Why aren't the facts about the mental states collection of facts Y and the facts about the brain states collections of facts X? — RogueAI

Assuming you are referring to X being "I am alarmed" and Y beng "hypophysis releasing adrenaline", because for reductive materialism they are the same as saying "Batman is 190cm tall" and "Bruce Wayne is 190cm tall". You may disagree with it, but until you refute it, you can't say your theory denying RM is proven rather than a mere possibility.

By "I am" I mean that my experience of being a sentient being is real for me. It is because of this experience that I am convinced that I exist. — Truth Seeker

Nobody experiences existence directly, you experience yourself when you think, feel, remember etc. That is Descartes' point. He knows he is because he thought.

What are you certain of? — Truth Seeker

That I know nothing.

Another very beautiful mapa-mundi, by Johannes Ruysch (1507):

is Dr. Popovic himself a reductive materialist, or a materialist at all? — flannel jesus

I don't know. From what I have seen, I am not even sure whether he is a proper doctor (his work seems to be on management and business), but I found that summary on his website and found it sufficient.

Are you claiming that exchanging meaningful information about LED lights entails exchanging meaningful information about transition metals and photons and everything else that an LED is? — RogueAI

No, I am claiming one is a collection of facts Y about the LED and the other a collection of facts X, you don't need X for Y neither Y for X, even though X would give you a deeper understanding of Y.

Suppose two children are talking about how bright the sun is. Is your claim that they are also talking about photons and fusion and just don't know it? — RogueAI

As above, no. But on this special case, talking about how bright the sun is involves photons, so those two facts are more closely related than the colour of an LED and it having a diode inside. The brightness of a star is a consequence of its fusion, but they are not talking fusion itself, like to talk about wetness is not to talk about the rain.

Also, the photons the cavemen are seeing being emitted from the LED's (and causing their erroneous beliefs about the LED's) are not identical to the LED's themselves — RogueAI

The photons an LED emit define its colours, so they are talking about the LED when they say the LED is red.

Also, in your example, the tribesman have an erroneous belief LED's and livers — RogueAI

Just like Ancient Greeks talking about brain states when they say "I feel pain" and not knowing much about the brain. That is the point.

Can you give an example where no erroneous beliefs are going on? — RogueAI

I think therefore I am? I don't understand the question.

For a reductive materialist, yes, because when they say "I am in pain" they are talking about their brains. A collection of facts X about the brain is not necessary for the acknowledgement of another collection of facts Y about the brain.

See the analogous case:

Tribesmen see an LED. They have no clue what transition metals are, what diodes are, what photons are, what a catode is. Yet, when the LED shines red, they say "the liver is red", when it shines blue, "the liver is blue". They think that LED is the thing purifying their bodies of all toxins, so they call it liver. Nonetheless, they are still correctly talking about LED states.

Of course there are different versions of it. But I used a simplified mainstream claim.

This view is known as reductive materialism or materialistic monism. It is based on the belief that the mind can either be identified or reduced to the brain (or body) activity. For a true materialist the ‘mind’ is nothing more than a way of describing certain electrical impulses and chemical processes in the brain and the rest of the body. Thoughts or emotions are mere folk terminology: consequently, the laws of nature govern these processes. — Dr. Nash Popovic

You are judging a determinist from the libertarian point of view. People do bad things because they were predetermined to, that is one thing; we judge them because we were predetermined to, that is another thing. In the determinist universe, there is a causal connection between the two. So calling someone irrational for doing what they were predetermined to does not make sense.

That is cool fiction.

then they are being irrational by holding people accountable — Bob Ross

We were predetermined to put some people in jail.

The correct statement is "I am, therefore I am." — Truth Seeker

I would not classify "P because of P" as a correct statement.

I think therefore I am. Enneatype 5
I want therefore I am. Enneatype 4
I want therefore I think. Enneatype 2
I think therefore I want. Enneatype 7
I am therefore I think. Enneatype 1
I am therefore I want. Enneatype 8

The three reflexive ones are there as well:
I am therefore I am. Enneatype 9
I think therefore I think. Enneatype 6
I want therefore I want. Enneatype 3 — Chet Hawkins

Huh?

