sure, it's the concrete fact--a specific, material fact about a specific event, that it isn't causally deterministic.

Can't moral emotions be any stance imaginable?

I don't think you really believe that ethical stances are simply ways that individuals feel about interpersonal behavior. You seem to think that there...

Hmm, so if I were to think that my explanation is a logical necessity, then it wouldn't be circular. Of course, then we're just disagreeing on whether...

And of course I'm not someone who thinks that different is a bad thing.

Why in the world do you think I would defer to others' opinions rather than stating my own?

Okay . . . but it's a mystery why you'd think that. You'd need to explain why that would make something noncircular versus alternatives.

What I'd think is, "Okay, those are your criteria." I wouldn't argue that your criteria are something you didn't state.

When changes occur, the stuff that changed isn't the same after the change as it was before the change, sure. That's the whole idea of change. If it w...

Aren't you aware that different people think different things are "perfect sense"? I'm not saying that's not a threat. It's not what I'd consider a cr...

You're saying that on your view your explanation isn't circular. Is that only because you're positing abstract objects as something "within the divine...

I don't think it's coherent to say that someone can be in a state of confusion without knowing that they are.

That's not what I was saying, but as I asked, what would you give as an example of a law that limits speech where speech isn't even necessary for it?

I can't even make sense out of it, really. If abstract objects exist aside from "the divine intellect," and that's what we're talking about re possibi...

Well, and under what I'd have as "criminal threatening," speech isn't even necessarily part of it.

There's a difference between the phenomenon of confusion--of someone saying, "I'm confused," and saying that someone else is confused. The latter does...

It might also not be clear (although it seems to me like it should be), that the context of "I'd consider certain things 'criminal threatening'--here'...

You wouldn't think that an explanation has to conclude that something can't depend on the present world, would you? If the explanation concludes "bein...

It seems like you're not understanding me at all. I'm not saying anything about existent laws and "what they're actually about." I'm saying that if so...

Not if someone is defining "criminal insult" so that it has nothing to do with speech.

Maybe this would be easier: what would you say is an example of a law prohibiting any speech where it's not necessary to utter (or write, etc.) any sp...