Ok. Nuanced stuff. Noice. I have to disagree a bit with this: The "remainder-based role" is not dropped; the use of bijection keeps everything that th...
Ok. I'll hold back. We'll see. Yep, at least the pattern is the same. Cheers. I'd be interested in your take on my comments regarding formal language....
Ok. The point of the direct vs indirect realism debate is precisely about the subject’s epistemic relation to objects, not the causal chain that bring...
Yeah, well, I gather you use mind as a distinct "substance" in your theology, so it works for you there. My rejection of the mind/wold divide is metho...
Australia's health system is far from perfect, but the idea that we would do better to emulate the system in the USA can only be met with derision. In...
I'm not suggesting that there are not things people with disabilities cannot do. Rather, I'm pointing out that how we talk and think about what folk c...
Cheers. Useful stuff. When someone makes such obvious mistakes, it's probably not worth giving detailed responses, because chances are they will not b...
Yes, but this far too charitable. There are compelling reasons for rejecting Magnus's account. The notion of "same size" he work with is inadequate to...
ChatGPT will summarise a discussion: Summarise the argument and responses at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16296/disability/p1 and the nex...
Nor is your making shit up. Reading a maths book isn’t just passive; it’s fuel for precise thinking, especially when you’re debating infinite sets. It...
Well, it's one infinity amongst a few others... Your "definition" of infinity is not a definition of infinity. It's not false, it's just an intuitive ...
Matching one to one from the left, the one left out is the 100. :meh: With your A = { 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ... } and N = { 1, 2, 3, .. . } There isn't last ...
...is not the definition of infinity. “Larger than every integer” is a heuristic, useful for intuition, but the mathematical definitions depend on lim...
Not for infinite sets. For obvious reasons. ? and ? ? {0} really are the same size Take: ? = {1,2,3,…} ?? = {0,1,2,3,…} here: f(n) = n - 1 This is: in...
I didn't take Cantor's word for it, I read his diagonal argument. Consider A = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 } and B = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }. 0??1 1??2 2??3 3??4 4??...
We should take your word for this? I gave an argument - albeit briefly. Fractions can be placed in a sequence, and so are no more than countably infin...
The paperback finally arrived today. Might be some revision for this thread ensuing. And I'd still like to get back to How to Prove Hume’s Law. See ho...
Here's an article from a few months back - starting with quote from Charlie Kirk - about disability as the canary in the coal mine of social policy. T...
You are right that there are infinite infinities, but even with all those fractions, there are still only the same number as there are integers - ??, ...
Not at all sure what that means. The choice here is between on the one hand an account that divides the world into mind and object, then finds itself ...
You are under no obligation to respond. or even to read, to my posts. :lol: Here's my contribution: Page four Page three Page two Page one I've argued...
26 pages of your obsession with the contents of other people's underwear and the supposition that those contents dictate which toilette they must use,...
That's not a redefinition. What this shows is how you misdiagnose the the argument. In your visor world, the visors drop out of the discussion when fo...
Hey — good to hear we have so many mutual friends! :rofl: Edit: But there is a serious point here. If the folk here objecting to trans folk do not kno...
is why the physiology is irrelevant. Even when the physiology is added to somewhat radically, the direct realist point remains. But we need to add, ne...
It's hard to see how the visor example counts against the private language argument. That's how you set the account up. You now want to use it as an e...
Not quite. Rather, what we use is what remains constant... with regard to "out there"; but note that we ought also reject the phenomenological/cartesi...
Well, no. Certainly not. I do agree with the private language argument in so far as talk about boxed beetles and images in brains is useless. How is t...
You are losing me here. Sure, when we use a telephone we hear someone indirectly. Are you suggesting that undermines direct realism? Yep. But he is no...
Pretty ad hoc. Now we have both direct and indirect perception happening in the same individual for the same event. So do I. Take it out, if you like....
It would be odd to read what has been said here as denying reality. Far from it. Indeed, it seems to be indirect realism that cannot tell the real shi...
If the thing one sees is only ever "the visual cortex being active in the right kind of way" then we would have no basis for agreeing that there is a ...
Comments