I did buy some fries, but the fries here are very fat and it gets hard to digest such heavy protein with heavy carbs.

Consider the below, Count makes basically the same argument as me.

Consider a universe of just one agent and a video game. At first, the agent has no freedom. They are in a tutorial mode during which they can only click on one bottom at a time as the game demonstrates how all the different buttons work. Through the tutorial, the agent gains true beliefs about what the buttons do. But they can't choose anything, they just watch. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You admit defeat here:

Since you're asking me this question after admitting that you had a hard time following my original post, you're essentially using the strawperson argument whether you realize that or not, so I'll end this debate with you here. — Echogem222

Simply because he had a hard time following the original post. That is not because he is stupid, he is smart, but it is because your OP is a visual mess.
You do that a few other times in this thread, all one needs to do is read through it to verify what I am saying. You take Banno's and wonderer1's snark as being the rule, but most of us are earnestly engaging with your thread.

I even go as far as granting you your absolute skepticism without having to do so, and yet, if we are being realistic about this, Count (and me) is correct, your argument does not follow. The fact that you replied to my objections with a flurry of related questions instead of actually addressing the objections is even more telling.

I will listen, but the majority of those who have responded to me did not do this, so I do not find it worth my time to respond to them anymore after engaging with them a little — Echogem222

Many of us made more of your argument than what was written, because the OP is not well-written at all. There are many points that were brought up that address your argument directly with clearer language than what you give us. But yet you refuse to address them. It is more than clearly an admission of defeat.

I'm going to stop responding to you now. Have a nice day. — Echogem222

:rofl:

Strange, because I pointed out a few holes in your argument and you ignored them, like you are doing here:

You're making so many assumptions, that this conversation just isn't worth it anymore. — Echogem222

Philosophy is mostly grammatical issues. — Banno

Being that a subfield of grammar is semantics, that statement turns out to be unsurprising.

So you concede? :grin:

Meat of the day, maminha:

An American cut, championed by Brazil. However the cow for this one comes from Poland. Like the picanha above came from de Nederlands, not ARG or BR.
Cooked on the pan with French butter. Rice on the olive oil.

Good weekend to all.

antidestablishmentarianism — Jack Cummins

Big word. The biggest, even, some would say.

I don't assume I gain free will later. My comment was just trying to pin that your argument does not necessarily follow. I am not stating the opposite case.

Differently from many and from Russell, I don't see a specific problem with the "I" in "I think therefore I am". Even within the context of the hyperbolic doubt, there are some good reasons to estipulate an "I". And outside that context, it is evidently non-problematic.

Free will implies the ability to make choices based on knowledge or beliefs, but if we started without any knowledge or beliefs, there would be no basis for making any choices, undermining the concept of free will. — Echogem222

Based on faith also. Many do not believe we started without any knowedge or beliefs — tabula rasa.

But even in tabula rasa I fail to see how that problematic.
1 – I am born, a stupid baby who knows literally nothing.
2 – As a baby, I can't make choices because I basically have no consciousness at that point.
3 – I have sense perception before I am able to make choices.
4 – My senses give me some beliefs (the sky is blue).
5 – I am now able to make choices based on the sky being blue.

we had free will, we would have to know (either through direct knowledge or faith) that knowing things is important before we knew anything — Echogem222

Why does free will require knowledge? I don't see how that follows.

This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will. — Echogem222

Surely we don't have absolute free will, I think only a "pantheistic" God could have such. But it does not imply we have no free will at all.

and starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty would make the concept of free will paradoxical, it follows that we do not have free will — Echogem222

Or maybe it follows that we don't start from complete ignorance, meaning that we do have innate ideas?

why am I able to doubt it — Echogem222

Can you doubt the law of identity though?

Eusebius passes down the rumor that the theologian and Platonist scholar Origen had castrated himself in order to avoid temptation and focus on his studies — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ah, Efsevios, the guy who might or might not have forged historical documents.

