My "teaching abilities" or the coherence of what I have been saying would be in question if no one, or even the majority of people, could understand it (for which it is not necessary to agree, obviously). I doubt that is the case, and on the basis of a sample size of one who says he cannot even understand what I have been saying; I find poor comprehension skills, limited imagination or simply refusal to admit understanding, as an evasive tactic, to be more likely explanations. — Janus

At least you have humility.

Right, and just a few hours ago you were talking about the existence of music, and matter. How you contradict yourself. — Metaphysician Undercover

Someone like me who thinks that only particulars exist does not think that concepts do not exist (concepts simply are particular ideas in particular heads), and that's all that abstracts/universal terms are. And we don't think that the stuff that the concepts are in response to don't exist--we just think that those are particulars, too. So things like songs, symphonies, etc. are examples of music. When you experience a song you experience music. And as someone else already pointed out to you, "song," "symphony," etc. are just as much abstracts/concepts/universals/forms/type-terms--whatever you want to call them. The only thing that wouldn't be is a proper name for a particular.

So if your point had been to say that one can't experience a universal, then you wouldn't say that you can experience songs or trees, either.

On a view that's realist about universals, where one thinks that universals are some sort of real abstract that exist who-knows-where-maybe-nowhere-and-everywhere, or whatever nonsense one might believe, then sure, you could say that you can't experience universals (which again would include things like songs and trees), but those sorts of beliefs are extremely muddled, and you can't assume that everyone believes such nonsense.

You measure ideas by comparing them to other ideas. What is it about an idea that you want to measure - it's impact on society, it's coherence? Ideas can be measured empirically. — Harry Hindu

You have made Berkeley's point. Only ideas can resemble ideas. You cannot compare the idea of a tree with a tree or with anything else except another idea. All we know immediately are our ideas and we don't know enough about our own biology to say much more.

Yes indeed we have been to the moon and made some stunning advances in technology since Berkeley's time, however we still produce electricity from steam and use our technology to make smart phones and social media.........

You cannot compare the idea of a tree with a tree — Jamesk

In Berkeley, there's no non-idea tree is there? If you're claiming there is, what would be the textual evidence of that?

And whether that's in Berkeley or not, if one has ideas of trees and trees and there's a difference, then one isn't an idealist--at least not an ontological idealist.

If one really understands the opponent, then one can trace the logic of that opponent to the place where it goes wrong. — sign

That's what I was trying to get at with asking how we go from a phenomenal tree to thinking "that's just an idea," but no one has really answered that yet.

Yet you haven't been able to explain the difference in what they are saying. — Harry Hindu

One difference is that idealsts are saying that not every existent has mass, but materialists are saying that they do.

You have made Berkeley's point. Only ideas can resemble ideas. You cannot compare the idea of a tree with a tree or with anything else except another idea. All we know immediately are our ideas and we don't know enough about our own biology to say much more. — Jamesk

But you and Berkeley are saying that the tree (the external tree, not the idea of a tree) is an idea too. If everything is an idea, including the things external to your mind, then of course you can measure your idea of a tree in your mind to the tree external to your mind (which you and Berkeley say is in the mind of God which makes it just another idea)).

One difference is that idealsts are saying that not every existent has mass, but materialists are saying that they do. — Terrapin Station

Which existent do idealists say has mass (you said not every...so some might)?

Mass is the amount of matter in an object, so you are begging the question. You have to accept that there is "matter" to say that there is "mass". Again, the materialist just says that the mind is an arrangement of matter and therefore has mass. Are there minds with more "mass" than others? That is to say, do minds have different amounts of content (mass)? What is the difference between "matter" and "mind" and how would this difference still allow them to interact?

Which existent do idealists say has mass (you said not every...so some might) — Harry Hindu

Irrelevant. Saying that not every existent has mass is different than saying that they do, isn't it?

Irrelevant. Saying that not every existent has mass is different than saying that they do, isn't it? — Terrapin Station

This doesn't answer my question, nor address the main point in my post (but that is what I should expect from you by now). I was simply asking what existents that idealists say have mass, Terrapin. Answer the question.

