That's the whole point of my example. What are we defining if we insist that belief requires a concious state (a state which we cannot even reliably identify since no-one is agreed what conciousness is anyway)? — Pseudonym

If you think a belief requires conciousness in order to define it, in order to separate it meaningfully from other similar states without conciousness, then what is the job that adding conciousness as a condition is doing for our definition? What error would we be making if we were to describe the thermostat as 'believing' it was cold on the basis of it's behaviour (turning the heating up) other than insulting your anthropocentric view that humans must have a whole series of special words to describe their states of being? — Pseudonym

What error would we be making if we were to describe the thermostat as 'believing' it was cold on the basis of it's behaviour (turning the heating up) other than insulting your anthropocentric view that humans must have a whole series of special words to describe their states of being? — Pseudonym

First of all we are talking about a test to decide whether a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities with other people, not rape. — Sir2u

My idea would be applied before the act, not after. — Sir2u

Again here you go towards rape and victims, not age of consent which I was discussing. And apart from underage sex being called statuary rape there is quiet often a bit of willingness and even wantonness involved on the part of the victim. — Sir2u

I think philosophers in general ought to be more reluctant to take part in these discussions over "what is X?" questions. The debate about the meaning of the word can be endless and fruitless if there are no criteria for a succesful definition and no purpose served by the defining. — PossibleAaran

I can find you a thermostat which clearly 'beleives' it's cold — Pseudonym

One will not find a belief by dissecting a brain. Beliefs are found in behaviour, including spoken behaviour. — Banno

It's not a matter of subjective interpretation, it's the question of can we apprehend an object directly with the intellect, without the medium of sense phenomena. — Metaphysician Undercover

However, just like how we come to learn about external objects, we also come to learn about who we are (our subjectivity). This is not something that we see clearly - we can (and often are) wrong about what we want, who we are, what we react like, what will make us happy etc. It is only by going through phenomenal experience that we come to learn more (hopefully) about who we (phenomenally) are. But we are often deceived about our intentions, our desires, and our inner states. Often, we also deceive ourselves into thinking we are so and so, or we are capable of so and so, when in truth we aren't.

So yes, TimeLine is right that there is a subjective "in-itself" - but she's wrong that we have access to it. — Agustino

Not so much of a question type test, but more in line with psychological development and maturity. Obviously there would be a part of it that would question the person's knowledge about the risks and consequences of sex would have to be included, but it would be more important from my point of view to evaluate their ability to make rational decisions.
And I don't think that there should be a practical section to the test. — Sir2u

That's why Aristotle placed intuition at the highest level of knowledge. Kant simply defines "intuition" in an odd way (as you explain in the other thread), and this dismisses "intuition" in the traditional sense, disposing of our access to the noumenon. — Metaphysician Undercover

They didn't need to 'save' anything, the amount of money they spent taking this child away from his twin and his mother could have been used to give the entire family a comfortable life and both children an excellent education in their respective country. — TimeLine

I am currently moving through an adoption arrangement in Australia (known as Permanent Care) and despite the fact that the child cannot be taken care of by the parents due to a number of possible reasons and hence why the courts take responsibility that enable the order for myself to be the primary carer on a permanent basis, if the parents are still alive we are legislated to ensure visitation rights a number of times. Because, psychologically, this is important for the child. — TimeLine

You could love a person not because you actually love them, but because they epitomise the right type of object that furthers your social position. It is the same thing, just more sophisticated. — TimeLine

How is subjective (being the unconscious) phenomenal? — TimeLine

If subjective experience is noumenal then we are attaching knowledge to the unconscious realm, which is unknowable. — TimeLine

Be careful. This is not the shoutbox so I would appreciate you responding appropriately or not responding at all. — TimeLine

You're talking about the dichotomy of thing in itself and appearance and have no clue what that even means. Great. I mentioned that your metaphysics isn't very good, no wonder you don't participate in many of the metaphysical discussions here. — Agustino

Productive self-experience. The framework that determines our value through others is paradoxically narcissistic, despite a reliance on others, because there is an absence of an active orientation towards being. — TimeLine

I read recently that a couple adopted a child from Thailand and the mother had twins, but they took only one child and never looked back neither did they help the family. To them, adoption was an image, they did not actually care about the child clearly by not caring about the family of the child, they just wanted a token adopted child for social reasons rather than moral. — TimeLine

What do you think of the following quote: I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me. — TimeLine

You suggest that it does not, that a plant's growth has purpose, but no intent. I find that difficult to accept, as I see no other meaning to "purpose", except as an object to be attained. The object to be attained is what the thing intends. We could however, assume that "intent" refers to a special type of purpose, a type of purpose specific to conscious agents, so that "intent" implies "purpose", but "purpose" does not imply "intent". — Metaphysician Undercover

Let me see if I understand your claim. We observe that living things act with purpose, but this does not provide us with what we need to conclude that living things act with purpose. Commonly called "the problem of induction". — Metaphysician Undercover

Nothing in the article about "a human could observe another person's time slowing relative to his own."

As you said, it is incoherent. — Rich

No one has ever observed another person's life slowing. — Rich

Clocks are not time. — Rich

Of course v they do. They do it all the time and they vocalize these feelings — Rich

Never heard this happen anywhere by anyone. This is comparable to flying dogs. I'll be v this under the c heading off fabricated evidence? — Rich

So science denies that people can feel time slow, despite the enormous evidence to the contrary, but feel it is perfectly sensible that one human can observe another person's time slowing. — Rich

We know gravities affect clocks. Not at all surprising. We know nothing about human experience and the affect of gravity on it, other than what we feel on Earth. In space, we know humans react in different ways, but none have report time slowing down.

You keep mixing up clocks with humans, which is comparable to mixing up computers with humans. In any case, my prediction would be if humans are accelerated near the speed of light they would die. I wonder if Einstein would debate me on this? — Rich

I have come to a point where I am considering leaving TPF because of this and a number of other personal and creative pursuits I have planned — TimeLine