geye1234

10 ms·

91.
by geye1234 1y ago
>> Death isn’t a state of being. It is the absence of being. When something dies, it ceases to be > Huh? What about things that were never alive? They never existed No, he means that when something dies, it ceases to be what it was
92.
by geye1234 1y ago
If you mean "sometimes a particular animal can be on the cusp between life and death and it's therefore hard to tell which term applies", you may have a point, although for most animals (including people) observation tells us
93.
by geye1234 2y ago
> Does it matter? Even if I plainly see it produce a chocolate bunny, for what reason would I need to make up my mind on that? I fail to see the utility. "I don't know" remains a sufficient state going forward. That'
94.
by geye1234 2y ago
I mean, it's hard to know where to start. The sibling poster gave a practical example about leaving your house. Another might be: "what happens when I burn hydrogen in oxygen? Will it produce water, ammonia or a chocolate bunny?&q
95.
by geye1234 2y ago
> For everything else, straight up: I don't know. Montaigne said something similar, and Descartes' response was to attempt to make everything as certain as math. It didn't end well :-) Surely there is some middle ground? (
96.
by geye1234 2y ago
It takes time to have a serious debate. You both need to figure out what your unstated premises are. If you disagree on these, you won't get anywhere by arguing downstream of them. Politics is even worse, because you are supposed to
97.
by geye1234 2y ago
It is, actually, necessary that God can't change. It is not _solely_ an article of Faith, but it's additionally something that someone without the light of Faith can know, although some pretty abstract thinking is required. Most p
98.
by geye1234 2y ago
Yes, that was a bad way of putting things on my part. You are correct. Better would be "the basis of the Catholic Church's teaching, and the primary part of its teaching, is revelation". To return to the main disagreement: &g
99.
by geye1234 2y ago
Thanks. I've heard good things about Taylor and I will try to check it out one of these days.
100.
by geye1234 2y ago
I said >> The objection to your point is that the teachings of Christianity are timeless if true. To which you said > "The teachings of Christianity" are, in fact, not consistent across time or across subsets of Christian
101.
by geye1234 2y ago
Catholicism teaches that Divine Revelation is God's Self-Revelation and therefore can't change because God can't change. Again, if it changes, then it isn't true. I'm not (here) arguing that it's true; only tha
102.
by geye1234 2y ago
That's fair. Let's replace 'Christianity' with 'the Catholic Church', since what you say undoubtedly applies to Protestantism, and in a less obvious way to Eastern Orthodoxy. And remember, I'm saying &#x27
103.
by geye1234 2y ago
I'm responding a bit late to this. The objection to your point is that the teachings of Christianity are timeless if true. And therefore so is (the object of) Christians' belief. And so therefore, a 'modern Christianity&#x27
104.
by geye1234 2y ago
Thanks for the response. I don't know if I'll have time to respond, I may, but in any case it's always good to write one's thoughts down.
105.
by geye1234 2y ago
Sure, pay more for shoes, and have a chance at going back to a world where small towns are prosperous and thriving, people can buy homes in their 20s, quality isn't constantly declining, people aren't constantly stressed over losi
106.
by geye1234 2y ago
This doesn't directly answer the question, but global free trade has been a calamity for the middle- and working-class. It needs to be razed to the ground, and salt sowed in the fields, etc. This is one way of ending it. Consider the c
107.
by geye1234 2y ago
Here's Wilson's White Heat speech: https://web.archive.org/web/20131006142325/http://nottspolit... I agree it's concerning that major speeches like this are so hard to find.
108.
by geye1234 2y ago
>> If a tiger is distinct from a brain state, which I think we agree on, and if our thoughts are about real things such as tigers, which I assume we agree on, then how can there not be more to thought than the associated brain state?
109.
by geye1234 2y ago
Earlier upthread, I said >> the thought "tiger" [is] not the same thing as the brain state that makes [it] up. To which you said > Asserted without evidence. This was in the context of my saying >> There is undoubte
110.
by geye1234 2y ago
> Yeah I feel like I'm supposed to be able to instantly see the problem on a little introspection yet that never happens. Constantly wondering why I feel like this doesn't seem to help much. Generally it doesn't. Anxiety d
111.
by geye1234 2y ago
I suppose I would say that you should be aware of what triggers your anxiety, for sure, for the reasons you state. But once you're aware, limit the amount of further analysis you do. I think the law of diminishing returns will kick in
112.
by geye1234 2y ago
If you say so :-D
113.
by geye1234 2y ago
The ACT approach worked for me. It's compatible with CBT, but with a different emphasis. The following names may help: Claire Weekes, who somebody else in this thread recommended. She's the pioneer of the approach. She wrote mainl
114.
by geye1234 2y ago
Given that a tiger is different from a brain state: If I am thinking about a tiger, then what I am thinking about is not my brain state. So that which I am thinking about is different from (as in, cannot be identified with) my brain state.
115.
by geye1234 2y ago
I've never spoken to a self-declared solipsist before, though of course we all act like solipsists to a degree :-). Anyway, I will assume that solipsism is false for the rest of this post, that's another question. It's amazin
116.
by geye1234 2y ago
> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck? ISTM that the answer is "in a way yes, in a way no". Yes, in that we reasonably conclude something is a duck if it seems like a duck. No, in that seeming like a
117.
by geye1234 2y ago
No. One is paint on canvas, and the other is part of a causal chain that makes LEDs light up in a certain way. Neither the painting nor the computer have thoughts about a tiger in the way we do. It is the human mind that makes the link betw
118.
by geye1234 2y ago
> Just because you are not thinking about a brain state when you think about a tiger does not mean that your thought is not a brain state. > It doesn't logically follow that the mental event of thinking about X isn't identic
119.
by geye1234 2y ago
Is it your contention that a tiger may be the same thing as a brain state? It would seem to me that any coherent philosophy of mind must accept their being different as a datum; or conversely, any that implied their not being different woul
120.
by geye1234 2y ago
It's not difficult. When you think about a tiger, you are not thinking about the brain state associated with said thought. A tiger is different from a brain state. We can safely generalize, and say the content of a thought is different

More ›