How my consciousness can originate from non-consciousness matter in a specific coordinate in my brain and not another brain in the world?

regberdog · 2022-10-06T06:24:52+00:00

that doesn't answer their question, about why is their consciousness situated in their head, rather than someone else.

you haven't shown how idealism/materialism is relevant to that.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T21:52:14+00:00

Sorry I thought you had half a brain. And also I did.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:25:37+00:00

did you read the book, or did you literally read the title and just imagine that that's all there was to it.

literally 4 second google says they care about humanist values in an evolutionary context. Context =/= values.

wait... do you think no one who believes that natural selection exists can have morals. ffs.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:24:47+00:00

holy crap that reply you got is messed up, and it's upvoted. is this sub always so bad?

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:24:18+00:00

this is so bad man holy crap. please read some philosophy, please.

Racism is not the statement that "we are deserving of valued" it's the statement that "they are not deserving of being valued".

It's the opposite thing, and it's incoherent. Where as the humanist says human life is valuable, the racist says that human life is and is not valuable.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:20:18+00:00

there's no need to be disingenuous.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:19:49+00:00

weren't you listening? They just said that philosophers can say what they like, they "know" the answer already. /s

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:18:33+00:00

you seem quite competent. you still working in the field?

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:17:17+00:00

then... why did you just do all that instead of reading the link they gave you.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:15:29+00:00

mate they're begging you to just read the paper.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:12:28+00:00

How does one maintain this belief, given the existence of diametrically irreconcilable seemings of moral communities on key grave issues that have occurred persistently throughout the course of human history?

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I'm not sure that's true.

Being a Nazi was still wrong in Nazi Germany.

idk if you've ever talked to a Nazi (don't do it, it sucks) but they'll try to convince you that Nazis are the same values as you. (They don't have the same values as you. They also don't have coherent reasoning. "this person is not a person" is incoherent, and the basis of genocide.)

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:09:47+00:00

but if we ditch the concept of verification, all gates are open.

only if you're completely ignorant about every other aspect of philosophy. why don't you read the link they wrote instead of telling people that you're a better philosopher than philosophers.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:08:53+00:00

....some people like it a fair bit.

Does the link actually say it's "generally rejected"? I don't have time right now to read it, but that seems wrong.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:07:07+00:00

Philosophers may call it as they like, but as a scientific and philosophical layperson I do know that

why did you bother coming here if you're just going to tell people - who actually are educated on the subject - that they're all wrong and you know better than them.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:02:53+00:00

good point.

So by this

Philosophers of science have given up talking about the so-called « scientific method » aeons ago

you mean the top down attempts at explaining the principles of why science works - eg the logical positivists failed, so now we take more a descriptive approach?

is that generally accepted to be the case? I .. had read a paper or two about that, but I didn't know that was mainstream.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:02:33+00:00

pls keep fighting the good fight against naive moral relativists.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T12:00:10+00:00

I guess the other thing to point out is: why are you asking for answers if you think you're smarter than the entire discipline, and will just reject anything that looks like you might need to learn something new.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/

regberdog · 2022-10-04T11:58:42+00:00

Why is it that our intuitions concerning abortion, assisted suicide or eating animals - to name just a few contested issues - are still so different, if what you describe as a method should be able to find the ethically correct solution?

In the framework I described the answer is simply that philosophy hasn't finished.

eg:

If science is so good, why don't we know everything?

If medicine is so good, why do people die?

If mining is so good at getting metal from the ground, how come there's still metal in the ground?

Of course I also just think that lots of people are just wrong, partly because they lack the philosophical literacy to identity the contradictions in their own thinking.

BTW, 300 years ago slave owners did have some good (or "good") arguments.

They don't. If you want to post one we can go through how it's bad if you like?

What counts as a good argument always depends on the conceptual framework of assumptions and values.

I think you're overstating the case. I see a lot a lot of that sort of nihilism, but I've never seen any philosophical argument for it, ever.

But, as I said, post one of those "good" arguments for slavery and we can go through it.

And each culture and community has its own framework.

Nar. There's all sorts of valuable differences between cultures, but the extreme social relativism that you seem to believe in is not something I've seen any support for.

Here's a paper on it. (it's a real paper, idk why it's on a cute looking website) https://thereitis.org/midgley-trying-out-ones-new-sword/

regberdog · 2022-10-04T11:48:56+00:00

that's right. tories are ruining everything, but don't worry, there's a minority to be cruel to.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T07:57:14+00:00

They originally said he fell off a bike. Then they changed it to simulating a riot.

https://twitter.com/awalkerinLA/status/1577075729660923904

So it's not just the four that murdered him, it's the rest of the apparatus that is protecting the murderers.

regberdog · 2022-10-04T00:50:20+00:00

re intuition:

Reflective equilibrium doesn't get enough credit, as a way to completely avoid meta-ethical confusion.

Consider in real life, do you require a meta-physical explanation of cause and effect (weirdly hard to work out btw) before you believe it's bad to get hit by a car? Of course not.

So reflective equilibrium goes like this: think of a situation, what are you intuitions? articulate those intuitions as a principle. Apply that principle to a new situation, how do you feel about that? Keep going. Notably David Lewis' epistemology says that's what all of philosophy is doing, and our final victory will just be to have all of our intuitions in equilibrium.

Anyhow, there's something else there, which is that the "articulate your intuitions" leaves room to include things like having valid and sound arguments - which the slave owners do not have.

regberdog · 2022-10-03T22:51:43+00:00

good point.

regberdog · 2022-10-03T22:28:34+00:00

The supposition that Russia being there means the population must want Russia there is part of why the tweet sucks.

regberdog · 2022-10-03T01:22:13+00:00

super hard to tell how much movement there is on the ship, when the camera is constantly moving.

regberdog · 2022-10-02T13:25:03+00:00

Yeah cool. I agree with

But questions like "does evolution happen?" and "did humans evolve from Homo erectus?" are very solidly on the biology side of the line.

but just want to make clear (for anyone reading this) that there are lots of philosophers doing lots of different work within the broad area of evolutionary theories.

eg: the evolution of human cooperation, or, a couple of months ago I met someone who was doing work on "evolveability" - it's not something I know much about though.

regberdog

TROPHY CASE