Take a hypothetical world where the word “sport” is used to refer only to football, soccer, and basketball, and no other sports exist. Also assume that any new “sport” will automatically be dismissed as not one because it is none of these, including any deviation from the standard rules of the three sports.
Your idea of sport implies that concepts can be non-sports. Red is a concept that’s neither a sport nor a non-sport.
Red can’t be a non-sport because it’s no activity. If you don’t give me enough knowledge to separate non-sport from concepts like red than your sport concept is useless. If you do give me that knowledge than your sport concept is well defined.
If you talk about free will on the other hand it’s more difficult what you mean with non-free will. Here I think you actually define the concept of free will as something that happens in absence of causality.
A non-sport would simply be anything that is not a sport. I don’t see why saying that anything that isn’t football, soccer, or basketball is not a sport automatically creates a new category of non-sports other than not being a sport.
On free will, it could actually be a relatively coherent concept close to free will as we understand it (if, as with any creation of a coherent definition where there was none before, very minor alteration of the concept). A conscious being which is simultaneously an acausal force which does things for no reason whatsoever. You could even add that said being chooses for no reason whatsoever and yet has limited options to choose between.
It may not actually exist, but there is nothing logically impossible about it.
A non-sport would simply be anything that is not a sport. I don’t see why saying that anything that isn’t football, soccer, or basketball is not a sport automatically creates a new category of non-sports other than not being a sport.
Normally that’s included in the idea of sport. Walking might not be a sport but it’s different than red in relation to being a sport.
Useful concepts have that property.
It may not actually exist, but there is nothing logically impossible about it.
How do you know that “conscious” and “acausal” are concepts that are logically coherent?
Why need this one? I’m merely saying it’s coherent, not that it’s true or useful. Ideas of non-sports are a prime source of ambiguity anyway.
“Conscious” is something which exists in the actual world. I don’t quite understand how it works, but I can rip off that.
Claiming “acasual” to be incoherent assumes casuality in the universe. Casuality may exist in the actual universe, but there is no logical necessity that it must.
To be clear, “conscious” is a label which we slap on certain types of behaviour for certain types of very large, complex machine. Similar thing with “red”—both “consciousness” and “red” are labels we slap on certain features of the universe. Neither of those things are fundamental to the universe.
Yes, but the behaviours described as “conscious” do exist in the actual territory. Same with red. A conception of what it means to be “conscious” has been constructed, which as I said I can rip off for my purposes. My definition of free will is still coherent.
Your idea of sport implies that concepts can be non-sports. Red is a concept that’s neither a sport nor a non-sport. Red can’t be a non-sport because it’s no activity. If you don’t give me enough knowledge to separate non-sport from concepts like red than your sport concept is useless. If you do give me that knowledge than your sport concept is well defined.
If you talk about free will on the other hand it’s more difficult what you mean with non-free will. Here I think you actually define the concept of free will as something that happens in absence of causality.
A non-sport would simply be anything that is not a sport. I don’t see why saying that anything that isn’t football, soccer, or basketball is not a sport automatically creates a new category of non-sports other than not being a sport.
On free will, it could actually be a relatively coherent concept close to free will as we understand it (if, as with any creation of a coherent definition where there was none before, very minor alteration of the concept). A conscious being which is simultaneously an acausal force which does things for no reason whatsoever. You could even add that said being chooses for no reason whatsoever and yet has limited options to choose between.
It may not actually exist, but there is nothing logically impossible about it.
Normally that’s included in the idea of sport. Walking might not be a sport but it’s different than red in relation to being a sport. Useful concepts have that property.
How do you know that “conscious” and “acausal” are concepts that are logically coherent?
Why need this one? I’m merely saying it’s coherent, not that it’s true or useful. Ideas of non-sports are a prime source of ambiguity anyway.
“Conscious” is something which exists in the actual world. I don’t quite understand how it works, but I can rip off that.
Claiming “acasual” to be incoherent assumes casuality in the universe. Casuality may exist in the actual universe, but there is no logical necessity that it must.
To be clear, “conscious” is a label which we slap on certain types of behaviour for certain types of very large, complex machine. Similar thing with “red”—both “consciousness” and “red” are labels we slap on certain features of the universe. Neither of those things are fundamental to the universe.
Are you confusing map and territory?
Yes, but the behaviours described as “conscious” do exist in the actual territory. Same with red. A conception of what it means to be “conscious” has been constructed, which as I said I can rip off for my purposes. My definition of free will is still coherent.