Janus

You didn't answer my question.

Because it consists in postulating reasons (theories) for observed regularities; reasons which are justified not deductively (although deduction comes...

Do you have a deductively valid reason for reducing your definition of reason to deductively valid reasoning?

So, for example, would you say that you have no reason to believe that because people have died in the past, they will die in the future?

I get your point. But I do think it's reasonable to take the argument that it is impossible to conceive of that which is unconceived, when coupled wit...

That's not what I have admitted at all and nor is it correct. Just because we can obviously have no direct empirical evidence that the future will be ...

None of us has anything to work with other than experience; either our our own or received deliverances about the experience of others. Whether or not...

So you think custom is a worthy guide as to what to think; is that a conclusion based on a process of reasoning or is it merely a blind following of c...

We can certainly entertain ideas of pre-conceptual objects, but just as certainly those ideas are not themselves pre-conceptual. I think this single f...

There can be no sensible arbiter other than reason; the issue is about how that reason is informed as much as it is about how well it is employed.

There is a major difference between metaphysical and religious narratives insofar as the first kind are speculative, based on what we can imagine migh...

Yeah, both are sometimes referred to as 'rumination'.

Hey, no probs :) happy reading!

I have just finished reading Hacker's and Bennett's criticisms of the "mereological fallacy" they contend is routinely committed by many neuroscientis...

That makes sense; even atoms or quarks must have some kind of form. So "small forms have larger forms to unite 'em, and so on ad infinitum '...or is i...

This seems to be a very traditional understanding along the lines of saying that the matter remains while the form is transmuted.

Yes, when I wrote 'perfectly correspond' I was thinking about how what we say always fails to be exhaustive. There is always more to the things than w...

I actually meant something more along the lines of suggesting that strong claims about what is are often understood to be strong metaphysical claims a...

I actually do agree that in an important sense experience is, must be, conceptual all the way down (as I stated in the 'Logical Content of Experience'...

What would enable us, pre-linguistically, to reliably pick out objects, or non-linguistic animals to pick out objects ( or "affordances") if there wer...

I think what Willow means by "defined in themselves" is something like "definite in themselves" or "distinct in themselves'. A perceptible object's de...

I think you're probably right that I am groping towards what is conventionally thought of as reference. For me, to say that 'A' refers to A seems to b...

Thanks, I'll certainly check that out and see if I can afford it. :-$ . I have Soames' history of analytic philosophy in my shelves somewhere, but I a...

Again, I think you may be conflating defining something with analyzing or theorizing about it. 'Truth' is defined in any dictionary. Perhaps it could ...

This is not a theory of correspondence but a definition or an account. Similarly, I can say of truth that it means that one thing (a statement or a pi...

Did you read the Hornsby paper? There may be other Frege arguments about correspondence, just as you say, but I was specifically referring to this par...

I think super funds are a good alternative to/ augmentation of social security pensions, but for them to be invested in the markets is a bad idea. May...

Everything in politics ends in mysticism; the circle is complete...

In Australia, at least, most workers' superannuation is invested in the markets' so yeah, here they do care.

You've earned the cigar Willow 8-)

Thanks for the "Haugeland" recommendation; I have been meaning to read him for some time. In particular I have been wanting to read Dasein Disclosed b...

OK got it, thanks.

This is all going to be a bit off-topic, but what the hell? I agree that it's reasonable to think that some processive structures (which includes the ...

No :’( .

Thanks for providing all that interesting and instructive detail, Pierre. I need to finish reading that Hornsby paper (and the Neuroscience and Philos...

True, we do usually distinguish between those things, but in the context we are considering, the apple is part of the experience of eating it, and is ...

Yes, I see that now; thanks for your further clarification Pierre.

Well, do you think that all those ways of thinking about experience, particularly in the context of the case in question of wanting to eat an apple (w...

This is, I think, a very nice, clear summary of the situation. I think many people don't realize that the prosperity we enjoy is reliant on cheap oil,...

OK, but unless you identify the bits that you find unclear and require explanation I can't be of much help. Try this: do you agree that variously thin...

Well, you wrote this: I get your distinction between "weak" forms of atheism and agnosticism and strong claims about the nature of reality. But you ar...

Actually I don't think of experiences as 'mental states'. In the Hornsby paper linked by Pierre there is an interesting distinction between 'thought' ...

As you say, I am tending to think that the logic of correspondence is fundamental to all discourse and hence to meaning itself. The article you linked...

Well, could I have referred to Deflationary Correspondence and expected anyone to know what I was taking about? I explained early on that I am not con...

Yes the words correspond to a possible state of affairs. There could be a king of France and he could be bald. Same with "Obama is a senator". You sti...

OK, I see what you mean, now. But anyway, as I said above my point was about the sense of the statement 'snow is white' not about what would make it t...

If "'X is true' is equivalent to 'X' then why can't "'X' is true' iff X" be written as "'X' iff X". I am not particularly familiar with the convention...

Ungrammatical or not, you said earlier that "'X' is true" is equivalent to "X" so why would "'P' is true" not by the same logic be equivalent to 'P'?

Its exactly equivalent to 'P' iff P.

So, leaving aside truth take "'snow is white' iff snow is white". 'Snow is white' corresponds to snow being white. 'Snow' corresponds to snow, 'is' co...