Banno

An neat summary. I'd recommend you keep reading about philosophy of language and especialy Wittgenstein, who's ideas you are beginning to understand. ...

Sure, the rules of language are stated post hoc. In order for a rule to be made explicit, it must first be. That is, they cannot be explicated unless ...

Ah, so, natural law is ridiculous, legal principles are indispensable. Cool.

Too presumptive.

Thank you, Toby, for introducing some clarity. What do you make of appeals to "our founding fathers"? For example, I don't imagine they hold much sway...

Take it up with @"Hanover". I'll go get the popcorn.

So... now natural law is law?

So natural law isn't law. So natural law is law. Hmm. There certainly isn't a consensus here, hey.

...and the obvious point is that moral principles are not law.

Seems obvious. Hence, the question "Is that law good?" remains open.

...right up until the truck hits you. What this shows is that you have lost track of what is to count as evidence.

That's a very odd way of reading §21. Indeed the point of §21 has usually been taken as the exact opposite: that the very same phrases have differing ...

You claimed animals have no imagination. You can't possibly know that.

OK - you worried my because I have been on the lookout for anything Witti wrote concerning the commensurability of language games.

I'm happy to let the physiology of brains continue on its merry path, and indeed will follow along with interest. I expect that a complete account wil...

Oh, OK. I suspect a materialist would have little difficulty in adhering to the view that mental states are identical to brain states. So I don't see ...

Indeed; but I have to go back to Doing The Things this week, so I may not be able to enter into the discussion as much as I might desire.

For those somewhat familiar with Wittgenstein, grammar is not nitpicking. You want to talk about experiences. I've giving you carte blanche to set up ...

Yes. Which is your preference? On such questions of grammar I am happy to accomodate you... in the interests of expediting the discussion.

Sure, understood and agreed. Nothing new or surprising here. But that Nagel's argument is agreeable does not make it cogent.

What? One hit her left foot, the other her right. Make your point. It's lunch time.

Yes. I answered by giving a comparison, which short of implies that one can compare them...

one hit her left toe, the other, her right. so... go on.

`Ah, missed that post. Yep. Two people stub their toes. Go on.

How Taiwan beat COVID-19 – new study reveals clues to its success

Hrmph.

So what?

That helps, how?

Sure.

What does that mean? What is added by calling it "subjectiveness"? Look again:

Are experiences real? Yes. I'm puzzled that you need to add "subjective". It's a term that carries so much baggage. Drop it, and get on with doing stu...

The question is not what is it like to be in pain, but what it is like to be a dolphin. That's important.

Cheers. Stay safe.

You come to the right idea here, but for the wrong reasons. Talk about physics, chemistry or physiology is distinct from talk about desire, intent or ...

You didn't follow the article in SEP I referenced? This is an application of the private language argument. See this.

He can't know, not because of any failing in his capacity to observe, but because knowing does not fit here. It's not that there is a something it is ...

...and then have their arguments torn to shreds.

Where?

So you can show us what it is like to be a bat? Go on, then. But that's irrelevant. Even if ther ewere something it is like to be RogueAI, what it is ...

Only if "there is something it is like" makes sense. And it doesn't make sense for "there I something it is like to be RogueAI", because what it is li...

What is it like to be baker? Tell us.

I'm denying that "there is something it is like to be a dolphin". The notion of subjectivity is fraught with nonsense.

You can't possibly know that.

Ah, cheers. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523588 oh well, my thought concerning hinge propositions was an attempt to understand yo...

Oh, I've been reading the thread, wiht interest. But that's hundreds of posts - why make me guess to which you re referring? The one about walking up ...

A link might help, then. To what do you refer?

Well, in my defence, I do find you verging on the incomprehensible.

Do you get banned often?

Ah, excellent. Glad to hear it.

As can bee seen in various other threads hereabouts, he had much to say about belief. Hence his relevance.