People are always criticizing comments for not being arguments. Well, where's the argument here?

Take a proposition that is determinative - the instructions for constructing a device or formula or recipe. That means that, no matter how it is represented, the output or result is invariant - otherwise the devise or meal or chemical substance won't turn out correctly; the instructions amount to a specificaion. So the information is quite exact - it is deteminative with respect to the outcome. But the means of representing the specification - which language, which media type - can vary enormously.

So the fact that 'the information' can remain the same while 'the representation' varies, shows that information and representation are separable.

Take a proposition that is determinative - the instructions for constructing a device or formula or recipe. That means that, no matter how it is represented, the output or result is invariant - otherwise the devise or meal or chemical substance won't turn out correctly. So the information is quite exact - it is deteminative. But the means of representing the information, in terms of which language, which media type, and so on, can vary enormously. — Wayfarer

Yeah, that's not actually an argument. It's a more verbose explanation of what the claim is. Arguments have premises and conclusions that are (putatively) validly implied by those premises. (And they're also putatively non-fallacious.)

The problem with that claim is that multiple realizability is false. No numerically distinct things are identical. Outputs are never invariant.

The argument is that the information and the representation are different. So, typically, rather than dealing with the argument, you say, 'I disagree with your definition of 'argument'. Like the other day, talking to csalisbury, where you disagreed with the definition of 'meaning' and 'reason'.

You should read Alice in Wonderland, Terrapin Station. You would fit in there just fine, along side the Chestershire Cat. Which character was it that said 'words have just the meaning I say they mean, no more, and no less'? Sounds just like you. You could play that role. It would be neat. Invite us along to watch (although I might be busy.)

The argument is that the information and the representation are different. — Wayfarer

Gah--that's a CLAIM. It's not an argument. Again, arguments have premises and conclusions that are supposedly implied by the premises. I'm not saying that you need to present arguments, by the way. But if you're going to criticize someone else for not presenting arguments, be prepared to get the criticism right back when you're also not presenting arguments. I'll keep pointing this out if you're going to keep criticizing my posting style. Of course, you could choose not to do that and we could simply get on with a conversation.

Anyway, that claim is wrong on my view.

So when we disagree on a claim that's supposedly serving as the premise of an argument (only in absence of an argument), what do we do?

(I like, by the way, how you completely ignored this: "The problem with that claim is that multiple realizability is false. No numerically distinct things are identical. Outputs are never invariant.")

Anyway, that claim is wrong on my view.

Why?

Did you ignore my "argument" that fits what you call an argument?

"No numerically distinct things are identical. Outputs are never invariant."

Would you agree that if two people put coins in a vending machine, and got out the same snack food the outputs would be identical? Would you agree that two Mars Bars are identical? Or are you going to take issue with the meaning of 'identical' now?

Would you agree that if two people put coins in a vending machine, and got out the same snack foor, the outputs would be identical? — Wayfarer

No, of course not. It should be obvious that I do not agree with that. Again, to even ask this in the first placfe implies that you do not understand the idea of nominalism.

And of course, no, two Mars bars are not identical. Again, to even ask this implies that you do not understand "No numerically distinct things are identical."

You see, it's impossible to argue with someone who defines basic terms, like 'identity','reason', and so on, so as to play games on a computer. And then claims that those whose time he is wasting 'doesn't understand' what he means. You're an exceptionally bad advertisement for whatever you think you're defending, and that is the last thing I will ever say to 'Terrapin Station'.

Again, there's no way in hell that you actually have a philosophy degree. You have no familiarity with or understanding of some of the most basic ideas in the field, lol. You also seem to have zero ability to consider views different than your own. You seem to believe that doing philosophy amounts to simply towing the line of a certain subset of status quo views.

I think it's fine that you don't have a background in the field, and that you're just self-educated, probably to help support your religious views, but at least be honest about that, and don't try to act all superior, etc.

Also, how many friggin times have you promised to simply ignore me? Carry through with it already,. You're ignorant, not very intelligent, and certainly not honest. I'd prefer you to ignore me.

It simply provides a way of managing the debate from a point of view which is understandable by the physical sciences, in the absence of any other agreed normative framework. — Wayfarer

It's not a point of view but an explanstion, your campaign to deflate the authority of the sciences, and the best explanations, seems ideological, or religious.

It's philosophical.

and that is the last thing I will ever say to 'Terrapin Station'. — Wayfarer

He seems to get that a lot for some reason. :s ;)

Nobody has tackled the actual claim about the separability of information and representation.

If only those folks would carry through with their promises. Instead, they're like politicians.

I agree with you that they are not the same. TS doesn't recognize identity across time, though. I have been over that with him many months ago. His position is woefully incoherent, but he stubbornly refuses to see it. If someone makes a valid point against his position he evades or changes the subject; I have seen it too many times to be bothered any more.

His position is woefully incoherent, but he stubbornly refuses to see it. If someone makes a valid point against his position he evades or changes the subject; — John

Haha--speaking of (lying) politicians.

Well, I never made any such overt promise. I have made promises to myself though generally not to bother responding to people who I do not believe are arguing in good faith.

Well, I never made any such overt promise. — John

Right. I was just referring to those who have.

