51. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211909 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 11:43 am

Mitchell,

as evident from my last post - I completely agree that we can make a meaningful distinction here.

Consider physics - the only empirical knowledge there is from observation. But physics is mostly theorizing, and even observations are theory-laden.

So, knowledge of phenomena (observation) is empirical knowledge. Discovering truths about something non-empirical (like mathematics, or concepts etc) is non-empirical knowledge.

One can distinguish further - but so far this should be clear.

52. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211906 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 11:39 am

Anyone who thinks that real knowledge can be generated by mere philosophy is fooling themselves.

That statement betrays the failure to distinguish between knowledge about empirical facts and knowledge about conceptual facts. Philosophy can generate the latter.

Furthermore - not all science is empirical science. I would say logic is science, too - structural science.

I think a little humility is in order.

53. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211889 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 11:24 am

fides,

oh - okay. My bad. Sorry.

54. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211886 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 11:23 am

I was thinking about Kant.

Kant thought about perception, objects, matter, thought, observation and formed new concepts of those, far more detailed and interrelated than before. Of course from this, new inferences were made...

Would these inferences - these deductions/abductions be "new knowledge" under your interpretation?

The inferences were valid, so regardless of whether his conceptions were accurate ("true"), we learned truths about those concepts and their relation - about his position. Since the position wasn't there before... I would say that was new knowledge.

55. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211879 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 11:15 am

You didn't annoy me...

and concerning conceptualization. I meant deduction formed with new conceptualizations. Would that be new knowledge about concepts/conceptualizations?

56. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211870 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 11:06 am

Oh - and... under your definition, there would also be no new knowledge generated in mathematics since the axioms and inference rules were made explicit.

57. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211869 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 11:03 am

Okay - then this is a semantic difference.

But you still have to integrate deduction or abduction from new conceptualization - where even the conceptualization wasn't available before.

58. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211865 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:59 am

You need to distinguish existential quantification from the way it is expressed in actual language... it doesn't have to be a verb.

59. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211860 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:52 am

What if it's a deduction that genuinely hasn't been done before because nobody has conceptualized the elements before?

For example - take the Frank Jackson thought-experiment about Mary the colour-blind colour-scientist.

Now take Paul Churchland's essay on it. He formalized the argument and proved conclusively that the argument rests on an equivocation and is inconclusive. The knowledge that the argument is inconclusive was new.

60. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211852 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:45 am

Mitchell,

I was just wondering about the grammatical and syntactic structure of that sentence I quoted. ("It doesn't existence without...")

Of course it uses existential quantification. Everyone does.

The other reason for that "huh?" was that I was wondering what this had to do with the matter at hand - that ontology (and every statement about something) quantifies existentially, and potentially uses universal quantification.

61. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211851 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:42 am

Mitchell,

I'm not sure. His views were pretty revolutionary. And nobody before had reflected this way on the meta-level about these things. So in that case, even if it was deduction, (or abduction) the conclusions would be new knowledge.

He conceptualized a few things that hadn't been conceptualized before - made certain distinctions etc... so in that sense it was also new.

62. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211846 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:38 am

ontology as something that doesn't existence without existential verbs

...
huh?

I think though, that you would find that a lot of philosophers are also deeply distrustful of the idea that you can generate knowledge about the world through philosophy.

With the exception explained above - taking our conceptions, observations, word-usage, intellectual activities, theories and positions as part of the world (in which case I would say it does) - I know no philosopher who would say it generates knowledge about the world.

63. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211839 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:32 am

lol... did I just write "meatethics"...? I see I'm still far too hungry :)

Of course I meant metaethics. And, as you know, my favourite is philosophy of mind (Your wonderful discussion with Bnonn is still causing him grief it seems - and was a very good example of accessible philosophy of mind:)

64. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211831 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:28 am

Steve,

and not only knowledge... it constructs theories of knowledge, of the mind, of causality, science... and of course ethics and meatethics. A lot of things, really.

65. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211828 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:25 am

I just can't leave this alone...

Kant for example explicated how our sensations, perceptions, observations and thoughts presuppose certain things. If true, that would certainly be new knowledge... and since it would be knowledge about human thinking and human worldviews, one might even argue it would be knowledge about us as part of the world, or about our conceptualization of the world.

66. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211819 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 10:18 am

Of course philosophy produces knowledge - but as Mitchell said - not about the empirical world.

I'll stop now - or I'll have to put up with more of Bonzai's (whom I consider to be very intelligent) sadly inane ramblings about philosophy.

67. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211795 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:57 am

Mitchell,

I can find a lot of valid and interesting insights in nearly all philosophy - in fact, I have not read one philosophical paper or book from which I didn't learn something valuable - even if it is only about mistakes the author made, or just one conceptual insight he had. Anyway - I'm going to get something to eat now. Terribly hungry right now. Bye.

68. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211788 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:55 am

Your right. I hadn't thought my way through, I suppose. I just thought someone should pick up Al's gauntlet because... well, reduction in violent crime should be discussed by citizens of the world. Don't you think?

Absolutely... and I am for severe restrictions on gun-ownership and carrying weapons (no guns in public if you ask me).

But a discussion on policies to reduce violent crime? I would want to make an informed decision - and that requires a lot of study, a lot more information than I currently posses. Anything I would be able to say now would be entirely preliminary and probably simplistic.

69. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211782 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:53 am

Mitchell,

alright... then let's leave it at that. I'm comfortable where we are now.

70. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211775 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:49 am

Gregg,

of course I agree... but I was asking because you said that OWNING an easily concealable weapon ought to be illegal. (or rather, you said they ought to be banned)

71. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211768 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:45 am

Gregg,

ad 2) Do kitchen-knifes that can be used as deadly weapons and certainly can be easily concealed count?

72. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211767 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:44 am

Don't get into an argument over this with Bonzai - it leads nowhere... I've tried :)

He knows I think he's being irrational - and has probably slapped himself literally senseless so as to come to the position he does... he thinks I'm dogmatic and deluded.

EDIT: Philosophy is a lot about analyzing word-usage, definitions, concepts and their relations - spotting inconsistencies, trying to avoid them and use concepts more precisely.
This is certainly a valid study.

Oh well.
What's for dinner?

73. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211762 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:42 am

Instead of giving you the comment-numbers... I'll just re-post the text here:

"I think you're being a bit simplistic with the left and "infringing rights". Rights have a certain hierarchical order and limits (think "first principle of justice" with rawls).
In general, when one de-facto and de-jure granted right can be seen to be severely detrimental to other rights, it can very well be correct to not grant that right any longer. This has its parallel in pareto-optimality.

Concerning guns - well my position is almost exactly like that of Steve, but I do realize the problems for the USA - problems of logistics (as you mentioned) and of cultural background. Doesn't mean that the general position I have concerning this is "insane" or anything.
"

And

"As for Germany,

denying the holocaust is illegal - but insulting religion isn't - at least as long as that "insult" is not likely to cause a riot.

The holocaust-law (look up "Volksverhetzung" on wikipedia) was written into the constitution because the Allies wanted that. It is basically an extension of the law that says inciting violence is illegal. Where it goes above and beyond that - I question (though not deny a priori) its validity.

The blasphemy-law is still stupid - because it makes the illegality dependent on the disposition to react violently to criticism or insult of the insulted. But you're actually allowed to own guns - the restrictions are just rightfully severe. "

Btw - what do you think about libel/slander-laws?

74. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211754 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

Bonzai - philosophy does take into account the phenomena, it's not JUST words.

And, I'm sorry to say - if that analysis is true - it's true of every intellectual discipline. Every. single. one.

75. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211753 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:36 am

what I can't define coherently isn't necessarily logically impossible.

In that statement the term "what", by virtue of the rest of the statement, is undefined.

It's basically saying "that which I cannot coherently define"... in which "that" is not known by the speaker to refer to anything - as per what the rest of the sentence states... so what is that supposed to mean?

Aside from that - and assuming this is meaningful - I would agree. But of course you can only evaluate something that defines its terms - so no evaluation is possible until that is given.

