Because the aim here is to enjoy the story, our belief is passive. — Pattern-chaser

What would you say is the difference between a passive belief and an active belief.

Or maybe I'm just asking for a better explanation of how passive belief is belief. If you passively believe that Alice entered Wonderland, what does that involve exactly?

In the case of fiction, we believe it for a shorter time, equally well defined: until we are finished with looking at it, or enjoying it. But we do believe it. — Pattern-chaser

Maybe you literally believe fictions when you're engaging with them, but I sure do not. It seems to me that literally believing them would be unusual (but no problem with being unusual there).

but also want to protect other people from the statistical results of what happens when many engage in the activity. — Coben

I can see that if it's something that doesn't involve choice/that people have no control over, but when it involves choices, I'd just stick to penalizing the people who make choices that wind up hurting someone else, or otherwise let people live with the consequences of their own choices when they hurt themselves.

Really? You're arguing that a rock is a conscious entity? — Marzipanmaddox

You're not understanding the comment or the idea that the comment is about.

I'm not arguing that "Everything is made of consciousness" is true. I'm saying that it's not an opinion, it's a factual claim. "Factual claim" doesn't mean that the claim is necessarily a fact or that it's true. It refers to a claim made about a fact. A claim made about a fact can (turn out to) be incorrect.

For example, "Eels don't reproduce. They spontaneously generate from the mud." That's a claim about a fact. It's asserting something about what the world is like, how the world works. It's wrong, of course, but that's irrelevant. It's a claim about facts.

You might be misreading "factual claim" as "a claim that is a fact; a claim that is true."

"Factual claim" instead refers to "a claim about a fact; a claim that posits what the world is like; how the world works." Many, maybe most (and maybe the vast majority of) factual claims are false.

so golden mean is always the answer for the best — Dzung

Per what?

Just to reiterate, to claim that something like speech is causal to behavior in others, it's required, at least on my view of what counts as causality, that we claim that people do not actually have free will, at least in the scenario at hand. That makes it much more difficult to claim causality than where we're asserting something like smoking causes lung cancer--which is difficult enough as it is for causality.

It would rather be like claiming that smoking causes lung cancer where one isn't buying causal determinism in general--say where one believes that ALL phenomena are akin to probabilistic phenomena.

Would you think that telling people that regular cigarette smoking increases your chances of lung cancer and emphysema would be ok? — Coben

Sure, telling people that studies show a correlation is fine.

Would you based on these facts think that restricting driving while intoxicated is wrong? — Coben

Not just based on that, but I'm not in favor of drunk driving laws. In general, I'm not in favor of "laws against potentials." I have no problem with having harsher negligence laws, so that when and if something does happen due to negligence, there are significant penalties for it.

Or making the introduction of toxins in food potentially illegal, — Coben

I'd just require accurate labeling.

Remember that I'm basically a minarchist libertarian. I simply don't agree with libertarianism economically (re the standard view of how libertarians think the economy should be structured/should function). There's no need for people to be homeless, without healthcare, without a job if they want one, etc. We can structure the economy differently, while still being libertarian in spirit, so that no one has to worry about that sort of stuff (having a place to live, being able to get healthcare, etc.)

It tells you that the factor which correlates is more likely to be a cause than one which doesn't. — Isaac

Based on what? How are you figuring likelihood. I don't at all buy Bayesian probability by the way.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the meaning of the word 'cause' my evidence being that you cannot accept something as a cause if it is merely contributory, — Isaac

Which is not the case as I've explained a couple times already. All I require is that we actually show that it's a cause, which requires showing the other causes or a causal chain, because a correlation isn't sufficient (and it certainly isn't necessary if it's not actually a cause and it's merely correlated).

I maintain that correlation does imply causation. — Isaac

Okay, but I couldn't disagree with you more.

It's not that the correlation can't be the cause of something. But the fact of a correlation doesn't tell you anything about causes. The correlated facts might have nothing at all to do with the facts we want to explain.

As am I. — Isaac

What did you think I wasn't familiar with and what was your evidence?

Do you see smoking as causal in lung cancer, — Coben

I think that for most medical claims, we don't know causes very well. Genetics seem to have a lot more to do with it than we usually stress culturally. At any rate, it's well-known that we continually come out with studies a la "coffee is good for you," "No, coffee is bad for you," "Chocolate is bad for you," "No, chocolate is good for you," etc., and not just because of different details.