...and you skipped this part:

Again, the materialist just says that the mind is an arrangement of matter and therefore has mass. Are there minds with more "mass" than others? That is to say, do minds have different amounts of content (mass)? What is the difference between "matter" and "mind" and how would this difference still allow them to interact? — Harry Hindu

No, I'm not going to be distracted.

You said, "Yet you haven't been able to explain the difference in what they are saying."

I said, "One difference is that idealsts are saying that not every existent has mass, but materialists are saying that they do."

Is that a difference or not?

No, I'm not going to be distracted. — Terrapin Station

Actually it's "No, I can say shit and not back it up."

Is that a difference or not?

I said, "One difference is that idealsts are saying that not every existent has mass, but materialists are saying that they do."

Is that a difference or not? — Terrapin Station

I already said it isn't. Because you are begging the question. Mass is an amount of matter, so you are simply saying that materialist claim that matter exists while idealists say that it doesn't. I asked you what is the difference between "matter" and "mind", or "ideas".

I already said it isn't. — Harry Hindu

Re "begging the question" that's only pertinent to arguments per se, no?

I asked you what is the difference between "matter" and "mind", or "ideas". Stop getting distracted.

I asked you what is the difference between "matter" and "mind", or "ideas". — Harry Hindu

We can talk about that after we finish the other thing first.

Re "begging the question" that's only pertinent to arguments per se, no?

We can talk about that after we finish the other thing first. — Terrapin Station

I asked you what is the difference between "matter" and "mind", or "ideas". Stop getting distracted. — Harry Hindu

I asked this question a million times before your question about begging the question. Maybe if you try to answer it, you will see why I said you're creating a circular argument.

I asked this question a million times before your question about begging the question. — Harry Hindu

All I care about at the moment is addressing "Yet you haven't been able to explain the difference in what they are saying" because you keep saying that even though I've explained differences in what they're saying many times.

All I care about at the moment is addressing "Yet you haven't been able to explain the difference in what they are saying" because you keep saying that even though I've explained differences in what they're saying many times. — Terrapin Station

And I keep reiterating that what they say is incoherent.

If at the moment you're saying that I'm not explaining any differences because I'm committing the fallacy of question-begging, then we need to sort that out.

Re "begging the question" that's only pertinent to arguments per se, no?

And I keep reiterating that what they say is incoherent. — Harry Hindu

Which is irrelevant. All that's relevant is if they're saying something different.

Which is irrelevant. All that's relevant is if they're saying something different. — Terrapin Station

I already went over this with you. Saying two different things that are both incoherent isn't really saying anything different, other than simply using different sounds, or scribbles that don't refer to any actual state of affairs, like differences between what matter is and what ideas are.

Saying two different things that are both incoherent isn't really saying anything different — Harry Hindu

"X is flooble."

"X is not flooble."

Are those saying something different?

Again, I'm not asking on the difference of what they say, I'm asking the difference of what they mean. Both statements are incoherent, therefore they both mean nothing.

You wrote, "Yet you haven't been able to explain the difference in what they are saying"

Meaning is subjective and can't be shared. Do you want different definitions?

You wrote, "Yet you haven't been able to explain the difference in what they are saying"

Meaning is subjective and can't be shared. Do you want different definitions? — Terrapin Station

Because in order to say anything, it must be coherent, or else you haven't really said anything. You've simply created a bunch of scribbles or sounds.


"Xyrchitz" is different than saying "Xyrchits". But what am I saying? What do I mean?

So what you're really asking for is not what they're saying that's different, and not whether they think about it differently, or whether they think that the nature or the world is different. You want to know what one side or the other is saying differently that you find to be coherent, that makes sense to you.

That's making it about you, no?

(I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, but this makes it about you, about your understanding.)

So what you're really asking for is not what they're saying that's different, and not whether they think about it differently, or whether they think that the nature or the world is different. You want to know what one side or the other is saying differently that you find to be coherent, that makes sense to you. — Terrapin Station

If the concepts of "matter" vs. "ideas" are coherent to you then why is it so difficult to answer the question? I'm trying to get at the state-of-affairs that is independent of what we say or believe. What is "matter" and what is "mind"?

Right now I'm clarifying what you're even asking.

You're asking something about your own understanding, right?