As for what you think I assume. I don't think that is implied in what I said. I assume (and correctly so, I think) that we can know SOMETHING about the world, which in turn implies that this something is intelligible and that we have to means to comprehend it. As for "the rest" - well, our phenomena are our phenomena - and we try to explain them. Beyond our phenomena, we can know nothing. We might (and are constantly) discover new ones though.
Anything that arises as a phenomenon - as something we can observe (internal or external) is by virtue of that a possible subject for explanation.

There is certainly every reason to think that we haven't encountered all types of phenomena there are - nature has very likely much more in stock for us... but postulating something beyond that which can even potentially figure in phenomenal experience is... well, unintelligible. If that were so, we could not know that it was so, so saying it might be so is empty.

76. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211738 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:23 am

I myself am a little uncomfortable with the term "material"... that's why I go with "spatio-temporal".

77. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211734 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:21 am

My point was gun control often is linked to a lack of other freedoms.

Did you read my two posts about that? (the one about restrictions on rights and liberties and the other on the situation in Germany and the "volksverhetzung"-law)

I'm sorry to say that regarding limitations of rights and liberties, your comments here are astoundingly simplistic - simplistic in the same way that libertarianism fails to see the most basic truths about self-limitations and hierarchical limitations of rights.

I really do think you know better.

78. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211726 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 9:16 am

Ask Steve why "singularity" is a difficult concept... matter without spacetime? I think that's impossible. Whatever is causally active must be spatiotemporal - causation is between events, and those require a temporal framework. A spatial framework is required because of pairing relations (read Kim's "Physicalism - or something near enough", which is definitely worth it).

"Dimensionless, motionless state" - I'm not sure this isn't inconsistent.

You seem to make the old mistake of talking and making judgements about things which cannot possibly figure in any thought, concept or whatever - what is logically impossible is impossible.

To say - well, maybe that's just a limitation of ours, not of reality is sort of useless - because even if it were so - nothing could give you or anyone the necessary information to make that judgement.

Either the constraint is on thinking in general or it is on fundamental reality. The latter case implies the former, and the former is definitely the case - so everything you can possibly have any reason to judge about the latter will have to be within the constraints of the former.

79. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211700 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:57 am

What definition? That anything else is impossible?

No, I do not subscribe to that!

I'm just saying that judging from experience, we're unlikely to be given a definition of non-spatiotemporal that does not lead to contradictions or is simply empty - because every single one that has been attempted was. I don't exclude the possibility a priori, but I judge from experience that we shouldn't hold our breaths.

I also cannot say that a non-spatiotemporal entity is possible, because I have no definition of that. I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

But that also means I cannot exclude the possibility of such a definition a priori.


Clear now?

80. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211688 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:52 am

As for Germany,

denying the holocaust is - but insulting religion isn't - at least as long as that "insult" is not likely to cause a riot.

The holocaust-law (look up "Volksverhetzung" on wikipedia) was written into the constitution because the Allies wanted that. It is basically an extension of the law that says inciting violence is illegal.
The blasphemy-law is still stupid. But you're actually allowed to own guns - the restrictions are just rightfully severe.

81. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211681 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:47 am

I said "it looks that way" because every attempt at a definition has resulted in something untenable...

Allowing some "other" is meaningless unless I know what that other is supposed to be.

I can wait - but my points about ontological physicalism stand.

:)

82. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211672 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:34 am

Mitchell,

it seems you misread me. I did not say it was impossible. I said that all attempts at definitions I have encountered were either not definitions or inconsistent and hence impossible.

Who knows - maybe someday there will be a definition of something that fulfills a similar role to what has been called "supernatural" that is intelligable and coherent - then we can say it might be possible.

But for example the definitions of the theistic deities I have come across were all inconsistent and as such impossible.

So, I think you did misunderstand me here

83. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211670 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:29 am

But Jesus is also God... same essence, different form. So he had himself tortured so that humanity won't get tortured in hell (it still might happen, though - if you don't believe!!!!1!!).



Man, the insanity of this is almost beyond description.

84. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211660 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:19 am

Mitchell,

oh well - maybe some people define it like that.

As I see it the distinction between metaphysical and methodological materialism/physicalism is that between ontology and pragmatic strategy. Yes, I do defend ontological physicalism AND methodological naturalism.

