Sure, one can start in the middle, as usually happens. Then what? Depends on what the objective is, I suppose — Mww
If that's the quality of reply you're reaching for just a few posts in we'll leave it there. — Isaac
But the moment you claim - the rule is "all balls hitting the line are declared out", you're no longer demonstrating an understanding of the rule, you're declaring a belief of your about the rule. — Isaac
I'd measure in the same way that curvature is normally measured, classically, relative to a central point. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is nothing more to understand about the rule. — Janus
I started out with potential and actual. (...) Which was your first one? — frank
Sure, that will work in you live in a flat world. But the flatness of the world itself is what we want to check here. — apokrisis
quotidian — Wayfarer
"quotidian" is a cool word. You've used it a few times recently. Nice.
Perhaps you might comment on the Anscombe article? — Banno
The only form that genuine reasoning can take consists in seeing the validity of the arguments, in virtue of what they say. As soon as one tries to step outside of such thoughts, one loses contact with their true content. And one cannot be outside and inside them at the same time: If one thinks in logic, one cannot simultaneously regard those thoughts as mere psychological dispositions, however caused or however biologically grounded. If one decides that some of one's psychological dispositions are, as a contingent matter of fact, reliable methods of reaching the truth (as one may with perception, for example), then in doing so one must rely on other thoughts that one actually thinks, without regarding them as mere dispositions. One cannot embed all one's reasoning in a psychological theory, including the reasonings that have led to that psychological theory. The epistemological buck must stop somewhere. By this I mean not that there must be some premises that are forever unrevisable but, rather, that in any process of reasoning or argument there must be some thoughts that one simply thinks from the inside--rather than thinking of them as biologically programmed dispositions. — Thomas Nagel
Oh lordy! Once you get set to digging yourself a hole, you never give up on the project, do you? — apokrisis
Always was a word I liked. — Wayfarer
And if indeed physical causation and logical necessity operate for the most part in separate domains then this is an argument against neural reductionism. After all, neural reductionists, of whom there are always plenty on this forum, will always claim that thinking is reducible to or caused by the brain, as if this is a strong argument for physicalism. But if logical necessity is separable from physical causation, then this claim can't be maintained. — Wayfarer
I'll dig as deep as necessary, until you recognize your mistakes. And from my experience, that will be very deep. — Metaphysician Undercover
Thus the two stories combine in the organism. We get the actual semiosis of a material system being organised by its concept of logical rule following. We get physical systems that interact with their worlds by using syntactic mechanism - codes like genes, neurons, words, numbers - and indeed gaining agency as that semiotic interaction is, holistically, a state of interpretance. — apokrisis
The cosmos is a material structure — apokrisis
There's method to the madness. — Metaphysician Undercover
We just need to know the proper techniques of application, to apply straight measurement principles to a curved world, and how to compensate if a real world measurement instrument, turns out to be not as straight as it was thought to be. — Metaphysician Undercover
You mean, the 4% of it that we can account for. — Wayfarer
As far as I can tell, nature seems to follow mathematically describable laws. I think you've got it back to front! — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.