I can use examples you've posted elsewhere if you like.

Here's one: "I’m saying a human being’s life starts at its conception."

What would be evidence of that as opposed to the possibility that a human being's life begins at birth instead, and how could you justify a particular conclusion so that it's not just as well a conclusion for any of the logical possibilities re when a human being's life begins?

The point is that where there is more than one possible way of interpreting of some evidence, the chosen interpretation should be justified. — AJJ

It was justified, but the justification wasn't accepted, because you're appealing to proof, not evidence.

What you're doing could be done with any empirical claim or any justification whatsoever, with the upshot that we can have no empirical evidence of anything.

If you want to claim that that's not the case, you need to demonstrate how it would not be the case.

Subject change — AJJ

It's not a subject change. Again, the issue here is understanding how empirical evidence works with knowledge claims. Your objection here could be given for any empirical claim whatsoever. That's a problem.

But you just said it couldn't be applied to any empirical claim whatsoever. So let's put that to the test. If you're right, we'll drop the idea that this is a problem. What empirical claim do you think couldn't be interpreted in more than one way, where you believe the empirical evidence in question supports a particular conclusion? I'm not even requiring that it's a claim about x being identical to y, or a claim about causality or anything like that. Just any empirical claim whatsoever. That should make a counterexample easy, right?

The evidence in question can be interpreted in more than one way. — AJJ

So give me an example of empirical evidence that you believe couldn't be interpreted in more than one way, where you believe the empirical evidence in question supports a particular conclusion (while ruling out other possibilities)

If you believe that some empirical evidence can support some conclusions, you need to look at why you believe that, so that you can adjust your view of empirical evidence to something that makes sense and is consistent.

This is a major problem, because at the moment you're committed to saying that no empirical evidence can support any particular conclusion.

You made the subject by claiming the evidence shows brain phenomena and experiences are identical. I suggested the evidence could equally show we experience our brain phenomena. You will not justify your chosen conclusion. — AJJ

It only equally shows that we experience our brain phenomena if you think that all empirical evidence equally shows every possibility related to it (including that it's only a coincidence, etc).

That's appealing to proof, because only proof rules out the other possibilities.

But empirical claims are not provable. Period. That's a category error.

And given your argument, to be consistent, you'd have to say that no empirical evidence can support any particular conclusion, period.

You’re changing the subject. — AJJ

Nope. This is the subject (at the moment at least). What empirical evidence can show. You made that the subject.

Because "ruling out possibilities" is otherwise known as "proof," but that's not at all what empirical evidence is about. That a category error, a red herring, an ignorant misunderstanding of what empirical evidence is and how it works.

Per your views, you'd not be able to conclude anything via any empirical evidence, right? Because no empirical evidence can rule out other possibilities, and you're trying to argue that if that's the case, empirical evidence can't show any one particular thing.

No empirical evidence rules out any possibilities, does it?

I already answered directly and you already let me know that you don't understand how evidence works in relation to knowledge, because you're appealing to the fact that evidence doesn't rule out other possibilities, which is what proof would do.

Hence why we're going over this more systematically now.

I can't force you to go over it more systematically, but if you want to understand, that's what we need to do now.

Not at all. This is answering the question. But for you to understand the issues here, you need to understand how empirical evidence works in relation to knowledge--something that apparently you do not understand at the moment. So we need to go over this.

We’re talking about brain phenomena and experience. — AJJ

Yes. And I'm trying to help you figure out how empirical evidence works in relation to knowledge, because that's turned out to be necessary to the discussion. Do you understand that?

That’s not the point here. — AJJ

My point at the moment is that you apparently do not realize how knowledge works in relation to empirical evidence, and you're appealing to the idea of proof without wanting to admit that.

So I want to help you figure out for yourself how it works.

So you think the idea that it's a complete coincidence is just as good.

That's fine. So, then the question is: do you think we can have evidence that any x and y are identical? For example, can we have evidence that the morning star is the evening star?

Because you're going to be OCD now?

I'm explaining why, but by getting you to think so that you can realize the answer for yourself.

So why would you think either one of those possibilities rather than thinking that it's a complete coincidence?

If you're going to get OCD, I'm bailing.

That a change in one amounts to change in the other shows either that they are identical, or that we experience our brain phenomena. — AJJ

Why would you figure that it shows either? Why wouldn't you figure that it maybe it shows that the two are completely coincidental?

Which is not to mention the incoherence of even the idea of nonphysicals,by the way.

The latter requires evidence that they're different. There is no evidence that they're different though.

What there is, however, is evidence that any change in one amounts to a change in the other. In lieu of evidence otherwise, that suggests that they're identical.

That’s not the point here. You said the evidence shows the two are identical. I’ve just given a reason why that isn’t the case. — AJJ

It's exactly the point. The evidence does not PROVE that the two are identical. But it does show that they are. As expected, you're appealing to the ignorant idea that the evidence doesn't prove something.

