Echarmion

I am not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but it was my general impression that at least the majority opinion among historians is that Je...

No idea where you get C from. It's not anything I said and you haven't provided an argument for it. As for the rest: 18. Is questionable. I don't see ...

Obviously I don't accept 10 if I didn't accept 9. Because 10 is the conclusion that follows from 9, and without 9, there is no 10. WTF... That makes v...

Sure. 2. and 3. are superflous. They're just restating 1. Most of 4. to 7. could also be ommitted, since 7. is already implied by 1. 9. I don't accept...

No, I don't say that. I say there is a world with multiple first person perspectives. I reject your idea that the world can only be what is observable...

What do you mean by "unique"? What is the significance of uniqueness? Usually, when we say something is unique we imply some value judgement. If you j...

Sounds good to me. I don't think that's true, at least not on the quantumn scale. Particles don't have fixed positions, they instead have probablity d...

This is a logical contradiction. The observer cannot also be the observed. Yeah, that's Solipsism. But Solipsism runs into the problem of performative...

Just to be clear, your reaction to a risk which has an unknown magnitude is to just take the risk to see what happens? Because "we don't know" seems l...

I don't know which perspective I have. I just know I have a perspective. To use Descarte's famous form: I think, therefore something creates thoughts ...

So if you're the ultimate observer, where do you reside? You cannot be part of the world, according to this argument, so what's the term for the world...

I'd be interested to hear how we could conceptualise an metaphysically objective world without assuming the viewpoint of a hypothetical outside observ...

I mean the mind. I don't see how this is a step by step process (or how we'd know it to be one). The "you" is part of an interconnected whole, not som...

Only if the "you" isn't part of the universe. But then the perspective of "you" might not be part of the universe either, and your argument doesn't wo...

Fair enough. Does it create any other authority/ imperatives then?

There is no such thing as "you" to which the category of "knowing" could apply in this scenario. Either the universe has some property which creates y...

Well, I am inclined to agree with you that calling the result "determined" as per some clockwork model of the universe, isn't supported by current sci...

The emitter caused the particle/wave, including whatever properties it ends up having. The path it takes isn't deterministic, but I don't think that m...

You know, much as I appreciate trying to keep the debate as honest and rational as possible, it strikes me just how absurd this entire conversation is...

I am not sure it's accurate to say that any events are uncaused. The double slit experiment shows that if you measure passage through the slit, the in...

While we are on the subject of epistemology, what is the epistemic justification for the principle of charity? In general I think the focus on an "acc...

So, Occam's Razor is, let's say, problematic as a philosophical principle. But the scientific method is concerned with creating working models of real...

I think knowingly spreading propaganda that may contribute to decisions that end up killing people for political gain is evil. Arguably, spreading any...

But if voting does not result in authority, then it's not collective decision making, either. If any actual compliance to the outcome of the vote is i...

I am not sure why you're equating benefit and value in P1. Both "beneficial" and "valuable" are value judgements, and there doesn't seem to be any obv...

I don't see how any of this follows. If you are observer nr. 587, there might be a flag nr. 587 attached to the things that you experience. Another pe...

I agree with their ideals, to a certain extend. I don't share their take on authority, nor really on the notion of freedom. To wit, a free society is ...

Yes, in the sense that every notion we have is based on the fundamental machinery that evolved. But that machinery has specifically evolved to be flex...

Thanks. I guess you could make a technical argument here about how the form of the experience is part of the experience, but I think it doesn't really...

This is, broadly speaking, true. But most higher cognitive functions have too much variance to be significantly constrained by evolution. The brain ha...

But what do we do if there a bunch of conflicting hypotheses, neither of which can be refuted (in the sense of a falsification). Take the classic thei...

Of course, all the non Euclidian spaces are mathematical constructions that can be thought, but cannot be perceived. Kant really only talks about our ...

Could you explain why you used this specific phrasing ("renders it null")?

I do know that this is the case, but are fields "processes"?

Right, but note that your description of the process is based on particles. So the particles ("things") seem to be required to have a notion of a proc...

But then how do we know there are processes behind the objects? It would certainly have to include my internal thoughts, the way I feel about things e...

I don't really disagree with much of this, but I don't think you're going about the "search for truth" in quite the right way. The first question of e...

It does get difficult to remember where each sub-discussion stands in a topic like this one. Anyways while I am sympathetic to the idea of getting off...

I am not a fan of "burden of proof" type arguments outside of a legal context. While I think the general rule that the one who advances a claim is obl...

This is one of these sentences that can mean everything and nothing. But even if I were to accept that there is no distinction, it still seems that th...

But all along you were the one insisting objects are "out there" and that they are there regardless of beliefs. Now you're saying that they are just a...

Right, but what you're doing seems to me to merely be a word game. Since you brought up "the thread", and I am reacting to that, linguistically "the t...

If you were to replace "the thread" with "the posts" or even "the words", then we might get closer to an agreement.

The problem with that is that both people need to agree that the conclusion is absurd. Otherwise, why bother with this thread? You could as well have ...

Well for one you're assuming I am even looking at something. Perhaps my computer is reading the text out for me. If I am looking, how do you know what...

One liners won't convince anyone. If you want to have a discussion, address my actual argument.

And I'd go so far as to say that you're making a bunch of unjustified assumptions about what I and Coben see. What do you think you know, and how do y...

You're right, the conclusion as written contradicts the major. I think I have unnecessarily doubled up on the knowledge part. It should actually be th...

"common sense" won't fly in a serious discussion. You have to actually give reasons why it's "not normal" to hallucinate. Perhaps we are all hallucina...

Why call it objective? It seems fairly obvious that there is no "thread" as an object "out there". Everything we do with the text (that's not actually...