What they are denying is that we have introspective evidence of qualia, and they do so by providing a somewhat detailed cognitive theory of how that comes about. I think their case is sufficiently well-argued for us to take them seriously. — DanCoimbra
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Why? Is the below a big problem for materialism?
At T1 the ball is someone's property. At T2 everybody dies. Nothing physical has changed about the ball but it is no longer someone's property. — Michael
Why? Is the below a big problem for materialism?
At T1 the ball is someone's property. At T2 everybody dies. Nothing physical has changed about the ball but it is no longer someone's property. — Michael
Cause, as I stated before, the tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths over the past 100+ years cannot be considered large enough scale to fit the term Genocide. But it is proper to use the term "holocaust," which details a slow burn killing over an extended period of time. — Vaskane
At time T1 the ink markings are a true sentence. At T2 everybody dies. Nothing physical has changed about the ink markings, but they are no longer a true sentence. — Michael
So for physicalists, facts are physical or there are no facts; otherwise it would depend on whether you are talking about the type or the token, or whether the guy you are asking is an idealist, or what the fact is talking about. — Lionino
So let's imagine a hypothetical physicalist:
1. In a brainless universe there are no true sentences; the book simply contains ink printed on a page
2. Everything that exists in a brainless universe is a physical object (or process)
Is there a problem with this position? — Michael
They can say that a science textbook is full of true sentences that refer to facts. — Michael
Is that what the physicalist means by "fact"? Or do they mean the thing that a true sentence describes? — Michael
I think there's an element of ambiguity here. For some, the word "fact" means "true sentence". For others the word "fact" refers to the aspect of the world that true sentences correspond to.
So for some "it is raining" is a fact if it is true.
For others "it is raining" is true if it refers to a fact.
The physicalist who says that there are facts in a brainless universe is just saying that the world exists and has certain features even if there's nobody around to see them or talk about them.
And I'll add, arguing over whether or not a fact is a true sentence or the thing that true sentences refer to is a meaningless argument. Just so long as you make explicit what you mean by "fact", use it however you want. — Michael
So for physicalists, facts are physical or there are no facts — Lionino
But you haven't responded to the issue of you making arguments from ignorance. Why do you consider yourself competent to judge what the state of science should be at present? Surely it is not a matter of you considering yourself scientifically well informed. Right? — wonderer1
Interesting turn in the last page or two. I see Dennett rearing his head in these discussions.
I think it is, even after reading Dan's elucidative posts, a really hard sell that Dennett even gets off the ground in reducing qualia to something other than qualia. The idea that "unification", "access" and "temporality" of conscious states is amenable to change doesn't at all infer, to me, that qualia are not qualia as currently understood. Its not just counter-intuitive, but counter possible-experience. In that way, even if it were true, I don't think its actually reasonable to expect a human mind to discuss the fact of its non-existence - given we operate via qualia at levels from sense experience to thought.
It may not be virtuous to be dismissive, but I do think it's virtuous to not waste time discussing something that, at it's base, appears to be not possible. — AmadeusD
We are all in fact philosophical zombies — DanCoimbra
Can you provide any reason to think that you aren't making an argument from ignorance? — wonderer1
Is that what non physicalist generally believe? That there's no possible test or experimental data to demonstrate non physical phenomena? — flannel jesus
However, the first ball being blue is compatible with the box now containing 99 red balls — Michael
According to Willis, she was not romantically involved with Wade when she hired him. — Relativist
Let's assume the correspondence theory of truth1: that a sentence is true is that it corresponds to a fact. We can use this to rephrase the liar sentence:
1. This sentence does not correspond to a fact.
We can also consider:
2. (3) corresponds to a fact.
3. (2) does not correspond to a fact.
Do (1), (2), and (3) each correspond to a fact?
1 Even if it's incorrect, the question above is worth considering. — Michael
Which is not suprising, when they are treated with hostility, or at least patronizing. — baker
But it seems clear to me that Hamas and the Palestinians simply are not interested, being instead explicitly committed to the elimination by any means of Israel and Jews, which policy they actively pursue. That in turn does not leave a lot of choices for the Israelis, which in turn leads us back around to the question of who is really in control. I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. In doing they have fashioned themselves a plague, one that must mutate to a more human standard or be otherwise cured or eliminated. — tim wood
And future generations will look at all the aging advocates, apologists and evangelics as fuckups of their time, elderly losers who no one will miss. — Christoffer