One mind is not a plurality of things. Period.
— creativesoul
This is like saying that one universe is not a plurality of things.
The mind isn't just some single, indivisible thing. My thoughts are distinct from the pain in my throat, from the ringing in my ears, from the microwave sense-data presented to me in the top-right of my vision. — Michael
I would like one example of the attribution of meaning that does not consist of something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations, associations, and/or otherwise 'connecting' the two.
Just one will do. — creativesoul
I'm thinking about branching off of this topic and beginning a new one that focuses upon what all is involved with language acquisition. Care to join me? — creativesoul
However, Witt never seemed to properly account for that which exists in it's entirety prior to our account of it. Philosophy proper hasn't either so. Witt wrote, on more than one occasion, that much of his project involved whether or not there was such a thing as a priori knowledge and if so how we could attain/obtain it(how could we know). That starts off on the wrong foot to begin with, so to speak, by adopting an inherently inadequate framework. — creativesoul
If something exists in it's entirety prior to our conception thereof, then we do not make it a foundation. We discover the foundation that is already there. — creativesoul
There's the word "cat" and there's the cat that I see. I connect the two. There is meaning. But neither is an external world object. — Michael
The cat you see is not something external to you? Really now? — creativesoul
...the existence of meaning isn't evidence of an external world. You need a better argument — Michael
The fact that meaning is existentially dependent upon an external world — creativesoul
The fact that meaning is existentially dependent upon an external world
— creativesoul
You've yet to show that this is the case. — Michael
There is no evidence to the contrary. What more shewing could one ask for? — creativesoul
Putting forth a criterion that has no examples to the contrary... — creativesoul
I offered a (universal)criterion for the attribution of meaning — creativesoul
All thought/belief consists of mental correlation(s) drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or the agent itself(it's own state of 'mind' when applicable). — creativesoul
What you've said is that meaning requires a sign and a thing to be signified and that this can only happen if there is an external world, which is false. — Michael
If there is the word "cat" and if there is the experience of a cat then even if there isn't an external world then there is a sign and a thing to be signified.
Even the external world realist can accept the example of the word "pain" and the experience of pain, or the word "ghost" and the fact that there are no external world ghosts (or ghosts of any kind). Meaning just doesn't require an external world.
Re not all thought being correlations, so for example I can think musically. I'm not correlating anything to anything else when I do that, but I am thinking. Rhythms, melodies or other sets of pitches, including chords, more abstract patterns, etc. might simply be "present-to-mind" for me when I'm thinking musically. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.