Since you keep mentioning rules/codes, and especially since you're mentioning written rules here, can I ask just where these rules/codes are recorded? — Terrapin Station
I did not misquote you, because I was not quoting you at all. Here is what I wrote: — tim wood
Yes, that just means ability. Had it been in my mind to reference a permission, I'd have written "may." — tim wood
And you apparently didn't see the "If." Ifs make a difference. Nor the "reasonable." — tim wood
I am sure you understand this. Why do you write as if you do not? I do not question what you can desire. I question whether you can reason. — tim wood
Me as a transcendental Kantian on the one hand and you as a...what, virtue ethicist?....on the other. You tell me, keeping in mind this is a thread on morality. — Mww
They are recorded wherever paper meets pen during the recording... — creativesoul
If one gets thought/belief wrong, then one gets something or other wrong in their report/account — creativesoul
My report of Kant's shortcomings are existentially dependent upon Kant's words. — creativesoul
I’m comfortable allowing rigid designator to stand as a distinctive representation of a concept. A stop sign can be a rigid designator. — Mww
Any and all evidence to the contrary of one's belief system becomes such as a result of it's being used as such. Prior to the use, what becomes evidence is not yet... evidence. — creativesoul
The reductionism necessary to validate my argument is so far down in the weeds it couldn’t possibly pass the wtf test. — Mww
Is mental correlation adequate? Is it both, necessary and sufficient, such that all predication counts as being thought/belief? I can't imagine a good argument against it. — creativesoul
Physiological sensory perception doesn't need turned on. That happens autonomously. — creativesoul
Contentment need not be turned on. That is the simplest of mind states along with it's counterpart... discontentment. — creativesoul
emotion and thinking about thought/belief are inseparable, despite lots of folk thinking/believing otherwise. — creativesoul
“...The capacity of experiencing Pleasure or Pain on the occasion of a mental representation, is called ‘Feeling,’ because Pleasure and Pain contain only what is subjective in the relations of our mental activity. They do not involve any relation to an object that could possibly furnish a knowledge of it as such; they cannot even give us a knowledge of our own mental state. For even Sensations, considered apart from the qualities which attach to them on account of the modifications of the Subject, as, for instance, in reference to Red, Sweet, and such like, are referred as constituent elements of knowledge to Objects, whereas Pleasure or Pain felt in connection with what is red or sweet, express absolutely nothing that is in the Object, but merely a relation to the Subject. And for the reason just stated, Pleasure and Pain considered in themselves cannot be more precisely defined. All that can be further done with regard to them is merely to point out what consequences they may have in certain relations, in order to make the knowledge of them available practically...” — Mww
It is required the wavefunction collapse to a probability density of 1, in order to recognize a certainty.
(Sorry.......that just popped in out of nowhere. Disregard) — Mww
I just can't make any sense out of saying/supposing that anything would be rigid — Terrapin Station
If you stopped at the stop sign, the rigidity of the designator is validated. If you didn’t, the designator is no less rigid, but you disregarded it for whatever reason. All the designator needs, is for what it represents to be understood, not necessarily agreed with. — Mww
attributing it to very different paradigms — Terrapin Station
Thanks for dumbing it down for me. — Noah Te Stroete
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.