Terrapin Station

The mind IS identical to a subset of brain functions, yes.

Justification has nothing to do with whether there are real options. Justification has to do with why S picked one rather than the other.

You're using "know" in the sense of certainty. It's a mistake to use it that way. Aside from that, so in addition to needing to show the causal chain,...

If they're not equal to the bearer, then it would be inexplicable why you'd not be able to understand why the justification for the choice made ruled ...

You'd be claiming that mind isn't involved in other words? That seems like a dumb question. They get wrong what the world is like.

First, this isn't the case you were presenting. But if you had equal justification for two options, you'd have to choose epistemically randomly. Most ...

Impossible in the case of hate speech, because not only is free will the case, but as folks keep telling us in other threads, apparently we can't "exp...

By the person not thinking it. Justifications exist only insofar as someone consciously has them in mind.

Show the work. Specify the causal chain. If there is one they're not wrong. But we have to be able to show the causal chain.

Probably, but that justification doesn't exist when you didn't pick that option, which is the scenario you're presenting.

I don't like arguing. You want to argue. You're not interested enough in understanding other views to bother reading them, thinking about them, etc. I...

We're past that already. What justification would you be referring to re the option not chosen?

You can't possibly not be able to understand pronoun usage to that extent.

What? What justification, coming from where?

We know that it causes them to die when it does, because the causal chain is easily peggable. We've been through this already, by the way. So I'm not ...

I'd have a category of criminal threatening, but it would have pretty specific criteria: Threatening anyone should only be a crime when it's an immedi...

I didn't even read that. I was responding to this: "But the decision to bias or not to bias is itself completely random. I never implied there is only...

I don't want to address a bunch of different stuff, because there are different issues to get into with all of it, and I hate trying to talk about an ...

? Why?

The word is there because some choices seem random. Some do not. That doesn't mean that the choices that do not seem random are determined. They also ...

If we're specifying the cause if x, we need to list everything that deterministically produced x. For one, in saying that speech is causal to some act...

If it's causal, then no matter who is hearing it, they need to react in the relevant way. Otherwise we need to account for the difference.

Metaphysics: Traditionally, it's: (1) "Universal 'science'," "first philosophy" or "first principles,"--all common names for more or less core logical...

That's a good question that would be interesting to research historically--the roots of the belief that speech can be to blame in situations like that...

So philosophy can't make claims about (objective) facts in your view?

First, how are you getting "Corretness is subjective" from my comment?

Independent of persons, where would we find a metric of benefit/harm? Where would we even find anything counting as benefit or harm?

Because it's correct. Morality doesn't occur independent of persons. It's a way that people think about interpersonal behavior.

There are a lot of people who have graduate degrees and/or practical expertise in more than one field. I'm someone with graduate degrees in two very d...

If this is a roundabout way to argue that it's a dilemma, it's only a dilemma if you think about it in those terms. If you don't consciously think tha...

"have tos" or needs always hinge on wants. I want to do it.

You'd have to ask them. Usually I do because I ate something on it.

That seems like you're taking a brain/computer analogy too literally. Who has a problem with "memory space" that's taken up by vocabulary?

This is stuff that's interpretational--whether something is a dilemma, whether it's negative, etc. It depends on how an individual looks at it.

What happened to me explaining biasing a couple times? There's something other than 50/50 random and determined.

This is where the "socialist" part of my libertarian socialism comes into play. I think it's ridiculous that health/medicine/etc. costs anything. I wo...

Haha--yeah, I realized after I typed the first example that "S" might be read as referring to you rather than being a variable.

Nothing negative though.

It can be, sure. There are a lot of ways to look at it, including the zen "wash the dishes to wash the dishes."

Well, or I'm asking if you'd do that and why. S using a word unusually and saying something to U, who is using the word conventionally, where S doesn'...

Are they dilemmas if people don't think of them as dilemmas?

C'mon. Everyone loves me. :joke:

Okay, so the next point: this sounds like "overthinking" a bit. I don't think that most situations are dilemmas in the way that you're describing it. ...

Say what?

Yeah, we agree with that. In my opinion, if we're doing philosophy we should not do so by throwing in colloquialisms that don't amount to much in term...

Just tackling things I disagree with in the argument, in the order that they occur. If it wasn't important in your argument, you should have edited it...

This is the first thing I disagree with here. In order for you to be "thrown into the world," there has to be a you that we can do something to (namel...

Aside from choices with reasons for a moment, as I noted, I sometimes intentionally make choices that are epistemically random. There's no reason for ...

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. I said, "If S is not trying to match the convention, then telling S that they're not matching the conven...

? First off, this is prescriptivist. Secondly, how does not regarding linguistic conventions make them "blind to reality"? Re the brain/mind question,...