No, they are not sufficient causes, they are necessary causes. Another necessary cause is a human tea-maker, or a machine. It doesn't make them not ca...
Alright then. Without the 'jargon'. In order to make tea I must boil the kettle, add the tea leaves and add the milk. Each of those things cause tea t...
That's what those slew of reasons are there to do. Help you work that out. It's not a flat refusal, but we have to set the parameters first. If you as...
This is a repeated tactic in your thinking and I've not understood it from the outset. Simply saying that X is like Y does not make X like Y, yet this...
So? What has what you think is a matter of principle got to do with the laws of the democracy in which you happen to live? I agree, yet every time I m...
The argument against the sort of language that is being opposed it that it creates an environment in which the subjects of that language are less free...
I don't know where you'd get that from, it's literally in the quote "You'll believe what you want to believe for a whole slew of incredibly complex bi...
You're arguing that that there are two apples in one bag and two in another, therefore four apples altogether, and when I challenge that claim you dir...
I agree. I used to take a behaviourist approach way back at the beginning of my academic career (methodological, not Skinner), and over the course of ...
If I give you the wrong directions to the pub, and you go that way, my words have caused you to do so. It's not that hard. It wasn't ridicule, it was ...
You said it was a balance of harms. How do you propose to establish harms if not empirically? Guesswork? Shall we do an augury? I'll get the sheep's e...
I don't have any trouble with the notion that words have effects, so it's not a difficulty for me. I'm not arguing that words are the sole cause of an...
...is what I was disputing. We can't, as my example shows. Same will be true of parsimony, elegance, explanatory power, or any other such system you c...
Right, but this is what you denied earlier, which is why I'm getting confused about your argument. You specifically said that moral language was not j...
I didn't say it was unreasonable of you to ask, I said I had no interest in answering. Which depends on the extent to which it restricts liberty...whi...
We've already been through this. Literally any theory at all can be made to match everyone's observations by the addition of another 'coupling' theory...
I'm not actually commenting with the intention of discussing the matter with you, you've shown yourself to be completely uninterested in any empirical...
Well then he ought rationally deliberate the opposite, it would be far less problematic. Unless, of course he couldn't, in which case the words would ...
So why the song and dance about free speech? The issue clearly has nothing to do with that. You think the speech in question does not cause sufficient...
That's fair enough, if those are the arguments you're making (It didn't seem to me that this is what you were arguing - your style is somewhat opaque ...
Why would they have any fear? The new rules have only so far been communicated with speech and apparently speech has no effect whatsoever on other peo...
That's then not speech act theory or meaning as use. It's claiming that the meaning of a word is the psychological state it somehow embodies. Just bec...
No. The act of definition would only be possible by inference and so be dependent on the last variable node inside our Markov blanket. This doesn't pr...
Opinions don't have meanings, their just not the sort of thing it would make any sense to ascribe a meaning to. Words have meanings. Art has meanings,...
Then it is not an external source of surprise. Variables outside the Markov blanket are defined by that property. Anything which is not independent of...
Right. But I didn't ask that. This and the following long-winded explanation of it have nothing whatsoever to do with my question, so either your read...
Absolutely. Well that's the matter in question. I'm not overly wedded to one position or the other on this, but from the WHO briefings alone, this is ...
Yes. In fact I'd add 'the self' itself. As in 'true to yourself, 'not being yourself'... As if there were some sacred fixed point from which certain f...
OK, so what do you think trust is, psychologically? We have this input (the words "Do X") and an output (an intent to do X). How does trust get us fro...
I'd probably have to agree with ...as the biggest. So the second biggest That the things people say actually reflect in one-to-one correspondence some...
How? That's the question I don't seem to be able to get a clear answer to. What is the neurological ( or psychological if you prefer) mechanism by whi...
I didn't claim there was no difference, only that the difference was not categorical, but one of degree, or of conveying additional information (such ...
Yes, I get that. My point was unless you're just making stuff u[ out of thin air you wouldn't be able to say that such speech acts exists without sayi...
Broadly, yes. I'm sure there are nuances of difference, bur Clarke references Barrett's work favourably, so I expect they're roughly in agreement. I'm...
Ah, I see. Everyone should stop using it because you personally don't happen to agree with one of its possible uses. Sounds about par for one of your ...
What could possibly be meant by 'justified' here. Justification is a human activity embedded in our relationship with our desires. Absent of that it s...
Then how would you ever know if someone were following a rule? Any observation that they appeared to be might at any future time be undermined by an o...
Yes, but have you tried the i-torch 8, with new splinter-free wood and lavender-scented oily rags (all emblazoned with your favourite Disney character...
Seems in contradiction to Claiming that there is a certain speech act is the same thing as making a claim about the meaning of a word. Speech acts are...
Comments