.”The physical world is more "natural" than...what? Human-constructed architecture and pavement?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
The natural world excludes spiritual reality
., which, while real, is not measurable.
.I also object to naturalists' use of "supernatural" as a term of derision.
.”You mentioned the objective side, but it's there only by inference from our subjective experience.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I disagree. We experience the objects of the lived world. We do not infer them.
.Locke was wrong is saying we only know our own ideas. Rather ideas are acts by which we may know objects.
.(My idea <apple> is just me thinking of apples.) When I an aware of an apple, I do not first know I have the concept <apple>, and then infer that there is an apple causing that idea.
.
Rather I know the physical apple and then, in a second movement of thought, infer that my means of knowing the apple is the idea <apple>.
.This is typical of the confusion between formal and instrument signs that permeates modern philosophy. Ideas are formal signs -- their only reality, the only thing they do, is signify. Text, smoke and road signs are instrumental signs.
.They have a primary reality of their own
.”there are physicists who are taking physicalism down by saying that the notion of an objective physical world has gone the way of phlogiston.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
And, as I have pointed out, they are confusing objective measurability with having a determinate value.
.”Of course that statement quoted from Kim is true. It's true, and it doesn't contradict Subjective Idealism or Theism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No, it is false. I did not say that previously, but it is false. If I ask why the end caught the pass and follow the sequence of events back in time, I come to the quarterback's decision to throw the pass to that end rather than another receiver. That decision is an intentional, not a physical act.
.Subjective Idealism and Theism are logical distinct positions.
.I am a philosophical theist. I am no sort of idealist.
.”In fact, I take it a bit farther, and point say it about metaphysics as well as physical events and causes. Substiture "describable metaphysics" for "physical states", "physical events" and "physical causes".” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I'm unsure what you are saying here. To me, metaphysics is the science of being as being, and so deals with all reality.
.Obviously, any causal relations are contained within reality.
I translate that as “physical beings”.”We're physical. We're physical animals in a physical world. In other words, our hypothetical life-experience-story is the story of the experience of a physical animal in a physical world.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I agree that we are natural beings…
.…, but I think it is important to distinguish physical and intentional operations (aka "spiritual" operations).
.As Brentano pointed out, intentional operations have an intrinsic "aboutness" that is not required to specify physical operations (even though physical operations are ordered to ends).
I don’t have an argument with your statement that spiritual reality is unnatural, because I don’t know what you mean by spiritual reality. — Michael Ossipoff
, which, while real, is not measurable.
.
So then, is it that anything that isn’t measureable (physical)? is unnatural? So you’d say that God (hypothetically, if you don’t believe there’s God) isn’t natural? …and that abstract-implications, even they’re the structural basis of the describable world, are unnatural? — Michael Ossipoff
Yes there’s outward sign to justify Theism, but there are also discussions that more directly justify faith, aside from outward sign. I define faith as “trust without or aside from outward sign”. There are discussions that justify faith. — Michael Ossipoff
But, if you’re not a Materialist (“Naturalist”), then I’d suggest ditching Materialist language like “nature” and “the natural world”. — Michael Ossipoff
You experience them, and then you infer objective existence for them. — Michael Ossipoff
But don’t you see that that claim about an objectively-existent physical world is what you’re arguing for? You can’t use it as an argument for itself. — Michael Ossipoff
Apples are among the things and events that are in your self-consistent hypothetical life-experience-story. — Michael Ossipoff
If there hadn’t been apples, it would have been something else edible, because we animals couldn’t live without edible things — Michael Ossipoff
No doubt infinitely-many terminologies are possible. I don’t disagree with them, but I don’t use all of them. — Michael Ossipoff
quantum-physics in particular, is their specialty, their field. …not yours — Michael Ossipoff
In what context, other than its own, do you want or believe this physical universe to be “existent” or “real”? — Michael Ossipoff
It doesn’t contravene physical law. The quarterback is a physical, biologically-orignated, purposefully-responsive device. — Michael Ossipoff
In this physical world, there’s no contravention of physical law. — Michael Ossipoff
No one’s denying that Idealism and Theism don’t mean the same thing, or that they’re positions distinct from eachother. But they aren’t incompatible with eachother. — Michael Ossipoff
I am a philosophical theist. I am no sort of idealist.
