Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:46 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:40 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:36 pm
Nonsense. There's no physical part of the brain that is 'the mind'. You're just paying lip-service to a mentalist myth. And the claim that the physical world is the continuation of the human mind is hippy woo worthy of VA. But thanks. What I expected.

Okay simple question: when you dream in images, to those images actually exist in any way, or don't they?

Sorry, but this is a bop issue. Make the case - and provide evidence - for the existence of a non-physical image in the brain. And when you realise you can't, maybe the penny will drop.

Again I didn't say non-physical image, just image.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:48 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:44 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:42 pm
Doesn't look like you paid much attention in math class then.

The "=" in A=1 doesn't mean the same thing as the "=" in 1=2.


Of course! In Python 1=2 and 1=1 are both syntax errors.

You didn't go to school?

I did.

And they explained the difference between A=1 and 1=1 to me

One is an assignment.
One is a comparison.

You can't assign two different values to the same variable in math, that's a contradiction, which was the point you keep avoiding. Whatever, well I guess see you maybe in 2 years.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:57 pm You can't assign two different values to the same variable in math

Of course you can. It's called value re-assignment.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:57 pm that's a contradiction, which was the point you keep avoiding.

No it isn't. Here's me re-assigning the value of A as much as I want

Look! No error.

❯ ipython
Python 3.11.2 (main, Mar 25 2023, 22:52:57) [Clang 14.0.0 (clang-1400.0.29.202)]
Type 'copyright', 'credits' or 'license' for more information
IPython 8.13.2 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help.

In [1]: A=1

In [2]: A=2

In [3]: A=3

In [4]: A=4

Here, from elsewhere, in all its glory, is the reasoning behind one stupid argument for moral objectivity.

'No inductive reasoning/extrapolation from evidence = no Big Bang.'

If to begin were worth the whistle - where would you?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 2:49 pm Here, from elsewhere, in all its glory, is the reasoning behind one stupid argument for moral objectivity.

'No inductive reasoning/extrapolation from evidence = no Big Bang.'

If to begin were worth the whistle - where would you?

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes doesn't even understand the diffeerence between facts and arguments.

It is a fact that The Big Bang theory is a social construct - an epistemic artefact of mental extrapolation.

When is it ever worth the whistle to try to educate an idiot who doesn't want to self-correct?

Try this out for stupidity:

It is a fact that the theory of evolution is a social construct - an epistemic artefact of mental extrapolation. Therefore, no mental extrapolation = no evolution.

Now, what sort of fucking moron would think that? Oh, wait...the sort of fucking moron who thinks that to construct a model of reality is to construct reality. In short, a constructivist. That sort of fucking moron.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 3:40 pm Try this out for stupidity:

It is a fact that the theory of evolution is a social construct - an epistemic artefact of mental extrapolation. Therefore, no mental extrapolation = no evolution.

Now, what sort of fucking moron would think that? Oh, wait...

I didn't say it's not objective.

The Big Bang is a social construct.
Evolution is a social construct.
Morality is a social construct.

All three of those are objective.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 3:40 pm Now, what sort of fucking moron would think that? Oh, wait...

You.

Try this out for stupidity:

It is a fact that the theory of evolution is a social construct - an epistemic artefact of mental extrapolation. Therefore, no mental extrapolation = no evolution.

Now, what sort of fucking moron would think that? Oh, wait...the sort of fucking moron who thinks that to construct a model of reality is to construct reality. In short, a constructivist. That sort of fucking moron.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 3:44 pm Try this out for stupidity:

It is a fact that the theory of evolution is a social construct - an epistemic artefact of mental extrapolation. Therefore, no mental extrapolation = no evolution.

Now, what sort of fucking moron would think that? Oh, wait...the sort of fucking moron who thinks that to construct a model of reality is to construct reality. In short, a constructivist. That sort of fucking moron.

What sort of moron would think that words like "reality" and "evolution" have a mind-independent referent outside of language?
What sort of moron would think that words like "reality" and "evolution" can be ostensively defined?

A dumb logocentrist like Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes would.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism

What sort of fucking moron would think that the noun phrase mind-independent referent has any coherent meaning whatsoever? Perhaps the sort of fucking moron who thinks that the noun phrase mind has a referent of any kind.

What sort of fucking moron would think that ostensive definition is foundational, or has any extra-contextual function?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 6:58 pm What sort of fucking moron would think that the noun phrase mind-independent referent has any coherent meaning whatsoever?

Any "moron" who understands that ostensive definitions are mind-independent.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 6:58 pm Perhaps the sort of fucking moron who thinks that the noun phrase mind has a referent of any kind.

Sure it does. I am refering to my mind using the word "mind". What else could I be refering to?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 6:58 pm What sort of fucking moron would think that ostensive definition is foundational, or has any extra-contextual function?

Any moron who thinks facts entail mind-independence. So you can't appeal to language (which is self-referential mental construct) to define anytihng.

Just point out the referents of your words.

What or where is a "context", sure seems like whatever it is that you are refering to by "context" is in your mind...

Is it maybe an American pragmatist philosophy thing, that people so vehemently deny the existence of their own minds? Even VA knows better than that lol..

Atla wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:23 pm Is it maybe an American pragmatist philosophy thing, that people so vehemently deny the existence of their own minds? Even VA knows better than that lol..

It doesn't seem very pragmatic to give up a useful word like "mind". You get yourself twisted up in tongues trying to accont for language.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:23 pm Is it maybe an American pragmatist philosophy thing, that people so vehemently deny the existence of their own minds? Even VA knows better than that lol..

I don't see anything particularly american or pragmatist about eliminative materialism. I can't see giving up the useful terms used around mind and mental phenomena being something most pragmatists would be attracted to. They are pretty damn effective terms in so many contexts and since a pragmatist isn't beholden to substance monism, for example, or other relavant ontological stances, being a pragmatist, it would be odd if there was much of this belief or lack of belief amongst pragmatists.

There are certainly many things to be critical about in U.S. culture, but some resistance to talking about mental states, feelings, what's on their minds, intentiosl, motivations, desires, dreams, fantasies, the imagination...

really doesn't seem like a tendency amongst Americans. And certainly not compared to other cultures who are more reticent - for good and for ill.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:17 pm I don't see anything particularly american or pragmatist about eliminative materialism.

Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes is not an eliminative materialist.

He talks about beliefs - mental states. If he took as hard a stance on belief as he does on minds he would outright reject the very notion of "belief" as just another confused manner of speaking.