It would be, but a lot of folks on boards like this argue for idealism, which is a pet peeve, especially coming from so many folks that are solely philosophy "hobbyists."RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:42 pmSomehow or another, since we seem to agree on so many essentials, I have the impression our disagreements, in the final analysis, may more semantic than substantive. At least we agree on that aspect of the nature of knowledge.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:26 pmCorrect.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:23 pm
Of course there is no knowledge in books. As you said, "They're collections of paper with marks on them. There's no literal knowledge in them."
There is no knowledge at all outside human consciousness.
Yet some people are arguing otherwise.
I think we also agree that existence, or reality, or, "the ontological," exists and has the nature it has independent of whether any human being knows or is aware of that existence and its nature.
If that's true, it's a pretty good foundation, don't you think?
A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
How ridiculous of you.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pmYes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 pmHow ridiculous of you.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pmYes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
There is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pmWhich wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 pmHow ridiculous of you.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pm
Yes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:45 pmThere is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pmWhich wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.
You might not be a fan of some ethical stance or another, but intellectual merit isn't determined by sharing your preferences.
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
falseTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pmIt's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:45 pmThere is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pm
Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.
I find no merit in your ideas, they are both ethically and intellectually wanting.
You might not be a fan of some ethical stance or another, but intellectual merit isn't determined by sharing your preferences.
What exactly do you think is the ethical merit of letting Hitler off the hook?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
I'll be surprised if you actually answer this, but what do you believe makes it correct or incorrect? Just what are we matching or failing to match in finding merit in one ethical stance versus another?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:01 pmfalseTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pmIt's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.
I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.What exactly do you think is the ethical merit of letting Hitler off the hook?
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
Would an example suffice?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:34 pmI'll be surprised if you actually answer this, but what do you believe makes it correct or incorrect? Just what are we matching or failing to match in finding merit in one ethical stance versus another?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:01 pmfalseTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pm
It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.
If a person hold an ethical stance which is inherently incoherent in his own terms, would make that incorrect. Were he to show a consistency whereby his beliefs were consonant with his ethical position that would be correct.
This is not rocket science.
That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.What exactly do you think is the ethical merit of letting Hitler off the hook?
Case closed.
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
And now for a specific example.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:34 pm I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.
Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
It would make it incorrect per what?
"People shouldn't hold ethical stances that are inconsistent with other stances they hold because . . ."? Well, because what?
(If you're rather saying that they can't actually hold inconsistent stances, that's another matter, but then no one actually has inconsistent stances, of course.)
"What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions."That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.
Case closed.
I don't have a problem with speech actions, in other words.
I have a problem with certain non-speech actions. Hence why I specified that.
You're doing that thing where one can't even preemptively nip a misconception in the bud, because the other person will just ignore it anyway and proceed with the misconception.
??Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?
People who think that Beethoven was a genius certainly can and do do this. I don't understand why you're asking this, really (because it seems so obvious that people report what they think/how they feel about such things).
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
There is other stuff to address from the post the following is excerpted from, but I'm addressing what I think is the most important part first:
This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense, so we need to understand just the freedom part first. Jumping straight to free will (and choices, decisions, etc.) without understanding freedom in the general/simple sense just leads to confusion.
As I tried to make explicit a number of times above, the first task is to understand the difference between the "freedom" side and the "determinism" side, in the most general and simplest sense of the ontological distinction.RogerSH wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:46 pmMy first reaction is that this couldn't be useful because I couldn't see how particles could be doing the choosing in such a scenario, but on reflection I wonder whether this may be getting rather close to the heart of the different perspectives. Perhaps your idea of freedom is nothing to do with freedom to choose as I understand it?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:58 pm Two, as I tried to stress a number of times, thinking clearly about freedom vs determinism is easiest if we first stick to the simplest possible scenario, which is something like imagining the interaction of two different particles. In that case, we're not dealing with minds at all, and just what incompatibilists are saying can come into sharper focus.
This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense, so we need to understand just the freedom part first. Jumping straight to free will (and choices, decisions, etc.) without understanding freedom in the general/simple sense just leads to confusion.
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
FFS.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:36 pmIt would make it incorrect per what?
"People shouldn't hold ethical stances that are inconsistent with other stances they hold because . . ."? Well, because what?
(If you're rather saying that they can't actually hold inconsistent stances, that's another matter, but then no one actually has inconsistent stances, of course.)
"What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions."That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.
Case closed.
I don't have a problem with speech actions, in other words.
I have a problem with certain non-speech actions. Hence why I specified that.
You're doing that thing where one can't even preemptively nip a misconception in the bud, because the other person will just ignore it anyway and proceed with the misconception.
??Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?
People who think that Beethoven was a genius certainly can and do do this. I don't understand why you're asking this, really (because it seems so obvious that people report what they think/how they feel about such things).
Stop dancing.
You have said that Hitler bears no responsibility for the holocaust because he killed no jews, only told others to do it?
If this what you said or not?
It would follow then that since Beethoven did not perform the music he wrote he gets no credit for the Ninth Symphony/
If the first is a true statement of your position then the second has to be also.
If you accept one, but no the other then you have a contradiction in your thinking and therefore hold a WRONG ethical stance.
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
I don't see how that is a response to my point that ontological freedom of a system is freedom of its state, hence freedom to be chosen, whereas what free will requires is freedom to choose. Just because a concept has been labelled "freedom" doesn't, as far as I can see, guarantee its applicability to any other concept with the same name in the title.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:49 pm This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense...
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
Ah--of course it wouldn't make much sense to credit Beethoven with a particular recorded performance of his music. You credit him with composing it.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:56 pmFFS.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:36 pmIt would make it incorrect per what?
"People shouldn't hold ethical stances that are inconsistent with other stances they hold because . . ."? Well, because what?
(If you're rather saying that they can't actually hold inconsistent stances, that's another matter, but then no one actually has inconsistent stances, of course.)
"What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions."
That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.
Case closed.
I don't have a problem with speech actions, in other words.
I have a problem with certain non-speech actions. Hence why I specified that.
You're doing that thing where one can't even preemptively nip a misconception in the bud, because the other person will just ignore it anyway and proceed with the misconception.
??Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?
People who think that Beethoven was a genius certainly can and do do this. I don't understand why you're asking this, really (because it seems so obvious that people report what they think/how they feel about such things).
Stop dancing.
You have said that Hitler bears no responsibility for the holocaust because he killed no jews, only told others to do it?
If this what you said or not?
It would follow then that since Beethoven did not perform the music he wrote he gets no credit for the Ninth Symphony/
If the first is a true statement of your position then the second has to be also.
If you accept one, but no the other then you have a contradiction in your thinking and therefore hold a WRONG ethical stance.
And yeah, insofar as Hitler killed no one, I wouldn't say he's responsible for any deaths.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: A Meccano model of two Incompatibilist Fallacies
"Freedom of state" doesn't make much sense. Freedom has to involve some degree of causal indeterminism. Adding choice to the scenario just makes it more complicated than it needs to be to address freedom. You can't make a choice is there's no causal indeterminism to exploit.RogerSH wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:16 pmI don't see how that is a response to my point that ontological freedom of a system is freedom of its state, hence freedom to be chosen, whereas what free will requires is freedom to choose. Just because a concept has been labelled "freedom" doesn't, as far as I can see, guarantee its applicability to any other concept with the same name in the title.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:49 pm This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense...