khaled

I really dislike these kinds of arguments. Where people externalize parts of themselves to depress themselves for no reason. “I want to live” becomes ...

That is an argument with the conclusion that “It is reasonable to suppose we are morally responsible”. Obviously everyone here agrees with this. Becau...

False. You are assuming that we ARE morally responsible, not just appear to be. As you wrote yourself. If you change premise 1 to “We appear to be mor...

If your rebuttal to an argument is assuming the opposite of its conclusion in the first premise then I don't know if there is really much that needs t...

I think the belief that we are morally responsible comes precisely from the intuitions that are NOT deliverances of reason. “I am morally responsible”...

Isn’t one of the biggest problems of neurology right now precisely the non existence of these brain cells? There is no specific spot in the brain that...

Do you mean "our intuition"? And I could argue that in order to arrive at the conclusion that we are morally responsible for our decisions you have to...

What makes "We are morally responsible" a rational intuition while "We are not prime movers" mere convention?

Those two seem contradictory. In one you’re saying that means matter. In the other you’re saying that as long as everyone’s need is met, that’s all th...

:rofl: Yikes. Well you can see that I have many unanswered comments and I don’t mind if you go into my comment history. I don’t go around trying to so...

I’m talking pragmatically not analytically. Not maximize? So there are times when you would purposely choose to stray away from the ideal of all appet...

This is a public forum every post is everyone’s business. If you want to talk to one person in particular DM them, there is that feature. The fact tha...

Well you don't know that. What you said does not prove that there will never be a case where there is only one way. But regardless, it was a hypotheti...

I thought it was a lot more recent than it was. Didn’t realize I was commenting on something from weeks ago. How so? Here is what happened: In the OP ...

shit stirrer? I don’t mean to be. From my view you were being a prick and so I treated you in turn so maybe you would learn to stop being a prick. As ...

Oh, an APOLOGY is what that was huh. Good to know...

Sure you were :rofl: Saying “I’m sorry” then proceeding to be a prick is not very effective.

Yes. And who also knows that others suffering fulfills this appetite. But what if that is the only way? Here, compromise would involve harming others ...

I think Alan Watts would be best. He’s not really an philosopher he’s a zen guy. But he goes over this topic a lot. A popular quote in zen is: “In Zen...

Which is precisely what gives them too much leeway. If someone has a dying thirst for others’ suffering, then by your system we should take that into ...

If by this you mean "universal inter-subjective agreement is possible" sure, I don't think anyone is debating that. What is the system you advocate th...

What makes you think you'll find ONE meta-meta theory instead of a bunch of conflicting ones again? Or that you'll find one meta-meta-meta theory even...

I don't think it's so much puzzling as interesting. Our minds are embodied. It would not be so surprising to posit that thinking causes movements outs...

I thought it would be clear that I use “objective” and “subjective” in the second, less useful sense. So to reject transcendentalism is to adopt relat...

Also the more common use. I also agree that it's a useless term because it never comes into play. What is "transcendentally true" doesn't matter, only...

That would just be an inter-subjective morality. IE one that tries to make it so that as many people as possible get their "moral appetites" filled. I...

Because maybe not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron or biased. Maybe there is no such thing as an unbiased view and all you did was find a vi...

I don’t know what 1 means really. 2- Truth is relative but some truths get closer to “inter subjective” (a number of people believe the same thing) th...

I wouldn’t call “there is nothing to stop it” “necessary”. I’d just say “there is nothing to stop it”. “Necessary” usually means that there is a reaso...

oh

unrelated to the thread but wait, you agree that the harm problem exists but have a problem with Qualia?

I can’t. But in the case of mind I find people try to (with varying success) analyze their own minds. That’s what psychology is about for one. And any...

You just used the mind that makes judgements as an object of analysis to conclude that it cannot be an object of analysis. I don’t get it. I thought w...

Sure. Agreed. But that is different from the OP’s question. OP is asking when the “starting point of time” is. He is not asking whether or not we can ...

How do you know it’s necessary? Also I like your name.

How do you know this? What about all the other animals that have memories and can communicate? Heck, how do you know I’m conscious? I’m not sure if it...

Not right. We humans determine things all the time and are wrong to not stick to the agreed upon definition. Apples did not need to be called “apple” ...

You assume there is a set of imperatives called “the imperatives of reason” that has been issued to us by some mind or other (again, I don’t have any ...

Can’t each imperative have been issued by a different mind (not necessarily a 1 to 1 ratio)? And couldn’t those minds have been people's minds? What’s...

I have a while ago. I don’t see how it relates.

I think I’d remember if God himself taught me math. Far as I can remember, it was my elementary school teacher that told me 2+2=4, not God. How do you...

Because a solipsist thinks it's no more than just a thought and is not actually the case. While a realist thinks it is the case. This is like saying "...

You assume it is impossible to overcome so no wonder you think people trying to overcome it are wasting their time. And you don’t seem to question tha...

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Affirmation of research can become dogmatic at which point it’s no longer scientific. No doubt. Doesn’t m...

We thought Newton's theories could predict outcomes reliably for the longest time. Turns out they couldn’t and we were making a mistake.

Doubt it. Still think you’re just spouting nonsense and calling it expertise. Would welcome being proven wrong though. As I said, I don’t buy that the...

Sounds like a bizarre definition but you do you.

And that point is? I honestly have no clue. This knowledge is not deducible even to a perfect logician, if he is not given premises it can be deduced ...

That’s not the dunning Kruger effect. People can recognize experts just fine. Because most experts can put what they’re saying in sensical terms and d...

Just around the corner is vastly different from omniscience. No amount of infallibility will allow you to deduce the current population of earth for e...