Nah, I don't think either of those map on very nicely to what's going on here. If there's a classical distinction that might be relevant here I'd say ...
@"Janus": One thought I keep coming back to is that in rejecting the reality of types, one must - or at least this is what I want to argue - reject th...
Just briefly 'cause I'll be out all day, I think it is neither desireable nor possible to avoid 'kinds-talk'. The whole question is over what we are d...
Also, reading back on some of the comments on nominalism more generally, it's true that the kinds of ideas expressed in the OP are indeed just 'half t...
Coming back to this... I'd say that a fact in this context is something which commits us to certain undertakings. If there is a type-token distinction...
I don't think this follows. One can speak of parts of the world picturing other parts of the world (if approached in the right way). Actual pictures (...
In general, yeah, these are more or less what I'm after. I'm also not familiar with Austin's take, so I can't really comment on that either. What real...
Just some general reflections to feel my way back into this thread... I'm still entirely against the idea of 'natural kinds', which I can only see as ...
I've said my piece. If close-mindedness means rejecting equivocations, appeals to ignorance, and the falsities and fantasies of cranks like Wayfarer, ...
I mean if you want to call meeting the literal bare minimum criteria for constituting an explanation in any field whatsoever a 'challenge', then yeah ...
No, I said it was meaningless as far as it playing a role in explaining anything about QM. It could be substituted for nonsensical words without loss ...
Guilty. That said, I don't see any problem with saying that quantum processes might play certain roles in 'explaining consciousness'. Quantum electron...
Yeah, and it conveniently works both ways too - 'why consciousness?' 'because quantum!'. And intellectual con-men like Wayfarer will milk both to say ...
The issue, to begin with, is one of methodology: your approach, or at least the approach you've outlined here, looks to me like one of social atomism,...
Of course I understand. Sophists don't like being called out on their bullshit. It's embarrassing to be shown up time and time again for your know-not...
Oh look, when challanged about a concrete point - the meaning of observation - pivot entirely and bring in some last-minute Googled irrelvencies passe...
You can tell Wayfarer he is literally, factually wrong about this till you're blue in the face, and he'll still insist, against all reality, the the q...
Will return to this thread soon but Haugeland's reading of Heidegger is seriously one of the most interesting and just flat out facinating that I know...
Ah, so the argument is that because consciousness isn't literally meaningless, it ought to be a contender for explanation? That's the bar you've set? ...
/uploads/resized/files/0l/rhawl38yaqsoglye.jpg But think of the children! What planet could one be living on to see treating children as data as thoro...
And there we go: ignorance as a virtue. The ever thinning breathing room for idealism measured by the distance between what we know and what we don't:...
The curious thing about 'social capital' is that its apparent decline comes about during a time of its increased significance. I suspect it was birthe...
I happen to be one in the 'no collapse' camp, though I'm happy to simply refer to the measurement problem in general by that name because it's so wide...
No, this doesn't even qualify as a possible answer because a) saying 'consciousness does it' does not explain by what mechanism it would carry out tha...
Huh? QM has nothing to say about what a device 'is'. A double slit experiment might involve a device that includes a photographic plate, a light sourc...
This sentence doesn't make any sense. Still, there is narrow sense in which you are right about your general point: that we are inextricably involved ...
Sure. The measurement we get is defined by how we set up our devices for measurement. We may choose one way, or another way, but whatever we choose, t...
As usual, the fact that Wheeler explicitly disavows the role of consciousness is quietly ignored, as though a minor inconvenience to a position trying...
Sure, if you want to call bromide emulsion 'interpretation', be my guest. But you no longer get to whine about 'observation' being used in a way in wh...
Yep, where 'observation' is 'an irreversible act of amplification such as the blackening of a grain of silver bromide emulsion or the triggering of a ...
But - and this is the audacity of QM - Wheeler is entirely right. Of course we participate in the universe. We participate in the universe just like e...
Wheeler is certainly in agreement with 'this'. It's from the same paper I quoted which states that ''Consciousness' has nothing whatsoever to do with ...
Bohr actually commented on the ambiguity of the word 'observer', and simply resolved to affirm that at the end of the day, whatever we call it, it was...
Yes, I've seen you link to that article before, and I scoured it to see if it actually sourced that headline quote from Wheeler himself, given that I ...
The question is largely over the exact status of the states in superpositon: is it epistemic or ontological? And if it is either, what would it imply ...
Sorry, but this entire post is hogwash. First, you literally put words into the mouth of Andrew, who nowhere speaks of physical measurement systems, b...
Interestingly, later Wittgenstein was all about being attuned to the contexts of useage, and he too would have demanded that we pay strict attention t...
Sure, and that normal usage is irrelevant when it comes to the issues at stake, so trying to leverage that normal usage to try and address those issue...
Right, because your inability to get past how words were used in primary school means that science is other than it is. As if your failure of intellec...
Step 1 in quantum sophistry: reverse the terms. Pretend that a reference frame designates the 'observer', rather than the other way around; Step 2: im...
Perhaps it would be better, and perhaps it might put a stop to the endless swarm of psuedo-scientific troglodytes who, too thick to understand that la...
Okay, sure, but I didn't offer an 'argument' about 'points of view' - I didn't even use the phrase, let alone discuss it - I simply cited Nagel as a r...
I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing I am. I'm referring to Nagel's 'What Is It Like To Be a Bat' paper - which Chalmers cites - which isn...
Without commenting on the rest of your thread, Chalmers's 'hard problem' is quite specific: it asks why consciousness is experienced as so, where 'as ...
Comments