Which is where Banno and Sam go astray in trying to treat the truth-makers as some uninterpreted ground of experience. It could also be where Creative goes wrong, but after many years, I still have no clue what thesis he is trying to promote. He can't seem to answer a single straight question about it. — apokrisis
These haven't been properly taken account of. — creativesoul
You're taking this too far into neuroscience — Sam26
All that's needed, is to understand that there is brain activity that precedes or coincides with our actions, and that some actions are expressions of beliefs, quite apart from statements or propositions. — Sam26
The value of what I think, for me, consists primarily in how it influences what I do. — Janus
I can see that it makes no sense to think of the scheme on one side and the world on the other. This would create an unbridgeable gulf. On the other hand we cannot sensibly say that the scheme just is the world, surely...? — Janus
It's my contention that brain states "are synchronized neuronal activity in a specific frequency," — Sam26
I explained over and over what I mean by brain states, — Sam26
All that's needed, is to understand that there is brain activity that precedes or coincides with our actions, and that some actions are expressions of beliefs, quite apart from statements or propositions. — Sam26
and now when asked to explain yourself you take the role of a fanatic. — Banno
Yet you also understand Wittgenstein but apparently leave room for private mental furnishings. — Banno
But it does mean that When we talk about Uluru, we are talking about that very thing, and not about some concept-of-Uluru that is distinct from the rock.
This view will be mischaracterised as a defunct version of realism. It will be asserted that I am somehow talking about a mystical Uluru-in-itself. That critique fails to recognise that the the thing-in-itself can only persist as a reasonable idea if one maintains the distinction between thing and scheme. — Banno
Indeed I don’t think we differ by much from apokrisis’a actual position, were he able to present it rather than simply atack his own straw construct. — Banno
But it does mean that When we talk about Uluru, we are talking about that very thing, and not about some concept-of-Uluru that is distinct from the rock.
...
That leaves private concepts and notions and languages and so on. Which is an odd but interesting way for us to differ.
Because I reject the very notion of such things, and suppose myself to be following Wittgenstein in so doing. Yet you also understand Wittgenstein but apparently leave room for private mental furnishings.
How can this be? — Banno
How do you define private mental furnishings? — schopenhauer1
I don't.
Qualia are a nice example, though. If a qual is a private thing then following the private language argument there is no point in talking about them. But if they are a shared part of our world and language, they are nothing different to ordinary things like the smell of coffee or the colour red.
Either way, nothing is gained by their inclusion. — Banno
if they are a shared part of our world and language — Banno
What your opinion of the height of Everest is, perhaps? — Banno
Take the height of Mt Everest. As a mountain climber, it doesn't really matter if it is X metres high, give or take another minute or two of climbing. At some level of truth-telling, our interest fuzzes out. The pull of the moon might have some measurable effect on Mt Everest so its "true height" changes by nanometres constantly all day. But this becomes noise - unless we establish some purpose that makes a more exact measurement seem reasonable.
So what this summary misses is that our talk about Uluru is also talk that defines "the person speaking". — apokrisis
The self doing the speaking has to be included as part of what the act of speaking must produce. — apokrisis
I'll pick up on this, on the suspicion that the way we answer this question might be revealing.If I pick up a stone while climbing Uluru, is that part of Uluru or not? — apokrisis
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.