Diogenes Laertius, historian from Roman Greece. He lived centuries after the people he wrote about, and some of the things he says are dubious, but he is the only/best guy we have about many topics, so we stick to it.

He used also to say that the daemon foretold the future to him;[21]
and that to begin well was not a trifling thing, but yet not far from
a trifling thing; and that he knew nothing, except the fact of his
ignorance. Another saying of his was, that those who bought things out of
season, at an extravagant price, expected never to live till the proper
season for them. Once, when he was asked what was the virtue of a young
man, he said, “To avoid excess in everything.” And he used to say, that
it was necessary to learn geometry only so far as might enable a man to
measure land for the purposes of buying and selling. — C. D. Yonge translation

He used to say that his supernatural sign warned him beforehand of the future; that to make a good start was no trifling advantage, but a trifle turned the scale; and that he knew nothing except just the fact of his ignorance. He said that, when people paid a high price for fruit which had ripened early, they must despair of seeing the fruit ripen at the proper season. And, being once asked in what consisted the virtue of a young man, he said, "In doing nothing to excess." He held that geometry should be studied to the point at which a man is able to measure the land which he acquires or parts with. — R. D. Hicks translation

I thought you could be a Greek, but don't appear so. — Corvus

I am not, but I know many Greeks. I think they would stand by that there is nothing different between Greek's and English's 'true', etymology nonwithstanding.

I have not fully studied the historiography of Socrates (anyone here?), I am sure it would be interesting to delve into Xenophon's and Plato's accounts of Socrates' character, but that aside, I am not so convinced that "I only know that I know nothing" can be assumed to be metaphoric or poetic because of Socrate's behaviour, more on that below. But overall, there is in fact quite a few points where Socrates suggests he is not an absolute skeptic.

This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates’ statement, “I neither know nor think that I know” (in Plato, Apology 21d). The paraphrased saying, though widely attributed to Plato’s Socrates in both ancient and modern times, actually occurs nowhere in Plato’s works in precisely the form “I know that I know nothing.”[5] Two prominent Plato scholars have recently argued that the claim should not be attributed to Plato’s Socrates.[6]
Evidence that Socrates does not actually claim to know nothing can be found at Apology 29b-c, where he claims twice to know something. See also Apology 29d, where Socrates indicates that he is so confident in his claim to knowledge at 29b-c that he is willing to die for it. — https://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/11/03/socrates-i-know-that-i-know-nothing/

Even if he was such, I don't think he would be contradicting himself. I may say that I know nothing while also casting doubt on other people's beliefs. Belief is a(n doxastic) attitude, which means that I believe something if and only if I believe something. I don't believe something because I say X or because I did Y — of course, some of my behaviour may suggest what some of my beliefs are (shaking before going up a mountain may suggest I don't actually believe I know how to ski), but it gets complex from there, especially when instinct may override rationality, and whether you want to include involuntary aspects such as emotions into your analysis of belief.
There is a phrase in some languages which is "to speak from your mouth out", which is to say something without committing to its truth. Something similar in English is "to play devil's advocate", you can say something without it implying any beliefs. Socrates, when talking to the people, is not necessarily admitting to any beliefs.

If you want a really good ancient treatment of the skepticism that grew out of Plato and its relation to faith, St. Augustine's Contra Academicos is quite good and includes a version of Descartes famous "cognito ergo sum." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Cogito. Good recommendation :up: I did not know he said that in Contra Academicos, I was aware of the si fallor in "Monologues", "The Trinity" and "The City of God":

"If he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wants to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he doesn't know; if he doubts, he thinks that he shouldn't agree rashly. Even if you doubt other things, you shouldn't doubt that you doubt. Since if it didn't exist, it would be impossible to doubt anything," — Saint Augustine

Some earlier appearances of cogitos here too:

I suggest you ask a Greek linguist instead of me.

