Terrapin Station

Similarity of structure and behavior. Your antinatalism sure wouldn't make sense if you don't believe that others are conscious, by the way. It seems ...

It's particles in dynamic relations (as are qualia and everything else). Oy vey.

Only individuals have goals. If a goal can be stopped, then it's in the nature of whatever is stopping it to be able to stop it.

Okay, but the nature of anything is always any and everything it can do. So if teleology is the same thing (any and everything something can do, which...

The action is free, but it wouldn't have anything to do with will unless we have some reason to believe that the robot is conscious and has the mental...

So we have (1) "self-consciousness, which manifests the will, is contrary to the natural law" and (2) "Hegels idea of self-consciousness for these mat...

"Free" in this case means "not causally determined." If you can choose between two options you have a free--that is, not a causally determined--choice...

First, speech can not literally cause the violent reaction. If that were the case, then people would not be able to hear the speech without having a v...

So then how can anyone do anything contrary to natural law, which is what I asked you at the start?

If that's not what you're saying, you could just say "No," and then you could clarify.

Teleology is mistaken, though. There's nothing that eyes can do that's not part of their nature. Same for hearts, etc.

X is wrong if and only if "x is wrong" is a true statement. That's what you're saying here, right? Is that because you're reading "x is wrong" as nece...

Would you say they could proceed from (or not include) premises that are not moral stances?

Just curious who you are addressing.

It's my point that if we're talking about natural law, we can't have phenomena that operate in any way contrary to it. I don't buy teleology at all. R...

You'd probably have to write me a book to explain what "as it relates to Being" adds to the question. :-)

It seems like you keep telling me info that's not what it is for "murder is wrong" to be reason-able then. I'm wanting you to describe how it can be r...

:up:

It's not much of a natural law if you can do something other than it.

Per his comments above, he doesn't believe that it's possible to control one's response, at least in some situations.

You're conflating speech and things like rape and bombings. For some odd reason you can't see the distinction between speech and other actions.

Haven't you and I discussed this many times? Mind is identical to a subset of brain functions. So the "particles of mind" are the same as the particle...

First, remember that I don't think that the idea of nonphysical things is coherent. Saying that everything is physical is saying that everything has p...

So any phenomena in that part of the brain, and/or any phenomena focused on interpersonal relations is reason-able? (I don't know if it's also reasona...

What's to stop anyone from parsing any arbitrary speech that way?--as something that "no reasonable person should be expected to tolerate"? There's no...

Maybe you could try to understand points of view that you're not familiar with?

Sure, people can do that. But there's nothing wrong with hate speech, or any speech. It doesn't CAUSE violence. People choose to be violent, just like...

They're divided by the word "or." "I'm going to buy a house in Wyoming or Utah"--that's not saying that I'm confusing Wyoming with Utah is it?

Free speech doesn't amount to much if it doesn't include people being able to say things that you'd really rather they didn't say, things that make yo...

So something like a resemblance nominalism sense then. Okay so we're back to this, then: If "Murder is wrong" isn't "reason-able" as you put it becaus...

Free will. Because of the choice part.

The use of it is just if we want to know what consciousness "really is" ontologically, and also as a guard against wonky stuff people say when they su...

Definitely, hence "I've never been able to make much sense out of what it's supposed to be positing, exactly." Re the stuff you're quoting, I'm fine w...

Did you read any of the Stanford article yet?

First, there's a sense of "opinion" that refers to one's view on a factual matter. This is the sense in which you receive opinions--including second o...

Correct. Again, the comment wasn't about natalism/antinatalism.

Personally I've never been able to make much sense out of what it's supposed to be positing, exactly. It's always rather struck me as one not wanting ...

Check out the Stanford Encyclopedia article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/

That certainly seems like you being here to learn.

I don't agree with that as an empirical matter (that most moral utterances are only going to amount to the conditions necessary for some goal--my side...

I don't say that you can't reason once you've stated your preferences. I say that (effectively) foundational moral stances can't be reasoned (and ough...

So "Privilege exists" say. What are we claiming that we are observing or would observe, exactly?

Although of course I simply think you have a mistaken belief that your moral statements are not expressions of personal dispositions, preferences, etc...

Whose opinion am I supposed to be giving?

Are you trying to learn there? Or is this you wanting to be a teacher and being offended that you're not accepted as such?

Shared in what sense? The show and tell sense? Do you mean literally having the same reason somehow?

You don't seem as if you're trying to learn anything. You seem as if you want to be a teacher and you're basically offended if you're not accepted as ...

So this isn't something we agree on. I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming vio...

Truth is a subjective judgment about the relation of a proposition to something else. So "truth" isn't the right word here certainly. Are you defining...

No, that's not it. What I pointed out is that "if you want Y" does NOT imply that you ought to do Y, or that you ought to do X, which achieves Y. "You...