Pfhorrest

That's nice to hear! I can't remember having any disagreement with you, and I think I remember us agreeing some times too. I've adopted something I sa...

@"fdrake" had some interesting comments on a similar line of thought in that same other thread I mentioned earlier:

Belief is not incompatible with truth. Knowledge is (at least) true belief. That is a good approach, and is basically starting with metaphilosophy, wh...

That pleases me. :)

An old version of my own philosophy book used to take kind of a similar approach, and shades of it still remain in the current version. That old versi...

I'm curious which if any of those groups you'd put me into (and who else might be representative of the others).

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "non-identity" here? That's the only part of this I didn't (think I) understand.

:clap:

Sounds great, thanks!

I’m sorry to hear you’re not feeling well, and I totally understand that you need to give your mind a rest. I’ve been feeling down a lot of the past f...

I don’t feel a need to start a thread of my own just to defend my own view, but I’m happy to explain myself if you want to start one to question it. I...

Yeah but I’m forming an analogy with supernatural so I’m going to use “super” for that word too. But on third or fourth thought I’m considering maybe ...

Take it up with the thousands of years of philosophers who use them differently, not me. I'm just following their convention.

I hate to bump my own things, but I also hate to see this disappear with no comment before I move on to the next. @"ZhouBoTong"? @"bert1"? @"god must ...

Agreed, that was what I found more enjoyable about my time studying philosophy at university.

It's a difference of how to philosophically understand the same objects, not two different classes of objects. Materialists will say all physical thin...

You seem to be thinking of moral beliefs. I'm not talking about that. I'm not saying we base morality on what people think is moral; that has all the ...

I'm not denying hedonism. I thought I'd been pretty clear about that. I'm denying that hedonism necessarily means that whatever a majority desires is ...

Physical just means as you say, observable. Empirical. Often times colloquially "materialism" is used synonymously, sure, but there is also a long phi...

Great. Now would you also say you believe there is not a stegosaurus in your room, or are you undecided about the existence of stegosauruses in your r...

Partially inspired by this conversation, I just added the following two paragraphs to my essay on my general philosophy:

Yeah, but realist doesn't have to mean transcendent. Being mind-independent is not the same thing as being mind-inaccessible. There is (on my account)...

Yeah, physicalism isn't the same thing as materialism. Berkeley called his whole ontology "immaterialism" (though we today call it "subjective idealis...

:up:

I decided that I was unsatisfied with the lack of parallelisms between any of these (abnegative / austere / ascetic) options and "natural", so I decid...

I've repeatedly elaborated on how I'm not. That's why I keep drawing the analogy with physical sciences, to illustrate that difference. The physical-s...

I’m a panpsychist like you, as you know, and I support MUH. They fit together very nicely in my view: if everything is a mathematical structure, and p...

And then he criticizes that by criticizing the view that there is one particular place somewhere in the causal chain that the experiencing happens, wh...

I don't start from it, I derive it from the earlier methodological principle of criticism. You can't possibly test claims about things beyond all expe...

I think this is an interesting question and I'm disappointed it didn't get any responses back when. I lack time to think of an answer right now, but m...

Is there a stegosaurus in your room right now? Probably not. So which do you believe: that there is a stegosaurus in your room, or that there's not? H...

...no? All that part you quoted about the problems of the Cartesian Theater view is questioning the presuppositions that lead to the conclusion that q...

What do you even mean by "being moral"? That is the first metaethical question to ask, what claims that something is or isn't moral even mean, and tha...

I was agreeing with you. That :100: emoji means “full marks” or “entirely correct”.

That is another good suggestion, along the lines of ”abnegative”. I had in earlier drafts also used “austere”. All three have the same problem but I’m...

:100: It is far simpler and less absurd to assume that just having a first-person experience at all is not a special unusual thing but a perfectly ord...

On second thought I'm not so sure that really gets at the thrust of what I'm aiming for. Something relating to "abnegation" seems like a possibility, ...

What suggests that I don't?

I thought I would share, in elaboration, that I also see 2 or 4 other broad camps of philosophies, mixing and matching and tempering these black-and-w...

"Platonic" seems too broad again, but "meontic" seems a plausible option. I'll mull that over. Thanks again!

I figured your homonculi scenario was a refinement of this same argument, so, same answer. Supposing that inverted qualia are possible is just supposi...

The function of any kind of science is to reliably and methodically find answers to some kind of question. If you cannot see the utility of having som...

Right, but I'm trying to name a specific kind of moral view that I am opposed to, so I don't want to use a name that covers something so broad that it...

If the homonculi truly perform no other function, then they are just synthetic neurons, and I find nothing strange that a synthetic perfect copy of a ...

Thanks, but that's not quite what I'm going for, because the view that I support is not a moral naturalist point of view, inasmuch as it's a non-descr...

One thing I could particularly use some feedback on is suggestions for a name for the unnamed moral analogue of supernaturalism discussed in this essa...

That system is not completely functionally identical because its components have additional functions that the components of a real brain would not. T...

I said all of those things count as phenomenally conscious. None of them count as access conscious. Is that a fact? Show me something that is definite...

Sure, anything that can reasonably be considered an object can also be considered a subject of experience. What can or cannot reasonably be considered...

The scientists don't have to explicitly elucidate the principles for it to be evident that they have agreed upon them; and the philosophical community...