Comments

  • Arguments Against God
    ↪SophistiCat


    He got banned/
  • How Movement Happens
    Clearly, the object did not go through all that in between space to get to the new position. — elucid

    Huh? That isnt clear at all. How else would the object get to the new position except by moving through the space between its positions?
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    Ya I meant “things”, like in the sense that logic is describing something about the way the world works, an observation about physics for example. It seems like things have a logic to them and our grammar is an attempt to describe it. So I would say yes logic is grammar in one sense but it is also a reference to something as well, something observed and not created by humans.
    Im not sure what is being described by logic if logic is just grammar alone, so I inquired about what exactly you meant.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    Logic is just grammar how exactly? You don’t think logic describes anything about the way you things work?
  • What is moral?
    Morality is trying to be good.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    Ill try that
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    Ya I’m not really understanding why necessity entails all possible worlds. I dont see why we couldn't talk about possibilities of just the one we know about.
    Ok, so this is about defining “necessity” as used by the religious folk as an argument for gods existence? And you are unsatisfied because you cannot quite articulate whats wrong with the arguments from necessity? Is that right?
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    I dont think modal logic requires “all possible worlds” in order to make sense of possibility (which is what modal logic is about). It can, but modal logic can also be just about single world possibility, or any other framing of possibility.
    So I am not abandoning modal logic I just think when you posit god as necessary across all possible worlds you run into problems in the answer, and like an argument that is logically valid but not sound then the answer to your syllogism isn’t satisfying.
    What if instead of all possible worlds you just considered god as necessary to this one? My thought was that you would find a more satisfying answer than when you consider all possible worlds.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno


    I think that a “necessary” designation doesnt necessarily entail all possible worlds. Why would it? A being can be necessary for one possible world or many or all of them, so by formulating your question like you did you have forced the answer
    to be unsatisfying.
  • Euthyphro
    As to Plato, how do we diagnose his metaphysics if not based on the dialogues? — Fooloso4

    Maybe you can’t, because the dialogues do not provide enough information to draw a proper conclusion. We shouldn't let our desire to know more about Plato’s views make us see things that aren’t really there.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪StreetlightX


    Dismissing content of what others say in favour of dismissal is a pretty common human tendency, especially in politics. What you said in the OP seems like an example of that but nothing particularly insightful. What an I missing?
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪frank


    Makes sense.
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    ↪frank


    Well people ask for civility but in my experience not in topics like that.
    What do you mean by natural selection?
  • Eleven Theses on Civility
    When for instance, someone points out that Israel is an apartheid state that regularly murders Palestinians and steals their land, or that Donald Rumsfeld is an architect of mass murder, and the response is: "why can't you be civil about these things?", — StreetlightX

    Not cherrypicking, but wanted to follow up on this. I’ve never heard anyone respond with a demand for civility or niceness to those points, usually its an uncivil response in return.
    Who says that?
  • The First Infinite Regress
    Ya, “why not?”. Fight infinite regress with infinite regress.
  • Bannings
    ↪StreetlightX


    Roger that.
  • Bannings
    3.7k
    Banned Foghorn
    — Baden

    I'm guessing not for the first time.     — praxis
  • Bannings
    Come on, Foghorn Leghorn? I cant be the first only one that noticed.
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    ↪Banno


    Excuse me for ruining it with a rebuttal. We’ll call it even. :wink:
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    ↪Banno


    Obviously not the context I was using “belief” in, but yes ok there are some “beliefs” that do not need to be justified to be taken seriously.
    If he doctor said “i believe the best remedy for your gut pain is stabbing you in the gut with a knife” then he would need to justify that belief if we are expected to take it seriously. Thats what I meant.
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    Ah, right. My mistake.
    So what is the difference between formal connotations and personal connotations that are pertinent here?
    If its just a matter if of justifying to others or justifying to yourself then what I said still applies, the metric of justification doesnt change.
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    ↪Wheatley


    Im not sure why a personal belief would be any different. Seems like we might have different ideas of “belief”, could you tell me what you mean exactly by making the distinction between “belief” and “personal belief”?
  • Why do my beliefs need to be justified?
    ↪Wheatley


    You only have to justify your beliefs if you want them to be taken seriously. If they cannot be justified you can’t be surprised when they are dismissed by others.
    The metric for what is justified is varied, but generally the metric will be what others are willing to accept. Generally reason and logic are accepted by other humans but some humans have a very low bar for justification (like “faith”) or very high bar (a skeptic or scientist).
  • Survey of philosophers
    ↪Olivier5


    Well my point was about complexity and detail not necessarily the indiscernibility between reality and a sim but yes its quite possible it makes no difference. I would say however you that it could, depending on the nature of the sim. If we have a Matrix situation then there are ways of telling the difference, and the difference between sim and reality would be whether or not the human race has been transformed into batteries by robots, that breaking free of the sims is means of survival etc, just as an example.
    Also the complexity and detail could be just as rich but there could still be telltale signs of the sim, like everyone is a cartoon or some other obvious sign.
    Have you seen the movie “Ready Player One”?
  • Happy atheists in foxholes?
    In general, even most wars where religion was heavily involved were primarily to build empires — T Clark

