Physicalism could be falsified by clear evidence of something nonphysical existing. — Relativist

Being that we are physical beings who receive information through physical senses, one wonders if evidence of the non-physical is even possible.

Even if somehow we had a sense to capture non-physical information, as Kant argues, we would still think of it in terms of space and time and causation, thus packaging it in a physicalist way.

I don't know what 'part of meaning' means here. In classical logic, ¬A being true implies A→B is true for any B, such is material implication.

If ¬A is true, not A without B is true, because:

Everything else is allowed. That everything else includes ¬A. — Lionino

Sharp citation, thanks for posting. I see a way in which one could read 'every activity' as really every activity, and thus the pessimist makes his point that despite doing (mundane) things everyday, each with their own little resistances and hardships, he is still unconvinced of life's wonder. But it seems that Nietzsche could not possibly be talking about just any activity. I don't know what the rest of that body of text is, but perhaps he is talking about an activity where one must overcome oneself in a, among many others, moral sense.

Not only that, but in that citation I also see a strong reply to Nozick's experience machine.

All your talk of color and pain as being mind dependent is true, but you've not found in those properties some special exception. All descriptions of all objects are mind dependent. The speed of the subatomic particles in the tree are mind dependent as are their size and shape. — Hanover

I think that position is quite sensible. But if things such as shape are not on a different category from colour, doesn't that lead to a few absurdities?

For example, it is very well possible that where someone sees red someone else sees green, and no communication issue arises because the swap is always the same.

However, if someone sees and feels a round object where someone else sees and feels a square one, and the square-person told the round-person to grab the object by the edges, wouldn't the round-person be bewildered? Surely, when a square-person says corner the round-person would think of a round object, but the round-person can't think of anywhere special in that object (any given point on the surface of a sphere is the same).

that Enlightenment values can temper the excesses of pure hedonism in a secularized society — schopenhauer1

Unfortunately, the enlighteners(/ed), in their sheltered naïveté, were almost always the cream of the crop of their societies, having basically no day-to-day contact with the lower classes:

They realized that the call to "sapere aude" was premature, and required a more educated populus before it would be able to be implemented. — Leontiskos

Alas, when it comes to virtue, the average person is much closer to an orangutan than to Napoleon.

Pessimism, on the other hand, cuts through this idealism, recognizing that suffering is a constant part of existence. — schopenhauer1

I have no evidence upon which to found this, but I think my life has had much more suffering than the average pessimist's; and yet, somehow, I think life is awesome.

In fact, it is the people who actually went through great hardships and actual suffering that seem to have the most positive outlook on life. The "always kinda-depressed but not really" type seems to be an existence that occurs almost exclusively in upper middle-class urban settings. There is almost a role-play element to it:
"Oh no, my crush is sleeping with another guy! There are children in Africa starving! Time to read another Dostoyevsky novel."

Perhaps there is a neurological element to it. For someone who went through a great crisis, everyday life will often be a high. For those however who have dwelt forever in mundane mediocrity, life is like a constant barely-worse-than-average experience.

To those types: have you guys ever tried lifting heavy weights regularly?

Christian nationalism often seeks to impose pro-life policies, ban certain forms of sexual speech in public settings such as libraries and schools, promote Christian ethical teachings in educational curricula, and restrict access to certain websites — schopenhauer1

Wow, I was skeptical about it before, but now that you put it this way, Christian nationalism sounds awesome.

You seem to have no justification for your last claim. — schopenhauer1

He never does.

I agree you need people trained the right way before encouraging them to heed the motto. But given the number of academics who seem remarkably unenlightened, perhaps it is not normal academic education that is required. — Ludwig V

Good point. Though academic education is not enough, it is definitely necessary. There are too many academics, especially in the biological sciences, who don't even know how to write properly. I wouldn't call them scientists however, merely researchers or heuretics.

There is this link https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/fusion+category
It mostly goes over my head

found this. — fishfry

That is the stack user I was referring to.

Isn't it? It just says you can't play here. There is still a button that opens it on Youtube.

Damn, I even got the first name wrong. LOL
Yeah, that is the one.

Ud rēa...

Completely fictitious reconstruction, but goes nice anyway.

What I am saying is that knowledge of (2) does not give us knowledge of (1) — Leontiskos

That A→B does not give us knowledge of ¬A|=A→B? It does in classical knowledge.

