Per how I use the terms, how I define them, it's what you said. — Terrapin Station
Why would it matter how many brains? We don't make that same distinction when it comes to planets and how they function. — Harry Hindu
That is a common tactic of his, but at least he is trying to defend his definitions with me at the moment.So, no argument for idealist logic so far, just Terrapins fallacious attempt to shift the burden. — S
Meaning is not an objective feature by my definition, because objective refers to the complement of brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station
So, no argument for idealist logic so far, just Terrapins fallacious attempt to shift the burden. — S
Your definition isn't relevant here. — S
So "objective" is a relationship between brains and "subjective" is a property of an individual brain? — Harry Hindu
objective refers to the complement of brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station
I'm not quite clear on your distinction here.I use the word "subjective" to refer to brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station
This is an impossible scenario. Who determines the point in time of an hour past when we all died, if we all died? That's the problem with scenarios like this. You want to remove all human presence, yet still presupposed the means for designating a particular place at a particular time, and ask "what's there?". But who would do that designating? — Metaphysician Undercover
We do all the time. Whenever you talk about something that isn't a planet you'd be referring to that property of reality that is non-planet.We could make a distinction for planets/not-planets, too. If people talked about planet versus not-planet things a lot, I'm sure we'd have a variety of synonyms for that. — Terrapin Station
Right, I didn't answer because I wanted you to just address that first part and not skip it. — Terrapin Station
So, are you going to address my argument against your position yet? — S
What would be the motivation for not either exerting the massive amount of energy it would take to point to the post or to simply copy/paste it? — Terrapin Station
Yes you are. You are saying that mind's deserve a special term that distinguishes their uniqueness from everything else. Planets are just as unique as minds. Everything has special properties that distinguishes it from other things, yet you are only focused on the uniqueness of minds.I'm not making the case that anything is "special" . . . the distinction comes up often especially in philosophy, though. — Terrapin Station
Re the things that I'm an antirealist on, re the stupid "burden of proof" convention, you're not arguing that we don't think things like meanings, are you? — Terrapin Station
Yes you are. You are saying that mind's deserve a special term — Harry Hindu
Harry brought up my views in posts directed at me.
I have no idea what your definition of "objective" even is. — Terrapin Station
I'm not saying anything about comparative uniqueness whatsoever. — Terrapin Station
You imply it with the application of your terms and the fact that you don't have alternate terms that refer to the planet/non-planet, star/non-star, rock/non-rock, human/non-human, etc. etc. ad infinitum. — Harry Hindu
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.