Posted: Dec 07, 2017 6:25 am
Thommo wrote:BWE wrote:Thommo wrote:It actually wasn't just a terminological point, although I would think it shouldn't need to be pointed out that saying what you mean is generally an improvement over saying what you don't mean.
The thing is that there are lots of ways that SOS could be correct (although I would not say I think he necessarily is), one simple example would be that there are only ever finitely many instances of a dishonest act, and that each act occurs in a physically distinguishable situation (and one may, or may not restrict the domain of which physical measurements they consider).
What's worse is that even if SOS was wrong and no isomorphism could ever be found that would only prove indeterminism (because it would show that the physical is underspecified, not that there are non physical explanations to be found), it would not actually constitute evidence or argument against physicalism. Different issues have been conflated here, in contradiction to some of the more overblown claims.
Ah. Thank you for clarifying. You missed my point entirely.
Err, no. Your point is that you made a series of claims towards a conclusion. By addressing mistakes in that series of claims the conclusion is affected.
Simply restating that conclusion, that "point" isn't helping anyone. Maybe it feels better to continually try and cast blame, I don't know, I guess it doesn't matter though since it's obstructive to both polite and constructive discourse either way.
Well, you may be british or something but we apparently define polite differently. Your earlier posts were full of 10 year old pseudo clever internet bullshit. My question about autism was sincere.
It isn't a sideshow. It's the actual fucking point of the conversation. This has been a long running discussion and these are points long ago covered. If it seems like I am defending or attacking physicalism as an ontological stance, I am not. If you feel that I should be more careful with my words because it looks like that's what I'm doing, well, ok. To get you up to speed on where I think SoS and I are (and I have been addressing SoS individually since this has been a long-running discussion), I am dismissing physicalism or a class of ontology in general as irrelevant and that was possibly even years ago in this whole SoS discussion, however, it was also just a page ago involving James' deal with physicalism.
None of this map/value/experience sideshow actually speaks to the truth of physicalism. On the physicalist view all those things denote (ordered structures or relations on) physical things, that's all. On a non physicalist view, they do not.
I don't give two shits about something which has no effect at all on anything. I am describing to SoS why he cannot make a purely physicalism map that accurately informs his actions. It is impossible without entirely or nearly entirely dispensing with value because value will always fill in data as if it were really experienced when it isn't and wasn't. Dishonest is a perfect example. It cannot be squared with his idea of making his ontology into a model based on physicalist premises.
The reason I am not discussing woolly notions or loose intuitions regarding the structure that is imputed to exist is very simple, I'm not interested in it because I don't think it has any value. Repetition of those intutions or notions will not change that and is no more welcome or necessary than the cod psychology and insults were.
you must be a blast at parties.
Incidentally, if you want to stop drawing me in to further explanations I strongly suggest you stop this speculation about what I have missed, about my mental state and other such things. If you have found an error in what I have written, or something you disagree (or agree) with in what I have written then further conversation would be welcome.
You are talking about a subject that is not the subject of this thread so, maybe... I dunno what to do with that. Hopefully I have clarified. If you still think this is a discussion on the ontological truth of the physical nature of existence, well, it isn't.