Search found 4367 matches

by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:40 pm
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Skepdick, you don't understand what falsification means. I beg to differ. Any empirical observation which disagrees with theoretical prediction. QED. That is not what falsifiability means. Nor do you understand the difference between the ontological claims of GR as opposed to the epistemological cl...
by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

If there is a conceivable way to falsify the Theory of Everything, then it's not the Theory of Everything. Is it? Skepdick, you don't understand what falsification means. If it's unfalsifiable then General Relativity is unscientific. Nor do you understand the difference between the ontological clai...
by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:27 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:11 am
You claimed that claim X is made by dualists.
I pointed out that claim X is also made by monists.
What claim is that?
by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:25 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Not wrong means unfalsifiable... No it doesn't. It means there is no conceivable way of being proven wrong. ...and unfalsifiable is useless. Doesn't follow. Einstein's concept of 'spacetime' is unfalsifiable; probably wrong, but nonetheless useful. That is why "not even wrong" is an insult. Not-wro...
by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:08 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

You are words on a screen to me. I think it entirely plausible that the source of those words is something that corresponds to whatever you take yourself to be, but I could be wrong. In this statement you have assumed words have an exact meaning... Clearly you have missed me arguing that words do n...
by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:12 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:33 am
The God hypothesis explains everything. That's why it sucks.
It sucks because it's unfalsifiable. I happen not to believe it. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:08 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Can you rest your case? If the model "You are a dualist" can be determined (and you claim to have determined it), then you contradict yourself. Well, I haven't made any such claim, so your conditional clause doesn't apply. I am a noumenon to you. Your claim of my dualism is an ontological knowledge...
by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:13 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Well, all models are underdetermined. Relative to what ideal for determination? I rest my case. It doesn't follow that all models are wrong. It follows directly. All models have edge and corner cases which dictate operating limits. I disagree. It is entirely possible that a models edge and corners ...
by uwot
Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:49 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Well you have to be clear whether you are talking ontology or epistemology... Ontology (I guess, but I have a unified model of everything so it's difficult to split it up). It's really not difficult. If you believe that there is only some thinky thing, or even just thoughts, that's your ontology. T...
by uwot
Wed Sep 18, 2019 2:11 pm
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:24 pm
All models are wrong, some are useful.
Well, all models are underdetermined. It doesn't follow that all models are wrong.
Anyway, what facts do you think priority monists ignore?
by uwot
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:26 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

if you contend that there are such things as heads, with thoughts and images inside, you are a dualist. Priority monists contend the same thing, without tripping over the problem of mental causality and getting trapped in the Cartesian Mind-Prison. That's a pretty neat trick. How do they pull it off?
by uwot
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:25 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Yes there is an image of the puppy in our head, so we presume that there's an puppy out there too, and a sort of mechanism or process between the two. That doesn't mean that phenomena are 'caused', how is that a default position? Well you have to be clear whether you are talking ontology or epistem...
by uwot
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:44 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Atla wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:25 pm
It is insane to assume that phenomena have a 'cause'. Why would anyone do that?
It's the default position. I'm fairly confident that if a child sees a puppy, they presume it's because the puppy exists.
by uwot
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:49 am
Forum: General Philosophical Discussion
Topic: Kant
Replies: 214
Views: 2174

Re: Kant

Phenomena = appearances, and noumena = things-in-themselves, so far so good (if I understood correctly). But did he understand that technically and objectively, all phenomena are noumena (the noumena in the human head)? So some of the noumenon is directly 'knowable'. What Kant did was to point out,...
by uwot
Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:18 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Religion
Topic: So what's not to like
Replies: 61
Views: 708

Re: So what's not to like

Jesus _ So what's not to like? Original sin. The idea that babies are guilty, just for being born, and have to surrender their critical faculties the moment they acquire them, to be pardoned for what someone who listened to a talking snake did. The punishment for not doing so being eternal torture....