Terrapin Station

And that I'd do, but a requirement, as a student, is that you do the assignments. Otherwise you get an F.

That's wrong, though. Even when we're talking about necessity in the context of Spinoza, say.

What would be excluded as potentially being necessary in that case? (So that you'd point out that "Obviously no physical being could be a necessary be...

Because (a) I have necessarily have to take the initial post in the thread to only be asking under the rubric of someone else's thought, (b) I have to...

The point is that you wrote "Obviously no physical being could be a necessary being," so if Jesus was a physical being (not merely physical of course,...

So then why bring up whether Jesus is merely physical. Physical things are not merely physical in this context--that would be understood without needi...

Glad it helped even if Janus is arguing that it has nothing to do with what you were asking.

Okay, so you meant, "Obviously no physical being that's only a physical being could be a necessary being"?

You wrote this: "To say that a physicalist account of logic and semantics is possible then, would be to say that a comprehensive and intelligible expl...

It's patronizing to assume that someone isn't familiar with something. I've mentioned my background here many times. But okay. Re why I'm referencing ...

Wait--you'd say that you're more certain that the experiences stem from a world that doesn't exist aside from our minds?

This is the way I'm answering it. Either you play along or I don't participate. First, if what you gave me is "the most accurate answer you can think ...

So we can argue whether the arguments are really that? I have zero interest in that. The bottom line is that if you want to have a discussion that's g...

Two things here. One, re the general discussion, I'm not going to have it with you if you don't systemically go through the deal with the taking etc. ...

Wait, is that telling me why you'd pick one option over other options? Or are you ignoring that question and asking me other questions instead?

I wasn't saying anything about "arguments generally." I'm referring to arguments that basically go, "There is no explanation for x, therefore . . . " ...

You said that the way you take a cookie is by taking it. You take it by taking it. Isn't that what you just said above? Is that "informative in exactl...

And the reason that you'd pick that option is?

I've denied that certain things are objective. I've not denied objectivity wholesale. Not at all. If that's what you were thinking, you're grossly mis...

That's fine. Just change it to: "The way that you see a tree, despite seeing being a function of your mind, is to see it. You see it by seeing it." Is...

You do realize that this puts you in the camp of people who can't read, right?

If you think that's acceptable, then you'd have no ground for saying that this isn't acceptable: "The way that you perceive a tree, despite perception...

From where are you getting the notion of someone positing "passive observers of a world that doesn't (in any way) depend on us"? I just want to check ...

I write what I "mean" without beating around the bush, so when I say, "I'd be happy to continue the phil of perception discussion, but only if you ans...

I explained that your answer needs to be in this form: ""The way that you can take a cookie, despite taking being a function of your arm/hand is _____...

Why are you avoiding answering the question I asked in the other thread? (And apparently why are you avoiding answering why you're avoiding answering ...

Because we're no longer infants. Our brains have developed past a stage where we believe that we're the entirety of the world, so that if we cover our...

So would you say it's not possible in this case? I was just wondering whether you thought it was possible.

Is it possible to not be long-winded, though?

Well, since I think that idealism is pretty stupid--I'm not joking when I say that I think it amounts to adults being stuck in a preoperational (a la ...

How about making it explicit instead? Because it's a ridiculous thing to assume.

What I was hoping to accomplish was you offering why we'd think that the existence of anything hinges on us. (And that should have been pretty obvious...

And I'm asking why we'd think the existence of anything would hinge on human cognition (which is something we'd need to grant for your question to not...

As I've explained many times, I use "truth" in the traditional analytic philosophy sense of it being a property of propositions. Propositions are (non...

Sometimes it seems like almost everyone here is stuck in an infantile/juvenile preoperational stage of development. Why would the existence of somethi...

You make your own purposes or points. You can change your life if you're dissatisfied.

If no people exist afterwards, there are no categories, there's no one to identify anything, etc.

That my brain is DMT deficient.

Some people would say that, yes. Do you think there's any merit in saying that?

Yeah, and there are people who think they're Napoleon, too. :razz: I wouldn't say that I'm positing something different than "Objectivists' objective ...

Do you buy that there are different sorts of necessity, such as metaphysical necessity? This is a Kit Fine paper I've linked to before: https://as.nyu...

Haha--aka "the bias for 'total unbias.'"

"That rock that seems external to me is really just mental content I have" is anything but certain. Likewise with the notion that the rock is or must ...

In other words, you'd avoid people biased in particular ways, while going with people biased in other ways.

First re "If no one can access it, it's an idea." Say that there's a particular rock on a planet a million light years away. It turns out that we're t...

So would you say that the "necessary connection" component of Hume's analysis of causal relations doesn't make much sense?

Yes. I'm not anti explanations. I'm anti "there's no explanation for x, therefore . . ." arguments sans criteria for explanations. I go into detail ab...

Sure some do. For example, there are phil of mind arguments predicated on whether there's a physicalist explanation for mind. The answer for those who...

Yes. I think that was the point.

Hint: what I'm asking you should seem pretty stupid.