I'm not interested in proving this part of the argument. Now, how can people who have no idea of what brains are talk coherently about brain states? — RogueAI

Because, in reductive materialism, there no difference between "I am stressed" and "My hypophysis is ejecting adrenaline" in what those phrases refer to. When I say "I am stressed" I am coherently talking about a brain state. I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. That I think the brain is actually the liver and the liver is the brain is another aspect of the topic. We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it. — Lionino

We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it. — Lionino

You have to put your thinking cap on, Lionino. — Astrophel

Opening statements such as this really help people getting on your side. Keep it up.

that it is true — Astrophel

one has to state this is the case — Astrophel

stating it — Astrophel

That what it is the case?

Again: Tell me what you think the nature of existence is, and you find that you are telling me, and so "the telling" is propositional, and you have thereby committed yourself to an epistemology. — Astrophel

By "an epistemology", I imagine you mean an epistemological system. Surely by telling you things I commit myself to some epistemological claims, but that is a truism. By telling you what I think the nature of existence is, I am talking to you about ontology, not epistemology — you are yet to prove otherwise. So I don't know what epistemology I am committing myself to by telling you something, because as far as I know, everybody is also committing to it by saying something.
You are speaking in vague terms, I can't know for sure what you are referring to because you don't give examples.

Whatever existence is is bound analytically to the saying it is. — Astrophel

This seems to be what other users were talking about, some sort of idealism or anti-realism, but apparently I am not the only who can't decipher it.

I asked you to reference your OP, not to explain it over again with a novel text. You did exactly that.

Here's another one for you: by Walther von Wartburg (1928–2002), “sexus”, in Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch: — Vaskane

Once again, stop quoting things you know nothing about. The screenshot you used simply says states what sexe means and its etymology. No etymological dictionary is needed for that, you can find that information in any online French dictionary.
Sexus does not mean to differentiate nor does it mean to cleave. You don't know the difference between adjectives, nouns, and verbs — functionally illiterate.
English sex does not come from Latin sexus. It comes from French sexe. Otherwise you would have proved the sexus>sex sound change a long time ago, but you haven't done that, because you can't, because it doesn't exist.
You disgracefully abuse de Vaan's dictionary like a barbarian, I showed how it doesn't support your illiterate claims because you are uneducated and can't interpret the dictionary, then you go and skip to another source that states nothing that is beyond obvious. You do that in other posts. When your own ignorance is thrown on your face, you skip to something that is irrelevant to what is at hand.
You are an idiot who thinks himself smart but can't even read. That is usually what happens to mediocre people who skip to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer without first reading what those two are referencing.

The modern meaning of sectio 'division' suggests that sec/xus might derive from secare 'to sever', but the morphology remains unclear: does sexus go back to an s-present *sek-s 'to cut up', or was it derived from a form *sek-s- of the putative s-stem underlying secus.

Going over the quote again, for the sane people with rational souls who might be interested. The meaning of the word sectio, deverbal action noun of secō, suggests that sexus might come from secare. But the morpohology is still not clear. Why? In Latin, verbs typically don't derive nouns straight from their stem. Sexus does not come directly from the verb secare like dissecare does, but either from a reconstructed stem that underlies the verb secare, or from another reconstructed stem (this one hypothetical, not confirmed to exist) that underlies the noun secus — which one is unknown. Otherwise, de Vaan would put sexus under the entry for secō after "Derivatives", but he doesn't, sexus has its own entry.

I see why you left "Aristotle," out of your favorites — Vaskane

There was no particular reason for the choices in that list. It is funny how I am giving you a taste of your own poison over the last few days and you have gone obsessed over me. If you are gonna try to bully people online, consider not trying hard to look like you have XXY kariotype.

Do you really need me to prove that ancient peoples talked about pain, suffering, loss, love, heartache, etc.? — RogueAI

The claim changed from "talking coherently about mental states" to "talked about pain, suffering, loss", but yet no proof was given. I will call it for myself.

Hilarious that you would open this dictionary when your knowledge of linguistics is 0, clear that you haven't even mastered your simple tongue, not knowing infinity is noun and not adjective.
Let's see what it actually says:

The modern meaning of sectio 'division' suggests that sec/xus might derive from secare 'to sever', but the morphology remains unclear: does sexus go back to an .s-present *sek-s-4to cut up', or was it derived from a form *sek-s- of the putative s-stem underlying secus.

