Terrapin Station

From the Block paper: "T. H. Huxley famously said ‘How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of irrita...

Yeah, I was bummed out hearing that. On the other hand, I hadn't bought Mad regularly for quite some time, so I was part of the problem. Although in m...

Because there was a physical world a billion years ago. You're not a young Earth creationist or something, are you?

Maybe if you folks stopped treating Kant like a religious messiah. Kant was wrong. Philosophers, including the most famous philosophers, were just peo...

https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/1030edfe-f5af-4c8a-a080-556111fa7847_1.552274d415da3cdf601bbe9ce9242c00.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF ...

Meaning is something that individual people do. It's an associative way of thinking about things--making associations, thinking in terms of connotatio...

I wish everyone would keep it as short as possible--seriously. So I appreciate that. The sense of "fact" that I use (which isn't a novel sense, but th...

Maybe it's just included as a courtesy to folks who don't think that there are only physical phenomena? Well, and then it just starts to sound normal,...

The idea that properties would be somehow separable from physical things, from substance, is completely incoherent. Properties are simply the characte...

(Of course, if I'm wrong and it is just phenomenalism, then that's fine. But I'm pretty sure that phenomenalists aren't saying just what I'm saying, s...

Well, the point is kind of that I don't think that my view is actually just phenomenalism. It would probably be better to learn more about what my vie...

Properties are unique physical things.

If phenomenalism posits that only unique physical stuff exists, perhaps. That's not how I normally understand stock phenomenalism, but if you want to ...

It's also my brand of (nominalist) physicalism.

On my view truth is a judgment.

We're saying that properties are "the same," yes. I'm not sure what you're pointing out here, because "it's all properties" really. Um . . . :confused...

First, I don't really get what your post has to do with determinism vs. intelligent design.

Huh? :razz:

One thing I brought up in another thread about this is that we could say that two things "match" when they're structurally similar--for example, two s...

I'm basically a constructivist on mathematics and logic, by the way. I'm also a physicalist and what's called a nominalist, where part of my nominalis...

If we had a theory that unified quantum field theory and general relativity, we'd say that we have a "theory of everything." Most people would not the...

The only fact that's in a propositional form is the fact of a proposition being thought. All other facts are not in propositional form. Propositions a...

That's just one view. Another view is that there is no separate "abstract, platonic world," yet we still have logic, here in the real world And re thi...

But then you're supporting that with arguments about infinity in the quantitative sense.

Okay, but again, Dfpolis stresses that he's not talking about finite/infinite in this (quantitative) sense, but in the sense of limited vs unlimited a...

So part of the background assumptions you're working with is that the physical world has different (and unknown) logic? You'd need to support that cla...

In the thread you're linking to you're talking about finite/infinite quantitatively. Dfpolis stresses that he's not talking about finite/infinite in t...

And if the second premise is true, how would you be arriving at the first premise?

I hesitate to ask, but how are we arriving at "everything must also be finite"?

You don't have to buy anything a la platonism to do proofs. That's not necessary in a proof. You can define something any way you like in your proof, ...

But then we need to alternatively explain the major religions, who supposedly had their god(s) speaking to them. Or is this supposed to be a proof for...

There are a bunch of issues with the proof. We should tackle one at a time. First, "not being able to do things that are logically impossible" would b...

Well, but what is acting? Are we talking about shape-shifting, or? If so, then we are talking about an old man in the sky sometimes. It would just be ...

One problem with this is that all of the major religions have a god that not only has the feelings of a person--the god is pleased or displeased, it h...

Not that that would actually be the result of the poll, but what would you surmise is different if it's not the quality/creativity/variety of the sex?

As I said, it's mistaken in the different person's view. If I have the same judgment as one of them, I'm not going to think they're mistaken. I'll thi...

Fair enough. :up:

aka conflating truth with objective facts. Not the same thing.

The correspondence relation is a judgment made on the basis of what you have in mind with the proposition versus the facts from your perspective. The ...

Another question we could ask is "If this is the case, why are we typically having such boring sex with each other?" Maybe we should step up our game.

Yes, I misread that, because you were arguing that the relation can obtain mind-independently.

You performed a mind-independent judgment? :brow:

Cool. I'm going to comment on whatever strikes my fancy. ;-)

I use the "abbreviation," too, but we know that "the cat is on the mat" isn't literally the proposition, right?

Somebody's been reading thephilosophyforum.com

Sure. So why do you think I'd say they're both mistaken?

They're not judging anything about the cup being on the table per the conventional analytic philosophy sense of truth-value that I'm using. They'd be ...

Not that I'm saying I'm their target demographic--I'm older than what they're ideally shooting for, but I do buy shoes like Nike, Reebok, Addidas, etc...

At least you care enough to respond to tell me this.

Your comprehension level is near-retarded. And that's not a joke or an exaggeration or just said to be an insult. It's meant as a serious observation.