What I'm trying to explore is why you'd think that I don't know the true nature of reality.

The point is the difference between equity and fairness. The capabilities approach goes a long way to sorting out our choices. — Banno

It doesn't seem like the distinction you're proposing is holding up to analysis, but we'd have to explore it in more detail.

. They are mutually dependent. — praxis

"Mutually dependent" doesn't mean "they're identical so that we can't possibly separate them" does it? After all, if it meant that, we'd not even be able to say that x and y are mutually dependent, because x would be identical to y and it would be impossible to identify an x versus a y.

For example, it makes sense to say that evaporation and precipitation are mutually dependent. It doesn't make sense to say that evaporation and evaporation are mutually dependent. Evaporation and precipitation are mutually dependent, but they're not the same thing. We can identify one, we can talk about properties with one that make it non-identical to the other (after all, they must have some non-identical properties or they would be identical and we'd not be able to talk about mutual dependence), even though they're mutually dependent. Conflating the two just won't do if we're doing meteorology, climatology, etc.

I asked you to be specific about what you can't make sense of/why you can't make sense of it. Pretty much quoting the whole thing isn't being specific about what you can't make sense of/why you can't make sense of it. I obviously don't think I said anything difficult to comprehend. I obviously don't think I said anything nonsensical, etc. So how is it supposed to be obvious to me what you would have difficulty with?

Sure, so start with the first phrase you quoted.

"If you substitute those terms in what I wrote"

You are not familiar with the idea of substituting one set of terms for another?

Or did you quote that part superfluously? I mean, I hope we don't need to start with explaining words like "if," or combinations like "If you" etc.

I can't tell whether that is merely nonsense, or complete gibberish. — Janus

Again, you'd have to be a bit more specific about what seems like nonsense/gibberish to you. Presumably not all of it, because presumably you're not stumped by this sentence, for example: "Sure, so earlier you brought up the nature/nurture distinction."

Sure, so earlier you brought up the nature/nurture distinction. ("The source of morals is both nature and nurture.") We're talking about biology and social interaction there, basically. If you substitute those terms in what I wrote, we'd have, "we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the social-interaction [rather than the] biological world," or in other words, we only have dispositions for or against any behavior in the biological world. You can't have a disposition for or against--basically, a judgment or a preference for/against--any behavior in the social-interaction world.

I wouldn’t have disagreed with something that I can’t determine the meaning of. — praxis

Okay, then let's make sure we understand what the other person is claiming before we agree or disagree.

What part of what you quoted are you unsure about?

So it would follow that I'm not interested in a conversation with you, right?

IF you do not mind, Terrapin...so that we are on the same page when we talk...I would prefer you use MY language when addressing what I say. — Frank Apisa

I do mind, because for me to think that a conversation is worthwhile, I need to know that you can think about things off-script.

You need to be able to think about whether you'd say that you're aware of or that you experience knowing . . . for example.

I'm using "feel" in the sense of being aware of something or experiencing something. You're aware of/you experience that you know this, right?

Again, I’ve not denied disposition. I’ve pointed out that disposition is inadequate to account for the plurality of moral frameworks. Can you or S do that?

And is there a natural disposition towards something like religious celibacy? If not, then how can it exist? — praxis

Here was what I claimed that you disagreed with. Nurture doesn't actually provide moral stances in any sense, because we don't actually have dispositions for or against any behavior in the "nurture" versus "nature" world. To disagree with that, you can't backpeddle to focusing on social influence again. The disagreement isn't over social influence. The disagreement is over whether you can literally receive moral stances socially. x influencing y doesn't amount to x being identical to y.

Of course it provides morals — praxis

Of course it doesn't. How can something be a moral stance when there's not even any disposition towards allowing versus not allowing some behavior?

The source of morals is both nature and nurture. — praxis

Nurture influences, but can't provide morals.

x influencing y is different than x being identical to y.

