3 ms·

Yes, you will have to draw that line and some other distinctions, and that is exactly his point. Determining what is a good, useful definition that all rational

by memla 14y ago

Yes, you will have to draw that line and some other distinctions, and that is exactly his point. Determining what is a good, useful definition that all rational participants can agree to, and clearing all other conceptual baggage before the discussion can even get off the ground is (just a small) task of philosophy. It does not belong to (neuro)science, and therefore if that task needs to be performed, as you admit, it follows that (neuro)science is not sufficient to determine the "nature of the person", contrary to what you originally claimed.

thirdtruck 14y ago
Determining what is a good, useful definition that all rational participants can agree to, and clearing all other conceptual baggage before the discussion can even get off the ground... That's a lot of new qualifiers; in other words, a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It sounds like you're talking about the equivalent of a "Python language development mailing list", whereas I'm saying "it's all just assembly anyway". Technically, such a higher-level discussion as found in the former can be useful, but I don't expect anyone on there to claim that there's some essential "Python nature" separate from the ones and zeroes (and the electrical configurations of the developer brains, other physical components, etc.). Someone can talk about what Python "should" do all day long, and try to determine the "nature of Python", but I really only care about the programmers when it comes to writing or debugging my actual code, especially when the code behind the mailing list breaks.
- memla 14y ago
  Once again you're missing the point. Nobody here agreed or disagreed with you about the nature of persons. What everyone is claiming is that you're simply espousing a position withing philosophy, which may or may not be true, and requires a philosophical argument, and you're pretending that the case has been closed by neuroscience. Hell, even the "No True Scotsman" is a fallacy identified by a philosopher in a domain of informal logic, which is a branch of philosophy. So you don't care what python should or should not do, but you think that python should not break your mailing list?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by memla 14y ago

thirdtruck 14y ago

Determining what is a good, useful definition that all rational participants can agree to, and clearing all other conceptual baggage before the discussion can even get off the ground... That's a lot of new qualifiers; in other words, a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It sounds like you're talking about the equivalent of a "Python language development mailing list", whereas I'm saying "it's all just assembly anyway". Technically, such a higher-level discussion as found in the former can be useful, but I don't expect anyone on there to claim that there's some essential "Python nature" separate from the ones and zeroes (and the electrical configurations of the developer brains, other physical components, etc.). Someone can talk about what Python "should" do all day long, and try to determine the "nature of Python", but I really only care about the programmers when it comes to writing or debugging my actual code, especially when the code behind the mailing list breaks.

memla 14y ago
Once again you're missing the point. Nobody here agreed or disagreed with you about the nature of persons. What everyone is claiming is that you're simply espousing a position withing philosophy, which may or may not be true, and requires a philosophical argument, and you're pretending that the case has been closed by neuroscience. Hell, even the "No True Scotsman" is a fallacy identified by a philosopher in a domain of informal logic, which is a branch of philosophy. So you don't care what python should or should not do, but you think that python should not break your mailing list?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]