fdrake

Same with you.

'mon, do you need to insult people like that.

Never seen one. I vaguely recall learning about it as a way to think of what happens when you "undo" universal instantiation to get the universal quan...

It was an example of people disagreeing about quantifier introduction rules. That one is tricky!

Just to be clear, what do you believe our heroes are promoting? I'm not sure any more.

It's just this.

You can introduce the quantifier onto (Pa->Qa) to get (for all x P(x)->Q(x) ) if you made no assumptions about a anywhere in your reasoning. If someon...

I am willing to go down the individuation and intension route. But I'm not particularly prepared for that kind of discussion.

Yes. I'm of the opinion that there is something substantive here to talk about. Lots of substantive things in fact. One thing we've done so far is tre...

How would you account for people's differences in use? As in, plenty of people don't know that (A implies B) implies (Everything which counts as A als...

I think I see what you mean. I just want to devil's advocate though, that you can provide an extensional definition of the filter in that case, and th...

I dunno OLP heads, "is" sure crops up in a lot of language games with different grammars. Almost as if there are different uses of it!

Violent Faculties by Charlene Elsby Sadistic horror written by a philosophy PhD. The plot is a rogue philosophy prof literalising thought experiments ...

I imagined you were arguing toward the claim that anything which has no first event is not physically possible. Which is a bit different from the geom...

I'm pretty sure that one comes down to being able to split the pieces up into pieces that aren't measurable - IE can't be assigned a size - in a cleve...

Good! Then it's logically possible for it to. An infinite number of things can complete without blowing up logic.

I don't have a particularly clear cut example to distinguish the two. And I don't know if the concept of logical possibility survives the existence of...

Nah. That's an appeal to metaphysical or physical impossibility. Not logical impossibility!

The sequence {1/2n} for n=1 to infinity has a finite sum, 1. That's numbers and an infinite set. So yes, geometric sequences have a model in set theor...

I imagined you lot were talking about metaphysical rather than logical possibility. @"Michael" made a comment to the effect that such a construction w...

Aye that is true. I wrote wrong. I was imagining a clock that speeds up in its ticking to ape a convergent geometric series.

Might show it's logically possible tho.

Why? The ticks per second is also going to infinity. I don't really think it matters whether this is a supertask or not, though. It was an attempt to ...

A clock ticks 1 time per second. You start with a cake. Every second the clock ticks, cut the cake in half. Make the clock variable, it ticks n times ...

@"Banno" @"J" That is what you see in practice though. There are no modal operators in propositional logic. But both modal and propositional logic are...

It's gonna be hard to write them down. Though something like the act of marrying two people is done with language, rather than expressed by it. Though...

Naw. I close now.

Good to see you again!

Chop up the ham as well as the cheese. Mix them together. Sorted.

A not so gentle reminder to keep the distinction between zionists and Jews, and pro-palestinian/anti-zionist people and anti semites in your head at a...

My completely unreasonable hunch is that this poll was answered by book readers rather than the general populace. 1 book a month is a lot for almost e...

https://www.envmart.com/super-sucker-cum-jetting-machine-12000-ltrs/cp25717penv3c1718b This is the best product name for one of those vans with a suct...

I hope you have a good time here!

Dennett's not an eliminativist though. He's a critic of it. From SEP. He isn't even an eliminativist toward "experience". Just thinks it's thought of ...

Oh yes absolutely. I have in mind Austin's comment that while word use should be the first word on a topic, it need not be the final one!

Thanks for the reference. I'd highlight, in another context, that there's room for revising an understanding in ordinary language for some purpose. Li...

Well that paper is very similar to the debate we're having.

I suppose it's also why people have invited you to reconsider the kind of things that can count as direct realism!

Well we're kinda screwed if we can't agree what we're disagreeing about.

Yes, that's a species of externalism isn't it? Edit: removing some laziness in the question. There's the adage that externalism means "meaning ain't j...

Eh, a perception is still an event in the world. Like your body adjusting under a load is proprioception.

I think that's one of the central axes this debate is happening on. Direct realists in thread seem to see experience/perception as a relationship betw...

I think I understand. So for you, this process goes like: distal object -> proximal stimulus -> interpretation -> mental phenomenon and/or distal obje...

Proximal stimuli?

What are the constituents of visual experience?

I put it in general.

Nothing Google couldn't tell you quicker than us.

I see what you mean. I think you need to ask "which" sound or "which" light though. The light which serves as the stimulus for seeing a brown table is...

Thanks. Why do you think that the proximate cause for touch and taste is the distal object but not for sight? How about hearing? Kinaesthesis?

Do you think that indirect realists can accept that distal objects are the proximate cause of experience? That is the sense I meant.