RE: Pleasure and Joy
September 5, 2013 at 12:10 am
(This post was last modified: September 5, 2013 at 12:13 am by genkaus.)
(September 4, 2013 at 7:57 pm)bennyboy Wrote: And your insistence on conflating mind-existent words with mind-neutral or physical monist words would still be base.
There is no conflation - because there is no dichotomy between mind-existent words and physical monist words to begin with.
(September 4, 2013 at 7:57 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The problem is that your criteria don't actually prove that something is actually experiencing. They just define the behaviors that you want to call experience.
Actually, I've been pretty clear on this and yet, you consistently insist on building the same strawman. My criteria identifies certain behaviors as necessary consequences of experience. I have not ever equated behavior with experience. I do not define behavior as experience. I do not call any behavior experience. Is that clear enough for you? If you don't have a valid objection, move on - stop repeating the same strawman.
(September 4, 2013 at 9:03 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Genkaus wants to take us back to B. F. Skinner. Then again, I'd go back to Aquinas.
Who the fuck is that?
