You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Banno

Comments

Yes, cheers. It's a curious topic, and apparently topical...
September 15, 2025 at 07:46
The anemones are quite good this year.
September 15, 2025 at 07:33
Yeah. The better philosophical conversations are the ones that pick out what is coherent from what isn't. That's, on some accounts, what doing philoso...
September 15, 2025 at 01:25
If you like. The ambiguity needed ironing out.
September 15, 2025 at 00:39
No. I know the cat is on the chair but it could have been on the mat. Hence "the cat is on the chair" is true but could have been false. Better to use...
September 15, 2025 at 00:34
Folk seem to think that if, if we know something then it is true, then we can never be mistaken. Think on it a bit. If we think we know something and ...
September 15, 2025 at 00:07
Sort the ambiguity. p?~~p, but not p?~?~p. If p is true then it is not false. But not, if p is true then it cannot be false.
September 14, 2025 at 23:57
Why the modality? Are you asking if ~K~p?K~?~p ? Well, no, since p does not have the same truth value as ?p. Drop the modal operator, do you have ~K~p...
September 14, 2025 at 23:43
Fixed that for you. Shanon's equations and the work following do not equate energy and information. Wishful thinking on your part. The grain of truth ...
September 14, 2025 at 22:38
Modal contexts (what if's...) are stipulated. So the world could have be any way you might wish it to be. Your parents might never have met, or had a ...
September 14, 2025 at 21:16
Not sure how to read that. Are you saying that, a priori, we cannot know false propositions - that all the propositions we know are not false? Or are ...
September 14, 2025 at 20:59
And?
September 14, 2025 at 20:20
So your post was just made-up stuff. Ok.
September 14, 2025 at 20:17
If we know something is true we must know it is not false. That's not the same as that it cannot* be false. It's not knowledge that is defeasible, but...
September 14, 2025 at 04:09
The root is mete, not mens. Measurement, not mind. And again, your own sources say this. Nor does science equate information with energy. Bits are not...
September 14, 2025 at 00:43
Well, no, it doesn't. "God did it" is one way to end the causal chain; there are of course others. That chain is set up by framing physics in terms of...
September 14, 2025 at 00:16
Ok, I must be misunderstanding you. We know that we don't know whether there is sentient life on other planets...
September 13, 2025 at 23:18
You prefer utility to truth? Do you think you can maintain that distinction? The truth doesn't care about what is useful.
September 13, 2025 at 22:54
Must I again point out the difference between "P is true" and "I know that P is true". These are not the same. The link between them is that one canno...
September 13, 2025 at 22:27
I'm not seeing a difference between a justification and an understanding. In both cases what we know should fit in with our other explanations. It's a...
September 12, 2025 at 23:16
Seems to me that folk read JTB as the claim that in order to know something, we must know that it is true. It's hard to get across that this is not wh...
September 12, 2025 at 22:13
Hey, that's what he wanted...
September 11, 2025 at 01:35
Perhaps we should honour him by treating his murder in his own terms. Any empathy expressed for his family is a made up New Age notion that does a lot...
September 11, 2025 at 01:25
It may be best if you refrained from posting pictures of your manbag, and most unfortunate not to have it on your person. Keep it in your trousers.
September 09, 2025 at 22:25
With good reason. A purse carries money, carrying money being a custom in times of yore, before the advent of the smartphone. Brined tuna is better fo...
September 09, 2025 at 22:21
Same same. They tend to be found together. "Perchance it be" means "if it is", or at best "perhaps it is"; not "yes". "I'm given to understand" is mor...
September 03, 2025 at 03:47
That's the consequence of your interpretation of Jung. You can't say '“world” always means world-for-us', because other people are as much a part of t...
September 03, 2025 at 02:54
Yes, the difference between truth and belief. So we've gone back two pages.
September 03, 2025 at 01:27
Yeah, it is. You are now agreeing that there is more than just mind - that the mind does not created the world, but perhaps structures it. That's a st...
September 03, 2025 at 00:43
This is the part were we agree that there is something external to the mind, and then you loop around and claim that we can only know about it using t...
September 03, 2025 at 00:06
Whereas, even if humanity is a "mere blip" and "an accident", it is we who provide values, who decides what is worthwhile; and what is not, and that m...
September 03, 2025 at 00:04
Where is the support for this pretence? See the problem?
September 02, 2025 at 23:32
Must you think in terms of 'isms"? That success is our agreement.
September 02, 2025 at 23:30
It's the far-reaching conclusion - the chip, the theory, and all of the componentry of that experiment, are products of the mind - therefore...? Do we...
September 02, 2025 at 23:29
The failure of that argument is I hope obvious to those reading on - whomever they are. You've expanded "consciousness" to include everything humans e...
September 02, 2025 at 23:02
When, in the guts of the chip on which you are typing, a quantum tunnel sets off a current in a transistor, you are not aware of it. No one is. And ye...
September 02, 2025 at 22:51
I have, here: You would jump from "measurement involves interaction between observer and observed" to "consciousness creates reality". There's a bit o...
September 02, 2025 at 22:15
This is where you back away from your own Mind-created world.
September 02, 2025 at 22:09
See the reply to Joshs, above. This: sits exactly in agreement with the view I've expressed, and contrary to your need for further metaphysics. You ar...
September 02, 2025 at 22:05
Not according to the Copenhagen interpretation. We have the calculations, they work with extreme accuracy, and nothing more is needed from an explanat...
September 02, 2025 at 21:53
While "grammar is a product of the mind", it is also embedded in the world. Rather than being forced to choose between realism and idealism, we might ...
September 02, 2025 at 21:29
You've misread your own reference. sure, m?ns (“mind”) is from PIE *men- (“to think”), but mens?ra (“to measure”) is form from PIE *meh?- (“to measure...
September 02, 2025 at 21:07
, . We differentiate between what is believed, understood, thought and so on, and what is true. We do this becasue sometimes what we take to be true i...
September 02, 2025 at 20:59
Yep. If consciousness were central to physics in the way you suppose, wouldn't physicist be the "go-to" for explaining consciousness?
September 02, 2025 at 08:50
Again, in the Nature survey, the data is as follows: Does a measurement require an observer? Yes, and they must be conscious: 9% Yes, but consciousnes...
September 02, 2025 at 02:59
You've always seem to me to avoid it only by an appeal to mysticism or changing the subject. Even accepting Bergson's distinction between time and dur...
September 02, 2025 at 01:30
A pretty sketchy notion. Indeed. We can detect consciousness. That's why we differentiate between some's being asleep and awake... And we differentiat...
September 01, 2025 at 22:49
It's a problem for solipsism generally. And Idealism has a great deal of difficulty avoiding solipsism. If to be is to be perceived then things cease ...
September 01, 2025 at 22:42
Is that a third way? The clincher is the dynamic between a complete, incorrect account and an incomplete, correct account. I'm advocating the latter, ...
August 31, 2025 at 23:08
I hadn't noticed this thread. But I covered much the same topic in my thread Two Ways To Philosophise. The trouble with a complete picture is that it ...
August 31, 2025 at 21:21