Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:01 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:00 pm "Often," how does it work? Let's pretend we don't know.

How does "work" work ? Lets pretend you know.

Yeah, let's pretend that's a mystery. That will definitely be worthwhile.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:57 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:52 pm Pointing and grunting often doesn't work as well.

Clearly you aren't a scuba diver.

Communication is multi-dimensional.

"Often," how does it work? Let's pretend we don't know.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:57 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:52 pm Pointing and grunting often doesn't work as well.

Clearly you aren't a scuba diver.

Communication is multi-dimensional.

"Often," how does it work?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:18 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:17 pm Sometimes you want a bagel.

And you can't point at what you want why?

Pointing and grunting often doesn't work as well.

As if we need to waste time saying this.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:14 pm And those things are useful because...?

Sometimes you want a bagel.

I'm an existential philosopher with a solid grounding in psychology who has tried to kill myself twice and yet no suicide help line wants my help because i'm not integrated enough to believe doing things their way is the right way. I have helped people through existential crises before and yet some...

What if we are experiencing a simulation of the universe as it once was? https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 What would be a reason you'd believe that? I don't claim to believe it. I think it plausible...

My point is that what you call 'a particular instantiation of Gandalf' is problematic. In what way is an electrochemical process an instantiation of a thing such as Gandalf? In what sense does or can Gandalf 'exist in the brain'? Physically? Or does something like a substantial change occur in the ...

Whatever properties a "rose" makes, both things have them. Whatever properties a "rose" doesn't have, both things don't have them. They can't literally have the same properties on my view. They rather have similarities/resemblances that we abstract as the "same properties,&...

They don't literally have the same properties, though. You are literally calling two things by the same name. If we're talking about a plural on a single/particular usage, sure . . . which has nothing whatsoever to do with them literally having the same properties. Why are you doing that if they ar...

Yes. I use those terms. That doesn't imply that I think that two separate things can literally be identical with respect to properties somehow. That's literally why you are using one term to refer to two things. This cat is a cat. And this cat is a cat. What I'm doing is employing an abstraction I'...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:48 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:46 pm You're claiming that it's a moral assessment of the album, correct?

No, I am not.

But that's what I said. When people say "This album is bad," they're not (usually) uttering a moral assessment of the album.

Which I don't buy. I don't believe you. You use plurals in English. Grapes. Cats. Dogs. Things. Those are all types. Yes. I use those terms. That doesn't imply that I think that two separate things can literally be identical with respect to properties somehow. What I'm doing is employing an abstrac...

I'm not asking about words. The issue is the claim that most comments a la "this is a bad album" are saying something moral about the album . Suddenly you've gone into the lala land of noumena. The social interaction which takes place when you utter the English sentence "The album is...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:43 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:42 pm Univalence looks like we need to buy that two things can be the same type in some literal sense.

Yes. Two cats can be cats, even though they are not the same cat.

It's essentialism with respect to properties.

Which I don't buy.