But if metaphysical materialism is supposed to mean "all that possibly can be is matter", then I would say it looks that way - because I cannot assess the possibility of something that isn't defined so I cannot even say something else is possible if I don't know what that something else is supposed to be. But as I said I am open to assess any definition that is thrown my way :)

85. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211657 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:14 am

fides,

maybe Steve didn't answer... but I did and you seemed content with that answer? Did I miss something?

Steve,

see here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2862,Ants-terrorism-and-the-awesome-power-of-memes,Dan-Dennett-TED,page2#210687

My answer is two or three posts below.

86. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211655 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:12 am

What has your Jesus done for me in my 38-years on this planet? Nada. Zip.

But...but... don't you know??? He died FOR YOU!!!!1!! He absolved you of your sins! How can you be so ungrateful as not to love him and worship him?


(cue rightfully ridiculing comment)

87. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211648 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:09 am

Whatever can be given a coherent description is possible.

So yes, I'm not saying "something other" is completely impossible because nothing "other" has ever been defined, much less defined coherently.
I cannot say X is impossible if I don't know what X is supposed to mean.

But those descriptions/definitions that are logically inconsistent cannot have a real referent - which is the case with most, perhaps all conceptions of deities I have ever come across. They're like square triangles - and as such I have sufficient reason to say they cannot possibly exist.

88. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211634 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 8:01 am

Mitchell,

the thing is - if we cannot even potentially know anything about it, we can never have reason to include it in our ontology. That's why I am also a metaphysical materialist (or rather "spatiotemporalist") - because for nothing else can we have sufficient reason to include it in our ontology.

89. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211622 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 7:53 am

Steve,

lol on that "being a body"-thing on the other thread. Language is sadly dualistic :)

90. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211618 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 7:51 am

I respectfully disagree.

Would it surprise you to know that I was addicted to cocaine in the '80s? I've not touched the stuff in 20 years without the aid of outside influence or institutions. All by myself. Would my first had experience with abuse and then kicking the habit be useful in helping others?

Hey, I didn't say it cannot be helpful... what I said (applied to this case) was that someone who has detailed knowledge (outside of experience) of drug-use, the medical aspect, the psychological aspects, the sociological aspects - and knows a lot about the options and problems for recovery from addiction can be very well qualified.

91. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211611 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 7:47 am

I hold to methodological naturalism as well. But since I think our ontology should be based on the best explanations we have - I also say we have every reason to assume that everything that exists exists in a spacetime-framework (note: I distinguish between "exist" and "occur" - such that structures and processes occur, but entities "are").

And I also think that "supernatural" is not really a coherent, applicable concept.

So, I think those positions from which and to which Steve has moved are not incompatible.

92. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211599 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 7:39 am

Al,

I agree wholeheartedly... Knowledge of the relevant facts is of tantamount importance. What I was trying to say is that first-hand experience is not, descriptive knowledge is.


EDIT:
And I think you're being a bit simplistic with the left and "infringing rights". Rights have a certain hierarchical order and limits (think "first principle of justice" with rawls).
In general, when one de-facto and de-jure granted right can be seen to be severely detrimental to other rights, it can very well be correct to not grant that right any longer. This has its parallel in pareto-optimality.

Concerning guns - well my position is almost exactly like that of Steve, but I do realize the problems for the USA - problems of logistics (as you mentioned) and of cultural background. Doesn't mean that the general position I have concerning this is "insane" or anything.

93. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211588 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 7:30 am

So, should drug policy only be made by people who have taken Cocaine, Heroin, Crack and a few eightballs perhaps?

This means the generalization doesn't fly. If it is supposed to be valid in the special case of guns, that requires independent argument, not special pleading.

94. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211578 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 7:23 am

Being a philosopher, I must say that I do find your position here rather curious, Appleby.

Perhaps your concept of philosophy is slightly off? Academic philosophy is highly analytic. And analytic philosophy of mind draws heavily upon science - but it still addresses philosophical questions.

Analytic philosophy is very strict - when Dawkins talks philosophical, he is very poetic, not really presenting conclusive analyses and arguments.

