Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:02 pm The expressions 'a wrong turning' and 'the right answer' need have no moral significance whatsoever. And to insist they must always be used morally is to ignore the ways we often actually do use them. Meaning is use, and there's no other court of appeal.

Meaning is use.

Why do we have to keep re-asserting and re-agreeing on this?!?

What makes a turn “right” or “wrong”?
What makes an answer “right” or “wrong”?

What is the normative you refuse to make explicit?

If you aren’t using those terms in a moral sense HOW are you using them and why?

'Why is 2+2=4 right (correct), and 2+2=5 wrong (incorrect)? Whence this tyrannical normativity?'

Well, them's the rules of this language game. And there's nothing moral about them.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:04 pm 'Why is 2+2=4 right (correct), and 2+2=5 wrong (incorrect)? Whence this tyrannical normativity?'

Well, them's the rules of this language game. And there's nothing moral about them.

2+2=5 is not incorrect. See proof below.

It depends on which game you are playing a.k.a the rules you are pre-supposing.

It's absolutely a tyrannical normativity to assume everybody should be playing according to the exact same rules you are playing by.

"This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule". -- L.Wittgenstein

Elsewhere, VA says the following:

'I argue that the mind-independent reality and things as claimed by Philosophical Realism are merely speculations based on faith and Assumptions.'

Well, I argue that the existence of minds - on which reality could be dependent, or from which reality could be independent - is a faith-based assumption, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

So, there are only brains. And the claim that reality is not - and cannot be - independent from human brains is utterly farcical.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:05 am Elsewhere, VA says the following:

'I argue that the mind-independent reality and things as claimed by Philosophical Realism are merely speculations based on faith and Assumptions.'

Well, I argue that the existence of minds - on which reality could be dependent, or from which reality could be independent - is a faith-based assumption, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

So, there are only brains. And the claim that reality is not - and cannot be - independent from human brains is utterly farcical.

You say brain - I say meat computer.

You say "mind" - I say software.

The only evidence we have for the existence of minds is that we talk about having them, changing them, being in two of them, losing them - and so on.

That this talk is all metaphorical screams at us. Yet we've constructed a complicated metaphysical model - with solemn institutional confirmation in dictionaries - founded on the distinction between mind-dependence (subjectivity) and mind-independence (objectivity). (Small boy face palms.)

Shut up. How dare you say the emperor has no clothes? Here's a link to the millions of books and articles by philosophical giants who said and say the emperor's outfit is gorgeous. You are a philosophical gnat.

PS I like 'meat computer': 'Reality can't be independent from a meat computer.'

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:36 am The only evidence we have for the existence of minds is that we talk about having them, changing them, being in two of them, losing them - and so on.

That this talk is all metaphorical screams at us. Yet we've constructed a complicated metaphysical model - with solemn institutional confirmation in dictionaries - founded on the distinction between mind-dependence (subjectivity) and mind-independence (objectivity). (Small boy face palms.)

Shut up. How dare you say the emperor has no clothes? Here's a link to the millions of books and articles by philosophical giants who said and say the emperor's outfit is gorgeous. You are a philosophical gnat.

PS I like 'meat computer': 'Reality can't be independent from a meat computer.'

That's right! How dare we talk about thoughts?!?!

Nobody has any thoughts!

It's just brain neurons firing, you confused ape.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:05 am Elsewhere, VA says the following:

'I argue that the mind-independent reality and things as claimed by Philosophical Realism are merely speculations based on faith and Assumptions.'

Well, I argue that the existence of minds - on which reality could be dependent, or from which reality could be independent - is a faith-based assumption, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

So, there are only brains. And the claim that reality is not - and cannot be - independent from human brains is utterly farcical.

Strawman!

When I mentioned 'mind-independent' it is not meant for your reading but for the ordinary intellectual matured readers.

As for your kindergartenish thinking, I would refer to 'independent of the existence of humans' or human conditions, which ever you accept.
In your case, what is fact, a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case will exist even there are no humans.

In this modern era, can you show me who else [with credible authority] claim there are no minds [see definition below] but there is only the physical brain.

The mind is the set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena. They include thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation.
-wiki

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:58 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:05 am Elsewhere, VA says the following:

'I argue that the mind-independent reality and things as claimed by Philosophical Realism are merely speculations based on faith and Assumptions.'

Well, I argue that the existence of minds - on which reality could be dependent, or from which reality could be independent - is a faith-based assumption, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

So, there are only brains. And the claim that reality is not - and cannot be - independent from human brains is utterly farcical.

Strawman!