¬A ⊢ A→B — Leontiskos

If we read this as "¬A being true means A→B is true", it looks fine to me. I wouldn't read it as «¬A entails A→B», as 'entail' is a synonym of 'imply', and (English) A being false tells us nothing about whether it implies something.

what are the leading theories of causality, nowadays? — Shawn

The most popular according to philsurveys 2020 is counterfactual/difference-making, but process and primitive are quite popular too.
I am more of a fan of singularist/physicalist theories.

Not A without B means you can't have A without having B. Everything else is allowed. That everything else includes ¬A.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory — fishfry

Speaking of category theory, I came in contact with it (again) to explore the subject of vector spaces with irrational dimensions. Naturally, vector spaces traditionally defined have a dimension n, n E N, naturally because the set of its basis can't have π elements, but something like that is the case of fusion categories, if a mathoverflow user is to be trusted.

Philosophy before the Greeks. Martin Van De Something.

That is actually pretty cool.



But I wonder in what circumstances you would use it as an aid? It seems that the range of application is somewhat limited to few real-life scenarios.
For example, there is this tool https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs103/tools/truth-table-tool/, I use it all the time, because among other things it helps me find equivalencies between different logical statements — Bv¬(A → B^A) and AvB.
Also it could be better to have the conclusion image translated into statements.

This can't be essential (part of your essence) because the set changes over time - we both add memories, and lose them. — Relativist

That is true. So the set of our memories can't be our essence. I wrote a short dialogue about that once. However, one could propose that there is a minimal set of select memories that allows us to have a sense of self, and posit that as an essence.

However, that would not be the way 'soul' is used here, as the subject that experiences, instead as what charactised the self or at least self-identity.

they suggest God could basically copy your memories into some immaterial form that attaches to your soul — Relativist

God should teach them how not to make unserious arguments.

this seems an ad hoc rationalization — Relativist

Pretty much every religious rebuttal is ad hoc. By definition even. They know their conclusion before they even set up the arguments. They are not in an honest search for truth, which is philosophy, but due to their dogma in search of arguments specifically to (ad) support it (hoc).

Tell that to the Lounge. — AmadeusD

The Lounge doesn't listen, and I think it is because it is unable to. Nevertheless, I blocked the Lounge from my browser, so no more peering into the cesspool.

if A is false then we can say A→B, and yet your English does not capture this move. — Leontiskos

But it does. If we understand A→B as «not A without B», and we have ¬A, it is within the scenarios that «not A without B» precludes, because it only precludes A, ¬B, it doesn't preclude ¬A ever.

While ¬(A→B) tells us exactly «A without B», as it is the same as A&¬B.

Now that you say, it almost makes me want to start a thread for nice book covers...

Oh ok. I get it now.

You put too much effort in a post towards someone who won't learn from disagreement. In another thread, he said that he is quite sure about he was talking about, and in the same post he said that the twin paradox is a paradox in Newtonian physics only and not in relativity. — Lionino

I had to read through that individual's entire post to realize it didn't make any sense. No matter. Maybe something I wrote was interesting to someone. — fishfry

.

Sorry did I get my history wrong? Not sure what you meant. I was making the point that people find value in studying all kinds of stuff so why not math. Was my analogy off the mark? — fishfry

No, it was a contrarian joke implying that people (me) don't study them.

Your quote includes something I didn't say. So I am not sure what you are replying to.

If any philosopher had been asked for a definition of infinity, he might have produced some unintelligible rigmarole, but he would certainly not have been able to give a definition that had any meaning at all. — Bertrand Russell

Possibly out of context, but I can't bother to check.

piracy

You have your basic facts all wrong. — fishfry

You put too much effort in a post towards someone who won't learn from disagreement. In another thread, he said that he is quite sure about he was talking about, and in the same post he said that the twin paradox is a paradox in Newtonian physics only and not in relativity.

People study the 15th century British kings and queens — fishfry

Study who?

Rule:
Vector spaces may have irrational dimensions.

John Poinsot — Bodhy

João Poinsot, Portuguese theologist. Interesting, first time hearing of him.

What else can you say?

There is this article about colour concepts and experience. Maybe it is of interest.
Colour concepts and colour experience
Christopher Peacocke
Published: March 1984
Volume 58, pages 365-381, (1984)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00485247

you cannot pass the pain to me. — Banno

It is called stabbing.

Venn diagram — bongo fury

If a discussion revolves around a piece of information that is easily understandable and available online, both sides lost the debate before it even started.

