You skipped this question:
What is the difference between "meaning" and "subjective" to you? — Harry Hindu

Yes, I skipped it on purpose. One thing at a time, so neither one of us skips anything.

Can you please elaborate and answer the questions I posed. — Harry Hindu

Again, one thing at a time. What do you want to start with?

And I asked you to elaborate. You are the only one skipping things.

Again, one thing at a time. What do you want to start with? — Terrapin Station

No. How about you take the time to absorb what I asked and have said and then you take the time to write a response.

You skipped "Wait, so you don't think that people are aware of meanings?" For example

So one thing at a time.

No, I didn't. Go back and read and stop being in such a hurry. I'm leaving now and will come back and reply to a post of yours that addresses what I have asked and said on this page.

No, I didn't go back and read and stop being in such a hurry — Harry Hindu

That was in a post I just made where you just addressed part if it.

You can do whatever you want, but I'll just be addressing one thing at a time. If you want to type more than that it's up to you.

Remember....I’m a reductionist. Your parameters are all humans have disappeared. I am human so I’ve disappeared. If I’ve disappeared, even if I exist someplace else, I really can’t say anything with certainty about where I disappeared from. It makes sense to think of things a certain way, that rocks still exist and meanings maintain, but consistency is not the same as certainty. — Mww

I have two points. My first point is that, obviously, you can think about, talk about, etc., the thought experiment now. That this wouldn't be possible in the thought experiment is irrelevant. And my second point is one I've already made, but which apparently needs repeating, namely that certainty isn't necessary.

I personally don't care if someone forwards an argument per se or not. But if you claim to, and if you're claiming something like a reductio, then I'll point out if you've not actually forwarded an argument. (I'll also often do that when someone points out that I'm not forwarding an argument--even though I never claimed to--as if I should be forwarding an argument, but they didn't forward an argument, either). — Terrapin Station

Sure. I'm reasonable enough to acknowledge that I haven't presented a fully explicit argument. I am reasonable enough to cooperate where necessary. The question is whether you are reasonable enough to do likewise. And the same goes for Michael.

I'm interested in a genuine discussion. I'm not interested in a mere test as per devil's advocate, or a mere test of my ability to construct a valid argument, of which I am perfectly capable.

The question is whether you are reasonable enough to do likewise. And the same goes for Michael. — S

Sure, if I'm claiming to present an argument and I haven't.

Sure, if I'm claiming to present an argument and I haven't. — Terrapin Station

Sure, but if you've made relevant claims, which you no doubt have, then they carry a burden.

Something "carries a burden" if and insofar as someone thinks about it that way, I suppose.

Something doesn't have to be measured to be such that it conforms within a specific range within a standard of measurement. — S

Right, tell me another one. It's that attitude which makes quantum mechanics such a mystery to some. The fact is that an act of measurement is required in order that something has a measurement. To simply assume that your sticks have a measurement, as you do, does not actually give your sticks a measurement, so you have just made a false assumption, that's all. Nothing has actually measured your sticks so obviously they do not have a measurement. Clearly nothing has a measurement without having been measured

Like language, systems of measurement are based on rules. The rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. If that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed. From that, it does not follow that anyone needs to be standing around measuring the time. It doesn't even follow that anyone needs to exist! — S

Sure, carry on with your vicious circle. An hour is a certain period of time, and that certain period of time is an hour. Okee dokee bro.

Like language, systems of measurement are based on rules. The rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. If that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed. — S

I hadn't noticed that comment, but I don't agree that a system of measurement exists when we do not exist. Neither do rules. Clocks exist, but clocks are not the same thing as a "system of measurement."

A system of measurement is an abstract idea, which also doesn't amount to anything without a semantic component, and nothing abstract exists without minds thinking abstractly.

“The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” tacitly presupposes a third party observer outside the parameters of the thought experiment constructed from moving trains and stationary platforms. So it is possible to view your experiment from both inside as participant and outside as mere observer. It seems to me, therefore, to say one perspective is irrelevant defeats the experiment.

But I will admit to stamping your experiment with my thought, so we have, like, one of those toys where the head goes on upside down and a foot faces backwards....Mr. Potatohead on acid.

You said that idealists use senses as well, so I still don't see a distinction. You're still using your sense experiences as evidence of "mental" things. — Harry Hindu

I don’t understand the problem. An atheist might say that it is incorrect to infer the existence of God or the afterlife or ghosts from some kind of personal experience (e.g. “revelation” or “light at the end of the tunnel” or “unexplained noises in the attic”) but that it is correct to infer the existence of mind-independent rocks from some kind of personal experience, whereas the idealist might say that it is incorrect to infer the existence of mind-independent rocks from some kind of personal experience but that it is correct to infer the existence of other minds from some kind of personal experience.