    That's true but you can have religious empires so the question is where to draw the line between the empire building and the religion as the source.
    I think its a worthwhile distinction to make.
    Also I think whats really being referenced on the “religion as source” side is just an example of human nature, specifically the tribalism of which religion is an extension of. I think its tempting to blame religion because it’s such a good example of what dumb apes get up to in groups but its really about the sociological burdens evolution equipped human beings with.
  • Survey of philosophers
    I'm a brain in a skull in a body in a social ecosystem in a natural ecosystem in a planetary biosphere ... Too much unnecessary detail for a sim. — 180 Proof

    Spot on. This world is just too generously rich in infinite details and complexity to qualify as a simulation. — Olivier5

    Unnecessary detail and complexity are not really indicators that this isnt a sim, a sufficiently sophisticated sim would have both those things. I think its tempting to think those are indicators of not being in a sim because it’s hard to imagine a sim that isnt flawed in these ways given the existing flawed “sims” with current technology. In principal though, I din’t think its impossible for a sim to be just as rich or richer in complexity or detail than “reality”
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Apollodorus


    Ok, I understand, thanks.
  • Euthyphro
    BTW, thanks for pointing out that "loved" and "beloved" are synonyms. It looks like the dictionary now agrees with you. I don't know how you managed to persuade them to change their definition, but well done.

    loved (comparative more loved, superlative most loved) 1. Being the object of love
    Synonyms See Thesaurus: beloved

    loved – Wiktionary     — Apollodorus

    Oops, you forgot to include the whole definition. You are referencing the adjective use, I the verb. So that distinction seems to have caused a miscommunication.
    If you look at the quotation for the definition of “loved” as an adjective it references its use in psych/self help books. Is that the way you intend on using the term here? As used in the psych/self help sense of the words?
  • Euthyphro
    The dishonesty is entirely yours. Though, quite possibly, you aren't aware of it. — Apollodorus

    In what way am I being dishonest? If I am mistaken in my view that you are being dishonest then thats a mistake not dishonesty. (Though if you are confused by that distinction it becomes easier to understand why you can’t sense your own dishonesty.)
    Anyway, what did I do that was dishonest?

    In relation to the passages under discussion, there is no difference whatsoever between "loved" and "beloved". — Apollodorus

    Yes there is a difference, if you use the dictionary definition of “loved” it doesnt in any way support your argument. Exactly why you chose to smuggle in a new word, “beloved”, which does support your argument.
    Why didnt you quote the dictionary definition of “loved” instead of “beloved” if there is no difference whatsoever?.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Apollodorus


    Ok, so when you swap out “loved” for “beloved”, thats the dishonest part.
    Why would you do that except that the dictionary definition of “beloved” suits your argument where the dictionary definition of “loved” does not? It seems you are doing it because your argument doesn't work with the definition of “loved” so you just used a different word that does help your argument…you pretend that “loved” and “beloved” are interchangeable when you know very well they have different dictionary definitions. That is a deception, dishonesty.
    If it isn’t dishonesty then please share your reason for using the dictionary definition of “beloved” instead of “loved”, since “loved” is the word being discussed.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Fooloso4


    I find it fascinating that someones mind can just slip past something like that, and Im compelled to inquire so I can understand better when my own mind might be doing something like that. Its kind of terrifying to me honestly, he doesnt seem to realize he is doing it. I dislike the idea of not knowing my own mind in that way.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Apollodorus


    Whether or not he complained is not relevant to whether or not you were being dishonest.
    Do you recognize that what you did is dishonest? Or at least recognize that it could come across that way? Please answer that question, it is direct and simple.
  • Euthyphro
    ↪Apollodorus


    Do you not realize that you are being dishonest here, or at least that what you’ve posted could seem like dishonesty?
    The salient word is “loved”, and you introduce “beloved” as an equal term and then lo and behold you post the dictionary definition of “beloved” as if that in any way supported what you are saying about “loved”. Do you know what I mean? You muscled in a dictionary definition that suits your argument. Why didnt you post the dictionary definition of “loved”? I googled it after I read your post…it really wouldnt help your case would it? So you ignored it and instead found a word that would.
    Thats a sneaky, dishonest way to engage with someone, and I’m wondering if its so sneaky you din’t even know you're doing it.

    Edited for clarity
  • A Global Awakening
    ↪Xtrix


    I wasnt joking, not really. There is more and more research and knowledge about psychedelics and there uses. Treatment for PTSD chief among them.
    We are also learning more about addiction and its relation to drugs.
    I just think people generally lack perspective, and get locked into one way of thinking , a little understanding goes a long way and psychedelics or a nig bag of weed can help with that.
  • A Global Awakening
    ↪Xtrix


    Force feed a pile of magic mushrooms to the worlds leaders and elite classes. The problems will resolve. :wink:
  • Bannings
    ↪Benkei


    :100:
  • Evolution and awareness
    ↪Sir2u


    I think he just has a personality disorder and doesnt really know anything. Standard internet jerkoff.
  • Bannings
    ↪The Opposite


    …you might be right. I feel like I only do that about people who have shown themselves to be the degree of prick not deserving of courtesy but you’re right its pretty petty. I should re-evaluate my actions, thanks for pointing that out.
  • Bannings
    ↪Manuel


    It should be lol
    You can see it coming a good ways off.
  • Bannings
    ↪Baden


    He had that suicide by mod vibe.
Home » DingoJones