Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 18:57:36 GMT
Okay, and they obtain via distinct brains, right? One is one set of synapses, neurons, etc. being in some state, and the other is a different set of neurons, synapses etc. being in another state, right? Yeah
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 19:00:37 GMT
Okay, and they obtain via distinct brains, right? One is one set of synapses, neurons, etc. being in some state, and the other is a different set of neurons, synapses etc. being in another state, right? Yeah Well, and so the one mental phenomenon (of belief) (which in a nutshell is a brain being in a particular state) is not identical to the other. Hence they're not the same.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 19:03:40 GMT
Thinking of one thing as being the same as another is a rough mental abstraction that evolved for its survival benefits. It's a lot easier, more efficient, less critical-time-consuming, etc. to abstract types than to deal with everything as a unique particular.
Of course one of the big downsides to it is that it easily leads to things like racism.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 19:03:51 GMT
Well, and so the one mental phenomenon (of belief) (which in a nutshell is a brain being in a particular state) is not identical to the other. Hence they're not the same. Well overall they're distinct.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 19:06:18 GMT
Well, and so the one mental phenomenon (of belief) (which in a nutshell is a brain being in a particular state) is not identical to the other. Hence they're not the same. Well overall they're distinct. There's no way that numerically discernible things aren't distinct. This is the nonidentity of discernibles.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 19:13:32 GMT
Well overall they're distinct. There's no way that numerically discernible things aren't distinct. This is the nonidentity of discernibles. I never said they were numerically discernible from eachother.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 7, 2018 19:44:08 GMT
I have a huge problem with it. Sexual relations between adults & children can be psychologically damaging for the latter. Relationships, and not just sexual relationships, can be psychologically damaging to some or all of the people in a relationship period.YES.... And adults have a full understanding of the risks involved.... Children don't. It is impossible for you to be this fucking stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 19:45:39 GMT
There's no way that numerically discernible things aren't distinct. This is the nonidentity of discernibles. I never said they were numerically discernible from eachother. If we're talking about two different people having a belief they are numerically discernible, though. We'd also have something numerically discernible if we were talking about the same person's belief at two different times (or the "same person" at two different times for that matter--that's just a manner of speaking; it's not literally the same person at two different times).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 19:47:07 GMT
Relationships, and not just sexual relationships, can be psychologically damaging to some or all of the people in a relationship period. YES.... And adults have a full understanding of the risks involved.... Children don't. It is impossible for you to be this fucking stupid. Is an adult's "full understanding" utterable?
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 19:56:13 GMT
I never said they were numerically discernible from eachother. If we're talking about two different people having a belief they are numerically discernible, though. We'd also have something numerically discernible if we were talking about the same person's belief at two different times (or the "same person" at two different times for that matter--that's just a manner of speaking; it's not literally the same person at two different times). Yes but you see I am not a mathematical platonist
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 19:57:43 GMT
If we're talking about two different people having a belief they are numerically discernible, though. We'd also have something numerically discernible if we were talking about the same person's belief at two different times (or the "same person" at two different times for that matter--that's just a manner of speaking; it's not literally the same person at two different times). Yes but you see I am not a mathematical platonist What I'm talking about (nominalism) is just the opposite of platonism.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 19:59:53 GMT
Yes but you see I am not a mathematical platonist What I'm talking about (nominalism) is just the opposite of platonism. Then why are you talking about numbers as if they are real?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 20:06:41 GMT
What I'm talking about (nominalism) is just the opposite of platonism. Then why are you talking about numbers as if they are real? "Numerically discernible" is simply a way of saying "two or more things" in the sense of being able to pick out (for example, point at) "this thing" and "that thing." Per mathematical conventions, a la Dr. Seuss , we can name them "Thing 1" and "Thing 2." That's all it refers to.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 20:16:33 GMT
Then why are you talking about numbers as if they are real? "Numerically discernible" is simply a way of saying "two or more things" in the sense of being able to pick out (for example, point at) "this thing" and "that thing." Per mathematical conventions, a la Dr. Seuss , we can name them "Thing 1" and "Thing 2." That's all it refers to. All right so why would that matter? Position in the universe isn't really a property oF the thing itself.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 20:23:25 GMT
"Numerically discernible" is simply a way of saying "two or more things" in the sense of being able to pick out (for example, point at) "this thing" and "that thing." Per mathematical conventions, a la Dr. Seuss , we can name them "Thing 1" and "Thing 2." That's all it refers to. All right so why would that matter? Position in the universe isn't really a property oF the thing itself. It matters because discernibles are not identical. In other words, two discernibles are not the same thing.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 20:35:57 GMT
All right so why would that matter? Position in the universe isn't really a property oF the thing itself. It matters because discernibles are not identical. In other words, two discernibles are not the same thing. They're not discernable if you try to discern them based on properties they actually have .
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 20:37:22 GMT
It matters because discernibles are not identical. In other words, two discernibles are not the same thing. They're not discernable if you try to discern them based on properties they actually have . Do you believe that properties obtain as nonphysical abstracts or something?
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 7, 2018 20:41:40 GMT
Papus and Damocles sword.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 7, 2018 20:42:22 GMT
They're not discernable if you try to discern them based on properties they actually have . Do you believe that properties obtain as nonphysical abstracts or something? I'm not a physicalist.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 7, 2018 20:46:18 GMT
Papus and Damocles sword.
|
|