So is absolutely any source whatsoever according to your current usage of 'potentially', which seems to include anything anyone reckons. Why? And the ...
OK, so talk me through the process. The people writing the dictionary access this non-physical universal concept-spelling. a) why do they have access ...
Are you suggesting that dictionaries are non-physical? They seem pretty physical to me. In fact they seem like they might contain exactly one of the r...
I didn't enumerate the other attempts needed. If my fellow student back at college told me the 'correct' spelling was 'polysacarides', how would I eve...
I do apologise. What disgraceful Anglocentrism on my part. Were we not only recently in this thread talking about how mental models filter what we see...
Oliver is currently 'talking about' the ideal 'A', so we clearly need a bit more than merely talking about X as if it existed for us to conclude that ...
Yeah. Also context matters. What we're prepared to treat as an A depends on the context it's placed in. Take NASA's logo, for example. The 'A's are ju...
The contents of the set {all the As} are actual 'A's. The content of the set {the concept of the singular letter A} is itself a concept. One is a conc...
How on earth do you square "the set of all 'A's" meaning the same thing as "the concept of the singular letter A"? For a start one is a set of existen...
Right. Which, as I've just explained, does not require an ideal mental construct. It's just a façon de parler for "is this sufficiently like all the o...
I've never heard anyone in day-to-day language talk about the ideal mental concept of the letter 'A'. Give me an example of the sort of conversation y...
Bullshit (in the technical sense). What possible evidence could you bring to bear that everybody uses the concept of an ideal 'A' even if they claim t...
But you've yet to demonstrate this. That you think it's possible without any expertise in the matter at all, is utterly irrelevant to the question of ...
Well no, the thread is about dualism. It's literally about their existence. If all you're saying is that it's useful to imagine a single ideal 'A' the...
I was talking about subconscious processing, so we're not talking about the ego, but rather about how to deal with aberrant data. Your sensations are ...
You given nothing to indicate the underlined. Everything you say might be nonsense for all we know because you refuse to cite anything. What makes you...
Subjective. Absolute nonsense. Your approach creates an entirely unnecessary category of existence and then populates it with entities we can neither ...
"Your 'A' is not similar enough to the ideal mental form for 'A', try again." "Your 'A' is not similar enough to all the other 'As', try again." What'...
Well good, but the rest of us aren't going to just take it on faith are we. Let's have links to the research which says that sufficient clean energy c...
The degree to which one entity shares properties with another. Yes. W is not similar enough to M. Depends on the circumstances. Here it might be somet...
You've not answered the challenge that similitude gives sufficient clarity to be understood. So? Nothing in there mentions anything about reifying ide...
Nothing in that demonstrates a 'common sense' notion of reifying ideal mental forms, so I'm baffled as to why you went to the trouble. As if anything ...
Why? Why? We don't have to define the boundaries of similitude to understand "stand roughly here", nor do we doubt that high stakes poker is excluded ...
I've already given my account. We commonly say that 'New York' has one name, but it is a façon de parler, what we really have is multidudinous instanc...
That's what a binomial is. I labelled it as such a few posts ago. It's irrelevant to the issue. Had you chosen Boston, we could have simply used 'word...
Asserting it doesn't constitute an argument. You agreed that the word (binomial) 'New York' is a name. There are seven such words on that page so it f...
Yes, but the fear being expressed here (it's John Ioannidis's calculation, not mine) is not that the chemical gets randomly tested in vitro, it's that...
Well then present what they say. It was rhetorical. The point is that, as far as publicly debatable issues are concerned, unless we're going to have g...
What you or I believe is possible is of no relevance or consequence. Geothermal energy is an existent facet of energy science and engineering. There a...
Interesting point. Indeed. Though what I actually meant by the term was simply that the OP presumes drug companies are making drugs which are sufficie...
Sums up your position pretty well. No empirical support whatsoever but repeating the same messianic sermon at every opportunity with a faux shock that...
Why would anyone give a fuck what your feelings say? This is a discussion forum. If you've got nothing more to bring to the table than that your feeli...
That's just restating your position, not addressing the argument. The issue in question is whether it can be demonstrated that feelings are not matter...
Seems a bit contrarian to posit an industry whose R&D departments are so noble that they do nothing but tirelessly produce medicines of the greatest b...
To think there's not a difference between my coffee table and your coffee table is also nonsense. thankfully, no one is making such a claim so we need...
Yes. 'The same' as in similar enough for our purposes. There's not a unity there requiring a separate ontological existence. The names are clearly dis...
In what way is that a reply to the argument raised? I still see 7 names similar enough for me to pronounce them the same and bring the same city to mi...
Comments