The above Chat GPT examples concern logical behaviourism rather than physicalism. — sime
https://chat.openai.com/share/c5d5be26-4ed6-461b-9dcd-bf6771ec9008ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. The top ten list provided earlier predominantly focuses on neuroscientific findings that align with physicalism rather than logical behaviorism. These findings highlight the connections between mental processes and the physical structures or activities of the brain. Logical behaviorism, which emphasizes observable behaviors as the primary focus for understanding the mind, is not as directly tied to the neural and physiological evidence outlined in the list. If you have specific questions about logical behaviorism or if you'd like information more tailored to logical behaviorism, feel free to ask!
No, I would not accept that, it's what I insist is illogical. If the object is judged as compatible with not-X it is illogical to judge it as evidence of X. — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you think of a situation where you have evidence for a claim, but the evidence does not leave you certain that the claim is true? Please describe that situation, the evidence, and why you're not certain the claim is true even after finding that evidence.
If you can't think of a situation like that, let me know. — flannel jesus
I'm a jury member on a murder trial. The prosecution has show me <some piece of evidence> which I rationally consider evidence that the defendant committed the murder, BUT that evidence still doesn't leave me 100% sure the defendant committed the murder. I'm not 100% sure because <...>. — flannel jesus
So let's proceed in the way you suggest. I have judged the item to be "evidence" of the claim being true, and this implies that I have judged it as incompatible with the claim being false, as warranted by the obligation described above. However, I am still uncertain as to whether the claim is true or not, because the evidence is insufficient to thoroughly convince me. — Metaphysician Undercover
I answered that question already, here: — Metaphysician Undercover
Can you think of a situation where you have evidence for a claim, but the evidence does not leave you certain that the claim is true? Please describe that situation, the evidence, and why you're not certain the claim is true even after finding that evidence. — flannel jesus
If they couldn't both be true at the same time, then you would be certain John was approaching. — flannel jesus
However, that information you have, that evidence, is COMPATIBLE with the statement "John is not approaching", isn't it? — flannel jesus
You're not certain John is approaching - the only reason you're not certain is because you know there's a way where you could experience seeing what you're seeing, while it's simultaneously true that John is not approaching. — flannel jesus
So the statement "I see what I think is John approaching" is completely compatible (but not evidence for, just compatible) with the statement "John is not approaching" - compatible because they can both be true at the same time. — flannel jesus
If they couldn't both be true at the same time, then you would be certain John was approaching.
Make sense? — flannel jesus
To me, it makes perfect sense how I framed it. — flannel jesus
You have evidence. The evidence you have increases your confidence that John is approaching, but you're not certain it's John approaching because the thing you're experiencing as evidence, you could also experience if John were not approaching. — flannel jesus
I don't think there's anything outlandish about what I'm saying here. — flannel jesus
Therefore you have prejudice, you believe that the object supports the hypothesis prior to the judgement, because it is taken for granted as "evidence". — Metaphysician Undercover
Some study of critical thinking may be useful. — Metaphysician Undercover
The first ball being blue is strong evidence that the box now contains 99 blue balls. However, the first ball being blue is compatible with the box now containing 99 red balls, i.e. the first ball being blue does not prove that the box doesn't now contain 99 red balls. — Michael
What? YOU'RE the one who told ME it was evidence. If I'm prejudiced by granting that it's evidence, SURELY you are too, right? YOU told ME it was evidence. — flannel jesus
n fact, that's the entire reason why I asked you to come up with a scenario and an example of evidence instead of providing one myself - I was predicting exactly this sort of thing from you. I present a scenario, I say such-and-such is evidence, and you find some weird reason to decide "that's not evidence". — flannel jesus
The "evidence" points to one thing being the case, but it's not certain, and you can always conceive of ways in which you would have that eviddence, even if that conclusion is not the case. Fingerprints - a person can be on trial, and have evidence be submitted that their fingerprints are at the crime scene, and nevertheless they didn't commit the crime. It's possible for your fingerprints to be somewhere and you still did not commit a crime there? Those two things are... compatible. — flannel jesus
Evidence is not synonymous with proof. — flannel jesus
The only logical permission for the evidence to not support the approaching object as being “John”, is upon the instantiation of additional evidence in the form of different empirical qualities derived from subsequent perceptions, but not of the same evidence by which the representation was determined. It is by the analysis of these different qualities, and those of sufficient disparity from the antecedents, that the thought of the approaching object cannot in fact be “John”, which is, of course, a significantly distinct and entirely separate judgement in itself. — Mww
As I said, an individual knows oneself, and also knows one's own judgements to be fallible. So when I recognize what I see down the street as John, I take this recognition as evidence that John is approaching. However, I am in no way certain that John is approaching because I also recognize the fallibility of my capacity to recognize a person at such a distance. — 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.