chance is just an opening/capability/space that allows for alternate outcomes — Brayarb

Maybe you could expand on why you think in terms of this opening. If the abstractionist deems the actual world to be one of many that could have existed, then why do we need another word for it? All the propositions about the state of the actual world are contingently true. Right?

The way I put it is that world-X ultimatelyobtained by chance. As I just mentioned to MU, if we trace back to the root, we should arrive at chance, IFF the state of affairs obtained contingently. — Brayarb

I'm guessing that by "root" and "ultimate" you're talking about the origin point of a causal chain, which would have to be an uncaused event, right?

Since by chance modifies a cause, and the root is uncaused, I don't think it's appropriate to call it "chance." Are you familiar with Aristotle on this kind of issue?

Well the idea is that if world-X obtained (or was actual in the way that the abstractionist uses the term) contingently, then your making it so would also be contingent. In other words, when you get to the root of why one possible state of affairs obtained over the others, you should arrive at chance (one just obtained over the others and there wasn't anything that necessitated that that be the case). — Brayarb

World-x would still be actual by my choice and not by chance.

I guess I don't see why one wouldn't say it was just by chance. — Brayarb

Why couldn't world-x be actual because I made it so (as opposed to by accident)?

Care to share Lacan? — Banno

I think he believes in underlying ambiguity. Language use paints a picture. For all practical purposes the elements of that painting are real.

Sense if self is a kind of stress response that is directly related to language use and castration.


When you reject reincarnation, you're saying it doesn't fit in the picture your people are painting.

Or maybe not. I'm still trying to understand.

Didn't you say there's a confused concept of the self on the scene? I'm reading about Lacan's views so I wondered what you meant.

Where's the contradiction?

I'm not familiar. Was the drowned girl supposed to be reincarnated?

Is there a contradiction in transmigration of the soul?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of course. — Banno

I imagine it's pretty ordinary in a community of Hindus. You still haven't shown that it's incoherent. I think you just don't like the notion.

Time is a big loaf of bread. Brian Greene said so.

Already answered that.

smoke and mirrors

So all the lives happen simultaneously like dandelions growing out of the same spot.

But Saturday repeats once a week.

Plato believed in reincarnation. I think he would agree that the self is word magic.

I didn't understand the question... "What sort of thing is x?"

I don't know. What sort of thing is a point particle?

Same soul. It's not confusing. It's just not your cuppa tea.

Same person different name. What's confusing?

Maybe meaning is use implies interaction between subjects. What if the subjects are themselves spoken by a mechanical language?

When it came down to it, there were only two countries that could possibly lead the way we had and that was either Russia or China. Is it possible that they got their wish? Is Russia now the world leader? And does it matter to us, the USA? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Those who want a world leader are looking for a country that can maintain peace. Russia doesn't have the ability to do that. I think China probably could. It would be in its interest to do that because its on-going development requires peace. It doesn't have any experience acting as a global leader. If it steps into that role, it will be following an American guidebook in the same way Americans looked to the British example and on and on backward.

I've been reading a lot of history lately. I'm presently reading a book about the so-called Solutrean hypothesis. Archaeologists, geneticists, historic geographers all commune to try to understand what a few bones and stone tools mean. Whatever burning issues those ancient people worried over are lost in time as our worries will be also. There's a sort of sweet melancholy in that.. don't you think?

The other countries have never lost sight of taking care of themselves first. It is only the USA that has been the fool here. It is said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I have great disdain for that idea and refuse to let it shape my choices in life all the same. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

There's nothing stopping you from exercising your good intentions and joining with others in doing that. I usually resort to giving money to groups I trust. But I think there's some wisdom in backing off of a governmental role in that.

A prime example is the story of Hoover's efforts to feed starving Russians in the 1920s. Lenin looked on and laughed. He didn't want those Russians to survive. He wanted them to starve to death. It's harsh, but it's a mistake to think the US government is supposed to save the Russians from their own insane leader. That's comic-book logic. The real USA is not superhuman. Agree?

But I also made the concession, after more exchanges with Fafner and Srap Tasmaner, that there are pragmatic contexts where both words might be regarded as referring to the same event-type, for all practical purposes, and hence that one might refer to the same event as either "Caesar's murder" or "Caesar's death". — Pierre-Normand

Oh. I missed that part. You're good, then. :)

Wouldn't quotation marks signify an utterance? How could you know the sense without knowing the context of the utterance?

