This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Please understand that words refer to concepts, in this case the specific metaphysical position that you claim to adhere to, which is incompatible with materialism.
Now, since you seem to claim to be an instrumental materialist only, which I provided for in my statement, you can't, in good faith, refute anti-materialism from a materialist standpoint. Since you have renounced your claim to the truth and no set of axiom is privileged.
You can do it from within its own framework, or you can simply conjecture. But that doesn't seem to be what you're doing here.
The same as materialists. Philosophy.
We have established that disagreeing with someone's axioms doesn't entitle you to any sort of metaphysical high ground, have we not?
You can't assume that cognition can be reduced to computation, this has to be argued. I mean you can assume it if you want, but then it is a tautology.
The fact that Searles did not make this assumption as part of his statement of the thought experiment. If by validity you mean relevance. I don't see the point in discussing the tautological version of the thought experiment. And neither do you since the initial impulse of this conversation is that it would be obviously useless.
Given I've not actually provided my view on this topic here, I don't see how I could be engaging in this, if that's what you're trying to imply.
There can be more, and you're acting with a certainty that does not recognize this, which I find unbecoming.
More options
Context Copy link