Does this mean you have 'free will' or just 'will'? — ZhouBoTong

Free will. Because of the choice part.

The use of it is just if we want to know what consciousness "really is" ontologically, and also as a guard against wonky stuff people say when they suppose that very different things are the case ontologically.

It's possible you're not understanding it. — Wayfarer

Definitely, hence "I've never been able to make much sense out of what it's supposed to be positing, exactly."

Re the stuff you're quoting, I'm fine with it for what it is more or less, but it's not at all clear to me just what it's positing in place of physical and/or mental.

Of course, remember that I can't make any sense out of positing nonphysical existents in general.

I disagree. I see neutral monism as a rejection of the distinction between the physical and the mental. — thewonder

Did you read any of the Stanford article yet?

Really? Always? Is two plus two four? Are those nice folks over there your parents? Do you live on planet earth? Your answers to these and all other questions are just your expressions of your opinion? Is there anything that you know? — tim wood

First, there's a sense of "opinion" that refers to one's view on a factual matter. This is the sense in which you receive opinions--including second opinions, from physicians. This is also the sense in which we write sentences such as "Einstein does not share the opinion held by most of us that there is overwhelming evidence for quantum mechanics."

But that is not even the debate when starting a life. — schopenhauer1

Correct. Again, the comment wasn't about natalism/antinatalism.

Personally I've never been able to make much sense out of what it's supposed to be positing, exactly. It's always rather struck me as one not wanting to be a dualist, while also not wanting to assert either physicalism or idealism, so one just posits some hand-waving "something or other" that's somehow neither mental or physical, but somehow constitutes both. Kinda like going "hibbidy-jibbidy woo" and waving a wand then saying, "There--that solves all of the problems of philosophy of mind, doesn't it?"

Basically it seems like extremely vague fence-sitting/trying to please/not offend anyone.

Check out the Stanford Encyclopedia article:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neutral-monism/

Congratulation! You have earned a spot on the mere-S troll list. You''re only the second enlistee. That means I hold that you have removed all doubt as to your being a troll, and you earn thereby the epithet all trolls deserve. Fuck off! I shall waste no more time on you, but I will, when and as seems appropriate to me, warn others of your troll-like qualities. — tim wood

That certainly seems like you being here to learn.

In most cases, "Lying is wrong" is equivalent to "If I lie I won't attain my goals". (This means that moral statements do have a truth value.) — Magnus Anderson

I don't agree with that as an empirical matter (that most moral utterances are only going to amount to the conditions necessary for some goal--my side of the bet would be on most people really having reactions for or against certain behaviors on a gut level), but again, I wouldn't say that "If I do x, then y is/is not achievable" is a moral utterance in the first place. So you'd be saying that most apparently moral utterances aren't moral utterances at all.

I don't say that you can't reason once you've stated your preferences. I say that (effectively) foundational moral stances can't be reasoned (and oughts can't be reasoned period per what I explained above as comments about Adler's claim otherwise). I just don't write all of that out all the time because it's wordy, it's laborious to write it all out, and it seems to me like it should be obvious.

So, for example, if we know that John thinks it's immoral to not let people freely live anywhere in the world that they'd like to live (or we could look at this from John's perspective just as well), then we could very well reason that John is probably going to think it's immoral to call ICE to raid his favorite restaurant, where he know a number of illegals are working (or from John's perspective, he could easily conclude this). But none of this makes the moral part something other than personal preferences. (And John could conclude otherwise--but it would be very odd for him to, we'd probably want further qualifications, etc.)

A social state of privilege or oppression is falsifiable. We make observation of whether it exists on society or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So "Privilege exists" say. What are we claiming that we are observing or would observe, exactly?

Terrapin's moral statements might be nothing more than mere expressions of what he likes and dislikes but my moral statements are not. — Magnus Anderson

Although of course I simply think you have a mistaken belief that your moral statements are not expressions of personal dispositions, preferences, etc.

"The surest way to end up in heaven is by not lying to other people." — Magnus Anderson

I wouldn't actually say that that is a moral statement because it doesn't express whether it's right or wrong to lie or end up in heaven, or whether one should or should not lie or end up in heaven.

You're not asked for your opinion. — tim wood

Whose opinion am I supposed to be giving?

How the F is this responsive to anything? — tim wood

Are you trying to learn there? Or is this you wanting to be a teacher and being offended that you're not accepted as such?

But I think it's a defining characteristic of reason that it is shared among humans. — Echarmion

Shared in what sense? The show and tell sense? Do you mean literally having the same reason somehow?

Yes. Point to you. I get sometimes hung up on this being and attempting to be a philosophy site. Which I take to be a place to learn. Not everyone participates with either that understanding or that agenda. — tim wood

You don't seem as if you're trying to learn anything. You seem as if you want to be a teacher and you're basically offended if you're not accepted as such.

No, I don't think any of those things. We are human. Humans can be provoked beyond endurance. — Pattern-chaser

So this isn't something we agree on. I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent.

So you'd have to convince me that we don't have free will or that we don't or shouldn't have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent.

I don't think the "simply" belongs here. Moral stances may originate as feelings. But they have another dimension when other subjects enter the picture, and start to communicate. That's why i think it's accurate to say that there is an interpersonal layer where things like "moral truths" reside. This does not make them facts, or justifiable from facts. — Echarmion

Truth is a subjective judgment about the relation of a proposition to something else. So "truth" isn't the right word here certainly.

But there are also things that are reason-able, like "murder is wrong", because these kinds of brain-states, whatever we want to call them, contain in them a connection to other subjects. — Echarmion

Are you defining "reason" as "a connection to other subjects"?

As I recall, you wanted to consider "ought to do X," disregarding the "if you want Y. Was that it? — tim wood

No, that's not it.

