However, I am not sure that experimentation is simply about rebellion entirely. — Jack Cummins
Finally, I will say that the philosophers who have experimented are not necessarily superior to those who have not. Some individuals paths in life seem to be so straight and narrow and yet they go on to develop fantastic philosophical insights. — Jack Cummins
I've deduced D from N and N from D. — TheMadFool
An instance of this will go a long way in proving your point. — TheMadFool
Also, your statements indicate that you believe logic is independent of nature in the sense that there's no connection between them at all or that if there is one, it's a coincidence. — TheMadFool
Yet, I've heard, though never personally experienced, of Buddhists making claims of a reduction, if not an elimination, of wants, and turning their backs on materialism to embrace a life of frugality. — TheMadFool
The problem, however, is that logic, no less, dictates that D = N. What this means is that if one is to be logical, and that is a primary goal in philosophy and in life in general, I have no choice but to accept that if I don't want anything then that entails I want nothing. — TheMadFool
I beg to differ. For one, I don't think desire is an emotion. — TheMadFool
Generally speaking, we like (want) things that make us happy and dislike (don't want) those that make us sad. — TheMadFool
This, in my opinion, indicates wanting/not wanting can operate at a meta-emotional level, making it, at the very least, not completely an emotion. — TheMadFool
Are you aware of any linguistic concept that is relevant to the paradox? — TheMadFool
What's your take on this? — TheMadFool
What say you? — TheMadFool
Well what's the meaning of the word "physical" at that point then? — khaled
Care to expand on this? — TheMadFool
I don't see how this is relevant. — TheMadFool
This is the paradox. Can you give this a second look if you don't mind? Thanks — TheMadFool
Ok, seems reasonable, so what happens when we get everything we want? — Hippyhead
Any ideas on that front? — TheMadFool
I mean what's the error in taking the sentences, 1. Not to want and 2. Want to not want as equivalent? — TheMadFool
I have a response to the version of the want paradox that goes like so: I don't want anything = I want nothing. — TheMadFool
As I said, you can imagine red. So what you're saying is that color itself is an electromagnetic wave? So if we were to imagine color using memory does that make memroy an electromagnetic wave? What is memory then? — khaled
how exactly does imagination work in your view? — khaled
So they're clearly not the same thing. — khaled
So how come you can imagine the color red without any photons entering your eyes? — khaled
So can I hold "the experience of seeing the color red" in my hand? — khaled
Or can "the experience of seeing the color red" be propagated through a medium like a wave? — khaled
I'm not saying that the object is immaterial. — khaled
I'm saying that "color" is not a physical property. — khaled
And you would be correct. It relates to consciousness. It IS not somehow consciousness. — khaled
Yes but I'm not looking for a game of tennis I'm looking for the sensation of hitting the ball. I can't "observe" that no matter how many tennis matches I watch. I have only been able to observe it by hitting a tennis ball. — khaled
For the same reason as above, color and wavelength are different. Everyone can agree on wavelength without agreeing on color. — khaled
If you’re proposing that consciousness IS brain activity then that is demonstrably false. We have more brain activity while sleeping but we’re not “more conscious”. — khaled
I’m not even sure that’s true and regardless “observing brain states” is different from “observing consciousness”. — khaled
You cannot explain to someone what the color red looks like without showing them the color red. — khaled
Both have not been observed by the senses — khaled
Mind is just a basic word for whatever goes on inside of a person, as opposed to what we can observe about them from looking at their physical characteristics. — Yohan
You can claim those things are not all part of a singular thing called a mind, but what appears absurd to many is claiming those things are reducible to matter. — Yohan
Except this would be more akin to a situation in which two persons are drowning and only one can be saved. — Tzeentch
I'd say the moral thing to do is to save one rather than to let both drown. I'd certainly not consider it immoral to save at least one. — Tzeentch
First, I don't think this constitutes harming someone. Whatever C needs help with, this harm has already been done in the past. Therefore C needing help is the starting point and not a result of A's actions. — Tzeentch
Second, as I argued, the neutral situation here is that both B and C need help, and if A only has the capability of helping one or the other, he is still capable of producing a net positive effect where either B or C is helped, instead of both not being helped. — Tzeentch
"I exist" is not an observation? What is it then? — khaled
I never get materialists doubting their own consciousness. — khaled
Do you really think you're mindless? No, you don't. So, why waste people's time on such idiocy? — RogueAI
The burden of proof is on the materialists to demonstrate something non-mental. — Yohan
So in these cases one's intentions do not match the actual results. In other words, despite one's best intentions one was ignorant of what was required to achieve the desired results. — Tzeentch
Lets take our friend with a psychological problem again. Lets say I want to help him, and I succeed in doing so. Who or what would be the party that is harmed in this example? — Tzeentch
Do you believe brains are identical to minds? — RogueAI
An act of a person is moral if it is done with the intention of helping another. — Tzeentch
An act of a person is immoral if it done with the intention of hurting another. — Tzeentch
And if in such a situation one does hurt others (without any intention) it is only a matter of ignorance. — Tzeentch
Since a person can never be said to be completely certain of anything, he is always to a degree ignorant, and therefore is not capable of a perfectly moral act. — Tzeentch