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
Right, and just a few hours ago you were talking about the existence of music, and matter. How you contradict yourself. — Metaphysician Undercover
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 cannot compare the idea of a tree with a tree — Jamesk
If one really understands the opponent, then one can trace the logic of that opponent to the place where it goes wrong. — sign
Yet you haven't been able to explain the difference in what they are saying. — Harry Hindu
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)).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
Which existent do idealists say has mass (you said not every...so some might)?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) — Harry Hindu
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.Irrelevant. Saying that not every existent has mass is different than saying that they do, isn't it? — Terrapin Station
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
Actually it's "No, I can say shit and not back it up."No, I'm not going to be distracted. — 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 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. — Harry Hindu
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. — 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. — Harry Hindu
And I keep reiterating that what they say is incoherent.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. — Harry Hindu
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.Which is irrelevant. All that's relevant is if they're saying something different. — Terrapin Station
Saying two different things that are both incoherent isn't really saying anything different — Harry Hindu
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.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
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"?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
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.