In the face of a virus we don't understand, with unknown long-term effects, and a mortality and contagion rate apparently much higher than the seasona...
No, it's just a way of speaking. I can say "I wrote it"; you can ask "what part of you performed the action and I can say " The fingers" or "the nose"...
No I use my nose. So, you're saying the brain doesn't produce consciousness, just like a book doesn't? So, either there is no consciousness to be prod...
If you accept that the brain produces consciousness, and you know from introspection that you have absolutely no awareness of the neural processes goi...
The point is, though, that when you are sick with flu or covid or whatever, you should not be mingling with others because you are contagious. I have ...
Sure, but if distracted enough (or pissed enough) you could finish an entire beer without noticing its taste. So then would we say the beer had a tast...
Sure, it could be construed as denoting conscious awareness of the taste as opposed to drinking the beer without being consciously aware of the taste....
I am not a scientist, and I have no way of assessing whether or not what you presented there should be counted as fact. To be honest, I don't even kno...
There's no problem; to speak of experiences just is to speak to speak of their qualities; the danger would be in being led to think that the qualities...
I could equally well say that what we believe to be the facts is based on our presuppositions. As to "how much we are willing to pool into a common di...
Different people have different experiences, and the same people have different experiences on different occasions. That should not be surprising, eve...
Are you not just saying that the mental/experiential are not perceptible material objects? Life itself is not a perceptible material object; would it ...
I meant that we cannot pick out precisely determinate features of our inner lives to share, as we can with perceptible objects. Sure, there's a common...
I'd say they are not. But if we all think we enjoy an inner life, then even though we cannot directly share our inner lives in the way we can directly...
I just can't imagine how anyone with eyes open could fail to see that induction works and thus think that it does; and it seems to me that anyone who ...
There is no argument for it other than constant experience of it, and total lack of counterexamples to it. You keep falling into the trap of thinking ...
We can only conclude that they are blind, ignorant or in denial. Well, I guess what he is pointing out is open to interpretation. As I said earlier I ...
As @"Kenosha Kid" and I have already suggested, this supposed unbridgeable gulf of difference consists in our presumptions about science, matter and c...
But it is obvious that induction has worked; there is no more need of argument for that than there is to justify saying the sun has always risen on ea...
What do you think the assumptions are that lead to the hard problem? Is not the primary idea that experience could not emerge from "brute matter"? Why...
It only seems to be a problem when we think about it a certain way, entertaining certain assumptions, though, doesn't it? What makes it so certain tha...
Induction obviously does work; to give us all our beliefs and understandings of the world. So, there is no need to provide an argument for that. Are y...
Without that network of beliefs there would be nothing to operate upon. Even when a creative leap of the imagination is involved in coming up with nov...
Don't you imagine the various animals experience in terms of colours and other sensations? Isn't the difference just that, unlike the other animals, w...
We have the illusion of qualia not in the moment of experience, but retrospectively due to our ability to conceptually represent such entities. It's a...
Yes, but it does use an extensive interrelated network of inductively derived beliefs without which it would be operating in a vacuum, and be unable t...
In pointing to the problem of induction, Hume was just highlighting the fact that induction is not deduction; that there is nothing logically necessar...
I disagree: It seems obvious we believe in an invariant law-like nature because that is all we have ever experienced; that's induction in a nutshell. ...
I disagree: I think we believe in an invariant nature because that is all we have ever experienced; that's induction in a nutshell. That's not even an...
Nor should you try when apparently you don't have any further argument. The alternative to linguistically mediated rational thought is not merely stim...
What exactly is your argument that precludes all animals but humans from being able to imagine or visualize; that for them it is nothing but "stimulus...
For me the fundamental presupposition of an invariant nature, without which neither confirmation nor falsification could gain any traction, or even ha...
I had thought that you said early on in this thread and repeatedly thereafter that it doesn't matter what we believe (that is falsifiable) as long as ...
I'm not familiar, other than by hearsay, with Bayesian thought, but what you are saying sounds like what I have been groping towards. My main point ha...
Your caveat here is noted, and it applies to all sensory experience, hence no absolute certainty to be found anywhere. If I were to find a purple swan...
This from the Wiki page on verificationism: Although Karl Popper's falsificationism has been widely criticized by philosophers, Popper has been the on...
OK I'll take your word for it; but it does seem incredible! Can you cite any texts by, for example, Ayer or the Logical Positivists that explicitly id...
Do you really believe there have been any philosophically significant confirmationists stupid enough to base their whole system of thought on an inval...
Comments