You’re saying instead that the material basis for colour is the same as the experience of it. — AJJ

First off, where did I write anything even remotely resembling that? Where did I write anything at all like the phrase "material basis" even?

I’m saying light refraction is only colour when it’s experienced in the mind, — AJJ

Which is you conflating color with the experience of color.

I'm not conflating color with the experience of color.

You’re conflating the material basis for our experience of colour with our experience of it. — AJJ

If I'm telling you that the experience and the light refraction off the object are two different things, I'm conflating them?

It’s only colour once someone experiences it, in their mind. Otherwise it’s just particles bouncing around. — AJJ

Conflating color in general with the experience of color is just that--a conflation.

You want to keep repeating a conflation because?

In purely material terms there is no colour, only light refraction. — AJJ

"In purely material terms," light refraction IS COLOR.

Conflating that with the experience of color is just that--a conflation.

A brain in and of itself has no colour. It refracts light a certain way. — AJJ

"It refracts light a certain way" is what color is.

The brain is colourless, odourless, meaningless matter, yet the mind experiences and assigns these things. It seems to be obviously the case that the mind and brain are different. — AJJ

Wait, first, the brain is colorless, odorless?? Brains definitely have a color and would have an odor if you were to smell them. What that has to do with anything is another issue, but what are you thinking, that brains are transparent or something?

In this instance you wouldnt be disagreeing with someone, you would be talking past each other. — Harry Hindu

"Disagreeing" is a way of saying "I feel differently than you do" in these situations. That's a common sense of the term "disagree."

either the phrase ‘nothing is identical over time’ is identical to itself from one moment to the next, or it is not. if it isn’t identical to itself over time, well then what does it become? — TheGreatArcanum

It's a non-identical "nothing is identical over time" at the different time.

You seem to be unfamiliar with nominalism, by the way.

how about the concept ‘nothing is identical through time’? does that change over time? — TheGreatArcanum

It's not as if this is hard to figure out. If nothing is identical through time, then "Nothing is identical through time" isn't identical through time.

You're conflating "not identical" and "isn't the case/isn't true" (on at least one instance).

Not at all the same idea.

the answer doesn’t change. — TheGreatArcanum

Yes, it does, as nothing is identical through time.

here’s an experiment for you: go grab any object from the room you’re in and hold it in your hand, look at it, and then ask yourself, “what is this object?” a few seconds later, ask yourself the same question, and then again and again..repeat this experiment ten times; and if your answer doesn’t change, then you’ve just disproven yourself, — TheGreatArcanum

The answer changes even though I say the so-called "same thing," because nothing is literally identical through time. The idea of something being the same through time is an abstraction--and abstraction that itself is different at different times.

What we answer--say that it's a bottle or whatever, is an abstraction that we've created. The object fits the concept we've constructed. Essences are the necessary aspects of our conception, what we require to call some x "a bottle" (or whatever the concept at hand).

I'm a nominalist, by the way.

essence is the aspect of a thing which remains unchanging so long as it exists, — TheGreatArcanum

No such thing.

Yes, especially given that all evidence points to it.

There would have to be good reasons ... to reach a conclusion. In this, and in many (most? all?) other topics. — Pattern-chaser

Right, which there are for believing that mind is identical to brain, but not otherwise.

Then I leave you in the ecstasy of certainty. Enjoy! :smile: — Pattern-chaser

I'd say that we know that they're physical processes of the brain.

I wouldn't say that it's impossible that they could be something else.

But there would have to be good reasons--some evidence, whether good empirical evidence or some sort of sound logical argument--to believe otherwise.

By disagreeing with someone you are essentially telling them that their version is wrong and yours is right — Harry Hindu

Sometimes you're just presenting an alternate way to look at or feel about things, by the way.

For example, I'll often say things like, "I disagree. I feel that so and so's album x is one of their better albums."

I'm not telling the person that I'm right and they're wrong. I'm just presenting difference.

Right, so re your concept of "iron," more than one "iron atom" is necessary to have "iron" (without "atom" appended). So the essence of iron for you is that there's more than one atom of a particular type. (And maybe more than two . . . I don't know how many you'd require.)

Well, I just mentioned two things that we can do:

(a) make it so that politics can't be an ongoing career, or (b) make it so that the requirement to perpetuate politics as a career is to come up with "deep," widespread, long-term solutions to problems.

We could also stop caring and voting primarily on things like sex scandals and start caring whether politicians are actually tackling and solving issues that impact folks' daily lives whether they pay any attention to politics or not. Things like health care and education and the ability to find and maintain work that can enable folks to live without worrying how they're going to pay for necessities.

Rather than seeing it as "short-sighted" versus "long-sighted," I think it's more a matter of politics being a career for politicians. Politicians understandably care a lot about maintaining their careers. So they do things that are focused towards that goal. There's unfortunately no need to solve problems in any "deep," widespread, or long-term way to perpetuate a political career.

The only way to change this is to either (a) make it so that politics can't be an ongoing career, or (b) make it so that the requirement to perpetuate politics as a career is to come up with "deep," widespread, long-term solutions to problems. It's up to us, really. We're the ones who vote for the reasons we do, who care about the things we care about that get people elected, who allow the system as it currently is to be sustained, etc. We can't really blame career politicians. They're just working in a niche, and per the metrics, that we've allowed to develop.

does the set of all sets have an essence and therefore ontological value, or does it exist only in our imaginations? — TheGreatArcanum

Essence is simply a way of thinking about things--it's what an individual considers necessary features to apply a concept term as they've formulated the concept.