Ok, then, I'll give you a chance to convince me. Tell me, how does the limbic system directly and immediately cause the emotional experience of love. — Merkwurdichliebe

If you're only accepting blueprint answers, where's your alternate blueprint answer?

OF COURSE I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY. — Frank Apisa

So is it not the case that you feel that you don't know the true nature of reality?

You don't feel that you know the true nature of reality, do you?

Can't wait. I'm sure we'll make a lot of progress when you get back.

So if you know that, doesn't it follow that you don't know the true nature of reality?

I did NOT say I feel that I don't know... — Frank Apisa

Do you know that you have no idea about the true nature of reality?

You feel that you don't know the true nature of reality.

Based on this, you're figuring that I feel the same way.

Why?

I am saying that I (I am just talking about me at this point) do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. I do not know what actually exists (or existed)...or what does not exist (or has not existed) in the REALITY of existence. It is big mystery to me...and I am not disposed to make guesses about most of it.

It is my blind guess that you do not know that either. — Frank Apisa

Right, so why do you think that if you feel that you don't know, then no one else does either?

I have absolutely no idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Neither do you. — Frank Apisa

Are you talking about our mental content here, re dispositions, etc.?

Okay...so you are a "believer."

It may be a correct guess. If I were to "hope" on the matter (I seldom do)...it is what I hope is the truth. — Frank Apisa

No maybe or hoping about it, but who knows the reason you have some doubts. You don't really seem to be sharing the source of your doubts.

Yeah, the default on completely ridiculous ideas shouldn't be that they're plausible, so we'll refrain from saying one way or the other.

What does "nature" refer to, exactly, if (a) we can do things contrary to nature, or alternately (b) we could avoid doing things contrary to nature?

If, on the other hand, you’re referring to a contra-causal capacity that supposedly makes us more responsible than what deterministic voluntary action affords, then it would be wrong not to deny that, at least on the assumption that we want a well-informed public." — NKBJ

There are a number of problems with that article but the first is this. Just how are we managing voluntary control over anything if causal determinism is the case?

Guys, after reading almost all the notes, here is what i would suggest, start with simply putting one sentence or idea forward at a time, there is too much confusion in all your thoughts, — RBS

That's a persistent problem with the board in general.

this shows how equity maintains the status quo. — Banno

What does, what Vagabond said, or what you said about Labour versus the Liberal party?

At any rate, if one feels that x is unequal, then we can't treat x equally is one's opinion while having x remain unequal.

, I couldn't give two shits about your opinion — Merkwurdichliebe

Why would you be asking me questions or responding to me period in that case?

IN the first box they are treated equally. — Banno

What the hell? I already addressed this. In terms of being able to see the game, they're not treated equally there.

Are you high? It's like your memory bottomed out and you forgot what our discussion was about. — Merkwurdichliebe

If you're talking about the post I responded to already (I wouldn't at all say that was describing an experiment), I already responded to it. It's not like my view changed in 15 minutes.

in

I'm not about to read through the entire thread trying to figure out what post that might be.

This is the point; at the moment at least. What exchange of information?

So tell the same story in terms of frustrated potential. — Banno

No idea what you're talking about there.

What did the unequal distribution of boxes lead to? — Banno

Whether it's unequal depends on how you frame it. If we're talking about with respect to the view, it's not unequal. What's going to matter is what people are concerned with.

I don't know about that. But in the experiment I layed out, — Merkwurdichliebe

Which post has the experiment you laid out?

With the exchange of information. — praxis

What exchange of information?

Obviously they're being treated equally re the view of the game (well, or as equally as possible --it's not possible for them to have an identical view)

then that would necessitate the oppression of certain character types, preventing them from realizing their uniqe potential. — Merkwurdichliebe

So if some people are treated so that they reach their potential and others are not, are they treated equally?

The picture of people watching a sporting event? Those folks arent being treated equally re having a view of the game.