I watched a pharmacist sort through shelves as she spoke on the phone, looking at this and that, walking around the room, asking questions and listening as she suggested, remembered, discovered...
Her thinking was not seperate from this bodily activity; nor from the items on the shelf, or the phone. Thinking is not just something that happens in minds. — Banno
I think it would be better to think something like, that having a hand and believing one has a hand are much the same thing - "inseparable", as you say. After all, to believe on has a hand, one has to understand ownership in some way, and what hands are in some other. — Banno
I think that Moore is separating the fools of the audience. Who - in that situation - would deny that Moore's hand is external to them? — creativesoul
Or I suffer an inner ear infection that makes balance impossible, and so cannot demonstrate my skill; do I still know how to ride? — Banno
...philosophical doubt raises the possibility that we could be wrong. Thus the simulation, BIV, demon arguments. — Marchesk
Such doubt is belief based. All belief consists of meaningful correlations drawn between different things. — creativesoul
what the dream argument shows is that it's possible to have an experience of my hands without them being external. — Marchesk
What reason is there to believe that one can dream of hands prior to thinking about them? — creativesoul
What reason is there to believe that one can dream of hands prior to thinking about them?
— creativesoul
None... — Marchesk
And if thinking of hands is existentially dependent upon and external world? — creativesoul
All you need to demonstrate it is to have you ear infection cured. — Marchesk
That means the belief is separable from the having a hand under special circumstances, and this is due to a brain injury or disorder, which places the belief in the brain. — Marchesk
Name and Sam is not part of the backdrop of non-linguistic reality, but a hand is part of the backdrop. — Sam26
The problem of course, is that natural language is it's own meta-language; it is therefore incapable of expressing a distinction between the publicly linguistic and the privately non-linguistic. This is why, contra-Wittgenstein, I think natural language is inappropriate for discussing philosophy. What you need is a special notation for signifying your pretheoretic and private sense of "hand". — sime
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.