When I mentioned 'mind-independent' it is not meant for your reading but for the ordinary intellectual matured readers.

As for your kindergartenish thinking, I would refer to 'independent of the existence of humans' or human conditions, which ever you accept.
In your case, what is fact, a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case will exist even there are no humans.

In this modern era, can you show me who else [with credible authority] claim there are no minds [see definition below] but there is only the physical brain.

The mind is the set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena. They include thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation.
-wiki

To repeat. The only evidence for the existence of minds is that we talk about having them, making them up, changing them, being in two of them, losing them, and so on. Mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - and 'faculties', by some institutional analogy - is very obviously metaphorical.

Quoting a deluded description - how ever venerable - does nothing to rectify it.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:04 am To repeat. The only evidence for the existence of minds is that we talk about having them, making them up, changing them, being in two of them, losing them, and so on. Mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - and 'faculties', by some institutional analogy - is very obviously metaphorical.

Quoting a deluded description - how ever venerable - does nothing to rectify it.

So what evidence is there for the existence of any thoughts in Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes's head?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 10:04 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:58 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 8:05 am Elsewhere, VA says the following:

'I argue that the mind-independent reality and things as claimed by Philosophical Realism are merely speculations based on faith and Assumptions.'

Well, I argue that the existence of minds - on which reality could be dependent, or from which reality could be independent - is a faith-based assumption, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

So, there are only brains. And the claim that reality is not - and cannot be - independent from human brains is utterly farcical.

Strawman!

When I mentioned 'mind-independent' it is not meant for your reading but for the ordinary intellectual matured readers.

As for your kindergartenish thinking, I would refer to 'independent of the existence of humans' or human conditions, which ever you accept.
In your case, what is fact, a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so, that is the case will exist even there are no humans.

In this modern era, can you show me who else [with credible authority] claim there are no minds [see definition below] but there is only the physical brain.

The mind is the set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena. They include thought, imagination, memory, will, and sensation.
-wiki

To repeat. The only evidence for the existence of minds is that we talk about having them, making them up, changing them, being in two of them, losing them, and so on. Mentalist talk - about minds containing mental things and events - and 'faculties', by some institutional analogy - is very obviously metaphorical.

Quoting a deluded description - how ever venerable - does nothing to rectify it.

read here;
PH's Stupidity: The "Mind" Does not Exist as Real
viewtopic.php?p=646648#p646648

What and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist?

If the mind is a physical thing, what evidence is there for its existence?

If the mind is a non-physical thing, what evidence is there for its existence? How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

Oh dear. 'Of course the mind exists 'as real'. But. Erm. Oh dear.'

The bollocks we're getting here from morons like VA and Skepdick amounts to nothing more than 'Jer wanna fight?' fuckwittery.

'C'mon then. Is murder morally wrong, or isn't it?' 'C'mon then, is humans killing humans evil, or isn't it?'

Objectivist morons normally go for atrocities, such as torturing babies for fun: 'surely it's a fact that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong'.

Yes, I/we/all of us think torturing babies for fun is morally wrong - is a moral atrocity.

But I/we/many of us also think forcing a person to carry a pregnancy to term is a moral atrocity.

So what's the difference between a so-called moral fact and a moral opinion?

Moral objectivist morons have no answer. Shit-for-brains Skepdick will have no answer.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:54 pm The bollocks we're getting here from morons like VA and Skepdick amounts to nothing more than 'Jer wanna fight?' fuckwittery.

This fucking idiot rejects a commonly accepted and non-controversial premise like "Murder is wrong" and then tells me "I want to fight.".

Talk about fucking projection!

Your moral high horse died of contagious contrarianism.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:26 am What and where is the mind, and in what way does it exist?

If the mind is a physical thing, what evidence is there for its existence?

If the mind is a non-physical thing, what evidence is there for its existence? How can a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How can a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

Oh dear. 'Of course the mind exists 'as real'. But. Erm. Oh dear.'

We are not referring to Descartes' body-mind dualism.

A FSK-ed mind which is real exists as grounded upon the brain and also the body.
If there is no FSK-ed brain, there is no FSK-ed mind, but the mind is not 100% brain anatomically.

A dead corpse has a brain but no mind.
A living person has a brain and being a live brain enables an emerging mind driven by 13.7 billions of forces and evolutionary elements.

All human mental activities are not from a brain itself but from the mind that is driven by living forces upon a highly evolved physical brain.

To be precise, if there is no mind, but a mere anatomical brain [in a corpse or a person in coma], a person will not be able to be conscious and do things like writing a book, composing songs & poetry, arts, sports, be moral competent, etc.