One can believe that we experience things other than oneself without believing that any of those things are the type of thing that the materialist/realists believe in (e.g bunches of atoms) or the type of thing that supernaturalists believe in (e.g magic or ghosts).

An atheist might say that it is incorrect to infer the existence of God or the afterlife or ghosts from some kind of personal experience (e.g. “revelation” or “light at the end of the tunnel” or “unexplained noises in the attic”) but that it is correct to infer the existence of mind-independent rocks from some kind of personal experience, whereas the idealist might say that it is incorrect to infer the existence of mind-independent rocks from some kind of personal experience but that it is correct to infer the existence of other minds from some kind of personal experience. — Michael

You're mixing apples and oranges. We don't experience god like we do rocks. We don't experience minds like we do rocks either. We experience rocks directly and infer gods and minds from the behavior of the things we experience. The religious point to the experience of rocks as evidence of gods. Idealists point to the experience of bodies as evidence of minds. That is different than using the experience of rocks as evidence for rocks.

We don't experience god like we do rocks. We don't experience minds like we do rocks either. We experience rocks directly and infer gods and minds from the behavior of the things we experience. — Harry Hindu

That's your view as a direct realist but the idealist disagrees. The idealist will say that sense data occurs and that you incorrectly believe that this sense data counts as direct perception of some external-world material thing (and the indirect realist will agree at least on this point, though accept that the occurrence of sense data is a response to stimulation by some external-world material thing).

But just as the realist can infer the existence of other minds from the things they experience, so too can the idealist. The only difference is that the realist infers the existence of other minds from what they believe to be the direct perception of some material body, whereas the idealist infers the existence of other minds from the occurrence of certain kinds of sense data. I don't see why this latter view entails solipsism.

One can think it valid to infer the existence of other minds from experience without believing that experience is the direct perception of an external world of material things (and so without believing that there exists an external world of material things).

One can believe that (many) minds exist, that sense-data exists, but that that's it; that there isn't also some external world of material things like atoms. One can be an idealist without being a solipsist.

The fact is that an act of measurement is required in order that something has a measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Knock down argument! You win.

Nothing has actually measured your sticks so obviously they do not have a measurement. Clearly nothing has a measurement without having been measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is hilarious, because you probably don't realise that, when analysed, that will be found to say either nothing of any relevance, like a tautology which completely misses the point, or something obviously mistaken. And of course, you don't provide any argument at all in support of this, as expected. Well, except the above "argument", of course, which is clearly just a bare assertion.

The burden is on you here, not me. You need to demonstrate a contradiction if that's what you're suggesting - and no, not by begging the question or making a number of bare assertions, as obviously that's fallacious. Given that it's you, however, this is probably asking the impossible.

I don't know what you'd reasonably expect of me here. My position is internally consistent, so I don't have any problem with the contradiction you suggest, but you probably won't understand that.

Sure, carry on with your vicious circle. An hour is a certain period of time, and that certain period of time is an hour. Okee dokee bro. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh man.

What I said is that the rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. Then I said that if that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed.

That is not a viscous circle.

It would be wise to study the basics of logic before attempting to make assessments in public relating to logic. Regarding the above quote, I recommend looking up what a straw man is.

See what I mean about your replies almost always committing a fallacy? No, you probably don't. Other people probably do though.

Metaphysician Undercover, do you ever wonder whether you're hopelessly out of your depth here on this forum?

Sure, carry on with your vicious circle. An hour is a certain period of time, and that certain period of time is an hour. Okee dokee bro. — Metaphysician Undercover

An hour is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 [x 3,600] periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K).

Wait a minute. The specific object that I was talking about is a rock. So if you're talking about what I'm talking about, then you're saying that the rock continues to exist. So we agree. We're both realists.

And if you're not talking about what I'm talking about, then you need to explain why you changed the subject. — S

This is a situation that can't be resolved to any degree of satisfaction.

The only way to confirm existence of things is by observation and mental perception.

How can a realist prove objects exist independently of observation then?

Also how can an idealist prove objects exist only in the mind?

it's a catch 22 situation and I see no way out of it.

I hadn't noticed that comment, but I don't agree that a system of measurement exists when we do not exist. Neither do rules. Clocks exist, but clocks are not the same thing as a "system of measurement."

