Comments

  • Are 'facts' observer-dependent?
    Ok, but you could say a thin man not being in a doorway has nothing to do with a fat man not being there. Or, if they do have something to do with each other, then I guess we can drag in other locations, characters and even Julius Caesar. I'm talking about the problem of identity-criteria for facts.Cuthbert

    We're talking about the same doorway and what, if anything, is there in the one case.
  • How to perceive the subjective real universe
    This is a hologram before reconstructing. It could be analogous to a quantum potential field.Rich

    Maybe it could be, but maybe it couldn't be, too. How would we know?

    And why are we accepting "quantum potential fields" as real things?
  • Libertarian free will is impossible


    You should think about trying to edit a journal, given the reading comprehension you're displaying. Good thing we're not attempting anything more complicated than a few words.
  • Libertarian free will is impossible
    What do you mean by "phenomena" and what does it have to do with your denial that one must have control over one's freely willed action?litewave


    "Phenomenon" - simply an occurrence, something that obtains. "Phenomena" is the plural.
  • Libertarian free will is impossible


    Well, you know what we're referring to by the term "will" right? It's kind of hard to talk about free will if we don't know what "will" is.
  • Libertarian free will is impossible
    Are you saying that slipping unintentionally on a banana peel is a freely willed action?litewave

    Does that involve will phenomena?
  • Libertarian free will is impossible


    So the support is a question-begging stipulation. Nice.
  • Libertarian free will is impossible
    Free will entails having control over your acts, which seems to be missing when your acts are unintentional. Like, slipping on a banana peel - an unintentional and therefore unfree act.litewave

    Free will is ontological freedom in conjunction with will phenomena.

    So no, your supposed support is question-begging.
  • The God-Dog Paradox
    You can't choose 1 because you need good reasons for believing something to be true.TheMadFool

    As I pointed out above, and as would be clear to you if you had any experience with real people in the real world (which obviously you must have), people do 1 all the time. That includes philosophers, by the way.
  • Belief in non existence...its name?
    Well, it's sort of a thoroughgoing nihilism, but "nihilism" is not necessarily a good word to use because it has so many different conventional connotations, many of which are incompatible with that view.

    Otherwise it would depend on just what the person believes, just what their ontology is. It could simply be an example of (philosophical) idealism.
  • If humans are so horrible to animals
    the way that animals are treated in scientific research and by the entertainment/amusement industries, and other atrocities leave no doubt that humans see animals only for their instrumental value and that humans' history of cruelty to and indifference to the suffering of other animals makes humans the worst beings ever in all of the universe.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Lol at the idea of that possibly being objective.

    Anyway, the explanation is that we don't have one hive mind. There are lots of different views about animal ethics and our relationship to animals is complex.
  • Belief in non existence...its name?
    "Insanity"?

    Well, or "Being a high school student," maybe.
  • Biology, emotion, intuition and logic
    I'd like to discuss the importance of emotion and intuition over the importance of logic and pure reason.Zoonlogikon

    . . . As you then proceed to not discuss this at all.
  • Libertarian free will is impossible
    1) A free act must be intentional,litewave

    Support?
  • The God-Dog Paradox
    God, by definition, doesn't do that. If you're going to change the definitions then it's pointless to argue.TheMadFool

    Wait. Now you're deciding which empirical option is the case by definition??
  • The God-Dog Paradox
    The difference is purely abstract and when someone asserts that fairies exist, both persons, A and B, will demand for evidence. I mean that agnosticism and atheism are more closely related than, agnosticism and theism. So, it becomes reasonable to state the default truth value of any proposition is false.TheMadFool

    This is ridiculously poor reasoning. You're concluding that the default epistemic stance for any claim is that it is false based on a supposed behavioral similarity between two types of people when it comes to a single claim?
  • The God-Dog Paradox


    No. What I agree with is this:

    "thought and our nervous system can be directed towards both internal and external objects. However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system. So, the five senses cannot be directed towards internal objects like the nervous system can."
  • The God-Dog Paradox
    However, the five senses do not include inner feeling through the nervous system.Thanatos Sand

    I agree--and so should you if you were able to get through elementary school.
  • The God-Dog Paradox


    ? He's agreeing with me, moron.
  • The God-Dog Paradox
    You might have finally said something true ;) But funnily enough you yourself pretend you can't understand what I'm trying to say, and hiding behind little distinctions.Agustino

    I want you to have a conversation where you don't have to pretend to not understand the idea of the five senses as you were taught that in elementary school. You can have an interesting conversation without having to play those sorts of games.