There are some dispositions/attitudes where I'd prefer that those folks didn't bother addressing me/responding to me. Those are typically the sorts of folks who would wind up promising that they will not be responding to me any longer.

Well, you're under no obligation to address their responses in the first place.

Sure, but obviously it's not that I don't want to respond to them but I just can't help myself. I'm not going to stop responding to anyone, really. If they don't like me enough that they're going to respond with that sort of attitude, they should probably be able to help themselves.

Another thread trashed. Shame, the OP was asking some fundamental questions.

Is it really a matter of like or dislike, though? Like or dislike doesn't come into it for me, I mean, I just see a lot of your conversations where you just basically say "I don't buy this" or "I don't buy that", but don't provide any arguments; probably because you think they are all merely subjective anyway, so why bother.

If you don't buy the kinds of ideas which are the fundamental foundation stones of any discussion at all, such as identity across time, then what's the point of any discussion at all? If it's all nothing more than doxa, absolutely nothing more than a matter of your opinion or my opinion or someones else's, then how can there be any point discussing anything, beyond whatever pleasure someone might get from mouthing off?

That kind of extreme subjectivism just isn't conducive to philosophy at all, but leads only to plays of rhetoric and sophistry. If that's what you enjoy, then fine, but you'd probably be better off on the Sophistry Forums

It might get back on course. I think the original poster has deserted, though. I asked for more precise clarification,

The question you are asking seems to boil down to 'Do we have good reason to believe that there is a real brain, independent of our representations, that is being ( more or less) accurately presented to us via perception?'.

Does that sound about right? — John

but received no reply.

but don't provide any arguments; — John

I don't provide any less of an argument than anyone else does. For example, I pointed out earlier that Wayfarer wasn't providing any sort of an argument--he was simply just making the same claim more verbosely. That's not what an argument is. What typically happens is that people say "That's not an argument" when they do not agree with the claims being made. When they agree, it's an argument to them. That's how this works close to 100% of the time.

Of course, you'll deny this, but it's true, and if you like, I can keep pointing out how you also do not actually provide arguments for anything. I'm not saying that we should be providing arguments. I didn't initiate that criticism. But those initiating it are completely hypocritical.

If you don't buy the kinds of ideas which are the fundamental foundation stones of any discussion at all, such as identity across time, — John

LOL re "you need to agree with my view about identity across time in order to have a discussion."

Also, LOL, by the way how you're making the error of believing that I think that "everything is subjective."

Anyway, so nothing in this post of yours is an argument. Since you value that, are you going to get around to posting an argument any time soon?

It might get back on course. — John

Yeah, probably the more you engage in meta-bickering about my posting style the sooner it will get back on track.

The very coherence of the notion of philosophical discussion relies on there being principles in common, that are not merely subjective opinion, that can be appealed to.

You can say what you want, but I've witnessed over and over again your failure to address the arguments of others and your failure to provide arguments of your own. Since you believe everything is merely a matter of subjective opinion; you would be going against your own principles if you did provide an argument believing that it should rationally constrain or influence the thoughts of others, in any case.

You say you do not claim we should be providing arguments. What do you think we should be doing on a philosophy forum then?

As to my "error of thinking you think everything is subjective" I have seen you claim many times that there are no principles beyond subjective opinion. Really, I believe you have no position at all, and just enjoy being slippery for some reason I can't fathom. Maybe you just don't like being shown to be wrong.

As to whether my response contained any argument; I didn't claim it did. It contained observations and questions about the coherency of your 'position'; questions which you, as usual, failed to answer.

You really need to ask yourself why others respond to you in the ways that they do; that might give you a clue that will enable you to achieve some modicum of self-awareness, which could only be a boon to you. Anyway, it's up to you; I really don't care too much either way.

You really need to ask yourself why others respond to you in the ways that they do — John

Do you have any idea how old I am, how long I've been having discussions with others online, and how long I've been having philosophical discussions with others in general? You seem to be under some delusion that I'm new to this and that I'm trying to get others to respond to me in a particular way but that I'm wondering why it's not working.

Aside from that, I'm not going to address every single thing you said in that post in one response, because there were serious problems with ever sentence you typed, which seems to be par for the course with you. I can school you one point at a time, though I'm sure you'll not stick around for it.

I haven't thought and don't care about how old you are or how long you have been doing this kind of thing. Doing something for a long time does not, by itself, constitute any guarantee of mastery or even competence. I haven't seen you engaging in any philosophical discussion at all, actually. What you do simply doesn't qualify as 'philosophical discussion', for me; and I don't believe for a moment that that judgement is merely a matter of my subjective opinion, either.

Doing something for a long time does not, by itself, constitute any guarantee of mastery or even competence. — John

Didn't I say, " You seem to be under some delusion that I'm new to this and that I'm trying to get others to respond to me in a particular way but that I'm wondering why it's not working"?

That's what the question was relevant to. That second sentence in the same paragraph explained the question. It was right there in front of you. You actually don't seem to be able to reason, which is why you don't recognize what is and isn't an argument.

Deflating the best explanations because of their authority is adolescent, not philosophical. And reductionism is not assumed in my talk of a biological phenomenon.