I don't know what you mean here. The point is that even before any scientific enquiry we were able to distinguish water from other things like trees a...
I'm sure it would have been correct to say that even before any scientific enquiry we knew what water and trees were. An understanding of particle phy...
The argument is that if there are more simulated worlds than there are non-simulated worlds then you're more likely to be in a simulated world than a ...
Which just means that living things have intentions, not that life qua life has a purpose. I don't know what you mean by this being a purpose. It's ju...
What kind of evidence suggests that there's a purpose? Presumably if there is some then a simulation-universe would differ empirically from a non-simu...
What do you think of Bostrom's trilemma? 1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running hi...
He's just saying that the universe we find ourselves to live in is a simulation. He's not saying that there isn't a real non-simulation universe in wh...
And the problem is that random choices might not actually be possible (e.g. hard determinism) or that random choices aren't actually choices but thing...
I'm not tied to the notion that naive realists believe this. I'm just suggesting that there are likely people who do. It seems like a perfectly unders...
I haven't read enough of the paper to know what Sellars' thoughts are on the matter. But I doubt he picked the definition out of thin air. Presumably ...
Then I guess the "red" in "the dress is red" is different to the "red" in "the dress looks red", as the "red" in "the dress looks red" is sense-data b...
That's interesting. The dress is actually blue and black, the colour in the image is actually gold and white (well, a bluish silver really), and some ...
Except we say that the dress really is blue and black even though I see it as white and gold. So is the blueness and the blackness that the dress real...
I see white and gold, but I'm told that it's actually blue and black. As such, one might say that my experience isn't veridical. I'm not really sure t...
You keep missing the point. Given that it has to pick either a) or b), how does it actually make the random decision to pick one over the other? And i...
I think the claim is that if something looks red in the veridical case then it is red (i.e. the object itself has the property of being red). Therefor...
The premise is that there isn't anything about either that provides for a rational preference – or at least nothing that the ass is aware of. So, assu...
I think this misses the point. Obviously the two stacks of hay are different in that they're two stacks of hay, located in different places and being ...
The difficulty here is that you haven't explained how the ass can choose a) over b) or b) over a). You've only explained how the ass has a rational re...
That it's rational to choose a) or b) over c) is not that the random decision to choose a) over b) or b) over a) is rational. And if it's impossible t...
Of course this choice is relevant to the problem. This choice is the problem. The problem isn't the choice between eating or not eating or the choice ...
You've only explained that it has a reason to pick either a) or b) over c). You haven't explained that it has a reason to pick a) over b) or b) over a...
All you've explained here is that when given the three options of a) eat the hay on the left, b) eat the hay on the right, and c) do nothing, we have ...
Yes, but there are two ways to avoid death, and no reason to pick one over the other. That's where the decision-making halts. Simply knowing that you ...
I don't think this really addresses the problem, which is that the decision to choose one over the other isn't a rational decision. Although there mig...
I assume there were offending posts that have since been deleted? In one of your posts you say "I appreciate the moderators allowing me to post here d...
Going back to my previous suggestion, I'm going to approach the problem by replacing "true" and false" with more meaningful alternatives, but I'm goin...
Sure I did. Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief, hence the definition of atheism given being "disbelief or lack of belief...". If I disbelieve...
You seem to have switched gears. First you were saying that "this sentence is false" and "this sentence is neither true nor false" are logically equiv...
Consider the sentences "how old are you?" and "what is your name?". Both are neither true nor false but they are not logically equivalent. For two sen...
No, what we're saying is that A. "this sentence is false" and B. "this sentence is neither true nor false" are not logically equivalent. They're diffe...
Because the fundamentals are, by definition, fundamental. You might want to say that these laws-as-habits are fundamental (else I guess you'll have to...
Whatever is the fundamental behaviour is fundamental. What I'm saying is that it's a mistake to think of laws of nature as being something that isn't ...
Sure it does. What else would it mean? Lack of belief? Then the definition above would be "lack of belief or lack of belief in the existence of God". ...
The fundamental behaviour of things is, by definition, fundamental. There is no further explanation. As I said in my first post, there is just the beh...
The irony is that it tells someone to learn to read but the author didn't read the first word in the definition: disbelief, i.e. the belief that somet...
It's true because things in such situations behave in such ways. I don't know why this is supposed to entail laws-as-habits. I'm not the one saying th...
I'd say it's the bending of space-time (or the moving of bodies with mass towards each other as a result; I'm not sure). I don't even know what it wou...
I also said that the law could just be the actual behaviour. What I'm questioning is the notion of the law as some third thing. So it's not that there...
Comments