mew

I am not not sure if I understand this. Does it exclude instinct? Are cats and dogs capable of choices? If it's based on pleasure and displeasure why ...

Isn't our choice to act or not to act on our desire based on a stronger desire?

Thank you!

Oh, ok, I see. I think that after all this approach is not that different from Aristotle's as mcdoodle and somxtatis described it. At least in practic...

Hm, yes, but not based on resemblance, which I thought was the criterion? By "objective" I mean based on the nature (looks) of things that we categori...

Oh, OK! Is there an objective way to say who is not part of the family? It sounds true though >:O

But how do we know that the possibility is there if it never gets actual?

What are family resemblances? Isn't it contradictory to say that the essence of things is that they have no essence? :s

Do you mean that there is something due to which a particular human is the particular human that it is and then there's something due to which humans ...

What is then the difference between awareness and consciousness under this view?

:D I'm still not sure I understand this :P What I meant wasn't that self-consciousness is to think about what I'm feeling or experiencing but just to ...

Thank you :D (L)

What do you mean? >:O If plants are conscious but their reactions are just automatic, then a robot which is programmed to react to certain things is c...

How can I understand that the sun is there and move towards the sun but not understand that I'm moving toward the sun? Also, why don't you think that ...

Do you mean that plants are conscious the same way humans are?

Thank you, even though I don't understand at all what you mean in your second paragraph :-# Everytime I come here I think I'm leaving more perplexed t...

If in daily someone asked me, I would say that to be conscious is to recognize that I'm having an experience. But this implies that I'm also aware of ...

Yes, we knew that water wasn't a tree but we couldn't know that the tree wasn't somehow made of water. We can distinguish between water and trees when...

Do you mean that what it is depends simply on the context of our discussions? Can't we just use the word wrongly?

Does this work for all kinds of things? Either we are talking about doors or about the concept of numbers what you said applies? Aren't there things t...

What would you say it is in this sense?

Is this different than what darthbarracuda said? Namely that to exist is to be causally relevant? What do you mean by the second sentence? Does it mea...

I'm talking about Sean Carroll's "The Big Picture".

I'm also reading a book which says that causes do not exist! Patterns exist. If causes do not exist, then to exist is not to be causally relevant. If ...

I don't know!!! What Banno said, "to exist is to be spoken of", seems similar to what Rich said, "If there is some memory of it, it exists". So, the W...

Thank you! Can we say then that the insubstantial is unreal? Or is it just immaterial?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question :s

What counts as memory though? For example, if there is a footprint somewhere but noone ever sees it, doesn't it exist? Is memory the same as thought? ...

I didn't want to imply something like that. So, are there different ways of existing? Do these ways have something in common?

If there is no memory of something, it doesn't? Thanks! I guess I'll have to read all these people to understand your answer :P

I forgot to say that I haven't read any philosophy, so I'm not familiar with its vocabulary, so if it's possible, please use as less strange language ...

So, are there causes at higher levels? It is not just a way we talk about things because it's useful to us?

Why should he have used a dictionary definition? Although, an example given by the Oxford dictionary seems close to the scientist's use. So, is it pro...

But there is non on all levels, so it is wrong to assign blame or credit, because noone of us is the cause of anything. Why can we ignore that there a...

I think he recognizes that, he's quite clear about this point. My question is different. That if "usefulness" determines the way we talk about the wor...

I think he means that there's no other realm, no supernatural realm, that the world exists by itself... I think this might be because he thinks that i...

I don't understand :P No, you are not right :) You just assume that it is God's effects. You haven't showed that they are indeed God's! What I mean is...

Actually, Mr. Carroll says that time moves forward and it's practically unlikely to have backward processes, because of the second law of thermodynami...

Or maybe they could have several hypotheses that explained the effects. That's my point. Ideas, will, the self, or matter explain the effects as well....

Because there are different things that I can call the sources of these effects. In the stone example the effect could be my will to break the window ...

If these are God's effects, whose effect is this?

Hi! I think I agree with your general criticism but as I understand what the author says when he's talking about slavery etc, he's not treating it as ...

Hi all, thank you for the welcome :D Yes, I think I see your point and I also think that the author's argument is mostly theoretical because he seems ...

Hi! The author says that we might want to get rid of institutions that produce results that may seem evil to us (slavery, poverty etc), but he gives s...