Around Ceasars murder... there were quotes. So it was kind of bizarre considering the title of the thread that a discussion ensued about the reference of the words.

We utter sentences in order to express propositions. You have to look to context to know what proposition was expressed. You can't look at the words and know the reference, but just a possible reference. Did Frege disagree with this?

He used a bold type for murder to mark it as an event-type, a sortal concept. — Pierre-Normand

Exactly. Whereas the original question in this thread involved quotes. I think you have a tendency to ignore the significance of that.

Awesome. Thank you.

Which is exactly what others from around the world want, have wished for and is now their temporary reality. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Some yes, some no. Both the British and the French repeatedly pressed the US to take a leading role in the Cold War. I don't agree with Trump on much, but to the extent that he sent out isolationist fumes during his campaign, I'm with him. I also agree with Merkel that Europe should not think of the US as a reliable ally. That's simply the emergence of the truth into the light of day. Or a re-emergence. :)

And that is the rub. It's only in a crisis when the USA is viewed as the leader and depended upon. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

To the extent that this is true, it has the potential to be a horrific mistake (the recent demolition of Syria wants to testify.) I've made a 180 in recent years. I do not support the emergence of a global government. I think it's every country for itself. Dog eat dog. The little countries already know that. It's time for the bigger ones to put aside sentimental pipe dreams.

Oops.. due to Cavacava I've become interested in the corporealization of words... maybe Lacan?

Phenomenalism will have to wait for another day.

Any reading recommendations?

The SEP article defines mental representation loosely. That was the meaning I was using.

I think I'll just go back through Bundle Theory. Are you familiar with that?

I was wondering if you meant the voice is hardware (the walls and ceiling of the station) or software (the dance of the travelers through the station...did you ever see The Fisher King with Robin Williams?)

Not as much as some people do. It blew my mind the first time I met someone who claimed to experience that internal voice constantly. I didn't believe it at first.

Do you think of that voice as the bulk of mental representation?

I think the work of the intellect is done in an imaginary space, where reason, desire & memory interact. The vehicle for this interaction is language, which already is ordered, meaningful, already valued both rationally and emotively. — Cavacava

If I understood correctly, you're describing one theory of mind that involves a sort of grand central station. When you say the vehicle for interaction is language, could you explain what you mean? Give an example?

You allow qualia, but not as mental representation. Then explain again what sort of mental representation you support?

Frontal lobe disorder probably wouldn't go over well with the faithful.

The topic sort of starts with realism about mental representation. Maybe it could be reframed as "what is thought.. concept or sensation?"

A proponent of the non-conceptual view would be Hume. Maybe exploring his view would shed light.

Maybe that much greater thing that overtakes you is the real you, — Wosret

It's not a greater thing. It's little bubbles of red silk poking out of black wool. I've got a dye called "oxblood red." Oddly, it isn't what's normally thought of as oxblood. It's actually blood red.

Not all the time, in all respects if we're talking about persons.

It's viable some of the time in all respects, and all of the time in some respects. — Terrapin Station

One of the things this view commits you to is qualia. Before I try to change your mind about that, do you really accept qualia as a form of mental representation?

Hi dude! You're expressing my usual attitude. We see ideas. I was just exploring the opposing view.

So you don't see mental representation that's totally non-conceptual as a viable viewpoint?

Representing stuff to yourself is always about one of these two things, and the forms, and modes that they take effect your dispositions towards the ideas, as well as your levels of desire and aversion. — Wosret

I've been doing a lot of fiber art lately and I've had a number of episodes of a kind of paralysis where an image of something that hasn't happened yet takes me over. In some cases it has to do with a way of doing something. It doesn't seem like something I'm doing. It happens to me in pretty much exactly the same way seeing an amazing flower or arrangement of clouds would arrest me. Are those things necessary to get by? No, probably not necessary, but I can imagine the same thing happening to somebody out in the desert.. a sudden inspiration of how to find water comes and momentarily paralyzes. I'm guessing that in the old days a person who gets that a lot would be called a seer.

When you're thinking, you're ignoring your senses in order to develop these projections. Thought takes the place of sense in every moment that you're thinking. — Wosret

I agree.

So it's an entity that sees, hears, tastes, feels, and responds to the world, but it never sees that, hears that, feels that...? What takes the place of thought is instinct.