AJJ

So “facts” are “states of affairs”, which “are the case”, which are “truthmakers”. What do these terms refer to, if not to things that are true?

According to Terrapin “fact” means the same thing as “is the case”, which means the same thing as “state of affairs”, which means “fact”. But he never...

But the Family Guy joke demonstrates the actual problem with the statement, “Everything I say is a lie.” You’ll have to explain the force of your poin...

My thought here to appeal to final causes. An acorn is not observer relative because it has a final cause. It becomes (or can become) an oak tree rega...

I think that illustrates that whatever it is you’re describing is observer-relative. A calculator to an adult is device for making mathematical comput...

I accept all your points except number 8. That something can be accurately described by information processing theory doesn’t change the fact that, in...

This doesn’t address the OP argument, which I think demonstrates that the mind cannot possibly be a computer, or part of one. And I don’t think learni...

OK. Can you not first quote my equivocation back to me? You might be right, and I will admit to my mistake.

I haven’t said brain activity and what happens in our minds don’t correlate. I’m saying computations are done in the mind, by using what the brain doe...

The Stanford page Harry Hindu linked to above contains this: That seems quite plain to me, although I admit I haven’t read all of that page.

Yeah I’ve noticed that; when applied to everything it leads to an “everything is one” conclusion. Although I’ve thought in passing that appealing to f...

OK. If you look at Harry Hindu’s post above you’ll see that the first tenet of evolutionary psychology according to “Influential evolutionary psycholo...

Is this related to Hindu thought? Body, life force, mind, intellect and consciousness being what we’re made of? From that perspective it seems to me t...

Right. So when we experience our mind as an object, what do we experience it with?

Talking about the mind “rawly” seems to me to be the same thing as discussing its quiddity. What do you mean by “rawly”?

Ah, fair enough. I wonder then where that’s left evolutionary psychology.

I don’t think they are symbolic of one another. Computers don’t think about things, they aren’t aware of what they do, they aren’t aware of themselves...

I would say the brain is used by our minds to compute things. The brain isn’t doing any computing per se, just reacting to stimuli.

I guess its use can be summed up as computation, yeah. But that’s not to say that the mind itself is a computer. Computers do not actually compute - i...

I said the “first bit” was from him, the bit about the mind not being a computer. The second bit is a follow on by me. Thanks for the bullet points, g...

It’s a study that combines evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology takes a computational view of the mind. If the mind is ...

Right. Well then my thinking is that if the mind is demonstrably not a computer - and if evolutionary psychology takes a computational approach when c...

Settle down. I’ve told you three times now that I’ve had enough.

I skimmed it and it seems to me you’ve not properly considered what I’ve been saying again, or you’re just failing to understand. Others can judge, so...

I said “Last thing” and you write a bloody essay at me.

All I’ll say is the statement, “it is true that true things are not things we ought to believe, and so we’re not obliged to believe that either”, seem...

Aye, a little too much maybe.

Last thing: If you say that someone can know the truth yet still do wrong, then I’d say they’re justifying that wrong to themselves with something the...

I recognise that in reality you would have the Nazis believe the lie in that situation. But in principle, if everyone understood the truth, then no wr...

And here’s what I wanted to say: It’s not telling the Nazis the truth there that leads to wrong, it’s the implicit lie that they should arrest the Jew...

Though I would actually be interested in an example of a lie that leads to good.

This ignores important parts of my last two responses to you. You can try again if you want, may not respond though.

Alright, it’s been three days now so that’s me done.

I’m tired and about to quit, so I’ll just refer you to the thread again. I’ve defended the argument as much as I’d like to now.

“Oy vey” all you want mate. Unclear whether you actually get the point or not. Seems a good one to me though.

Fascinating.

Nope, try again:

Urgh. I don’t care about anyone’s personal credo.

No it bloody doesn’t mate. It means, as you keeping forcing me to say, that they ought to be believed. That does not mean that they’re contingent on b...

What’s more accurately been in contention is whether we ought to believe facts. The OP argument assumes it, I’ve been single-handedly defending that t...

It bloody baffles me that you guys do this. “Err, I’ll think you’ll fine you’re wrong mate.” *Post Comment*

Wow. That has to have been on purpose. Here’s the full quote again mate, come on now:

No mate, this was the important bit: If “fact” doesn’t actually mean anything then you can’t match a proposition to one.

The OP is more or less a quote. Yes, I would say so. Come on now, it’s not “being believed” that is necessary, it’s that they ought to be believed.

The argument, rephrased a little, contends that there must be objective values if there are facts. If this is the case then it’s not actually possible...

And I contend facts do exist, which means they ought to be believed if that is indeed a necessary part of their existence.

It’s not that they don’t exist if they’re not believed. Everyone could stop believing facts and they’d still exist. It’s that they can’t exist without...

I understand your objection now. So a fact is a state of affairs, which is something that is the case, which is neither true nor false. You still have...

Yeah. But that’s not to say that the very existence of facts is determined by our beliefs, but that a necessary part of what they are is that they oug...

Well, it’s not left unattended. I demonstrated that believing otherwise is nonsense, I didn’t just say it.