A system of measurement is an abstract idea, which also doesn't amount to anything without a semantic component, and nothing abstract exists without minds thinking abstractly. — Terrapin Station

That doesn't come as much of a surprise. Okay, so you've told me your position. I don't accept it, of course. You can attempt to argue in support of it if you want to.

“The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” tacitly presupposes a third party observer outside the parameters of the thought experiment constructed from moving trains and stationary platforms. So it is possible to view your experiment from both inside as participant and outside as mere observer. It seems to me, therefore, to say one perspective is irrelevant defeats the experiment. — Mww

Why do you think it defeats the experiment? From my point of view, it's irrelevant to point out that you wouldn't be able to think about anything or see anything and so on in the thought experiment, because I agree with that, but it doesn't logically lead to any relevant conclusion. It might be different for you if you're going by some hidden premise that I don't accept. If so, what's that premise, and why should I believe that it's true?

And obviously I'm not asking you to imagine what it would be like to think about something or see something and so on if you didn't exist. That should go without saying, but I'm wondering out loud whether you're making this kind of mistake here.

But I will admit to stamping your experiment with my thought, so we have, like, one of those toys where the head goes on upside down and a foot faces backwards....Mr. Potatohead on acid. — Mww

Wtf? :chin:

That doesn't come as much of a surprise. Okay, so you've told me your position. I don't accept it, of course. You can attempt to argue in support of it if you want to. — S

I think the only "argument" we need is that there's no empirical evidence of, and otherwise no good reason to believe, that there are any real (that is extramental) abstracts. And not only that, but the idea of extramental abstracts can't even be made coherent. (Since nonphysical existents can't be made coherent; the notion of existents without any location can't be made coherent, etc.)

This is a situation that can't be resolved to any degree of satisfaction. — TheMadFool

It can for me. If it can't for you, maybe you're setting the bar too high.

The only way to confirm existence of things is by observation and mental perception. — TheMadFool

Obviously I don't agree if that rules out my claim, although I'm not sure it actually does. To clarify, the claim is that there would exist a rock.

Anyway, feel free to present an argument for your above claim. Otherwise I'm doing nothing wrong by rejecting it.

How can a realist prove objects exist independently of observation then? — TheMadFool

There's no contradiction there. Not under my position of realism. So why wouldn't objects exist independently of observation?

Also how can an idealist prove objects exist only in the mind? — TheMadFool

That's their problem.

It's a catch 22 situation and I see no way out of it. — TheMadFool

If you hold my position, then there's a way out. Or rather, there's nothing to get yourself out of to begin with. This is a problem of your own making.

There's no contradiction there. Not under my position of realism. So why wouldn't objects exist independently of observation? — S

Ok
How does one prove that objects exist when not being perceived? In a very crude sense we'd need eyes in the back of our heads. See, we still need eyes.

I think the only "argument" we need is that there's no empirical evidence of, and otherwise no good reason to believe, that there are any real (that is extramental) abstracts. — Terrapin Station

I'm going to try to avoid playing this category game with you, but if you categorise my claim in that way, then yes there is a good reason, as per my argument.

And not only that, but the idea of extramental abstracts can't even be made coherent. — Terrapin Station

Of course it can, if that's what you're calling what I've implied. It is so under my position. Do you think that you can demonstrate an internal contradiction for my position? If so, go ahead. Without a contradiction, it's logically possible. There's no contradiction.

(Since nonphysical existents can't be made coherent; the notion of existents without any location can't be made coherent, etc.) — Terrapin Station

That's a bare assertion. Do you have an argument relevant to my position?

Ok
How does one prove that objects exist when not being perceived? In a very crude sense we'd need eyes in the back of our heads. See, we still need eyes. — TheMadFool

Again, why wouldn't they? There's no contradiction. I can't do this for you, you know? This is down to you. In this situation, I'm right by default unless you can demonstrate a contradiction.

Obviously you are going by a hidden premise that you've not argued in support of. I don't accept this hidden premise. You'll have to give me a good enough reason for me to accept it.

To be is to be perceived? Um, no.

Again, why wouldn't they? There's no contradiction. I can't do this for you, you know? This is down to you. In this situation, I'm right by default unless you can demonstrate a contradiction.

Obviously you are going by a hidden premise that you've not argued in support of. I don't accept this hidden premise. You'll have to give me a good enough reason for me to accept it. — S

A realist must prove that a stone exists even when it's not being perceived by any mind. Can you do that? Please explain to me how this can be done?