apokrisis

Yes, I do see appeals to the supernatural as ontologically vacuous. Transcendence can't work as causal explanation. So I am happy starting with a rati...

Memory is a better way to look at it. But also everything about the brain is memory. A snappy way of putting it is that the unconscious or habitual pa...

But you've changed the subject by bringing in Jung. At least Freud was trying to be materialistic and scientific. Now you are appealing to the superna...

But it is also pretty materialist to be seeking the hidden subconscious determinants of behaviour. Freud's own model is straight out of the industrial...

A better neuroscientific division than conscious vs unconscious is attentional vs habitual. And in humans, both would have then have the extra feature...

I'm speaking for the scientific research. If you want to believe something else, it won't change that.

The simplest answer is that being conscious of the world itself demands a constant process of anticipatory imagery. We have to forward model the sensa...

Well yes, as you just did. :)

The point is rather that the meanings of words aren't exhaustible. You could always contrive to find more. But then there also has to be some point to...

Yep, the complementary limits on the knowable. And as usual, limits are what knowledge may approach with asymptotic closeness, but - by definition, in...

Rubbish. Even imaginable things are to some degree uncertain, vague or indeterminate in our mind. So we can talk about that which is by the same token...

Why are you suggesting I said there was an opposition or a contradiction? My point was that there is a filtering or constraint that is core to the met...

Yes indeedy. As I said, we can see the difference in arguing for a belief and arguing to a belief. It is not as hard as you make out. That is the mist...

Hmm. But love is blind they say. Some believe we are meant to look past the loved one's flaws. And indeed, much of what passes for philosophical debat...

On those two points, as you say, the idea that truth is socially constructed is a very acceptable and modern understanding. But where Pomo can go wron...

I think this is a bit too feelgood. I would argue - pragmatically - that philosophical reasoning is just like scientific reasoning in being a method o...

I'm not sure I understand your question. But we reason in this fashion as it is effective. Reducing our choices to a pair of polar opposites means we ...

In this case, the social narrative - understanding this variety of symptoms as a single feeling - is fairly accurate of the biology. We are naturally ...

I understand this to mean that language defines our ontological commitments. And that would be a social constructionist position on emotions that I wo...

Obviously the game is to maximise the one and minimise the other. But given the future can only be guessed, we can't usually know the true risk-reward...

Yep. So we can talk about the intersection of sets - {triangles} and {four sided polygons} - that then result in empty sets. It fits one view of set l...

Still promising the satisfaction you never could or intended to deliver? Life is too short for those coy games.

I would like a full answer. Not interested in cock-teasing.

In what way was it not correct?

I think retrocausality of some kind has to be the case. But TI does the usual physics thing of treating the transactions as a simple reversible symmet...

Yep, we are certainly limited by our humanness. But it is now a metaphysically general argument that existence is limited by the resources it has to "...

Are you a utilitarian? I'm a pragmatist - and Peircean not Jamesian. So different in essential ways. Ramsey was getting it - and whispering it in Witt...

By logical possibility, you mean counterfactuality. Things are definite in that they must either be the case, or not. So we can only count possibiliti...

You are posing this as an instance of the unmovable object and the irresistible force. And that is a paradoxical framing as it claims the existence of...

Language use is confused here. But potential usually is taken to refer to a general power that is then localised in its expression. So it is predicate...

Physically a potential (for change) is a symmetry, a state of equilibrium balance, not yet broken.

Yep. Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. Or syntax is not semantics. The capacity to be meaningless or false is why language appears to have unlim...

I gave a reasonably definite view - both of what might be the usual response within an Aristotelian metaphysics, and then a more contemporary Peircean...

Yes. And so it might not be. Hence my request that you get beyond assertions and offer arguments. Of course I have zero expectation of that.

Or rather in the usual fashion of Metaphysical reasoning, we are seeking the dichotomy that breaks apart the question in its most perfect possible log...

So the answer to my question is this? Metaphysics shouldn't exist? And you can't see that is already a metaphysical proposition?

Great, a straight answer to one question at least. No. So what about that Lewis guy, eh? Modal logic produces the craziest of all crazy Metaphysical s...

Science seems to be happening and thriving despite your belly-aching. People talk about path integral and multiverses quite happily. Ideas about every...

Yeah. So that is why metaphysics would in fact be so concerned with the obvious demarcation between everything possible and everything actual. Have an...

Evasion.

So can you answer a straight question for once: how ought a metaphysician use words?

So when metaphysicians agree on usage, or when they differ, do they not seem to think there might be some essential ground for doing so? Is it really ...

Hmm. Isn't that a profound Metaphysical question you're asking?

So how ought a metaphysician use the word?

This now seems an entirely different question. Are you asking how anything in fact comes to exist? What causes being? Why something and not nothing? I...

How could any entity that was actually actual - ie: a materially individuated form - not be individuated within a world. Where would this material thi...

You seem very confused. The actual arises as a limitation or constraint on the potential.

Do you not agree that the actual is some numerical subset of all the possible forms of organisation plus all their possible material accidents? If we ...

If we are talking about actual things in a world then the essential difference is that the possible forms are materialised. We are speaking of substan...

It would be usual to distinguish between every thing potential and every thing actual. One would be a subset of the other. Then the potential itself c...