I didn't use the term "backdrop". The concept of motion is complex. It analyses in being in different places at different times.
That seems to require time to exist in some way.
If the concept cannot be analysed into simpler concepts, that helps.
That doesn't justify claimig that any...
I think it does. Probably
That is not what I am saying. I have been saying that the "speed" questions
are not very philosophically important.
Assumptions may be objective.
That's not how Naive Realism is defined.
You claim to know what it is not, in various ways.
It is precisely because they are understood differently that we do need
to establish their meanings.
Something like that.
It conflicts with the "block universe" interpretation of relativity.
Since we reject assumptions that...
And motion isn't..?
Even in our own subjective consciousness?
If our logic is no guide to metaphysics, then we have
to give up on metaphysics entirely. Not that you have sworn off.
"It is only impossible to consciously imagine time without without also imagining time. It doesn't mean...
It is changing. It is hard to say that it is going anywhere,.
We can accept that change (or becoming, or, as you call, it motion)
is basic without adopting dualism.
OK. But that is an escape-hatch from you claim that we cannot
tell what is really real. I don't have a...
"Man made concept" does not contrast with anything else. But if all concepts are
man-made, you have no grounds for asserting that motion is primary. (not
even the grounds that physical models work that way).
You simply don't have valid argument to the effect that
all models are "equally...
You are assuming that a quantum of energy is used by each
quantum sae transition. In fact, state transisitions can both absorb
and realease eneergy, and energy is a conserved quantity. Therefore there is
no inference from a finite availability of energy to a finite
number of state...
No, they are completely different.
# passing reference or indirect mention
# In rhetoric, an allusion is the implicit referencing of a related object or circumstance, which has occurred or existed in an external context. An allusion is understandable only...
Moral and natural laws.
An investgation of natural laws, and, in parallel, a defence of ethical objectivism.The objectivity, to at least some extent, of science will be assumed; the sceptic may differ, but there is no convincing some people).
At first glance, morality looks as though it should...
If I point a gun at your head and order you to hand over
your wallet, you, as a living thing, are responding to an
external stimulus. But that no-one would say you are
making a free choice. It seems your definition is flawed.
That is an argument against omnipotence, not against FW.
If you are talking about Royce, all s/he says is
that a free choice is one that may be influenced but must not be compelled. There is nothing in that definition about transcending the physical.
Microscopic and Macroscopic Randomness
A common reaction to QM is that it doesn't matter since quantum randomness will never manifest itself at the macroscoic level -- that is, in the world of sticks and stones we can see with the naked eye. An appeal is usually made to the "law of large...
If every state is the result of the SIS and RIG working together, there is always
a casually antecedent component.
And the same reasoning would apply without any RIG at all. So this has nothing
to do with indeterminism or libertarianism. There are reasons for thinking that
agents are not...
There is more than one theory of what "makes sense" with respect to morality,
crime and punishment. You favourite theory is not "just true".
The existence of Alternative Possibilities (otherwise known as Elbow Room or could-have-done-otherwise) is relevant to responsibility because we do not...
And the detailed integral configuration is physically determinable in principle,
so consiocusness is not beyond physical investifation (in principle).
But even if possible (which from the above looks unlikely), perfect replication does not entail predicting my experience of the colour red...
I explain that in the following passage:
I have just given an arguemtn to the effect that they are.
You are sounding increasingly logic-blind.
I have justified that claim.
Originally Posted by Tournesol
You haven't said why it is false. It may well be a "conseqeunce"...
It's not my problem. If you are going to insist
that qualia are necessarily and inherently first-personal,
then you need to define "first person" somehow
or other. A 1stP which is a merely unconscious
observer is no good. You have rejected the homunculus.
What does that leave you with ?
Almost. Of course when use the phrase "the physical" is the
definition of "physicalism" we don't mean nobel prizes, or electron
micoscopes, or partial differential equations, although
they all "pertain to physics". By "the physical" in the
definition of "physicalism" we of course mean...
The posit of an "I" or homunculus or inner observer (separate from the objective self, the sum total of my bodily organs and cognitive content)
is entriely dispensible. See Dennett, "Consicousness Explained".
That makes your claim that patterns of cells in the Life World
Computationalists aren't required to believe any programme is
The deeper prolbem is that any programme is entirely
knwoable, form the outside, in principle, which
is incompatible with the idea of qualia as intrinisically
unknowable from the outside.
I can't think of any...
Some of the questions you reject as meaningless are
answerable -- and therefore meaningful.
The problem with that question is not a problem
of perpective alone. In a universe of purely
perspective, it would be quite possible
Yes it does: that "objective" means "unbiased".
There is no evidene that they are.
Scientific objectivity is an assumption which may not always be valid.
As have explained, I know that because I have complete information about the GoL.
The actual situation is...
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. My bathroom is an integral
part of my house, but that does not inaccessaible.
The conscious observer is an inextricable part of
the conscious experience. However, it is perfectly
possible to have unconsious obervers with merely