Sorry I should have been clearer! I was assuming realism. In that case isn’t it true that Bell’s theory implies non-locality? (And also the fact that ...
I think that’s one where intuitions differ. I might not say the Big Bang caused the universe, but it surely seems correct to say the Big Bang caused t...
Interesting, so some sort of regularity theory (like Hume?) is what I think you're describing? From memory there are reasons why a naive version of re...
Much is made of the experiment’s into Bell’s inequalities and their implication for Einstein. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/ Einstei...
Maybe you’re unaware of how aggressive this post looks in a cold reading. I was up front about my bias toward Harris and gave an opinion on who it app...
Interesting to revist these ideas four years later. I think I had some things correct and others wrong. Yet the thrust - that some words are referring...
I find language is often underestimated! Maths is good in its domain for sure, but I think true understanding only comes from the clarity of a well co...
I love thinking about emergence. It often seems that emergence is about things at different levels of description. A flock of birds emerges from indiv...
I am not really talking about Harris' breadth of knowledge when I praise him. One can be an extremely good philosopher with a narrow field of expertis...
I see comments like this on the reg, yet it looked like Chomsky was the dill from my vantage point! I seem to be in the minority about this so perhaps...
I don’t think Harris would argue about the importance of narratives or stories. His bit about the recipe (from memory) was simply to illustrate that i...
The way I’ve always felt about the distinction (and it sure feels real when you’re an analytic philosopher, perhaps less so for people the analytics c...
Funnily enough I agree that Harris is the smartest philosopher alive. I urge people to try and read ‘The Moral Landscape’ and not be impressed. I also...
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah I couldn’t immediately see Anscombe in dialogue with my ideas, although I appreciate the relationship to necessity and det...
From my understanding about uncertainty of quantum states it is more correct to say that detecting a particle causes its location rather than detectin...
Thanks for that article, it was an interesting read. I’d read Anscombe on intentions a while back but this was new to me. Although I agree that causat...
@ I don’t think think I did a good job of explaining. I’m not saying causation is not ‘real’ precisely. I’m certainly not making the trivially true cl...
I had a think and it is perhaps even simpler: Material cause: So we say the bronze causes the statue = the meaningful use of the words ‘the bronze’ IS...
I would translate to: ‘90’ is sufficient to tell us about the temperature, but the temperature is not sufficient (but can potentially) give us 90 (tem...
Well that’s right, although I was talking about one of Aristotle’s four causes which don’t map neatly onto ‘cause’ in English. There appear to be four...
Just to add my two cents, I think most native English speakers would agree that 3+1 is 4 but that 4 is not 3 + 1. It is interesting to consider why. I...
No, I don’t think quantum physics says that nothing is real. I think it has more to say about causation. Most people don’t question what they mean by ...
I think this is a really good point. But can you see the claim I'm attempting to make? Perhaps I mean to say something else? That 'to be','to mean', a...
Maybe a side issue, but you don't think 'screwdriver' means something like 'a tool created to turn screws'? I know there is a drink called a 'Screwdri...
How about P1. All and only (phenomenologicall experiences) are (from your perspective) C. All (from your perspective) are (phenomenological experience...
But you said it yourself, "Given P1., there is no possibility of a B which is not an A", therefore a completely valid conclusion from a premise P1. Th...
Oh right, I think I'm with you. Yeah I think I am claiming that everything from a perspective is mental. That's what you would have to deny if you wer...
Pretty sure P1. All and only As are Bs is different to C. All Bs are As Isn't it a syllogism? It is worked out logically i.e. not by observation. How ...
Right. So you agree that the argument is valid, now you're just questioning P1., specifically whether there can be things from your perspective that a...
Um... of course I need P1, that's my argument. Otherwise I'd just be asserting C. Now I agree P2 is a tautology, that's why I didn't have it originall...
But it does. P1. All and only (things that you think) are (from your perspective.) together with the new tautological premise: P2. All (from you persp...
Sorry because it WAS a tautology I thought it trivially true and didn't include it in the premises. But surely it is true: P. Everything from your per...
But all my claims are going to be from my perspective. Indeed it is impossible to make claims any other way. If All (from your perspective) are (thing...
Isn't it just a logical argument though? 1. All and only (things that you think) are (from your perspective.) therefore 2. All (from your perspective)...
Yeah but access to that body and outside things are going to be through thoughts. For us they're the only tthings that exist. And that's important, fo...
Yeah I would agree that brains and photons are thoughts too. Everything is -from your own point of view. You can't think of anything that is not a tho...
Comments