Then, you must be a Materialist or a Dualist. I don’t think you can be a Theist and a Materialist, so doesn’t that make you a Dualist? — Michael Ossipoff
Describable metaphysics only discusses the describable. I don’t claim that all of Reality is describable. — Michael Ossipoff
I agree that we are natural beings…
I translate that as “physical beings”. — Michael Ossipoff
Standard quantum mechanics says that while observations may be random, systems that are unobserved develop in an entirely deterministic way. — Dfpolis
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story. — Michael Ossipoff
Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication — Michael Ossipoff
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms. — Michael Ossipoff
Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”. — Michael Ossipoff
We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar adequately describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar. — Michael Ossipoff
I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it. — Michael Ossipoff
Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are. — Michael Ossipoff
what do you mean by “”objectively existent”, “objectively real”, “actual”, “substantial”, or “substantive”? — Michael Ossipoff
2. In what context, other than its own, or the context of our lives, do you want or believe this physical universe to be real &/or existent? — Michael Ossipoff
"A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms." — Michael Ossipoff
What if the axioms are false? How would we know they are true or false? — Dfpolis
" Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”". — Michael Ossipoff
Why should I waste my time on worlds that do not exist?
When I say that our experience-stories consist of complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with one of the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions... — Michael Ossipoff
Why should I waste my time on worlds that do not exist?
You mean other than because you live in one? — Michael Ossipoff
.”So then, is it that anything that isn’t measureable (physical)? is unnatural? So you’d say that God (hypothetically, if you don’t believe there’s God) isn’t natural? …and that abstract-implications, even they’re the structural basis of the describable world, are unnatural?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
All I am saying is that many things can be real (and natural) without being measurable. Qualia, intentions and the laws of nature are a few examples God is a special case. God is inseparable from nature, but not part of nature because nature is ontologically finite, and God is not. So, God is operative in nature, and natural in that sense, but not natural in the sense of being part of nature.
.Abstractions are human thoughts and so quite natural, though immaterial.
.
Please note that I am not a materialist. I think that there are intrinsically immaterial realities, such as God, with no dependence on material reality.
.”Yes there’s outward sign to justify Theism, but there are also discussions that more directly justify faith, aside from outward sign. I define faith as “trust without or aside from outward sign”. There are discussions that justify faith.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
At the same time, I think faith is real, have reflected a great deal about, it, grace, inspiration and related topics. While I would be glad to share my thoughts on these matters, I consider these reflections part of Sacred (as opposed to Natural) Theology and not part of philosophy. So, yes, I think that we can be aware of the presence of God within, but I don't think that is grist for the philosophical mill.
.”But, if you’re not a Materialist (“Naturalist”), then I’d suggest ditching Materialist language like “nature” and “the natural world”.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I see no reason to forget about nature and the natural world.
.[/i]”You experience them, and then you infer objective existence for them.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
No. That is not it as all. Think about how inference works. It does not create new information. It makes new connections between old information. So, If the object's existence was not already immanent in my experience, no amount of inference could inform me it exists.
.The very fact that the object is acting to inform me shows that it exists.
.How it informs me is a partial revelation of what it is -- a thing that can inform me in this way.
.
Experiencing is entering into a subject-object relation. Without an object, such a relation is impossible. I, as subject, bring awareness to the table. The object brings an intelligibility that will become the contents of my consciousness when I am aware of it. My being informed by the object is identically the object informing me. This Identity prevents any separation of subject and object. So there is no need to bridge a gap by some inference.
.”Apples are among the things and events that are in your self-consistent hypothetical life-experience-story.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
There is no hypothesis. Hypotheses bridge ignorance.
.…have no need for such a bridge when apples act to inform me whenever I encounter them.
.”If there hadn’t been apples, it would have been something else edible, because we animals couldn’t live without edible things” — Michael Ossipoff
.
This argument is inconsistent with your worldview. How can you know that we are animals in need of food except by experience?
.It is perfectly self-consistent to be a being without need of food.
”No doubt infinitely-many terminologies are possible. I don’t disagree with them, but I don’t use all of them.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
.My point is not terminological, but epistemological. Saying that we only know our ideas is simply wrong
.-- and wrong precisely because it confuses signs that must be known in themselves before they can signify with ideas that have no reality beyond signifying.
.In what context, other than its own, do you want or believe this physical universe to be “existent” or “real”? — Michael Ossipoff
.
I know it is objective in all contexts.
.”It doesn’t contravene physical law. The quarterback is a physical, biologically-orignated, purposefully-responsive device.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
There is no reason to think the quarterback's choice does not modify the laws of nature [physics?] and many reasons to think it does.
You’re welcome.”In this physical world, there’s no contravention of physical law.” — Michael Ossipoff
Thank you for sharing your faith in physics.
.Do you have an argument to back it up?
.”When I say that our experience-stories consist of complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with one of the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions... “— Michael Ossipoff
.
