So now you suddenly dismiss an authoritative source? — Noble Dust
If I see a response worth responding to, I’ll respond to it. — Wayfarer
In other words, you are making a lot of wild guesses about other people's motives. — Olivier5
Do you respond to each and every post, or do you make choices, like Wayfarer? — Olivier5
So you think there's noessentialontological difference between beings and devices? — Wayfarer
The other point is, cameras are built and operated by humans. They have no ability to decide or intend, nor is there anything about them that is even analogous to those abilities, which are intrinsic to human beings. How can that not count as an ontological difference? — Wayfarer
And I didn’t ask, can you can recognise the ontological distinction being made in the passage quoted? — Wayfarer
But within the analogy, the person taking the photo/video is ontologically different from both the image and the camera. — Noble Dust
Nope, supernaturalism was what I objected to. Dualism, at least my garden variety, is a natural, common sensical philosophy. It's not really about demons and fairies. — Olivier5
Indeed, this difference is not about the map being magical or supernatural. — Olivier5
I'm wondering why you post in a discussion forum if the qualification for having a discussion is agreeing with you about the main point under discussion. — Isaac
A camera does not film itself; you can't see the camera on film. Does that require that the camera be an ontologically different kind of thing than the things the camera is filming? — Pfhorrest
(I'm ignoring for our purposes here your peculiar use of "beings" as something more specific than "things that exist", — Pfhorrest
Humans are beings, they are called 'human beings'. If you think that's peculiar, the problem is yours. — Wayfarer
:100: :up: The map/territory – form/material – distinction is a fold (origami-like ... or wave-on-the-ocean movement) rather than a connecting (of separate - 'ontologically different' - domains).Then it's not about dualism in the usual philosophical sense under discussion here. If the map and the territory can be made of the same kind of stuff, and have only the ontologically same kind of properties, then the map-territory relation is not a dualist relationship in the usual philosophical sense, and calling that "dualism" is needlessly confusing. — Pfhorrest
Again, it’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, but seeing the point of the argument you’re taking issue with - which you're not. If the contention is that a camera is the equivalent of, or the same as, the human subject I don't see anything to debate, because it's a simple falsehood. — Wayfarer
You write as if you genuinely don't understand the concept of people disagreeing about some particular class of belief. — Isaac
The two cases in question are: whether a camera is a being, and whether the concept of pain is painful. As regards the latter, I said that the assertion was so unreasonable as not to warrant a response. — Wayfarer
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.