So then why is it that the logic cannot capture the English, "A does not imply B"? — Leontiskos

I am starting to think that it is because the word "implies" has the idea of causality in it, while logic says nothing about causality. I reckon that it is better to think of a truth table as coexistence rather than causation.

For example, the truth table of A→B, it is false when A is true and B is false, it is true when both A and B are true. But does that mean that A implies B? A could true and so could B coincidentally, there could be no (causal) relationship between the two. So I think that when speaking of logic it is better to do away with "implies", which is causational — and by consequence also the "if A, B", which is just the word "imply" as a compound sentence — and use instead "not A without B", which is exactly understood in English as coexistence.

My last post on flannel's thread might be relevant.

In English one can contradict or deny A without affirming ~A. — Leontiskos

You mean that saying "He is not beautiful" is not necessarily the same as saying "He is ¬beautiful"? The difference between the two is often simply in the intonation that one speaks in. I think I brought that up in a comment in flannel's thread at some point.

And it's not one of De Morgan's rules — Banno

You can infer A from ¬(A→B) by De Morgan.
¬(A→B)
¬(¬A∨B) (definition of material implication)
¬¬A∧¬B (de Morgan)
A∧¬B (double negation)

You can also infer ¬B, of course.

Though we are some 10 pages after the discussion took place, on that whole matter of reading ¬(A→(B&¬B)) as "A does not imply a contradiction", if we read it instead as "A does not imply false", the fact that it entails A becomes a bit more comfortable. On the other hand, in English, or most European languages, nobody ever says "X implies false/true", that comes off as gibberish. The reason must be because the word 'implies' has the sense of (meta)physical causation, while logical implication is not (meta)physical causation; the latter starts with the antecedent being true, the former may have a false antecedent.

I think the matter of bringing logical propositions into English and vice-versa is still quite meaningful. After all, in this thread:

I was reading various riddles and puzzles on the internet. One of the formulations of the riddles state: formulate it [the riddle] with first-order logic. — javi2541997

One of the goals of the puzzle was to state the riddle in logic. Gödel's ontological proof has renditions of logical statements into plain English. The logical argument has been verified as valid, so we know that the plain English argument is valid too.

But then, I now think that «not A without B» is the best way to translate A→B, not «A implies B» or «if A, B», whilst «A without B» for ¬(A→B); which somewhat agrees with the white bullet-points of this slideshow I found:

It is a fact that I see white and gold — Michael

You are seeing it wrong. Look closer, it is clearly black and blue. :shade:

Because Plato's philosophy has had influence in our culture, that doesn't mean that our culture has platonist elements (what does that even mean?), that is wrong. For the tenth time, platonism is not the same as Plato's philosophy.

I am not going to reply anymore to anyone who is simply repeating what has already been said. — Lionino

Keeping my promise. In any case, at the very least, the introductory SEP articles on platonism and nominalism should read. Clearly no one here has done that.

From the fact that A does not imply B, we may not conclude that A is true, and yet ¬(A→B) |= A. So the translation doesn't work.

It is not the case that Socrates being a dolphin implies he is strong.
Therefore Socrates is a dolphin.

I understand you to be quite upset at some opinions of mine. — AmadeusD

Anybody who is not a morally absent robot becomes upset by such hypocritic hurling.

Continental philosophy playing with language? Analytic philosophy has done nothing but play with English and conclude "Well, our creole is so semantically deformed and confused that there are no philosophical problems, it is just linguistic!". Then, shortly after some "enlightened" agents — possibly bilingual — figured out that words are not just strings of letters that go in sentences but actually refer to things in the world that we can think about, we have ended up in the same old problems of the modern period but instead framed through goofy thought experiments written in that same Marvel-tier "formal informal" writing style.

And it cannot even be called analytic philosophy because that is related to the Germans Frege and Carnap, that is just "cultural appropriation". I don't know what it is that the wannabe-linguists have been doing in those universities, but it might as well be grammar — alas, folks over there have not learned that that word is not synymous with 'syntax', maybe that is an opportunity for another 'enlightenment'.

Every game is played with at least two players.

PS: the modern period ended 230 years ago, there is no such thing as "pre-modern", that is a stupid phrase.

Speaking of insults, you frequently accuse me of being unemployed with zero evidence, — Lionino

Someone who never does anything else besides criticizing others, will inevitably have serious problems hanging on to a job. — Tarskian

Like pottery. I am really talking to a badly programmed NPC.

In the meanwhile, it is funny moderators will leave such a post with clownish vitriol and no substance up but erase my post recommending a clearly insane person to seek medication.