Comments

  • Are our minds souls?


    Are you ever going to explain what your support of the premise is? (with respect to agreement having more weight)
  • Are our minds souls?
    So, on what basis do you reject it?Bartricks

    It's the argumentum ad populum fallacy, and that's considered a fallacy for good reason.
  • Are our minds souls?


    Yes. That's what I said from the start. I don't accept the premise.
  • Are our minds souls?


    Okay. So what's the support for something having more weight if there's agreement?
  • Are our minds souls?


    If that's what you're saying, then what does "you can't argue for anything without presupposing its truth" have to do with it? How would that support that something has more weight if there's agreement?
  • Are our minds souls?


    So, again, Are you saying that it has more weight if there's agreement? Yes or no.
  • Reasoning badly about free will and moral responsibility
    if it’s a contrapositive doesn’t it mean that thinking one is identical with thinking the other? He just wrote it in a weird way?khaled

    No. That something is equivalent logically doesn't at all mean that it's equivalent semantically, re the way that people think about something.

    That's a common mistake that's behind a lot of dubious philosophy, including many of the Gettier cases, for example.
  • Should hate speech be allowed ?
    I deliberately ignored that because it should be blindingly obviousS

    . . . There's no way you're such a royal asshole in person.

    Anyway, so we're talking about a newspaper article? What was the link to it again?
  • relationship to the universe
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    The ideas are so vague I don't get what's being said, exactly.
  • Should hate speech be allowed ?
    Did you not read the remarks delivered by the judge in Choudary’s sentencing?S

    First, I never heard of this case until it was just brought up earlier in this thread.

    I asked you twice now if we were talking about his written decision in the case. You never answered.

    And then I asked if you had a link to the decision (or whatever you would have been referring to if not his decision). i said I was only finding articles about it. You never responded to that.

    So obviously I never read whatever you were referring to.

    You did say that the judge didn't explicitly claim that hate speech legislation has a connection to controlling terrorism. And the judge isn't an academic source for evidence of a connection, at any rate. But sure, I'd read whatever you're referring to if you could point me to it.
  • Natural vs Unnatural
    The minority want to belong to the majorityTheMadFool

    Believe it or not, a lot of people don't have a normative attraction to what's statistically common.
  • Reasoning badly about free will and moral responsibility
    Isn’t that just the contrapositive though?khaled

    Yes, and it's what people are likely to think rather than what he said.
  • Natural vs Unnatural
    The former consider the latter unnatural/abnormal.TheMadFool

    That's their problem though. There's no normative weight to anything just because it's more common.
  • Emphasizing the Connection Perspective
    What words would you use to answer the question "what is pain like?"Isaac

    I would just describe it as best as I can, while stressing that one needs to experience whatever it is to really know what it's like for oneself. Words can't capture experiences.
  • Natural vs Unnatural
    Don't you think the biggest problems humanity has faced, is facing and will face is predicated on distinction or difference?TheMadFool

    Sure, but the problem is the folks who can't accept difference, not the folks who are different.
  • Emphasizing the Connection Perspective
    Yes, and "what it's like" there is doing the job of "similar but not necessarily identical"Isaac

    ??

    I wasn't following this discussion, but "what it's like" refers to the qualities of something from an experiential/subjective perspective.
  • Reasoning badly about free will and moral responsibility
    1. If I am morally responsible, then I have free willBartricks

    First, I think it would be very unusual for anyone to actually think this.

    What people tend to think instead is, "If I don't have free will, then I'm not morally responsible for my actions."
  • Should hate speech be allowed ?
    I'm claiming that anyone with half a brain can work out the implications of what the Judge was saying,S

    That's fine.

    Is there any academic source that suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism?
  • Are our minds souls?
    I need to run for a while, by the way, but I'll check out the answer when I get back.
  • Are our minds souls?


    At the moment I'm not trying to dispute anything. I'm trying to figure out just what the claim is. Are you saying that it has more weight if there's agreement? Yes or no.
  • Are our minds souls?


    I don't know how you expect to have a discussion with anyone if you won't bother to clarify simple things they're asking about.
  • Are our minds souls?


    Do you understand that it wasn't clear to me, and it still isn't, how you were using "most people"? Yes or no
  • Are our minds souls?


    We have a room of 100 people.

    If I say, "Most people in the room like some band," we can read that two different ways:

    (1) A majority of people in the room like the same particular band, the Beatles.
    (2) A majority of the people in the room have some band they like, the Beatles for Joe, Led Zeppelin for Sue, Nirvana for Pete, etc., but they all like a different band.

    I'm trying to clarify which way you were using "most people."

    Why this is so difficult to understand I don't know.
  • Are our minds souls?


