Little Idiot wrote:Thommo wrote:Little Idiot wrote:You lost me,
we aren't we talking about clones because I (maybe foolishly) exposed the topic of individuality which I was (so I claim) not initially making explicit.
Whats that to do with Jamest and taste and physicalist assumptions?
That question is incomplete. Do you mean we "are" talking about clones for that reason?
Apologies, a typo. I corrected above
Little Idiot wrote:I stated I had not read the thread, and with respect I wasnt talking about the content of the thread other than the point of clarification I asked him. Being a good communicator (despite what people will say) his answer was clear {yes. new paragraph}
So I picked up there and responded to him as I felt was best. As I explained when I 'translated'
Oh, so when you said you hadn't read the thread that included the OP? Because I assumed from the fact that you quoted James and answered him and said you agreed with him meant you'd read *something*. If not, my bad, although I feel that does open up a rather obvious criticism that maybe you should have read something before explaining what it meant and agreeing with it.
What I mean, strangely enough is what I originally said. I read some but not all of Jamest's posts not the whole tread means I didnt read any responses. I didnt say that explicity because it could be taken as making me look like much more of an arrogant ass than I am. <I deny being arrogant, no comment on ass
>
I did also say sorry that I hadnt read it, because it was already several pages long, and I asked Jamest if my short summary was accurate....I think were going round in circles here
Why the inquiry?
The edit cleared it up. Because you stated that you agreed with what James was saying and that you "implicitly" knew what he meant (You prefaced the whole passage with "Jamest is right that individuality of humans..."), and that what he meant was [that thing you said] to which I was responding, at which point you asked what it had to do with James.
Or to put it clearly, you said that's what he meant, so I'm completely at liberty to reply under the supposition you were correct and point out how it conflicts with
what he actually said and not accept any prevarication based on you "state[ing] I had not read the thread".
At this point you're still using my mention of James (which I've now justified) as a stall on providing an answer to the question of whether what you said actually provides any support for the contention that an explanation of individual tastes is impossible on the physical view, or whether in fact it was circular nonsense about assuming idealism and concluding idealism.
Little Idiot wrote:Little Idiot wrote:
Like I said originally, that bodes very poorly for anyone who invests time in reading your lengthy account. I don't think anyone here contends to be able to refute idealism (although, yeah, James's version is a safe bet for containing actual contradictions).
Yeah, I think its reasonable to say that from metaphysics alone the case between idealism and physicalism is too close to call. The conclusion depend entirely on the starting assumptions, and neither side can accept the other sides starting assumptions.
Possibly because your starting assumptions include rejecting not just physicalism, but physics and accepting idealism and its consequences - which are your conclusions.
I mean, I agree that if we all assume idealism is true that it follows that idealism is true. But this is what is called "vacuous".
Strong Strawman, but straw through and trough - its simply wrong to say I reject physics. Can you quote me once ever having said that? I doubt it, really.
Saying it, no. Doing it, yes. And already have done.
At the top of this page you explicitly say that:-
Little Idiot wrote:I'd say the two different minds share identical bodies, but would be no more likely to both do the crime from the same stimulus that a pair of identical twins.
Not due to cosmic rays bombarding the brain, but because they are different minds in similar (identical) bodies.
Yours is a far too mechanistic interpretation, IMO. It dont work like that. Even me myself will react differently to comparable stimuli depending on how I feel at the time if I am tired hungry etc ect
This is not compatible with physics. If the same brain receives the same input, then it will give the same output. A brain is composed of atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons and electrons, all of which behave identically in a non-living thing, in a living thing or in a brain. This is a basic finding of physics.
If the output of the brain is the same, then the reaction of the (physically identical) arm to the (physically identical) electrical impulse is the same. The physically identical finger will pull the trigger of the physically identical gun.
Little Idiot wrote:Fair enough, you choose.
Obviously I can only scratch my head at your position which seems to be 'I dont like that you didnt disagree strongly enough with Jamest, so from what you said in Jamest's thread so I know I dont need to read your other post in the other thread'
Its almost like some kind of a school yard gang thing; if I bash on Jamest you'll let me in the gang
<which I know it is not, I'll never be in the gang. I just see a similar behaviour pattern>
It's nothing like that. I'd not have said a word had you not posted. Or posted neutrally. Or posted anything other than agreement with an obviously bullshit argument. I don't care whether you bash Jamest, I care whether you are capable of identifying the good arguments for your position (or any position) from the bad. If you post support for an absolute royal stinker of epic proportions it so undermines my confidence in your ability that it makes me re-evaluate whether I should be listening to anything you have to say on related matters.
I think the fact you later stated your support by explicitly stating the opposite of what James is saying is a bigger clue as to what's really going on here.
Little Idiot wrote:Their theory is enough to explain individual taste
jamest wrote:the essential problem here [therefore] is that a universal explanation for individual taste cannot in principle ever be forthcoming
You want to see where the ganging up and taking sides is going on? Can you quote me saying I agree with something then stating that agreement as the statement of the exact opposite anywhere in this thread?
Little Idiot wrote:I did not tell you I read none of Jamest's posts, how could I have summarized his several posts in a few lines without enough to get the gist reading it?
Your line of thinking is really beyond me at this time, sorry. I dont know what were talking about, why were talking about it nor what you think I can/should say...
You asked me what it had to do with James. I was confirming that it was actually really fucking obvious what it had to do with him. You said you agreed with him and were explaining what (you think) he meant. I had replied under that assumption, but then you embarked on this "what does that have to do with James? Why shouldn't I agree with him?" line of questioning.
by 