To believe a contrary claim, there would need to be evidence for it. Possibility doesn't suffice.

Because you could conclude instead that we experience our brain states, — AJJ

What would be the evidence suggesting that the two are different? (By the way if you post a link I'll look at it instead of complaining that you should retype parts of it here, etc.)

Evidence of brain states corresponding to experiences is not evidence of the two things being identical. — AJJ

Sure it is. Why wouldn't it be?

You're not appealing to the dumb idea that it's not proof of them being identical, are you?

I gave you a handful of examples. I couldn't care less that you either reason so poorly or that you have such ineffective psychological manipulation methods that you'd say that not performing as you'd prefer amounts to "not knowing or understanding it." That just tells me that you're kind of dim either way.

There's no need to "argue from the evidence." The evidence is the "argument." Either you're actually interested in the evidence or not. Again, I really couldn't care either way. As far as you matter to me at the moment, you're just some bozo who wants to argue on the internet.

You post links but refuse to give examples of anything contained in them. The reason is because you can’t. — AJJ

That's not going to work. Again, if you're actually interested in the evidence, look at it. How many times do I have to tell you, in order for you to finally learn, that if you're not interested enough to look at it, I don't care?

so the meaning of the word “horse” which means, ‘that’ animal existing in the world, — TheGreatArcanum

Meaning isn't an object external to us. Meaning is the act (or event) of making mental associations.

If I'm saying that meaning is identical to a mental event, you wouldn't respond with "so the meaning of the word 'horse' which means, 'that' animal existing in the world" unless you either don't understand or you're ignoring the view that I had just expressed.

You neither know nor understand the “evidence” you’re referring to. — AJJ

This claim is based on?

It is a comparison between the thing measured and the devise, or standard used for measuring. — Metaphysician Undercover

So say that you have two rocks and a tape measure. You put one end of the tape measure on one rock, and stretch it out to the other rock. You don't actually sense the tape measure where it meets the other rock, you don't sense what the tape measure reads at the other rock, etc. Is that right?

meaning is a subset of thought, in which case, the existence of the thought precedes the existence of the meaning of the thought in time, — TheGreatArcanum

Meaning is a subset of thought. In other words, not all thoughts are meaning, but some are. The existence of the thought in question (the thought that is meaning) doesn't precede the existence of the thought in question in time. (And that should be pretty obvious. Your comment shows, however, that you're having a problem understanding the idea that meaning is (identical to) a mental event, a specific (type of) thought.)

Sure, that's possible, but I don't know how we'd avoid that wholesale, as every word we use represents something someone might be unfamiliar with or something they might not understand very well. Maybe we can get the folks who use words anyway to just stop talking. ;-)

The "ism" is just a name representing the views in question. It's easier to say "Jaws" than it is to explain all of the characters, the whole plot, etc. every time.

no, I’m not saying that meaning and thinking are mutually exclusive, only that thinking, that is, a particular set of words with a particular set of sounds, is not equal to the meaning — TheGreatArcanum

I wasn't saying "mutually exclusive" either. Meaning is a mental event. It's a type of thought.

even though that meaning had already changed before you finished thinking about it — TheGreatArcanum

Meaning isn't something different than thinking, so what you're asking here makes no sense. You're talking about meaning as if it's something independent of thinking.

If the nominalist is coherent/consistent, then s/he cannot even talk about this sentence for it would have changed and would be another one as a result of change(similar to Heraclitus' river). — creativesoul

You can talk about P at T1, and I can talk about P at T1, and P at T1 is identical to P at T1--so what we're talking about can be identical. You're confusing that with our thinking, our utterances, etc. at T2, T3, etc. As always, what we're pointing to isn't the same thing as our pointing.

Shared meaning is required for language use, — creativesoul

No, it isn't.

yet still, the truthiness of the statement is true whether or not the individual makes the judgment of its truthiness or not, — TheGreatArcanum

No, it isn't. Truth is a judgment that an individual makes about the relation of a proposition to other things.

I'm definitely not interested in arguing. Correct.

At least not arguing for its own sake. Again, what matters for empirical claims like this is evidence. What's the case isn't determined by some stupid argument, just because it's an argument ( "If I claim to not otherwise be able to explain this, then God did it. I claim to not otherwise be able to explain this. So God did it. Modus ponens, bitch." )

If you're interested in the evidence look at it and comment on it. Otherwise I don't really care.

"Waah! I just want to argue! Waah! I'm not actually interested in information."

Evidence is what matters here. If you just want an argument clinic because you like to argue for its own sake, I'm sure a lot of other people are looking for the same thing.

You asked for examples of evidence. Those are examples of evidence. If you're interested in the evidence, look at the examples. If you're not really interested enough to bother with that, why should I care?

As I said above, "If you're interested in it, look at the evidence and comment on it. There's no need to repeat what it says. Look at it if you're sincerely wondering." It's all obviously explicit re mental/brain connections.

Why no links? Why would I retype what is said there?