Terrapin Station

I'm sorry that it's indecipherable to you, too.

Matias wrote that "Evolution means . . . the absence of morality"

That depends on who you ask. (And for many who answer, they're going to want some details, they might be careful not to conflate various things, etc.)

All we need is a practical difference that a belief one way or the other makes, whatever all the details. ;-)

In other words, he's saying that morality and evolution have nothing to do with each other. I'm disagreeing.

The first problem with your opening post is that morality arose out of evolution.

A simple example where belief in free will makes a difference: Both Betty and Bill are miserable in their current life. They don't like their jobs, th...

Facts are states of affairs. Ways that things are. Remember that the subjective/objective distinction refers to mental phenomena versus non-mental phe...

If they're just possible, that doesn't imply that they're actual. The claim that they exist whether we count them or not is a claim that they're all a...

I'm definitely not a platonist. In fact, I'm a nominalist. I don't buy that any (objective) abstracts exist. As a platonist, how would you demonstrate...

That exist where/how prior to someone (or something, like a computer) creating/assigning them?

"Proper name" aka "proper noun": "A noun that is used to denote a particular person, place, or thing, as Lincoln, Sarah, Pittsburgh, and Carnegie Hall...

"I like x" isn't an objective fact. It's a subjective fact. "It's good" is a subjective judgment that an individual has to make, for whatever reasons ...

Say what? You're defining "objective" as "whatever one is willing to accept"?

Doesn't "sempiternity" refer to persisting infinitely into the future? How would something be after that?

If you're writing run-on sentences that are strings of 14 or 15 prepositional phrases, you should probably revise.

What would be an "objective justification" in general?

That's simply another way of effectively saying, "We're going to consider argumentum ad populums 'objective.'"

Exactly.

And indeed, knowledge in the propositional sense, rather than the "how-to" or "knowledge-by-acquaintance" senses, is belief. It's a particular sort of...

This isn't contra you or what Strawson are saying, but it's difficult to believe that Dennett might actually be saying that people are effectively cla...

"According to this picture, our experience of the world is not immediate, as all sensation requires processing time. It follows that our conscious exp...

But he's doing nothing to show that qualia aren't ineffable, intrinsic, private or directly or immediately apprehensible to consciousness. Rambling th...

He created great art because I love his work.

I don't think it's a monopoly, but I do think it's a mess, and a big problem is that there are only two viable parties for major offices, with candida...

We already went over the free will issue. Re "never seeing things as they are" why would we believe that? Especially when we don't have evidence of ho...

Thanks. I'm not very familiar with blindsight studies, unfortunately (to be able to comment on them).

"Consciously blind" . . . are you referring to people who are blackout drunk or something here? I don't know what "consciously blind" would refer to.

"Epistemically objective" is an oxymoron. Knowledge can't be objective. Knowledge is necessarily mental.

There are? Where? And how do their names exist prior to being named?

And how is it a proper name prior to being used as such?

It's what's at dispute if we're disputing whether value judgments can be objective.

I don't see it as a requirement that you have a particular opinion about how my comments relate to your initial post. I didn't say that. I said that w...

Re this: The thing is that it seems to be sufficient, at least for some organisms--for example, I think it's doubtful that a lot of insects have somet...

That was one of my suggestions earlier in the thread: "another possible charitable interpretation is that he's simply denying a view of what conscious...

Exactly. I have views about that, but I think it's going off topic for this thread (although maybe we'd rather change the topic, since it doesn't seem...

I type my points. The point of every sentence I type is just what that sentence says. I don't see the utility of typing something that's not my point-...

Proper names only occur when someone thinks or says one.

Isn't the probability of you, as the particular individual you are, living now, actually 1? The notion that there's anything random about you, as the ...

The idea isn't at all that people do not judge things to be good or bad, preferable or not, recommendable or not, etc. Obviously we do. Rather, the wo...

I said, "Vitamin A, and other vitamins have an effect on your body." That's a(n objective) fact. What's not a(n objective) fact is whether the effect ...

I looked at a couple, but they didn't seem to be making claims about "negative stereotypes and harmful 'Indian' sports mascots playing a role in exace...

Vitamin A, and other vitamins have an effect on your body. It's up to each individual whether they value that effect or not. There's no objective fact...

See this recent thread for a discussion about this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6039/illusionism-undermines-epistemology

What's an example of some of those studies? Let's look at their methodology.

From a fact to a value statement. "Ought" is a type of value statement. As is "I like grape juice" and "I want grape juice." Saying that something is ...

We know, first off, that brain structure isn't identical from individual to individual, so that could easily lead to different subjective experiences....

No. Merely explaining that it's not possible to "stand back" from your beliefs and perceptions. I don't have a special term for it. The point is simpl...

Hence why I said foundational. "If you want x" would be the foundation. You can't get to that from an is. So it's not even addressing the claim I made...

Huh??? First, what was Adler's supposed resolution? If I read it in the past, I don't recall it.