This is not a complete sentence.
.I will note for the present that Godel has shown that claims of consistency for arithmetic. and systems that can be arithmetically represented, cannot be proven.
.So, your philosophy has a very shaky foundation if it is based on the assumption of self-consistency.
.By way of contrast, the consistency of realism is based on the fact that one cannot instantiate a contradiction.
.So, as long as we abstract our principles from reality, they are guaranteed to be self-consistent.
..
”Why should I waste my time on worlds that do not exist?”
.
”You mean other than because you live in one?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I live in a world that is actual
., not hypothetical.
.I know it is actual because it acts to inform me.
I don’t know what it means to say that God isn’t natural — Michael Ossipoff
But of course it’s just that we don’t mean the same thing by “natural”. I don’t know what you mean by it. — Michael Ossipoff
Right, your inference is about the nature of what you experience. …an inference that this physical world that you experience has objective existence (whatever that would mean).. — Michael Ossipoff
It’s just that the physical world, including us animals, is basically as it was taught to us. — Michael Ossipoff
But, along with the Materialists, you want to make a metaphysics of that. You want to make this physical universe a metaphysical brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff
I recognize that intuition rebels against a suggestion that all that’s describable is just hypothetical. But there’s no physics-experiment that can establish otherwise — Michael Ossipoff
It’s my impression, largely from metaphysics, that Reality, what-is, is good. …and that there’s good intent behind what-is. …and that Reality is benevolence itself. — Michael Ossipoff
”If there hadn’t been apples, it would have been something else edible, because we animals couldn’t live without edible things” — Michael Ossipoff
.
This argument is inconsistent with your worldview. How can you know that we are animals in need of food except by experience?
You aren’t an anti-evolutionist, are you? — Michael Ossipoff
How would such an animal grow and reproduce without taking-in material? — Michael Ossipoff
You’re making inferences, assumptions, about the nature of your surroundings — Michael Ossipoff
I don’t know the meaning of that terminology. I haven’t read the author that you’ve referred to. — Michael Ossipoff
In what context, other than its own, do you want or believe this physical universe to be “existent” or “real”? — Michael Ossipoff
.
I know it is objective in all contexts.
.…such as…? — Michael Ossipoff
There is no reason to think the quarterback's choice does not modify the laws of nature [physics?] and many reasons to think it does.
.
Name one. — Michael Ossipoff
Each of us influences this physical world. …but not by changing its physical laws. — Michael Ossipoff
I don’t know what there is to “back up” about physics, other than that it’s been useful in describing the relations among the things and events of the physical world. — Michael Ossipoff
there's no reason to believe that any of the antecedents of any particular ones of those implications are true. — Michael Ossipoff
I will note for the present that Godel has shown that claims of consistency for arithmetic. and systems that can be arithmetically represented, cannot be proven.
Godel showed that, in any logical system complex enough to have arithmetic, there are true propositions that can’t be proven. — Michael Ossipoff
Your life-experience story is self-consistent because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts, or propositions that are both true and false — Michael Ossipoff
I didn’t say that Realism is inconsistent. But your experience is subjective, ... — Michael Ossipoff
But I think we agree that your experience can’t be inconsistent. — Michael Ossipoff
I live in a world that is actual
Of course, if we use the following useful definition of “actual”:
.
“Consisting of, or part of, the physical world in which the speaker resides.” — Michael Ossipoff
That’s why, in 1840, physicist Michael Faraday pointed out that there’s no reason to believe that this physical world consists of other than a system of mathematical and logical structural-relation. …with the Materialists’ objectively-existent “stuff “ being no more real or necessary than phlogiston. — Michael Ossipoff
I know it is actual because it acts to inform me.
Of course…in your experience-story. — Michael Ossipoff
.“There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
I think this requires argument.
.You need to say why some propositions only are hypothetical
., and what it is to be true.
.
If you refuse to specify what you mean by truth…
., then how can anyone know if they agree or disagree with you?
.Also, why do you refrain from saying what experience exists?
.What do you mean by "existing"?
.”Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication” — Michael Ossipoff
.
More fundamentally, it corresponds to a possible human experience.
.I only "encounter" the roundabout because I experience it. This makes experience fundamental.
.A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms. — Michael Ossipoff
.
What if the axioms are false? How would we know they are true or false?
.”Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”. “ — Michael Ossipoff
.
Why should I waste my time on worlds that do not exist?
.”We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar adequately describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
We use such grammar because it expresses what we actually think. Your conjecture that life is hypothetical is not what most people actually think.
