Well as far as I can remember I never such a contract, but in your view I did so implicitly when I joined the rational community? — goremand
Could you be more specific about how denying my autonomy results in self-contradiction? — goremand
I would not have thought that I have been giving the impression that that’s what I believe. I was stating a position that some people believe that makes no sense to me. — Patterner
Did you the sign the 'member of the English speaking community' contract ? Or did you absorb its semantic norms mostly without trying ? — plaque flag
Autonomy means [ approximately ] self-rule. Rejecting the unjustified claims of other is part of that. — plaque flag
The latter mostly, why does it matter? — goremand
Why? Why can't a non-autonomous being reject unjustified claims? — goremand
Autonomy means [ approximately ] self-rule. Rejecting the unjustified claims of others is part of that. Rejecting the justified claims of others is irrationality. — plaque flag
I'd say they couldn't do so rationally. Recall what I actually claim. — plaque flag
Note that you are asking me to justify my claims (which also involves their clarification) as an expression of your autonomy. — plaque flag
I don't understand how this is so at all. Yes I am asking you to justify your claims, yes I do believe I am being rational, I just don't see how autonomy figures into it. — goremand
Why don't you just take my word for my claims ? Why don't you just believe what I tell you to believe ? — plaque flag
So if I lacked autonomy I would just believe whatever you said? Are you implying that anything that lacks autonomy instead becomes perfectly obedient or amenable? — goremand
The issue is whether you ought to believe whatever I tell you. In short, I'm trying to get you to account for the normative dimension of the project of establishing beliefs rationally. — plaque flag
Another way to put it: why would a person be proud of being a scientist ? of trusting science ? Why would a person be proud of living an examined life ? — plaque flag
Overall you seem to be saying that you are an unfree-irresponsible meatbot or the algorithm inside it. You basically claim that pain don't hurt. You also reject the founding claim-constraining normativity of rational conversation.
Try to see this pose you are offering from the outside. Why should one trust an amoral robot programmed by its environment when 'it' claims to be such an amoral robot ? 'I am a liar.' ' I don't care about truth.' — plaque flag
I don't mean to be rude. I'm just pointing out the strangeness of you offering your opinions with a certain confidence while eroding any possible authority or interest they are likely to have. Like a drunk at a bar, satisfying with something that sounds edgy, 'unsentimentally' numb to the lack of coherence. — plaque flag
To be clear, I think you do care about truth, which is to your credit. And you are just trying to see around your culture to that transcendent truth by avoiding sentimental attachment to norms that might get in the way of that truth-seeing project. Nietzchean stuff. — plaque flag
I hope I haven't been rude. — plaque flag
I'm challenging what I see as your psychologism (rationality is just rationalization) — plaque flag
and your functionalism (your version seems to deny the qualitative aspect of experience) — plaque flag
You mention your curiosity. Is that something you feel ? And do you not see color or feel pain ? — plaque flag
I do believe skepticism of phenomenal properties is the way to go. — goremand
Feeling and sight can be accounted for functionally, so yes I have feelings and yes I see colors. — goremand
But what I was trying to clarify here is whether you grant (basically) that life/experience involves a 'nonconceptual surplus.' — plaque flag
I think red functions structurally and inferentially in a way that makes knowledge of red possible for those born blind, but I don't think the referent of red is exhausted by or as its role in this structure. — plaque flag
Sorry, are you being literal here? You think that the water is deceiving you intentionally?
I maintain the water is innocent, it is simply behaving in accordance physics just as everything else. If you are "fooled" by this, the problem is with yourself. — goremand
The light traveling from the stick to our retina is behaving as we know it should according to physics, when a stick in the water appears bent. It is not behaving wrongly. It is only our intuitive interpretation of this light that causes confusion. — PhilosophyRunner
How are such tokens (historically contingent black glyphs on a white background) even invented or exchanged by the non-inferentially blind (by us, I mean, as opposed to the traditionally blind ) ? — plaque flag
Can you live your life as normal with your eyes closed ? — plaque flag
Are you committed to a p-zombie approach to human existence? So that the meaning of your own claims doesn't exist for you first-person ?
As far as we can say from experience, the world is only given perspectively to different sentient creatures. Denying subjectivity is just denying the being of the world.
I say this as a direct realist who doesn't think consciousness is more than awareness of this world. I see the world and not the inside of a private bubble. — plaque flag
But like I said before this topic is a waste of time. — Darkneos
You mean, how did we invent writing and other means of information exchange? Do you believe that without qualia, the invention and use of writing becomes inexplicable? — goremand
No it is behaving wrongly because it appears bent when it isn't. It has nothing to do with the intuitive interpretation of the light, hence why it's an optical illusion. — Darkneos
Ok. — goremand
It seems you are "bundling" concepts together in a (to me) arbitrary way, such that denial of one becomes denial of all. I don't remember ever denying subjectivity, consciousness or meaning as useful concepts, if these can only make sense in relation to qualitative properties you will have to explain why. — goremand
It is our consciousness (or brain depending on your stance) interpreting the redirected light as a bent stick that is causing the confusion. — PhilosophyRunner
There is no stance, it's really just the brain. That fact is more or less solved at the moment and I am well aware of refraction hence it's not the brain's fault but the light playing tricks, like it sometimes does. It's the same for a mirage. — Darkneos
In a sense it can be a trick of the light depending on the where — Darkneos
Refraction is never a trick. It is simply the way light behaves when moving from one medium to another where there is a change in wave speed. This is well understood in physics, there is no trick, just the normal behavior of light. — PhilosophyRunner
That’s just not true. Refraction can sometimes be a trick like with water. That is also well understood in physics. I’m thinking you don’t get this as well as you’re making it out — Darkneos
There are no tricks in physics, I have no idea what you are talking about. Light changes direction at the boundary of two medium, given by Snell's law. It always behaves correctly according to Snell's law. Always.
There is no trick that happens sometimes. — PhilosophyRunner
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.