Sure, Dennett and even more so the Churchlands draw more from science (mostly neuroscience) than others.
But analytic philosophy is everywhere. It is very strict - it's all about the conclusiveness of logical arguments, the exact definition and relation of concepts... not about poetry in expressing personal views (and backing them up slightly, as Dawkins does in Unweaving the Rainbow).

So, Dennett is definitely a prime example of a scientifically informed philosopher... but Dawkins has - sadly - very little philosophical depth.

Compare for example his "God Delusion" with John Leslie Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism". (The former cites the latter in its bibliography)

Dawkins makes a good case - and the scientific arguments are very good - but the philosophical ones (philosophy of atheism) are quite shallow when compared to such people as John Leslie Mackie("The Miracle of Theism"), Michael Martin(e.g. "Atheism: A philosophical justification"), Graham Oppy("Arguing about Gods"), John Sobel ("Logic and Theism"), Nicholas Everitt ("The Non-Existence of God") and so on...

95. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210799 by MPhil on July 15, 2008 at 4:43 am

...also, just in the news:

The Australian High Court has declared the ban under threat of 5500$-fine for wearing critical t-shirts at the World Youth Day (or indeed causing any "inconvenience" to the pilgrims) unconstitutional!

Great news... not much, but great news nevertheless.

96. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210794 by MPhil on July 15, 2008 at 4:35 am

Completely unrelated - but I thought I'd share some personal good news with fellow fans of classical music: Through a friend of my girlfriend's who works there, this Saturday I'll be at the Bayreuth Festspielhaus watching the dress rehearsal (much less noisy in the audience and altogether more relaxing) of this year's performance of Richard Wagner's "Walküre"

...and I don't even have to pay anything.

:)

97. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210705 by MPhil on July 15, 2008 at 2:06 am

but I highly doubt you're having me eating steak.

That is certainly not what I intend :)
As I said - I don't think vegetarianism is morally required, but I certainly don't object to people not wanting to eat meat :)

Just drop me a PM when you feel like it and I'm sure we can arrange for it

98. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210702 by MPhil on July 15, 2008 at 2:02 am

fides,

There are conflicting opinions. For a comprehensive introduction, I would recommend Susan Blackmore's "The meme machine".

I would say no, it isn't a scientific theory - it's a heuristic and interpretational device that illustrates propagation and behaviour of what we call "ideas".

It can be used as such - pragmatically - without subscribing to ontological commitments. (much like Dennett's "intentional stance", which is certainly a highly respected philosophical theory)

But I think its heuristic/interpretational success can be given ontological foundation in the disciplines (or research-areas) of teleosemantics, neurosemantics, communication theory etc.... much like psychology is slowly being grounded in neuroscience (I suggest reading the wonderful "Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology" by Kolb and Whishaw).

The issue of elimination, reduction or otherwise of "folk psychology" is also relevant here.

99. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210696 by MPhil on July 15, 2008 at 1:55 am

Mitchell,

nah - I don't assume that at all. Just saying that most defenses for such a position I've heard don't hold up to scrutiny at all. As I said - mostly anthropomorphizing, bad comparisons, fuzzy qualia-related arguments and mostly relying on speculation way beyond what we have reason to assume. For a more detailed critique, I would of course require the specific reasons (as arguments) that you subscribe to.

I don't object to having this discussion - just not now or this week. I hope you don't think this is a cheap cop-out. I think you know me well enough to know that I flourish in interesting arguments :)
It's just that I've been awake for 18 hours, have a long train-journey ahead of me this evening and a long day tomorrow.

Basically I just wanted to state my opinion today... as I said, if you are interested, I'm glad to have that discussion some time.

100. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210689 by MPhil on July 15, 2008 at 1:38 am

Just a side note...

... I can understand moral reasons for vegetarianism - I don't think the position is morally required, but I can understand it. Veganism and being against using animal products that do not involve maiming or killing the animal though - for moral reasons... that is just not justifiable on any non-question-begging grounds - in such cases one often encounters excessive anthropomorphizing, fuzzy qualia-arguments and attempts to declare situations as morally equal that require a lot of unjustified assumptions.

This is not a personal attack, Mitchell, and I don't want to start another argument... just thought I'd mention it. No offense intended.