Terrapin Station

Then it's not just due to a definition. Who is positing something nonspatial? You're saying that materialists are doing this if they posit a first cau...

If that's all we're doing, couldn't we define it another way?

I'm just pointing out that it's not the same for everyone or in each scenario. It's not the case that one thing or the other catalyzes more imaginatio...

Which we'd think because?

Where are you getting this from? Materialism only posits that the world is solely comprised of material (and (dynamic) relations of material). Materia...

In movies, some imagery is given to you. That's not all you can visualize, however. You can--and often are expected to--visualize things that happen o...

So just make up some fantasy that we like the idea of?

So once again, in the spirit of pausing when something questionable is said, what would any support for that statement be?

What would that idea be based on?

One could engage one's imagination much more when watching a film than when reading a book, too. It just depends on the individual and the occasion.

So first, "we shouldn't make this statement as if it's something universally applicable" doesn't imply that it's never applicable. In other words, an ...

Philosophy shouldn't be in the business of "solving ethical problems" anyway, as there are no normative facts about ethical stances. What's "best" for...

Well, what could we possibly be doing when we're discussing that stuff that feminism, or gardening, or wearing bolo ties, etc., would have anything to...

I don't think it makes sense to talk about beliefs and attitudes in a generalized way like that, unless we've done the empirical research--it would ha...

We're not (at least in the U.S.) forcing people to vote. I wouldn't say it's a burden to folks if they're only doing it because they're choosing to do...

This is a possible culprit, or at least one of them. It came out in later 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSrTnWDTdwI

Not sure what it would be, but it's surely correlated to some popular media usage--a song, something some media personality (entertainer, TV presenter...

Sorry, didn't see this question until now. In other words, I don't see "feminist" as having any bearing on doing philosophy, at least if you're doing ...

The way you phrased the comment was "Due to the fact that these terms require definitions, this can not follow logically," as if any terms that would ...

It's going to be difficult to ever say if they're really conscious rather than simply just good emulators from a behavioral perspective, but on the ot...

Aside from the fact that nothing is a necessary truth, the answer is "No." Someone can use "water" to refer to XYZ, too, for example ("XYZ" being the ...

I like to put these things on pause as soon as we say something questionable, and this is definitely questionable. The reason for thinking and acting ...

Your criticism of my comment was based on something not following logically because terms used require a definition. So presumably, according to you, ...

It's not "literally the same" if it's different, is it?

Yes, and I'd have zero interest in it otherwise.

That seems to come out of left field. First off, it assumes that people vote alike due to economic status (otherwise "voting with the rich" could be v...

Okay, but I'm still hoping you can give an example. That's fine. All I'm asking you about is the fact that you agreed that you can sense the tape meas...

Wait, what's an example of something that would follow logically that wouldn't require a definition?

You agreed that you can sense the tape measure, and you agreed that you can sense markings on the tape measure. But you denied that you can sense any ...

Nominalism is saying something about identicality. So if you're not, you're not presenting something contra nominalism. That's why I clarified this a ...

If it changes how is it identical?

Right, so you'd be saying that some pattern A on occasion 1 isn't just similar to pattern B on occasion 2, but it's literally the same pattern, as in ...

At any rate, the gist of nominalism is that there's nothing extramental in all of this that's actually identical with numerically distinct or discerni...

Great reading comprehension.

We could say that one is recognizing something that has a particular set of causal connections to a prior existent.

To "establish identity" is to formulate the abstraction in question. Again, why would you doubt that brains would be able to do this evolutionarily pr...

Why would you doubt that? Why would it only be something that would evolve once we get to human brains and not in brains prior to human brains?

I addressed that already. The latter is simply a mental abstraction that we make.

Re the idealist nonsense, I've no interest at the moment in sidetracking to a big discussion about that, too.

The reason to doubt indentity through time is pretty simple. If there's a change in what we're calling "x," then "x" isn't identical at each of those ...

Oy vey. :brow:

Ah--got it now. Most of Aristotle I see as an example of "mistakes to avoid," so the notion of him being of "absolute value" was pretty far from my mi...

I don't know. What "absolute" thing was on the table?

"Think such about Aristotle"--think something "absolute" about him?

I wouldn't say that we observe things, examine things, etc. without performing both type/universal and genidentity (persistence through time) abstract...

You just like the extra teeth.

Well, they'd be relevant to the way things are/to facts, including relational facts, to people who are interested in facts, etc. We can determine this...

So was that a yes or no?

Would your opinion change if I "prove" mine to you?

"Change is only mental" isn't an empirical claim?