Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Since there is no subjective or objective functional distinction between the two, EP must yield to the razor because it postulates a superfluous and wholly unverifiable or unfalsiable claim that adds nothing to our understanding of life and death.
|
EP is a postulate, David. It certainly seems unverifiable as yet, but I'm not sure that is the fatal scientific flaw you suggest. After all, the same "adds nothing to our understanding" objection might have been made in 1865 of Maxwell's electromagnetic wave postulate. |
Wayne's postulate is entirely metaphysical, unlike Maxwell's equations. It can't be tested, verified or refuted in any way. By itself, that is not a fatal objection; lots of philosophical ideas are like that, although this is also one reason many sciency types, like naturalist atheist, object to philosophy.
That said, I'm simply pointing out that if you compare how the world looks to everyone involved under existential passage and standard physicalism, there is simply no difference, nor could there be a difference even in principle. Given that standard physicalism makes one less postulate, it wins the razor contest. |
Davidm's repeated appeal to "standard physicalism" is a fallacious appeal to authority. It's not the facts of physicalism that are at issue, but our understanding of the facts. Interpretation is unavoidable, and davidm is smuggling a metaphysical interpretation under his fallacious appeal. Rip the tarp off and that interpretation is exposed. His interpretation of the fact of subjective/objective transition remains inconsistent, and therefore logically cannot be true.
You'd think he'd do something about that, if he could. Maybe he can't. That would explain why he's talked himself into this inconsistency, eight years on. |
Wayne, you have not explained or identified anything I've said that is inconsistent. Please do so, if you expect a response.
I have not been talking about this subject for eight years, Wayne. Where do you get this stuff? I raised the subject some years ago in a thread at the Galilean Library, a thread that lasted for a week or two, and then discussed it with you at the Dawkins board, and that's it.
What inconsistency, Wayne? Please state it again, in thread, rather than with links.
You still are not answering either Spacemonkey or me. Wayne, what looks different, subjectively or objectively, to either Nicos or Thanos, under your EP, than under SP? Nothing, right? So why do we need to invoke EP when it means aboslutely nothing to the subjective experiences of either Nicos or Thanos? Nicos,
qua Nicos, is well and truly gone forever, right, Wayne? So how could Nicos possibly know or care that he has somehow "passed" to Thanos? He can't, can he? So we are left with good old SP: Nicos died and later someone called Thanos was born, and there is no connection of pattern or substance betweeen them, full stop. Right, Wayne?
What is inconsistent or wrong in what I just said?
I look forward to your reply to Spacemonkey's lastest post.