    Are you an Aspie? I'm just trying to clarify that whether you were using "most people" to necessarily refer to a collective of people asserting the same thing, or whether we're talking about individuals asserting different things. I initially understood you to be referring to a collective.
  • Should hate speech be allowed ?


    So you're not claiming that any academic source suggests that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism?
  • Are our minds souls?


    In other words, you're not saying "P is more likely to be true if most people reason that P," but rather, "If some individual, S, reasons that P, then most likely P" (ceteris paribus)?
  • Are our minds souls?


    Wait a minute, are you saying that "most people" in your premise isn't about people collectively, but that it's rather another way of saying, "For most arbitrary individuals, if their reason represents something to be the case, that is good evidence that it is the case other things being equal"?
  • Are our minds souls?
    Why is my one true? Because you can't argue for anything - anything at all - without presupposing its truth.Bartricks

    Goddammit, man, I just asked you what "You can't argue for anything without presupposing its truth" has to do with ""If the reason of most people represents something to be the case, that is good evidence that it is the case other things being equal" and you said "Nothing."

    If not "Nothing," can you tell me what the two are supposed to have to do with each other?
  • Are our minds souls?


    Oy vey not another one of these friggin nutballs.

    You wrote this, which I already quoted: ""If the reason of most people represents something to be the case, that is good evidence that it is the case other things being equal."

    I'm asking you why you accept that. Stop stalling and just say why you accept that. If you don't know why, that's fine--I'm not going to hold that against you (as opposed to playing games where we have to go through all of this crap to even talk about it). Just be honest and straightforward and we can move on from there.
  • Are our minds souls?


    Can't you just tell me why you accept that premise (the premise that you wrote as the start of your first two arguments)? It's a simple question. Why do you accept that premise?
  • Are our minds souls?
    Nothing.Bartricks

    If it has nothing to do with it then it's not at all what I'm asking for.

    I'm telling you that I don't at all accept your premise.

    I'm presuming that you accept it. Why?
  • Are our minds souls?
    you can't argue for anything without presupposing its truth.Bartricks

    Suppose this is the case.

    What does it have to do with the idea that "if most people represent something to be the case, that is good evidence that it's the case"?
  • Are our minds souls?
    I am not guilty of any wishful thinking - it is you who is guilty of that,Bartricks

    Actually, my wishes would be that consciousness isn't material, that the notion of nonphysical things can make sense, that we continue after bodily death, that things like ghosts are real/that we could become ghosts, etc., but I can't believe any of that stuff even though I wish it were true.
  • Are our minds souls?
    I have presented three argumentsBartricks

    Just found that. So one thing at a time:

    "If the reason of most people represents something to be the case, that is good evidence that it is the case other things being equal."

    I don't buy that premise (also, the ceteris paribus clause in it is rather vague). What do you take to be a support of it?
  • Are our minds souls?
    I am told repeatedly that my mind is my brain, but I see no evidence that this is the case.Bartricks

    Evidence includes that whenever one suffers brain injuries, brain impairment, etc., we see concomitant mental changes. There's no reason aside from wishful thinking, usually stemming from religious beliefs and/or a desire for oneself and one's loved ones to somehow survive past death, that mind is something different than a subset of brain activities.

    That brain impairment has concomitant mental impairment isn't proof that mind and brain are identical, but empirical claims are not provable, so nothing is going to be proof that they're identical. It's rather evidence supporting a belief that they're identical. On the other hand, there is no evidence to support the wishful thinking that they're different.
  • Should hate speech be allowed ?


    So I had asked for evidence that controlling hate speech controls terrorism.

    And then I said, which still stands, that I would accept anything academic that even suggests it, as long as it's explicitly and specifically suggesting that hate speech legislation would have something to do with controlling terrorism.

    But the best we can do, apparently, is something that a judge said, and apparently he didn't explicitly say that controlling hate speech controls terrorism; we need to read that into what he said. And then we still didn't address where the judge said this--I'm guessing in his written decision on the case, but you didn't answer that. Is that right, we're reading this into his written decision on the case? Do we have a link to his written decision? I quickly searched for it but I was just finding articles about the case.
  • On Antinatalism
    Did you know that Jerry Garcia had four children? I'll bet you did.T Clark

    Yes, I did know that. :up:
  • Natural vs Unnatural


    My comment is why should what's statistically common be treated as a normative in the sense of what anyone should be doing? X is statistically common. Y is statistically very uncommon. What gives x and y any comparative value, especially so that x is preferred? What would be the justification for that?
  • On Antinatalism
    I'm glad you brought this up, Matias. It's a subject we normally avoid.







    And if you believe that, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.

Terrapin Station

Start FollowingSend a Message