None of this says sexus means to divide or to separate, because it doesn't. A noun is not a verb. That is basic morphology.
You see, when people go to school, they don't read the textbook by themselves, but with the professor guiding them so that they don't end up with malformed ideas about the topic, which is why they take an exam at the end. But in your case it is not just ideas that are malformed, it is the vessel that holds those ideas too.

Let's see what the traditional Latin dictionary Gaffiot says

sexŭs, (10) ūs, m. , sexe : Cic. Inv. 1, 35 || [en parl. de plantes, de minéraux] : Plin. 13, 31 ; 12, 61 ; 36, 128 || organes sexuels : Plin. 22, 20

There is nothing here about separating or dividing.

You abuse sources you know nothing about because you are a politician scourring through material you have not read to prove your nonsense right. Again, stop talking about Latin.

And showing the morphological transition from Sexus to Sex is easy af — Vaskane

No, it is not, because there is barely anything in English that comes from Latin, sex is not one of them. I will challenge you to show me on text in Anglo-Saxon that includes the word 'sex'. Saying that sex comes from sexus is rather like saying that the sky is sour, no dictionary with its non-existent authority will change that. But that is not even the greater offense. Conveniently, no source was given to "Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate", which you have ignored twice now.

we all know that YOU saying so doesn't mean shit at this point — Vaskane

We who? I and other people saw you claiming that the infinity between 1 and 3 is bigger than between 2 and 1.

And it is right, mother, that Hellenes should rule barbarians, but not barbarians Hellenes, those being slaves, while these are free. — Euripides

Some more quotes I like from Descartes' Discourse:

My third maxim was to endeavour always to master myself rather than fortune, to try to change my desires rather than to change the order of the world, and in general to settle for the belief that there is nothing entirely in our power except our thoughts, and after we have tried, in respect of things external to us, to do our best, everything in which we do not succeed is absolutely impossible as far as we are concerned. This alone seemed to me to be sufficient to prevent me from desiring anything in future which I could not obtain, and thereby to make me content. For as our will is naturally inclined to desire only those things which our intellect represents to it as possible in some way, it is certain that if we consider all external goods as being equally beyond our power, we shall not feel any more regret at failing to obtain those which seem to be our birthright when deprived of them through no fault of our own, than we shall for not possessing the kingdoms of China and Mexico; and by making a virtue out of necessity, as the saying goes, we shall no more desire to be healthy when we are ill or free when we are in prison, than we do now to have bodies made of matter as incorruptible as diamonds or wings to allow us to fly like birds.

Fables make us conceive of events as being possible where they are not; and even if the most faithful of accounts of the past neither alter nor exaggerate the importance of things in order to make them more attractive to the reader, they nearly always leave out the humblest and least illustrious historical circumstances, with the result that what remains does not appear as it really was, and that those who base their behaviour on the examples they draw from such accounts are likely to try to match the feats of knights of old in tales of chivalry and set themselves targets beyond their powers.

Among the first of these was the realization that things made up of different elements and produced by the hands of several master craftsmen are often less perfect than those on which only one person has worked. This is the case with buildings which a single architect has planned and completed, that are usually more beautiful and better designed than those that several architects have tried to patch together, using old walls that had been constructed for other purposes.

The first was to obey the laws and customs of my country, and to adhere to the religion in which God by His grace had me instructed from my childhood, and to govern myself in everything else according to the most moderate and least extreme opinions, being those commonly received among the wisest of those with whom I should have to live.

And although there may be as many wise people among the Persians and the Chinese as among ourselves, it seemed to me that the most useful thing to do would be to regulate my conduct by that of the people among whom I was to live; and that for me to know what their opinions really were, I had to take note of what they did rather than what they said[...]

And I chose only the most moderate among many opinions which were equally widely received, as much because these are always easiest to practise and likely to be the best (excesses all being usually bad) as to wander less far from the true path in case I should be wrong, and that having followed one extreme, it transpired that I should have followed the other.

