What I mean is that science sometimes goes off limits and gives fast conclusions like "we can measure welfare, time dilatation,..., without investigating further the meaning of these words. And if you don't do that, how can you know exactly what you're talking about ? It ends up being in the field of philosophy, because it can be subject to much more interpretations that science can deal with.
But if they would define it clearly, it could stay within the limits of science. They could say something like “if we define welfare this way, it involves these scientific concepts that can be measured through these other notions”, and then you clearly see all the uncertainties on the language itself, because what science is actually “sure” about is these notions that can be directly related to observations/measurements. — Avema
I don’t care if you believe it or not. I’m just expressing what I believe. — NOS4A2
He’s gotten more done on the golf course than other presidents have gotten off of it, which is pretty sad. — NOS4A2
Philosophy, although employing the odd inductive argument here and there, is a field whose mainstay is deductive logic and deductive logic is all about absolute truths - truths that can't be false. — TheMadFool
I hold that the relationship of philosophy to the sciences is the same as that between administrative fields (technology and business) and the workers whose tools and jobs they administrate. — Pfhorrest
It seems to me the Scots have a greater and stronger identity and image than just about everyone else on the planet. What more is there to get? — tim wood
My new theory: whites synthesized covid to kill off nonwhites. — Merkwurdichliebe
What’s “human morality” if not codes of conduct you personally subscribe to? — khaled
The question is why do you make it a characteristic of a moral theory to ensure the survival of the society in which it is used? That’s what you seem to be doing. — khaled
What "evolved characterisitc" is antinatalism missing that other moral theories have? — khaled
So unpopular moral theories are no longer moral theories? — khaled
Sure the ubiquity speaks to the presence of an evolved characteristic, but it is your choice to make that characteristic definitional or circumstantial. — khaled
We are evolved and culturally embedded creatures. We simply do not have random wants en masse. So why would anyone have an otherwise unfounded desire to avoid risking harm to others without consent? — Isaac
The first would be an argument from popularity. — khaled
When you realised there was some idea out there about God how did you respond? — Brett
Really, being ignorant of something is a long way from repudiating something. — Brett
Are you trying to imply something ? — Wittgenstein
If you are calling incels self-entitled jerks then you don't have anything useful to contribute here. I am interested in something else. — Wittgenstein
I don’t think you can be born an atheist. An atheist is someone who repudiates the existence of God. — Brett
My claim is that the persistence of identity is an illusion. You, right now, experience the world and your brain contains all the memories of the previous past experiences but they were like different persons that experienced the world and they are all gone. You remember their conscious experiences and think it was you who did it but the hypothesis is it was not you who are conscious now that experienced the world in the past. — Rotorblade
Those problems include looking ugly , mental disorder, terrible childhood or just bad luck ( being born as an ethnic in a dominant white culture, being born in a poor family etc.) — Wittgenstein
For all those avowed atheists out there; if God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions have no validity, no claim to truth, then what truth have you replaced them with? — Brett
Now Einstein says time is an illusion — TiredThinker
We also have a natural drive to take what we want. Yet we pronounced one drive good and one drive bad. — khaled
All I’m trying to get at is that the mere fact that we have different, often contradictory drives is not in any way useful when talking about morals. — khaled
But that’s not what Isaac and Benkei are trying to do. They are trying to find a contradiction even after accepting the premises, and failing. — khaled
First off, do you think there are situations where having children is wrong? — khaled
That's a pretty cynical view, Kenosha. I'm not sure I buy it. I think I have a pretty good concept of, say, a million. — RogueAI
So I grant you that some numbers are "unthinkable" (and what does the existence of unthinkable numbers entail?) — RogueAI
But if math is just a rules game, how did we come up with innovations like imaginary numbers, which have real-world applications? Doesn't that require understanding of math on a conceptual level, rather than something that's just rules-based? — RogueAI
I'm asking "Okay, so due to [insert neurological, biological, evolutionary process here (no omniscience required)] we ended up with a desire to steal, is it moral to steal?" The fact that we have an inclination to steal does not make it moral as I'm sure you'd agree. Similarly, the fact that we have an inclination to reproduce, and the fact that most of us think that it is morally fine, does not show that it is. — khaled
