Banno

As it turn out, no. Meta has revealed that one cannot subtract from a whole. Subtraction only works if you have more than one individual. And division...

Yep.

Good article.

I don't read this as denying consciousness so much as pointing out that it is post hoc.

What's problematic is saying something like "consciousness is a neural phenomena, and hence it is not real". Why can't it be a neural phenomena and st...

Kudos.

SO... no one you could name. OK. Makes it a bit hard to verify. Might it be that you were mistaken in asserting that these folk exist?

SO, who denies the existence of consciousness?

SO, do you think that Dennett denies the existence of consciousness?

Well, all the best. You should be fine; its a proven strategy.

OK, so Dennett... denies nether the existence of a first person experience nor consciousness? That triple negation construct leaves me a bit unsure of...

Things like mortgages?

Hey, I'm trying to help here. Do you now think that Dennet holds that view? Pat Chalmers? David Chalmers? Anyone?

Now that would be a good OP. Looking forward to not participating...

Oh, sorry. I just assumed you were reading your own thread. SO, who is it that claims consciousness does not exist?

You goata long way to go to reach my record, friend.

Have you worked out that the folk named on the first page do not actually do what you claimed in your OP?

But that's exactly what I was doing; Eugen's opinions = biases and personal beliefs. My opinions = rational, self-evident common sense.

So - you exercising your first amendments rights?

Dude, it was just a question. Methinks you protest too much.

I puzzle at this, since a few of the things you have said have indicated that you might have a theistic bias, and hence a preference for spirits and s...

It's much easier to critique a philosopher if you start by misunderstanding them. But garnering four pages in a day. Isn't that a good OP?

Interesting. Our Christian Brethren might not be able to see that distinction, and insist that we ought not even want to indulge in premarital fucking...

Nice.

J.L Austin, Philosophical Papers. Edit: Ah, boomer error You want videos, not papers.

A note to endorse the resource linked by @"unenlightened"; I'll go along with it's distinction between objective and subjective, while adding that I'm...

Oh, yeah. Hence virtue ethics. I decided not to go down that path in this thread.

Then there is perhaps space for a chat about characterising belief. Anyway, cheers.

Isn't that just what we call your belief? Again, removing all that internal/external paraphernalia, whilst at the same time returning to common parlan...

A child would be taught reversibility by being given different examples of this sort, until they learned to talk about the number of blocks in a suita...

Indeed, yet it makes no mention of objectivity. It is just an analysis of the logic, the grammar, of certain sorts of statements. Again, the aim is to...

Good, because that's my contention - it is senseless. Here's an analysis that is not the subject/object distinction, but which runs in a similar vein....

Sure. Understood.

...and all of this is an extension of the notion that truth is pretty much redundant - unanalysable.

That is just to accept the contention that there is a worthwhile distinction to be made between objective and subjective truths, and then to say that ...

By way of expanding the discussion, what are we to make of someone who does not think murder is wrong? Does their insistence that murder is fine tell ...

Notice that the difference between your two examples is in how one justifies them. Thye are not examples of different truths, but of different justifi...

Most folk can manipulate "one" in quite complicated ways. They learn to speak of one dozen, for example, understanding that they can treat twelve thin...

Pretty much. One of the tools offered by Wittgenstein to undo conceptual tangles is to look at the difference between philosophical use and common use...

Pretty much; and that's fine. Subjective is ambiguous. It means the negation of the definition of objective given above - that is, based on personal f...

I understand the referent of "Joanna Lumley" - that individual. Can you point to the individual that is the referent of "Democracy"?

That's making justification consensus-based, not truth.

You are not forced to be here.

But PM means Private Message on this forum.

Then I don't know what to make of this: because I don't know what the referent of, say, "Democracy" is.

How rude! :razz: No, the juxtaposition of realism and idealism is itself an outcome of this same division between an internal mental world and an exte...

Perhaps you are not yet ready for present company.

Hmm. The Murdoch Press and Trumpian Bullshit are the greatest adherents to the notion of the relativity of truth. If truth is irrelevant, and power is...

And yet the Socratic Method consists in showing the faults of those definitions. How's that?