For although every man is indeed bound to procure the good of others insofar as it is within his power, and we are, in the true meaning of the word, worthless if we are of no use to anyone else, yet it is also true that our efforts have to reach out beyond the present time, and that it is acceptable to omit doing things which might bring some benefit to our contemporaries, when this is done in order to bring greater benefit to our grandchildren.

I think this is more than just a naming issue. Whether one is talking about Venus or morning star, one is referring to a bright light in the sky that one knows exists. — RogueAI

The point is that for the reductive materialist, morning star is to Venus as mental state is to brain state. Whether I know other facts about Venus is accessory.

I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. — Lionino

That is absurd. — RogueAI

Ok, prove it.

Sorry, I don't follow the example. They are passing notes in a foreign language to both of them or each other or to us? And they are passing notes about brain states but in the next sentence about mental states then in the next sentence about brain states? I think something was miswritten there.

Or, we cut the chase and let you prove that

Therefore, ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their mental states. — Lionino

is not the case. If you don't, it is an open possibility and thus your OP's conclusion does not follow.

Too bad. Wrong. It has nothing to do with Latin. Otherwise you would easily explain how sexus becomes sex morphologically. You can't because it didn't. Sex was sexe in Middle English, which was taken from French.

Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate — Vaskane

Funny how you ignored this. Completely wrong. And you are not supposed to capitalise the word, this isn't German.

I verify everything I say first — Vaskane

Too bad you lack the intelligence to interpret whatever it was that you verified. I didn't read the rest of your insane rant by the way.

I will urge all barbarians to never speak or refer to Latin, especially the crazy ones.

I'm just trying to remain open on the subject cause it seems weird to me that sex was originally from Sexus, meaning to cut to divide to differentiate — Vaskane

Though it bothers me to participate in this thread yet again, this whole statement is incorrect. And before you do your usual tactics, I will challenge you give a single source that proves you right.

I did not do a disparaging remark and left — ok maybe I did :razz: In our conversation you were ping ponging between different topics without connecting them. Your OP, to start with, is vague.

We start with a tautology:

it is impossible to affirm something about the being or existence or reality [...] in the world without this reality being, well, affirmed, and this is an epistemic term — Astrophel

to justify the controversial (if same) statement that epistemology and ontology:

are the same, I suspect, or mutually entailed — Astrophel

I take a hard look at what IS and I am always led to the justification of positing it — Astrophel

You give no example of "taking a hard look at what IS" neither of "justification of positing it". We are left with completely vague phrases, whose meanings could be many.

has no business simply assuming "P is true" without itself having justification — Astrophel

You would want to justify that by saying that epistemology is the same as ontology, but you are yet to prove it. Until now, something being true and us being justified in believing it are still separate matters, and you haven't proven otherwise.

and this too would require justification, and it never ends — Astrophel

Is this supposed to be "How do I know that I know? And how do I know that I know that I know?". Because that would be a related though different point.

Is my interpretation of your OP wrong? If so, please explain to me while referencing the OP. If the OP needs rewriting, go ahead.

Truth in ancient Greek meant concrete existence opposed to mere appearance or beliefs — Corvus

First you said it means unconcealed, now this. Which one is it?

They had no idea of verified truth from observation and experiment. — Corvus

Really?

ταῦθ᾽ ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγω
the truth of this story
Aeschin. 1 44

καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γλώττης δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μεταφορῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἰδεῶν μετατιθεὶς ἄν τις τὰ κύρια ὀνόματα κατίδοι ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγομεν
Take a rare word or metaphor or any of the others and substitute the ordinary word; the truth of our contention will then be obvious.
Aristot. Poet. 1458b

ὡς ὁ Ἱππίας ἀποστήσας ἀπὸ τῶν ὅπλων τοὺς πομπεύοντας, ἐφώρασε τοὺς τὰ ἐγχειρίδια ἔχοντας, οὐκ ἀληθής ἐστιν
but the current story that Hippias made the people in the procession fall out away from their arms and searched for those that retained their daggers is not true
Aristot. Const. Ath. 18

