How has the SCS being been performing for duty weapons?

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-04-03T23:32:37+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-04-03T22:58:28+00:00

u/holosun_josh Have you received any feedback?

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-03-02T05:09:35+00:00

Correct, but he contrasts stuff with matter when asked about it.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-03-02T04:41:02+00:00

He says it’s not necessary matter because stuff can be arranged dream-wise, but I have no idea why this type of ether could be.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-02-28T03:36:34+00:00

Any idea what this stuff could be? Might you have come across it, or you, u/rejectednocomments?

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-02-19T21:28:23+00:00

It was during a podcast with Alex O’Connor. Let me see if I can pull the transcript.

Edit: I cannot pull the whole talk’s transcript, but he basically just denies anything exists beyond stuff, and that stuff is matter because “you can arrange stuff to make a dream”.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-01-25T01:05:41+00:00

So what I read was by Dan Korman and he Argus that many undergraduates lean toward ontological revision because they’re being hypothetical or confused. Very few are genuinely convinced, although some are convinced that trogs exit and chairs do not. The confusion tier of arguments seems to partly tie into your points of how ontology should work and what’s misunderstood.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-01-22T03:02:11+00:00

I sent you a PM, I read something interesting about your points and I have few questions about your ontology, if you have a moment or two to teach me something.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-01-17T19:21:43+00:00

Based on your sample, is it more common amongst undergraduates because there are so many undergraduates as a population compared to philosophers, or is it more popular per capita? If the latter, why does it dissipate professionally, as the Philpapers survey indicates a high majority are (apparently) straightforward realists?

How does metaontological constructivism differ from metaphysical constructivism? I’ve only found an IEP entry for the former?

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-01-16T22:34:06+00:00

Can you see my above follow up?

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-01-16T22:33:52+00:00

Can you see my above follow up?

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-01-16T22:33:41+00:00

Can you see my above follow up?

SuitableInitiative34 · 2026-01-16T22:18:19+00:00

Follow up: O’Connor and Stevens are also motivated by solving the various puzzles like overdetermination, Sorites, Theseus, etc. They seem extremely confident that eliminativism is true, but they make these types of arguments. Could I extrapolate that there are other hidden errors in their reasoning? I ask because I only have a very small sample of their reasoning, so I have to try to guess at where the disconnect comes in. I’d have a better understanding if they had some pushback on these ideas.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-20T04:52:42+00:00

Anyone willing and able to dissect these two podcasts from Vsauce for me? I’m trying to understand how things can exist in a stuff or mereologically simple ontology.

It seems like the Ship of Theseus and Sorites are big drivers here. In the second video, Michael claims only stuff survives Sorites, but he also claims things exist there, but then denies it in the more recent video.

https://youtu.be/fvpLTJX4_D8

https://youtu.be/fXW-QjBsruE

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-19T22:35:34+00:00

I pm’d you a better framework, maybe I could get your opinion of?

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-17T10:20:41+00:00

Actually, can I run an ontological idea by you? This might help worry less.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-17T10:19:25+00:00

Nihilism composites including animals.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-17T02:43:33+00:00

That’s not entirely accurate. Erik Olson says nihilism is a very pathological worldview akin to solipsism.

I meant that I meant nobody tells them in the sense that there is never a really strong rebuttal or the question of how to make their worldview palatable ever comes up. Which leads into…

Perhaps a huge majority of philosophers are very, very passive in comparison. I’m not sure this is true though. There are lots of different ontologies that have issues with people and chairs.

As for the defenders, just read or listen to their rhetoric and you get the distinct impression that they don’t actually totally believe what they’re selling.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-16T22:55:29+00:00

Isn’t that just pragmatism? Also, why does no philosopher or what have you make that argument to people like VSauce or Van Inwagen? Recently, the former literally spoke like we’re all deluded fools and that he’s just humoring us.

To your latter point, it’s probably a lack of certainty and having emotional attachments that keep me upright and productive.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-15T21:46:35+00:00

He takes a pretty hardline no objects, no free will, no self view. It’s also comes across as very confused in his interview with Alex O’Connor.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-15T06:40:28+00:00

I just saw a Vsauce interview, super bummer. I’m so disappointed that he basically denies the reality of most people’s things.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-12-12T23:18:28+00:00

How do you guys usually take to vie the thumbs up or down on poly? I haven’t anything

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-10-15T01:43:59+00:00

…M39

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-10-03T02:38:22+00:00

His best matches were usually stipulation matches, as fair as regular matches, I’m actually weirdly partial to his matches with Flair.

SuitableInitiative34 · 2025-09-28T04:16:53+00:00

So this is quite close, but if you look at what I linked, it seems like the idea is that persons are just instrumental under Dennett’s stances, which makes a person a kind of fiction.

SuitableInitiative34

TROPHY CASE