The threads are physical things which we can sense, and spatial and temporal relations are not sensible so they are non-physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not that "physical" is defined by "what we can sense," but you can't sense that something is, say, a meter to the left of something else? How do you figure out that something is a meter to the left of something else if you don't sense that?

The "Fine Tuning Argument" leads one to believe there is some "coincidence" that demands explanation, — Relativist

The conceptual mistake that people make is that they think about it as "starting from us," where they think of us as a goal. And then they think, "Well, things had to be made just so in order to achieve us as a goal."

But that's not what's going on. It's rather than we're the way we are because the universe is such that we're something that can develop in it. And that's the case for every single other thing that exists, too.

And if the universe were different, the same thing would be the case for every single thing in that alternate universe, as well.

The anthropic principle is simply a specific version of this general truth;

For all x, in order for x to obtain, the universe must meet the range of preconditions required to enable x.

Sorry, I tend to use "know" for what we certainly know, and "believe" for what we think we know. — Pattern-chaser

The standard analysis of knowledge in philosophy is that knowledge is a type of belief.

Knowing something doesn't imply certainty though.

There is evidence of children recalling previous lives. See this article. — Wayfarer

For one, Stevenson used a translator, and Stevenson's publisher at first backed out because of accusations that the translator was dishonest. Stevenson admitted that the translator was dishonest in some matters.

Maybe. Please don't state possibilities - even those you believe to be highly probable - as certainties. This is a philosophy forum, after all. — Pattern-chaser

Focusing on certainty, as if it is or should be a goal, as if we need it to claim things, etc. is a big mistake in my opinion.

To say that the threads are in an arrangement, or a pattern, is to refer to something other than the threads. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's referring to the relation of the threads--the way they're situated with respect to each other extensionally (or we could more conventionally say the way they're situated in space). You don't think that the relation of the threads is nonphysical, do you?

The Idea that "all People are Created Equal" is a essentially a useful moral principle: anti-chauvinism. If we treat all others as equals, it is to the benefit of society as a whole. — Relativist

This. It's not intended as a literal ontological claim.

Take someone really close to you, whom you know very well: if they do something totally out of character, you don't typically say "oh, I guess that was just his "whim" taking over!" you wonder what the causes were that brought this action about. And, depending on the action, you may be more or less concerned about their mental state. — NKBJ

Okay, but what does that have to do with being able to choose between two things by whim?

Seems to me that if we just choose things on unreasoned whims, then we would constantly be doing unpredictable things. — NKBJ

This sucks because now I'm having to rehash really straightforward stuff that I already typed. I didn't type and I'm not saying anything even remotely near "We make all choices per whim." I wrote, " [It] Depends on the scenario. It's not as if it's just one way that we choose things, and sometimes we basically do it by whim or 'randomly.'"

actually products of my subconscious desires — NKBJ

I don't believe there are any good reasons to buy the notion of subconscious or unconscious mental content.

Because otherwise I have no basis for choosing one mediocre 70's band over another. How do I then stop myself from listening to, *shudder* Glen Campbell? — NKBJ

?? What would reasoning have to do with that, and how would this imply anything about whether control necessarily involves reasoning?

Aside from that, I love Glen Campbell, by the way. ;-)

Not directly. But there's definitely some truth in the saying that the pen has more power than the sword. The Crusades were inspired partly by Christian preaching. Revolutions are usually inspired by political dissidents. Darth Sideous used language to turn Anakin to the dark side. So language can definitely have disastrous consequences. — Dusty of Sky

Actions that people decide to take can be influenced by language and can be negative. That's not the language's fault, however. The people in question should make different decisions. It's their responsibility.

That's question-begging, imho. — NKBJ

Do you just mean that you believe that being in control does imply reasoning? Why would you believe that?

On what basis is a person intending to do something on a whim? Even having the impetus to a whim is a cause. — NKBJ

You're conflating cause and determinism--which just went over that earlier. If you pick Led Zeppelin III to listen to you were the cause of that, but you weren't determined to pick it, you chose it.

The basis of intending to do something on a whim is just that--it's a notion you have. Then you can make the whim choice. That's a conscious action.

I'm getting the impression that you never choose anything on a whim, by the way. Which seems weird to me.

Even if I am publicly advocating for violence in a compelling and charismatic way that causes people to commit terrorist attacks? — Dusty of Sky

Speech can't be causal as in physical forcing anyone to do anything.

So no.

You enact your beliefs. — Shamshir

Not necessarily. Again, there's often a correlation, but there isn't always.

Belief and action are a pair. — Shamshir

Belief (and opinion) and action are often correlated, but often there's little connection between the two, too.

Are any opinions immoral to hold?

No, not in my view. It's not immoral to have any beliefs, any opinions, or to express anything.

There are many examples of actions that you can theoretically take without actually being "in control." Like, when you sleepwalk, or are under the influence of some kind of "truth serum," or are being hypnotized, or have a disease like Tourette's Syndrome, etc etc.

In all these examples we would say that the person is not "in control," because they are not able to access their reasoning skills to willfully direct their actions. — NKBJ

You're bringing up whether someone is conscious or not. We're not talking about an example where someone isn't conscious. We're talking about an example where they're intentionally performing an action--choosing something per whim.

It's not based on "reasons," by definition--otherwise it wouldn't be by whim. But there's nothing about being in control of something that implies reasoning.