αὐτῷ διηγήσατο καὶ μάλα ἀξίους ἀκοῆς, εἶπέ τε ὅτι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη εἴη τοῦτον ἐλλόγιμον γενέσθαι, εἴπερ εἰς ἡλικίαν ἔλθοι.
Τερψσίων
καὶ ἀληθῆ γε, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἶπεν. ἀτὰρ τίνες ἦσαν οἱ λόγοι; ἔχοις ἂν διηγήσασθαι;
he had with him, which was well worth hearing, and he said he would surely become a notable man if he lived.
Terpsion
And he was right, apparently. But what was the talk? Could you relate it?
Plat. Theaet. 142d

οὐκ ἂν ἑτέρων ἔδει σοι μαρτύρων: οὕτω γὰρ ἄν σοι συνῄδεσαν ἀληθῆ λέγοντι
for then the truth of your statements would have been ascertained by the very persons who were to decide upon the matter.
Lys. 7 22

καὶ ἐπιεικῶς, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγώ, ἀληθῆ ἀπήγγελται.
Then the report, I replied, is pretty near the truth.
Plat. Charm. 153c

φέρε δὴ γνῶμεν, εἰ σὺ ἀληθῆ λέγεις, ποῦ καὶ χρήσιμοι ἡμῖν εἰσιν οἱ ὕπακροι οὗτοι;
Come now, let us make out, if what you say is true, where these second-best men are also useful to us
Plat. Lovers 136c

οὐκοῦν κοινὰ τά γε φίλων λέγεται, ὥστε τούτῳ γε οὐδὲν διοίσετον, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ περὶ τῆς φιλίας λέγετον.
And, you know, friends are said to have everything in common, so that here at least there will be no difference between you, if what you say of your friendship is true.
Plat. Lysis 207c

it wasn't identical meaning to today's concept of truth. — Corvus

What today's concept of truth? 'Veritè' also does not have the identical meaning of 'truth'.

Greeks did not have theories of truth like we have today, but many philosophers back then talked about what truth is. How can they not have a concept of truth? Greeks knew that "the sky is blue" is true and "the sky is green" is false. That "true" does not match "alithís" is a mootpoint, there is no such thing as a perfect translation, because every language imparts a worldview onto its speakers (the likelihood of two worldviews being identical is close to 0).

How does someone who thinks the brain's purpose is to cool the blood talk coherently about brain states? — RogueAI

Because, in reductive materialism, there no difference between "I am stressed" and "My hypophysis is ejecting adrenaline" in what those phrases refer to. When I say "I am stressed" I am coherently talking about a brain state. I don't need to know anything else about the brain — where it sits, what it does, what its cells are like — to be coherent about that. That I think the brain is actually the liver and the liver is the brain is another aspect of the topic. We don't know many things about the brain, yet neuroscientists coherently talk about it. So why is the location, composition, dimensions of the brain more important to coherently talk about it than the other facts we currently don't know of?

When he says, "I am stressed" he can't possibly be coherently talking about his brain, which he doesn't even know exists. — RogueAI

When I say the morning star has risen, am I talking about Venus or not?

So while the identity theory asserts that mental states are indeed brain states, the scenario you presented suggests that individuals can discuss their mental experiences without necessarily engaging with the concept of brain states — RogueAI

ChatGPT is parrotting here. And it addresses that point before:

Even if the individuals in your example are unaware of the connection between their mental experiences and the underlying neurological processes, from the standpoint of identity theory, their mental states are manifestations of specific configurations or activities within their brains. — RogueAI

Always keep in mind, ChatGPT is trained to please, and praise, the user. — hypericin

The continent has given us Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Suárez; the Atlantic, in its short 100 years of proeminence, allowed only by the outcome of WW2, is stuck trying to define "knowledge", pretending it is a philosophical problem and not a fault in the language they speak — from the same people who shun prescriptive linguistics and champion descriptive linguistics.

inventing new languages for each subfield of inquiry. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Continental Europeans do that? Perhaps they do, but is it better or worse than abusing French words for concepts that, beyond already existing, are very mundane? I would rather have a different word for a different concept than using "Australia" to mean Papua New-Guinea.