Terrapin Station

Honesty versus dishonesty (lying) depends on what the person in question believes. You're honest if you report what you believe. You're dishonest if y...

The letters, including the Greek letter, are variables. The capital letters are variables for types of things, which I did explain in parentheses. The...

You don't believe that there are other views, or wrong views?

Your argument is that if there's some F (some type of thing) with property ?, then all G, H, I etc.(all types of things) must have property ??

I don't use the qualifiers as an endorsement. The idea is simply that since there are different views, it's a courtesy to give some indication of whic...

Since you're in that mode of wanting to argue about every little thing, I'm just going to address one thing at a time. I'm not going to perpetually ar...

Sure, so assuming something other than preferences or conscious states in general as the reason then?

The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical ...

What if you choose daily and it works out to about 50-50 with no discernible pattern?

If we want to just discuss "the problem of many" that might be good to start a thread on . . . although like the sorites "paradox," I personally don't...

That you feel that way is probably why you're arguing with me despite not really understanding or caring about what I'm saying. Good basis for a conve...

Good that you're trying to argue with me when you're not even understanding and don't particularly care about what I'm saying, haha.

I asked you "So you're claiming that this, for example, reflects the misunderstanding of thinking that scientists are saying that chairs don't really ...

Do you also not want to sidetrack to whether any beliefs can turn out to be wrong, now? (Re the Hebrew cosmology tangent)

So you just want to drop anything but what you initially wanted to talk about now. Forget trying to support the claim that philosophers are perpetuati...

Are we changing the subtopic from whether it's philosophers who are misunderstanding what science is doing?

So you're claiming that this, for example, reflects the misunderstanding of thinking that scientists are saying that chairs don't really exist because...

lol - in other words, you stated it as if there's some implicational relationship, but there isn't.

I don't think it's mostly philosophers with this misunderstanding, by the way. I've mostly seen it from people online, usually people with kinda tech-...

Huh? What do the two have to do with each other?

What I said was that anyone who thinks this is a problem doesn't understand what science is doing.

Scientists aren't saying that there are no chairs, that chairs aren't solid, etc. They're saying that chairs, from one perspective, and solidity from ...

It's not a problem. As I said, "The only thing I can think of is that the concept of a particular 'ordinary object' might not include what's really go...

That would be a misunderstanding of what science is doing/saying. There's no conflict.

Ordinary object concepts aren't about molecules, are they?

Science isn't saying anything at all like "chairs aren't real" lol

You'd have to give an example. The only thing I can think of is that the concept of a particular "ordinary object" might not include what's really goi...

The "scientific versions" aren't different than the "ordinary versions." They're other ways of looking at the ordinary versions, they're the ordinary ...

Are philosophical problems language on holiday? I don't think that all of them are, unless I really don't understand what many folks are saying (and v...

The (ontological) probabilities of determinism are 0 and 1.

And what would that have to do with the fact that there is something that is moving or changing?

You're not understanding me. What I was objecting to was something stated as a logical principle. I'm avoiding a discussion of whether we experience c...

As I said, as a logical principle, it can't be supported by empirical data. In the proof, we're not saying, "We never observe phenomena with no cause,...

The "illusion" of movement contains movement in the illusion, doesn't it? In other words, phenomenally, something like a fly, say, moves across my fie...

But the standard view in the sciences hasn't been determinism for about 140 years or so.

Not really. I think all of that is just as problematic.

If there's a point "moving through spacetime" (I'm putting that in quotation marks because the "time" part is identical to moving; spacetime isn't som...

So first, I have no idea what Wittgenstein would be thinking when he says, "Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out...

Yes, but what I experience, my nows, are dynamic, they're not static. Again, maybe this is just me, but it's me nevertheless.

My phenomenal experience is not at all static. So that would be a problem with that theory. ;-) Maybe your phenomenal experience is static. I don't kn...

Anyway, re the philosophical point, sure, people expect different sorts of words to be used in different ways relative to how other people use those w...

Nothing to do with the philosophical point there, but "disguising" is bound to throw some folks off as they read the above.

Any particular reason you suggest that?

Okay, but that doesn't get rid of a flow of time, because the "cursor of time has moved"

But something is changing from some perspective, otherwise there's not a next moment with a different view.

Okay, but then the view is changing, and the view is part of reality, isn't it?

As something empirical, it's not provable either way. Empirical matters have to be decided on factors other than proof.

Are you positing us as something separate from reality?

Change can't be an illusion, because the "illusion(s)" change. In other words, say that someone wants to say that my typing this sentence, phenomenall...

Again, change is time, so we'd have time in that scenario. It wouldn't be timeless. The only way to get around that is to pretend that time isn't simp...