What I pointed out is that "if you want Y" does NOT imply that you ought to do Y, or that you ought to do X, which achieves Y.

"You ought to (do what's necessary to) achieve what you want" is not a fact. That would have to be a fact in order for either "If you want x, then you should do x" OR "if you want x, and y is necessary for x, then you should do y" to be implied by wanting x.

Let's not go there. I have a question for you. Is murder wrong? — tim wood

I answered this already. YES, in my opinion it's wrong.

Already exhibited to you, I think more than once. See Mortimer Adler, for example. — tim wood

I've explained to you in detail why Adler doesn't work. We can do the dance again if you like. Re fleeing, I respond if you respond to me. You simply ignore the responses or only reply in a trolling way.

I responded to Echarmion. He can respond if he wants.

But whether people believe/accept it or not, foundational moral stances ARE simply ways that they feel. There's no way to justify them on facts, since you can't derive an ought from an is. Again, this is the case whether people believe or act like it is or not.

Okay, are you applying that to the principle of starting a life (antinatalism debate) or someone who is already born (not antinatalism debate)? If it is the first or both, then it is an antinatalism debate. — schopenhauer1

I'd say only the latter, since only people who are born and who have developed mentally a bit have notions of what counts as suffering.

I'll gladly move on from that particular line of reasoning. It makes no sense to believe that one's own interpretation of suffering should dictate another's life so, yeah I'd gladly accept that you are not talking about that, because that might mean you actually take that position. Of course if it is, then the topic focuses on antinatalism again. But as you admitted, that particular reasoning is not about antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

Again, this isn't about antinatalism specifically, but I see it more as "One's attributions of what counts as suffering should not dictate what anyone else is required to do a la needing to make sure that you don't experience what you count as suffering."

I'm fine with a thread going in various directions. I don't necessarily have anything against that. What I do have something against is what khaled was implying in several posts back when you are talking about something else, and then you all of a sudden use that comment to talk about the topic at hand, thus you can always weave in and out and say, "no I wasn't using that argument for that topic then, but now I am". Which is more than a bit dodgy. — schopenhauer1

You just have to read stuff for what it says. If I make a comment about my opinion of the sorts of things that people consider to be "suffering," there's no reason to read it as a comment on antinatalism. You'd only do that if you basically insist that everything has to relate back to the initial topic/subject of the thread.

What broader thing are you talking about? This debate has always been in the context of antinatalism. It's even the name of the thread. That is the subtext of all these sub-debates. — schopenhauer1

You may have some personal restriction that everything you say in a thread has to have some relation to the initial post of the thread or the thread title, but I don't. At least half of the time I don't even have any idea what thread I'm posting in, because I really couldn't care less. I prefer chatting. I have no personal restrictions that we have to stick with some topic so that every post, every comment (in every post) has to relate to that topic somehow.

he OP is good by me. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. — BrianW

I don't get it, because I'm wondering what you're quoting and what your take on it is.

So were you going to pony up and suggest a falsifiable claim to talk about, or?

you did not make the choice to be born by definition. And you said it yourself, only one person gets to make that decisions and it SHOULD be you — khaled

Still unable to grasp that there's no one to make decisions not only prior to conception, but for a while after birth.

It is as if having children is taken to be the default position — Inyenzi

What would it amount to for something to be a "default position" on an ethical issue?

As to how important reading is for doing philosophy--especially how important reading philosophy is for doing philosophy--neither Socrates nor Plato were able to read much philosophy, because not much existed in written form at that time. Certainly compared to what's available now, they wouldn't have been able to read much period.

That's not to say that there's no value in reading philosophy and reading other things for doing philosophy, of course. But one shouldn't think that one can't proceed if one isn't that well-read, and one shouldn't think something like, "I'm just going to wait until I've read enough to start doing it myself." For many things, "waiting until you're prepared" to do it is just a means of perpetual procrastination, so that you'd never actually do the activity in question, because there's always more preparation that one could do.

In many cases, we can easily see that reading a lot makes you familiar with a lot of things that others have said, but it doesn't necessarily result in you reasoning any better or being any wiser or more intelligent.

one where you are starting a life — schopenhauer1

I wasn't talking about that at all when I made the comment about my opinion of what's called "suffering."

You can't stop thinking about it, so you interpreted my comment as if that's what it's about.

I'd gladly live forever as long as I could be relatively healthy and agile.

I think it's unlikely that it would be a possibility anytime soon, though.

You were asked a question with a yes/no answer. That question you did not answer. And even now you do not address. — tim wood

That's some location.

Ignoring that you completely ignored the question I asked, even though you supposedly have an issue with that, you're not saying that you couldn't understand "Sure, I feel that it is wrong" as me uttering a "Yes" opinion, are you?

Whatever it is about X that is bad, to predicate that badness about X — tim wood

Badness isn't a property that things have. It's a value or preference judgment about things.

Whether you did or not is a matter of fact, — tim wood

Where would that fact obtain?

Really? How about, "Bad is bad." Or, "Good is good." — tim wood

Yes, in those cases, too, if those terms are used as assessments.

So, the light from my flashlight is identical with the flashlight. — T Clark

Insofar as we're talking about it at or inside of the surface of the flashlight I'd agree with that.

This also means we can evaluate different moral stances, including our own, in a way we cannot do with "simple" emotions. — Echarmion

Ah, okay. And what would you say is an example of this?

Youre not nearly as smart, as you think you are. You should learn some humility. — Baskol1

And why would I consider you a qualified judge?

I don't see why that is a problem, that's part of it sure. Money also doesn't make sense without humans giving it meaning and valuing it, though there's an aspect to it that's more then that... more than an individual valuation that is. — ChatteringMonkey

It's not a problem. Morality is just something different than the social enforcement of morality.