Terrapin Station

Well, it kind of follows from the nonidenticality of discernibles in general. If we can discern two things, they can't be identical.

By virtue of multiple things existing. If we have two existents, they can't be identical.

The thread asks "Where on the evolutionary scale does individuality begin? "

In a nutshell everything is a unique particular--there are no real universals/types (platonic forms, etc.), and there are no real abstracts. ("Real" b...

Probably more like two oranges, although that can be quite different.

"Theoretical"--basically in the sense of reasoning about something, coming up with an account of "what's realy going on" contra the phenomena in quest...

As a nominalist, a relativist, and what I call a "perspectivalist," it's impossible for them to be the same.

Where nominalism begins. Right at the start.

Governmental structure preferences are just that: preferences. If you're arguing that some particular governmental structure is going to solve or invi...

Why would you think that awareness has to be of self/has to include a sense of self?

Sure. So going from that to "this is something I'm perceiving" etc. is theoretical, isn't it? That is, it's literally invoking a theory about what's g...

Faced with the two possibilities of: (1) the human brain (the understanding) spontaneously constructs perceptual objects and (2) the human brain (the ...

If one is positing that one has a body and is perceiving things via one's senses, etc., then one is already assuming realism, by the way. This is one ...

The foundational set you use is the folks doing the observations, experiments, etc.--basically journal articles. Sources secondary to that should be c...

For me, it's not a hierarchy, just a list of quality criteria for it. I'm not sure why it would lead to an infinite regress. Re conspiracy, aside from...

Especially if we're talking about reliable sources corroborating each other, especially under something like peer review, where you have good reason t...

Well, and you were asking me questions and so on. At first, I reported my opinion in response to something you'd said, just in an off-the-cuff way, an...

You're using "experience" in the sense of "I'm a conscious entity, aware of x." The first thing I'd wonder is if that's really the way all phenomena a...

Because you keep responding to me. ;-)

Yes, of course. No ethical stance can be other than that. Ethical stances always come down to ways that people feel, dispositions they have. (So maybe...

Not per a decision. Per contingent statistical norms.

This was already answered long ago. Because it would create an abnormal situation for the child that would create a lot of problems.

Yes, I think it is, but not because we're doing anything to a child. And it's problematic in just the same way that it's problematic for siblings to h...

Okay, but if we're going to be doing philosophy about this and formulating stances based on ontological points about it, we should probably say things...

Is that literally correct, though?

Okay, so when we genetically modify sperm or an egg, are we genetically modifying a child?

It's important that you are able to learn this: If what you're genetically modifying is a sperm or egg cell at time T1, then you're not genetically mo...

??? What in the world would that even mean? How, in your view, does it make sense to say "This is a moral issue but it's morally permissible"? I didn'...

Now you're not very familiar with how English normally works? "I don't have a problem with it"--in other words, a moral problem. That's the topic. I h...

If it's only doing something to sperm and/or eggs that are not fertilized, I don't have a problem with it.

By the way, re his comment that "However, through their decision to conceive and raise me, the very possibility of 'my harm' came into being," I defin...

Here's what you do when someone brings up a point like this: You acknowledge that you misread it and then address it again. See how easy honesty is? S...

Actually, I'd say that insofar as something isn't based on observations, hypotheses, testing hypotheses, etc., it's philosophy at best. Which of cours...

A lack of making observations, formulating and testing hypotheses, and then revising beliefs and hypotheses in response to evidence.

What a mess of not really paying attention to or understanding what I'm saying. There's too much stuff to address there. I'll stick with your "point y...

That makes sense to me. I just don't get what it's supposed to have to do with nihilism. Or "logical reality."

For example, your second paragraph begins with "Such nihilism," but I don't see how anything in the previous paragraph amounted to nihilism.

:chin: :grin:

Are we being invaded by badly-programmed AI?

Huh?

the A and B choices above have nothing to do with causality. They have to do with why one feels that something is ethically wrong.

It's caused by Jill because it's Jill's decision to apply the forces she's applying to Jack. It's only Jack's responsibility if Jack gives his consent...

It has to be something where there are macro-observable effects for at least a few days after the event, and then it's also simply an issue of whether...

Let's put this in Jack and Jill terms for you. Jill kidnaps Jack and tells him: Either Kill yourself by pushing this button or I'm going to torture yo...

By this point, if you were not a moron, you should be able to know what my answer will be: Its wrong if by torture we're referring to doing nonconsens...

That's a big part of the problem, obviously. Either you're incapable of following a conversation very well, or you're simply not making an effort to. ...

"So how is what the kidnapper did wrong" But okay, maybe you had in mind the torture, too. Again, I added that to the post in question awhile ago.

Goddammit you're a moron. You brought this up re the Hitler tangent. (Seriously though, you really are an idiot, or otherwise maybe a bit crazy or you...

You asked me about kidnapping. So that's what I answered. I added that you had also stipulated that they were torturing the person, but you only asked...

It's bizarre just how dense you are with understanding the distinctions here. (It's kind of bizarre just how dense you are period.) A rapist is physic...