Manuel

I never got an answer. What's your ontology? :)

You said: "She slapped him because she was angry”, “She slapped him because <insert causal chain leading to slap here>”. Same thing." You said it's th...

It's "sad" insofar as it leaves out many fascinating topics of conversation that Schopenhauer was fascinated by, such as his accounts of the world bei...

I don't follow.

I mean, you could do that. But it would be very strange. You'd eventually describe everything we do in neurophysiological language. I don't see how th...

Sorry. I was reading into what you were saying much more than what you did. I thought you were coming from a Churchland perspective. Alex Rosenberg wo...

Sorry. Just typing out loud. I know one poster here, who goes by the name Schopenhauer1, who argues about antinatlism, it seems as if Schopenhauer inf...

Yeah. I don't see a way around it. I'd like to if possible, but so far it's the best I've been able to come up with.

Ah, did not know that. I'd be interested in reading up on some of that literature actually.

I'm no panpsychist if that's what you mean.

The "What's Your Ontology Thread" that I started. Specifically the 3rd post on the second page. I just don't want to paste the entire thing.

I don't understand. Why is this topic so popular? Heck, one would get the very misleading impression that Schopenhauer (who tends to be associated wit...

I entirely agree with that. We don't have the capacity to explain mind with neuroscience. How do I link a post of mine? I explain this in detail, I be...

All I want is to give structure to my ignorance. It's clear that you obviously know your philosophy quite well. All I can say is enjoy.

That is correct. I won't be saying much. But there's already so much stuff about "physical" as opposed to mental or opposed to consciousness, that thi...

That's overwhelmingly possible. But I learn, hopefully. :)

AI. Ethnoscience. Common sense understanding. What do we say about numbers or ideas?

I understand that view. I don't necessarily think it need entail someone doubting the existence of flower or cooking. Not if your a realist about expe...

The topic of "the physical" is very problematic. Why assume that mind is not a wholly physical phenomena? One would have to show why physical stuff le...

Ah, there is much that can be said about these matters. I'd tend to agree that thinking in terms of the individual is most parsimonious and classifica...

Damn man, that's actually a very nice quote, not gonna lie. :)

Interesting, but where is the cop-out? I don't see it. I tend to enjoy William James quite bit when he talks about this things, but I'm more sympathet...

Intentionality is assumed in these models. While it is perfectly true that the mental is a physical phenomena, I think it's a big mistake to forget th...

I mean, first off, in manifest reality, you need intentionality, you need to be in front of a tree for those effects to come into play. If you had no ...

The general idea would be, that by your reporting that neural firings in the occipital cortex are consistent with me seeing a tree, you haven't said h...

I suspect something along these lines are correct in relation to entities, meaning such words "and", "but", don't tell things us about the world. Whic...

100,000%. Sometimes in other forums, philosophy of mind sections are literally only about neuroscience. It should then be called brain philosophy, whi...

That sounds very much like pragmatism, along the lines of William James. The issue is what to do with entities that initially may appear to be of litt...

If we were to stick to that standard, we'd probably still be living in animism, or something along those lines. It's somewhat akin to that saying "you...

Thank you. It's the product of constantly being embarrassed by talking to people much smarter than me. And much conceptual anguish. All the time. :)

To be clear, I think Foucault is fine and Deleuze is quite creative, though I still think that some of the observations made by Sokal and Bricmont mer...

I agree, this distinction is fundamental and it can help constrain us in some manner. If something is mind dependent, it seems to me that one is less ...

I'm not following the "If no mind then no X, then X is a member". I believe this could apply to say particles or cells. God, for those who believe in ...

It does. I'm far from confident in what I'm saying, I'm just trying things out. So let me pose to you the following question, given that all of this d...

Could you expand on that? Like listing some examples, or describing how such an approach works, more or less.

That's fair. But would a framework of yours try to do away with certain postulates, or would you try to keep as many things as possible? Well, we can ...

Saying math has a grammar, like English has a grammar, or French or Mandarin is to expand the word grammar a bit much, I think. I guess I'll have to a...

I think this varies by person. In my personal case, it has not been of much use. For you it seems to be different. Same with moral leaders.

That was poorly phrased. All I meant was that most people throughout history have been wrong in there beliefs. They thought the there were many gods a...

Yes. Goodman took his own philosophy very seriously, maybe too much.

That's part of it, but he mentions that specific point in many places. He also discuses how Hume concluded that Newton's greatest merit was that Newto...

Emergence meaning a totally new property arising from what went before. Some go as far as calling it radical emergence, which means that we have no id...

I wouldn't think about it that way. I don't see any contradiction between brain secreting thought and reason being sovereign. You can think of emergen...

Sure. It's the phenomenon we are most intimately acquainted with, it's awesome. But I don't see how this quote contradicts his earlier point at all.

Quite a good story. And correct, or so it looks like to me. Thanks for sharing.

We'd have to assume that what the science tells us about dog vision is accurate, in the sense that if we had some device put in our brains, that could...

Sure. If we commit ourselves to some extremely high moral standard, we are likely to fall short of it. This issue of looking to "moral leaders" and th...

There is a very long conversation to be had here. I think Joseph Priestley made the correct observation when he said that: "It is said that we can hav...

Morality is too complicated to base it on iron-clad rules. What we would do in one situation with some people - strangers - we wouldn't do with other ...

Goodman is fascinating, his Starmaking is very thought provoking to me, though I wouldn't go as far as Goodman does. You are correct, innatism is not ...