Well, as I’ve said, if I say that there’s no reason to believe something, and someone else says there is, then the burden is on him, to produce a reason to believe it.So, the burden is on you to convince us that what we think is wrong.
.”I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
How would you describe consciousness? (I do not mean the contents of consciousness, but that which makes us aware of those contents.)
.”Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are.’ — Michael Ossipoff
.
I think it would be consistent, but false, to say I had no parents. It is only because we know what is true from experience that we know (not hypothesize) that we have parents.
.I am happy to answer your questions.
.
”what do you mean by “”objectively existent”, “objectively real”, “actual”, “substantial”, or “substantive”?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
By existent, I mean able to act in any way.
.Objects (potentially or actually) are one pole of the subject- object relation we call knowing. To be an object is to be able to inform a subject -- in other words, to be intelligible. To be a subject is to be able to be aware of intelligibility.
.Actual means operative -- able to act at the present time.
.It is opposed to potential, which means immanent, but not yet operative. It is also opposed to fictional, which means that the corresponding idea has a sense or meaning, but no operative referent.
.”2. In what context, other than its own, or the context of our lives, do you want or believe this physical universe to be real &/or existent?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It is not a matter of my wanting or believing that the physical universe is operative. I am directly aware that it operates on me to inform me that it is and what it is -- whether I want it to or not, and whether I choose to believe it or not.
.So, its reality is not context dependent.
"That’s why, in 1840, physicist Michael Faraday pointed out that there’s no reason to believe that this physical world consists of other than a system of mathematical and logical structural-relation. …with the Materialists’ objectively-existent “stuff “ being no more real or necessary than phlogiston." — Michael Ossipoff
Faraday was a great physicist, but that did not qualify him as a philosopher. Mathematics is an abstraction that cannot be applied unless there is something beyond itself to apply it to. It is what the abstract relations describe (that in which they are instantiated) that Faraday forgot. — Dfpolis
But, along with the Materialists, you want to make a metaphysics of that. You want to make this physical universe a metaphysical brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff
I don't even know why you are saying this. I see the physical universe as contingent at every point of space-time and so in need of a concurrent explanation. Further, I see the line of concurrent explanation terminating in a necessary, self-explaining being, commonly called God. So, I see no brute facts, and consider the very concept of a brute fact antithetical to science. Please do not persist in giving a false account of my position. — Dfpolis
.”Right, your inference is about the nature of what you experience. …an inference that this physical world that you experience has objective existence (whatever that would mean).” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I have said what it means to exist -- it is the ability to act in any way. So, whatever exists with respect to anything, exists simpliciter. I think we have exhausted the topic of "inferring" reality. You have not responded to the points I have made, so there is no point in my repeating them.
.”But, along with the Materialists, you want to make a metaphysics of that. You want to make this physical universe a metaphysical brute-fact.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
I don't even know why you are saying this. I see the physical universe as contingent at every point of space-time and so in need of a concurrent explanation. Further, I see the line of concurrent explanation terminating in a necessary, self-explaining being, commonly called God. So, I see no brute facts, and consider the very concept of a brute fact antithetical to science. Please do not persist in giving a false account of my position.
."I recognize that intuition rebels against a suggestion that all that’s describable is just hypothetical. But there’s no physics-experiment that can establish otherwise" — Michael Ossipoff
.
I didn't think you were a logical positivist or a physicalist. We both know that physics is not the only approach to truth. I have explained why there is no dynamic separation between subjects and their objects and how experience links them by a partial identity. You have chosen not to dispute my analysis.
.As you think experience does not give us reality…
., you have no reason to believe that we are animals, let alone evolved animals.
.if your life is one hypothetical story, and mine quite another, there is no reason for us to have any common experience or share any common knowledge or beliefs. What makes it possible for us to communicate is that we share the same objective reality.
.”You’re making inferences, assumptions, about the nature of your surroundings” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Of course I am, but their existence and their capacity to inform me are not among my inferences.
I don’t know about ideas knowing and signifying, or about inferring x from an idea of x. On such matters, I’ll defer to Henry Veatch.”I don’t know the meaning of that terminology. I haven’t read the author that you’ve referred to.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ideas do not need to be know before they can signify. Other kinds of signs do. Since we do not first know we have an idea of x, we can't infer the existence of x from "I have an idea of x." Instead it works the other way. We know x (by experience) and then infer that to know x I must have an idea of x. If you want a reference, look at Henry Veatch, Intentional Logic.
.There is no reason to think the quarterback's choice does not modify the laws of nature [physics?] and many reasons to think it does.
.Name one.
