Isaac

On the contrary, I think it's a very important activity. Holding an activity in high esteem does not require that I treat its practitioners with a rev...

No. I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about.

Are you suggesting that your own availability is out of your control? All reasonable activities (in moderation and depending on what else is happening...

Are we really coming down to nothing more than that the antinatalists want to be able to morally judge others but don't want others morally judging th...

Right. So you are responsible for creating those conditions then, because you are responsible for your availability. What? The four people who are ava...

But we haven't, so the problem doesn't seem to be with the idea. The problem seems to be with whatever is in the way. Again, we haven't. So the idea d...

Right. So both scientists and philosophers actually work under unexamined cultural presuppositions, but the difference is that philosophers claim not ...

Why, is your availability outside of your control? Did someone else force you to become unavailable? That's not the condition I'm referring to. I'm re...

Nope. Merely present. I'm talking about conditions (as you are in procreation - apples with apples). The 'conditions' under which it is not possible t...

I have no idea what a systems theory ontology might be. Systems theory is a modeling tool. It makes useful predictions and sets up the parameters of u...

Are you suggesting that it can be deduced rationally that philosophers succeed at doing what they claim to do? That we can rationally determine that i...

Yes. The entire paper is (as is stated very clearly at the outset) about our meta-model of perception - why we feel we have qualia. Yes. The author (a...

I asked you what one of the terms they used earlier meant and you replied that you didn't know. What do you understand by... in the first quote? To wh...

Yes. It's a paper about cognitive science, you need to understand the terminology and theoretical context to understand it. I would have thought that ...

That would be my preferred definition, but I'd be happy with at least a consistent one. What's frustrating is that causality is treated, by the antina...

... ... You write your own material, it's brilliant.

If what was true? I asked a question. Questions aren't true or false.

You're selecting bits of what they're saying with virtually no knowledge of the field and no understanding of the theoretical context, but instead of ...

What is it you understand by 'generative model posits'? What definition of generative model posit are you using?

That's the point. They seem external. The authors identified the models associated with them seeming external, but they are not actually external. Peo...

The account is not problematic. It merely identifies the subjective certainty about qualia with some meta-theoretical models. Other papers have identi...

The fact that you've had to change the wording of the quote to make it match your conclusion says it all.

So the papers identifying out-of-body experiences with certain activity in the parietal and premotor cortices, is saying that we do actually have out-...

Can you give an example of an outside object (without just being programmed to detect what humans already think of as apples) detect apples. I can't t...

The claim is not that we actually have qualia, it is explaining why we might think we have qualia when thinking about perception.

It's in the first sentence. Is there something you're not understanding about the subject matter of the paper because I keep repeating this and you ke...

How would you know. Do you have privileged and unfettered access to everything that happens in your brain? There are several experiments which show th...

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. The Markov boundary is a statistical feature of a network. It's not an object. It is at the membra...

Thanks. I'll stick it on the reading list. Have you mentioned it to @"Mww"?

You made claims about what philosophy is able to do. I asked if it actually did. there's no rational argument can be brought to bear on that question....

Could you perhaps repeat it for me?

Happy to help. It's just about direction of fit. If I have a model of my lounge and the chair's not actually in the place I was expecting it to be, I ...

Yes, but these were not. I'm not sure what psychology studies you've been reading, but I'd be extremely surprised to find a single modern study assume...

More of the antinatalist goalpost shifting. When the talk is of procreation it is the outcome that matters... When the talk is of antinatalism, it's n...

Here's a Bayesian model P(S1,…,Sn)=?i=1np(Si|parents(Si)) What colour is it?

Yes, which is why the antinatalist must constantly shift the goalposts. When it's pointed out that parents rarely actually cause harm to their childre...

No, my analogy only requires that it is an option. By choosing not to be a part of something you are creating the conditions where that something has ...

Well then we are on the same page it seems. Not so much 'should' as unproblematically are. Agreed. Also agreed. Absolutely, but there's consistency to...

I don't agree there are only two possible explanatory methodologies. Ah, I see. Yes, fair enough. Philosophy, thus defined does come first. But...(you...

Oh. Well in that case I couldn't care less. You haven't provided a scrap of 'evidence' yet, you've just been asserting things so far. It doesn't. A di...

Ditch it then. Just a circle with five people in it (one you). You walk away. You have brought about a condition where there's a circle with only four...

I very much doubt scientists would happily admit that they have a blind spot. Do you find they do? I'll assume not. So you merely claiming that philos...

No you're just talking nonsense. A circle with five people in it does not have only four people in it.

I said "only four".

Just declaring it to be the case doesn't make it so. How are you not creating the conditions where there are only four people available, by going for ...

My procreation did not cause the harm to my children. You keep moving the goalposts. Procreation - it's all about incidentally creating conditions. Co...

How? I don't harm my kids. So's moving away from rather than toward a person. So's playing a computer game instead of helping them. If a house needs b...

Right. But the bomb causes the school to explode in your other analogy. You didn't cause it. You merely created a situation in which is was more likel...

I'm not really sure what you mean here? Are you perhaps suggesting that some parts of meaningful experience are not mediated by how the underlying bio...

So? They only need to be defined systems for the model to work, not closed ones. Who says the definition is not represented in reality? Overlapping an...