Case in point? — Galuchat
Turning it around - the problem Dennett has to explain away is the reality of first-person experience. If he can't explain it away, then materialism is false. — Wayfarer
Why do people keep repeating the same mistakes here? — Terrapin Station
It just claims that subjective experience is what particular material, in particular relations, undergoing particular processes, is like-- — Terrapin Station
Materialism is an interpretive paradigm - a model. It is quite consistent with the overall tradition of Western philosophy insofar as it is a tyoe of 'appearance vs reality' model: — Wayfarer
So what about that particular matter, in particular relations, undergoing particular processes? Even if we assume that this is the cause of subjective experience, rather than caused by subjective experience, — Metaphysician Undercover
And that is an unsupported assertion. What are examples of materialism that are not interpretive paradigms?This is incorrect. — Terrapin Station
And that is an unsupported assertion. What are examples of materialism that are not interpretive paradigms? — Wayfarer
It's not an issue of causality, but identity. — Terrapin Station
Is having complete knowledge important? — JupiterJess
Or could humanity survive by existing within the dark without having to know the behind the scenes extras? — JupiterJess
Obviously I don't agree with that. — Terrapin Station
You may not agree, but it's still obviously a case of mistaken identity. So you were wrong whether you admit to it or not. No matter how many particular materials you can identify, in whatever particular relations, involved in whatever particular processes, you have not identified subjective experience, so this is a false identity. "Subjective experience" refers to something which is common to many different individuals, therefore it cannot be identified by referring to particulars. — Metaphysician Undercover
The identity also has nothing to do with our abilities to name anything, pick anything out, etc. — Terrapin Station
I also disagree with "subjective experience referes to something which is common (as in identical) to many different individuals." — Terrapin Station
Nothing is common to many different individuals on my view. I'm a nominalist. Only particulars exist. — Terrapin Station
Then what is identity in your view? — Metaphysician Undercover
So why is it that we say that many different individuals have subjective experience if different individuals cannot have anything in common? — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm referring to identity in the 2+2 is identical to 4 sense. — Terrapin Station
I'm referring to identity in the 2+2 is identical to 4 sense. — Terrapin Station
Because it's useful to think in "type" terms and language couldn't work without type terms. I'm not sure that you're clear that I'm simply denying that multiple people have a single, numerically identical subjective experience. — Terrapin Station
It's just like one person's nose is different than another's. They don't somehow share just one nose. — Terrapin Station
There is a difference between equal and identical 2+2 is equal to four, but it is far from identical to four. — Metaphysician Undercover
If "subjective experience" refers to a "type" of thing, t — Metaphysician Undercover
Did I say that it refers to a type of thing? — Terrapin Station
Because it's useful to think in "type" terms and language couldn't work without type terms. — Terrapin Station
There's no difference on the conventional usage of "identical" in philosophy. But in your view, the difference is what? — Terrapin Station
The idea is that both references are to the (numerically) same entity. I agree that's worded a bit misleadingly if you don't get identity for some reason.Your view is extremely bizarre. I've never heard "equal" used to signify that two entities are the same entity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Those two distinct entities, with the value of two, when taken together (signified by +) have the same value — Metaphysician Undercover
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.