What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Re your post above, too, I'm guessing that Peter is, or at least has been significantly influenced by, eliminative materialism.

Materialism. Physicalism.

Same thing. Different words.

Distinction without an implicative difference.

[Terrapin Station]

Re your post above, too, I'm guessing that Peter is, or at least has been significantly influenced by, eliminative materialism.

Materialism. Physicalism.

Same thing. Different words.

Distinction without an implicative difference.

Eliminative materialism is different than non-eliminative materialism. Eliminativists either claim (strong eliminativism) that there is nothing that amounts to mind (at least with any resemblance to what people are traditionally talking about with that term), or they at least claim (weak eliminativism) that traditional or "folk" vocabulary about mentality needs to be abandoned, because it's far more detrimental than useful.

Not all materialists/physicalists are eliminativists. I'm not, for example.

[Skepdick]

Eliminative materialism is different than non-eliminative materialism. Eliminativists either claim (strong eliminativism) that there is nothing that amounts to mind (at least with any resemblance to what people are traditionally talking about with that term)

Great. So they invented a new vocabulary. And they don't call it mind. They use some other terminoloy to speak about the same brain function.

Woopty fucking doo. All philosophy is sterile re-descritption. Inventing new vocabularies to say the same thing in a different way.

, or they at least claim (weak eliminativism) that traditional or "folk" vocabulary about mentality needs to be abandoned, because it's far more detrimental than useful.

This claim cannot be made without stating the utility of the vocabulary. If you are selling a vocabulary, tell me why yours is better than the one I got alrady.

Not all materialists/physicalists are eliminativists. I'm not, for example.

Ontological horseshit.

i am a materialist. And now I am not.
I am a physicalist. And now I am not.
I am an eliminativist. And now I am not.

The vocabulary I choose to use to describe my philosophy doesn't come any closer to describing my actual philosophy than any other vocabulary.
It's just useful language for conversing about metaphysics. But it's not at all useful if we speak different languages.

[Terrapin Station]

Eliminative materialism is different than non-eliminative materialism. Eliminativists either claim (strong eliminativism) that there is nothing that amounts to mind (at least with any resemblance to what people are traditionally talking about with that term)

Great. So they invented a new vocabulary. And they don't call it mind. They use some other terminoloy to speak about the same brain function.

Woopty fucking doo. All philosophy is sterile re-descritption.

, or they at least claim (weak eliminativism) that traditional or "folk" vocabulary about mentality needs to be abandoned, because it's far more detrimental than useful.

This claim cannot be made without stating the utility of the vocabulary. If you are selling a vocabulary, tell me why yours is better than the one I got alrady.

Not all materialists/physicalists are eliminativists. I'm not, for example.

Ontological horseshit.

i am a materialist. And now I am not.
I am a physicalist. And now I am not.
I am an eliminativist. And now I am not.

The vocabulary I choose to use to describe my philosophy doesn't come any closer to describing my actual philosophy than any other vocabulary.
It's just useful language for conversing about metaphysics. But it's not at all useful if we speak different languages.

So you don't think there's a difference between saying "There are no minds" and "There are minds" or "'Folk' vocabulary about minds is detrimental and needs to be abandoned" and "'Folk' vocabulary about minds is just fine; there's nothing wrong with it"?

[Skepdick]

So you don't think there's a difference between saying "This are no minds" and "There are minds"

None whatsoever from the lens of functionalism. Something is performing that function of language processing in your brain, thinking, remembering, recalling, planning, choosing - call it what you want.

or "'Folk' vocabulary about minds is detrimental and needs to be abandoned"

Detrimental to..... what goal?

and "'Folk' vocabulary about minds is just fine; there's nothing wrong with it"?

Fine for.... what purpose?

If the language of "mind" strongly offends you, then I'll learn your language and abandon mine in public.

I'll just translate my words into your words int he privacy of my own mind.

[Terrapin Station]

So you don't think there's a difference between saying "This are no minds" and "There are minds"

None whatsoever from the lens of functionalism. Something is performing that function of language processing in your brain, thinking, remembering, recalling, planning, choosing - call it what you want.

Wait a minute. I thought that you didn't think that A and A were even the same.

[Skepdick]

Wait a minute. I thought that you didn't think that A and A were even the same.

They are not "the same".

They are FUNCTIONALLY "the same".

And before you get your panties in a twist, I don't subscribe to non-contradiction.
If non-contradiction was a law of any sort I wouldn't be able to contradict myself when I want to.

[Terrapin Station]

Wait a minute. I thought that you didn't think that A and A were even the same.

They are not "the same".

They are FUNCTIONALLY "the same".

And before you get your panties in a twist, I don't subscribe to non-contradiction.
If non-contradiction was a law of any sort I wouldn't be able to contradict myself when I want to.

What's the difference between "the same" and "functionally the same"?

[Skepdick]

What's the difference between "the same" and "functionally the same"?

I can't explain it in English. Do you speak Mathematics?

[Terrapin Station]

What's the difference between "the same" and "functionally the same"?

I can't explain it in English. Do you speak Mathematics?

Depends on the mathematics.

[Skepdick]

What's the difference between "the same" and "functionally the same"?

I can't explain it in English. Do you speak Mathematics?

Depends on the mathematics.

OK. The concept of "identity" is elucidated by the identity type and univalence axiom.

To say that A is "identical' to B is to be able to transform/translate A into B.

[Terrapin Station]

I can't explain it in English. Do you speak Mathematics?

Depends on the mathematics.

OK. The concept of "identity" is elucidated by the identity type and univalence axiom.

To say that A is "identical' to B is to be able to transform/translate A into B.

Univalence looks like we need to buy that two things can be the same type in some literal sense.

[Skepdick]

Univalence looks like we need to buy that two things can be the same type in some literal sense.

Yes. Two cats can be cats, even though they are not the same cat.

[Terrapin Station]

Univalence looks like we need to buy that two things can be the same type in some literal sense.

Yes. Two cats can be cats, even though they are not the same cat.

It's essentialism with respect to properties.

Which I don't buy.

[Skepdick]

Which I don't buy.

I don't believe you.

You use plurals in English.

Grapes. Cats. Dogs. Things. Those are all types.