.1. Physical acts are consequent on intentional commitments. If physics applied invariantly, what we thought could not result in physical effects.
2. The causal invariant in intentional actions is the goal (which is intentional) not a physical trajectory. When I decide to go to the store, I may envision a path, but if the preplanned path is blocked, I will find another to attain my goal. Mechanism is backward looking, teleology forward looking. So, my goal rather than my physical trajectory determines by motion.
3. It has been experimentally confirmed, beyond a statistical doubt, that human intentional can modify "random" physical processes.
4. On the other side, as I have argued in many posts on this forum, the fundamental abstraction of physics limits is realm of application to purely physical objects -- excluding any operations of the intending subject. So, we have no reason to expect that human acts of will are adequately described by physics.
.If the laws are unmodified by human action, the state of the world before we are conceived, together with the laws of nature, determine all future states.
.”I don’t know what there is to “back up” about physics, other than that it’s been useful in describing the relations among the things and events of the physical world.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
What needs justification is the application of physics outside of its verified realm of application, viz. its application to human intentionality.
.Physics has nothing to say about meaning or intent because they are not part of its ontology. (By the ontology of physics I mean the things it deals with such as space, time, mass, fields and dynamical laws.)
.I still do not know what you mean by "describable" in "describable metaphysics."
.”there's no reason to believe that any of the antecedents of any particular ones of those implications are true.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Then there is no point in proceeding, as I am engaged in the search for truth. I have no interest in hypotheticals that explain posits that might not even be true to begin with.
.”Godel showed that, in any logical system complex enough to have arithmetic, there are true propositions that can’t be proven.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
He showed many things. The inability to prove consistency is one of them.
.Your life-experience story is self-consistent because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts, or propositions that are both true and false” — Michael Ossipoff
.
My point is this is an unjustified faith claim. Perhaps part of my Hypothetical Life Experience Story (HLES) assumes I did something that violates the laws of physics (which you think is impossible).
.For example, in my HLS, I may have made a decision which I think was free and you think is precluded by the laws of physics.
.Wouldn't that be an implicit contradiction for you?
.Or in my HLES I visit a glacier that should not have existed given how global warming works in my HLS.
.So, it is important to have some justification for thinking that a HLS is self-consistent.
.As a result of Godel's work there can be none.
.I didn’t say that Realism is inconsistent. But your experience is subjective, …” — Michael Ossipoff
.
My point is not that realism is consistent, but that there is an ontological justification for its consistency, while there is none for your HLESs.
.As for subjectivity, all knowledge is both subjective and objective.
.There is no knowing without both a knowing subject and a known object.
.I am happy to agree that experience is subjective because that is not an argument against it also being objective.
.”But I think we agree that your experience can’t be inconsistent.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i
.
Good. But, why do you think this?
.I think it's consistent because I see it as an experience of being. What do you think is the reason for its consistency?
.I live in a world that is actual
Of course, if we use the following useful definition of “actual”:
.
.
“Consisting of, or part of, the physical world in which the speaker resides.” “ — Michael Ossipoff
Or if we say that something is actual if it can act in any way.
.In either case, I do not live in a world that does not exist -- as you suggested.
.”That’s why, in 1840, physicist Michael Faraday pointed out that there’s no reason to believe that this physical world consists of other than a system of mathematical and logical structural-relation. …with the Materialists’ objectively-existent “stuff “ being no more real or necessary than phlogiston.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Faraday was a great physicist, but that did not qualify him as a philosopher. Mathematics is an abstraction that cannot be applied unless there is something beyond itself to apply it to. It is what the abstract relations describe (that in which they are instantiated) that Faraday forgot.
.”I know it is actual because it acts to inform me.”—dfopolis
”Of course…in your experience-story. “— Michael Ossipoff
.
I do not disown my experience
., but I'm making two additional points (1) In acting to inform me, objects act and so meet the condition to exist simpliciter,
.(2) if we did not share common experiences, we could not communicate.
“There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
I think this requires argument.
.
Well, when I say that there’s no reason to believe something, then the burden is on someone who disagrees, to produce a reason to believe it. — Michael Ossipoff
.”There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
”I think this requires argument.”
.
”Well, when I say that there’s no reason to believe something, then the burden is on someone who disagrees, to produce a reason to believe it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Despite the negative phrasing, you are claiming "your life and experience are ... your hypothetical life-experience-story."
.By refusing to provide an argument in support of this peculiar view, you leave the impression that you have none.
.On the realist side, I have provided a number of arguments that you have chosen not to respond to.
.So, There is no point in continuing to discuss a position that has no support with a person who will not respond to counter arguments.
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.