To show that we have to agree on starting premises and reason from them. Now if, like Isaac, one of your starting premises is "Anything that leads to extinction is bad because preserving the human race is a worthy goal in and of itself" then of course having kids is fine and that's that. We go our merry ways. I don't share that premise so that's as far as the talk will get (unless you can derive it from a premise I DO share). However this method fails to show what was intended to be shown, that there is some actual error within AN. — khaled
In ethics you argue as to what should or should not be done. The fact that our current moral paradigm (supposedly) does not lead to antinatalism doesn't make antinatalism bunk. — khaled
That would be like saying that the fact slavery existed for the longest time makes it right. This is no more than an argument from popularity. — khaled
I'm hoping if this is going to go on that that doesn't happen because it's just tiring for all parties envolved. — khaled
That's true. But your position entails that for any number over 143,672, when we do math we're not really understanding anything, we're just playing a rules game. That doesn't seem right. Do you believe that? — RogueAI
I'm going to push back on this. I agree that for any absurdly long number, it's hard to imagine how we can hold it in our minds, and yet, for any number, I can add 1 to it and figure out what the answer is. How am I able to do that if the number is so large I can't properly think of it? — RogueAI
We don't have a concept of 143,672ness. We can relate 143,672 to 143,671 by comparing six symbols each one of an ordered set (the decimal base) and noting that all are the same but the last, and that the last digit of the former is later in the set than that of the latter. — Kenosha Kid
It's so bizzare to me that we are 17 pages in and you keep saying "Well actually, your view and my view are both caused by natrualistic means therefore there is nothing to talk about". That there is a natrualistic explanation does not mean there is nothing to talk about. There is nothing about the former statement that implies the latter. And it is clear there ARE things to talk about or you would have stopped talking. — khaled
For any brain-sized region of space, there are only a finite amount of configurations of matter possible. That means there is a finite amount of possible brain states, which would entail a finite amount of possible thoughts. However, math is infinite, and any number can be conceived, so there are an infinite number of possible thoughts. is this a problem for reductionism? — RogueAI
If we did not respect others at all, life would be constant war and conflict every moment, as everywhere we go we have to meet others, bigger and stronger, like in the school playground. — Jack Cummins
I think it is about self interest, but with a need to respect others. — Jack Cummins
Four uses are provided. The first is the phenomenal character of the experience, which you seem to be adopting. The second is as properties of sense data. The third, as intrinsic non-representational properties. The fourth, as intrinsic, nonphysical, ineffable properties.
The second is out of favour along with sense-data. The fourth is that which Dennett seeks to Quine.
Now I think those of us who reject qualia have been implicitly suggesting that the first entails the third and fourth, and that this is the position taken by Dennett.
How's that? — Banno
Thus, announcements by philosophers who declare themselves opposed to qualia need to be treated with some caution. One can agree that there are no qualia in the last three senses I have explained, while still endorsing qualia in the standard first sense. — SEP
As far as I am aware, I am not sterile — Jack Cummins
For example, I have gone into a pub, with a book, wishing to be left alone , just to be given space to read and, despite the social distancing rules, I have been told to move, to make way for groups. — Jack Cummins
The problem here is that we're talking about the reliability of scientific observations, not the capacity for common vernacular. In science, "system" has a very specific definition involving boundaries, such that any "whole" which you are talking about is defined by its boundaries. If the boundaries of the proposed "whole" are really unknown, or nonexistent, and the observer applies systems theory in interpretation, which pretends that the nonexistent boundaries are there and known, in order to treat what is observed as a "system", then obviously the observations will be unreliable. — Metaphysician Undercover
I am not sure about your idea that being part of a group is central to being a person, or to what extent. Perhaps I am a little bit on the autistic spectrum but I have found that having to spend too much time with others is so stressful. — Jack Cummins
Human society - and not just contemporary society - always seems to have sought - and often forced - the homogeneity of the thought that "the group must always come before the Self" and to implement it in civilization. — Gus Lamarch