Terrapin Station

List the threads here that are not.

lol re not taking responsibility for posting vacuous responses in a thread like this.

Is there some reason we're so tight on space that we can't leave however many kilobytes of text intact? You'd need to delete the vast majority of thre...

Maybe have jamalrob speak for himself if he's doing the deleting? At least that way one can get a more substantial answer.

Your expectations can have an impact on what you see, where you might even misidentify what you see (which we can only know if we can rather identify ...

We'd need to go over the Davidsonian account of knowledge and interpretation for that. It seems ridiculous to me to say that "no such distinction can ...

Particulars are real. Properties are particulars. So there are real things, and they necessarily have real properties. It's just that those real thing...

I'm just stressing that the categorization for something like this would ultimately be arbitrary. Particulars aren't just ideas, but types/classes are...

So you could just make the top-level class "stuff" and leave it at that. Or in other words, classes/kinds/types are simply a matter of how we want to ...

Well, to start with, there's the tile in the southwest corner of my bathroom, and then the tile just to the east of that, and then the tile just to th...

"We may now seem to have a formula for generating distinct conceptual schemes. We get a new out of an old scheme when the speakers of a language come ...

Reading through this more slowly now. One big problem with it is that Davidson seems to be just assuming an objectivist, and specifically what amounts...

So something couldn't be populism if it didn't introduce half-truths and lies?

One definition of populism is this: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by est...

They'd probably need to be more or less indistinguishable from reality for that. But we have a long way to go to get to that point.

I don't know. That doesn't really seem like an interpretation of Genesis to me. Especially since you didn't even mention Phil Collins.

Re the Davidson paper, I'll have to read it more carefully later, but for one, I didn't notice anywhere that he actually argued for this: On the face ...

I don't know it this was sparked by my comments and the responses to it, but I wasn't saying something about conceptual relativism in my comments. I w...

I don't really understand this comment.

So first, what I was talking about was spatiotemporal situatedness. And if some spatiotemporal situatedness is excluded, we wouldn't be dealing with "...

How would "being embedded in language" aid us in having a view from the spatiotemporal location of, say a particular quark near a particular star in t...

That would just be a view from a lot of different places (and only if we assume that somehow the language has the views packaged into it and it's not ...

It is? Usually no one quite understands what I'm saying. I don't know if you're saying that "? sees @ from perspective y (and it's like ?) and ? sees ...

The perimeter is always from some (set of) spatiotemporal location(s), per some concept of what it is to "measure the perimeter" (since especially for...

I definitely have preferences about what people should or shouldn't do. So in that sense, my ethics is partially prescriptive. Aside from the fact tha...

You know this already. These things are about one's preferences, one's dispositions, and that's all they can be about. So what makes happiness an auto...

Regardless, you're ALWAYS talking about models that you have, and not observations of the way the world really is, because you do not think you can ac...

First, there's no Friston or amoeba in the real world in your view, is there?

I have no idea what you even think you are, exactly. Presumably your model there isn't anything like the standard account of evolution. Unless you thi...

Wrong and wrong. Your model is wrong.

Sure, they can, but those facts won't be the same at the same spatiotemporal location, and their agreement is still something nonidentical, at differe...

Well, direct realism isn't saying that you directly access "the complete set of details" of anything (as if "the complete set of details" isn't a ridi...

I'm saying the exact opposite of that. I don't know why it's so difficult to communicate that.

Direct realism does not at all posit that we're infallible. Re fallibility, it posits that we can know that we're fallible when we get things wrong. W...

There's no us in the analogy.

As opposed to (as I've just explained a couple times) presenting images that are of/generated by the camera itself, where we have no idea how it conne...

The camera is coloring it, sure. The issue then is whether we can know this or not. Direct realists say we can. Representationalists say we can't know...

Why would you think of homunculi with cameras? You think there are little people inside of cameras or something? There's not a little person in the ca...

It's important to understand that direct realists are not saying that we're not dealing with perception. Direct realism is a stance in philosophy of p...

I'm not a realist on physical laws, but aside from that, the fact that the laws of physics would be the same for all observers is different than the p...

As a direct realist, maybe you can explain what the problem is supposed to be, because it's not clear to me what Wallows was thinking.

I'm not convinced that anyone isn't convinced of that. I just refers to properties as such. I don't think it's conceivable to think of anything sans p...

I think it's worth critically examining just how we supposedly know this, too. For one, the idea of light moving at straight, clean angles and interse...

That's what I'd like to see. And it's why I prefer chat. (Actually I'd prefer conversations in person, and then via a telephone or video conferencing ...

How is it epistemic if you're an indirect realist? The issue is whether there's something inherently private and not directly shareable (in the show a...

Are you making any attempt to simplify things in these situations? Stick with short sentences. Don't type or say more than a handful of sentences at a...

I don't know how you'd see the "beetle in the box" part as an epistemic issue. It has epistemic upshots, but it's an ontological issue. Re this questi...

Just to figure out why you're thinking they'd be incompatible, you're not thinking that direct realism amounts to eliminative materialism, are you? (I...

You wrote: "One thing, that doesn't make sense is to say that people are direct realists, yet have beetles in boxes, what do you think @Terrapin Stati...

It would be difficult to tell whether I agree from me asking you a question, wouldn't it? How about just addressing the question? I asked this: "The f...