From Terrapin's favourite source of authority Wikipedia, — Isaac

lol--I simply pointed you to an article about something you weren't familiar with.

No one wants to languish, everyone wants to flourish. — Janus

Aside from knowing this isn't the case--I've known some very odd people, not everyone considers the same thing flourishing.

It's also bonkers. — S

Yeah, on that we agree.

He's describing Structural Antisemitism as a form of racism which is slated as rudimentary anti-Capitalism. — thewonder

That's semantic (it has to do with meaning; what the particular form of "racism" is about). But tons of people who are antisemites do not think about it that way.

Firstly, why would I need to specify all of the causal links in the chain if you are, as you claim, not dismissing correlations. — Isaac

You want to argue causation. Correlations do not imply causation. That's not dismissing correlations as such. They simply do not imply causation.

I certainly don't buy your interpretation of it. — S

Would you subscribe to a compatibilist version of it? I don't believe that compatibilism is coherent.

So you don't buy free will.

Everything is made of consciousness — Marzipanmaddox

That's not an opinion, it's a factual claim.

I always think it's ridiculous when people say things like this:

"Whereas antisemitism is a primitive critique of the world of capitalist modernity."

While it's fine to suppose that some antisemitism amounts to that, to imply that it would amount to that wholesale or universally is absurd. Lots of people who are antisemites wouldn't think anything like that.

That's not what you did though — Baden

Which is irrelevant to whether it was ontologically necessary.

You're being disingenuous because you know I'm right. — Baden

I suppose this sort of thing isn't possible?

We can't imagine what someone else might say?

After all, a lot of the content on boards like this might as well be coming from a telemarketing or apologetics "objection sheet"

And the idea that my posts might not have been necessary for yours is utter nonsense and you know it. — Baden

One can't forward an argument much worse than "that's utter nonsense and you know it"

Welcome to the world of necessary and sufficient causation. — Baden

Well, or the world of neither as I noted. :razz:

So intentionally post on a board dedicated to illegitimate human self-worship and egotism? That sounds like a plan.

Well, because it might be wrong to say it's not making factual claims. The very idea of that might not even make sense.

My point was that Ontology is not necessarily concerned with factual claims even though it can be. — thewonder

Offhand I can't think of an ontological claim that wouldn't be a factual claim. Can you think of one?

I'm saying that ontology is no more of a philosophy than math. — Marzipanmaddox

You understand that it's noncontroversially considered one of the main branches of philosophy, though?

If there was no objective benefit to morality, than moral societies would not exist. They would be no more capable or powerful than amoral societies, — Marzipanmaddox

First, whether any society is moral or amoral, assuming one thinks the idea of that even really makes sense, is a subjective judgment.

The intention is to suggest that there is an unintelligable infinite variance of color which can never be adequately described. — thewonder

Just want to clarify if you're giving this of an example of something that's not a factual claim.

I had to look this word up, but I will explain with my limited understanding of this. Ontology, by my understanding, is separating things into groups and organizing them.

While this may be attributed to philosophy, while this may have roots in philosophy, this is not philosophy. It is just a system of organizing things. While you can have opinionated debates about ontology, this is truly just arguing in favor of which system of organization is most accurate and optimized. — Marzipanmaddox

Wait, you're claiming that ontology isn't philosophy?

I think saying they were ontologically necessary, even, isn't really justified, but it would be an unusual situation, at least, for me to have written my posts as I did without them actually being a response to yours.

At any rate, it's definitely not sufficient, right.

But you accept that but for my posts you would not have written yours? — Baden

Sure, but that's not what a cause is. I still had to decide to write mine. I could have decided otherwise.

I think that the facticity of Ontology is somewhat absurd. Ontology speculates upon what Being is like. You can only ever glean certain things. You don't really ever arrive at any truths concerning Being. — thewonder

So what's an example of something that you think isn't making a factual claim?

They were not the cause of my responses, correct. I had to decide to answer, decide what to type, etc.

Is there a reason we'd be trying to give an exhaustive list?

Muscle memory is another example if you don't consider that coextensive with autonomic functions.

Autonomic functions can, for example.