@KarmaKaiser @GabrielDuquette “We cannot evaluate claims we have no way of evaluating” does not seem problematic.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@GabrielDuquette But that is trivial and doesn't include metaphysical demonstration as a type of "evaluation"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GKBesterfriend
@KarmaKaiser@GabrielDuquette What is metaphysical demonstration?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@GabrielDuquette A demonstration that some concept or idea is a necessary pre req to understanding as such is a good first pass1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GKBesterfriend
@KarmaKaiser@GabrielDuquette I guess I’ve been unimpressed by those (if I understand the class you refer to).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@GabrielDuquette "It is possible for an AI to be concious" or "It is impossible for an AI to be concious" are both metaphysical1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GKBesterfriend
@KarmaKaiser@GabrielDuquette I have no idea how you’d evaluate those. All I can do is suspend the question.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@GabrielDuquette If that's the case, I can really only find a Deweyian, Rortyian pragmatism defensible. Hence my implicating...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GKBesterfriend
@KarmaKaiser@GabrielDuquette Yes, I’m sympathetic to that tradition, although not necessarily fully on board.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@GabrielDuquette I do find metaphysical naturalism just confusing to uphold given pramatism though. It just does not make sense1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@KarmaKaiser @GabrielDuquette I think I follow you there… in any case, I’m a methodological naturalist, not a metaphysical naturalist.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.