You skipped this question:
What is the difference between "meaning" and "subjective" to you? — Harry Hindu
Can you please elaborate and answer the questions I posed. — Harry Hindu
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.Again, one thing at a time. What do you want to start with? — Terrapin Station
No, I didn't go back and read and stop being in such a hurry — Harry Hindu
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 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
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. — Terrapin Station
Something doesn't have to be measured to be such that it conforms within a specific range within a standard of measurement. — S
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
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
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
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.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
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
The fact is that an act of measurement is required in order that something has a measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
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
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
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
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
“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
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
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
This is a situation that can't be resolved to any degree of satisfaction. — TheMadFool
The only way to confirm existence of things is by observation and mental perception. — TheMadFool
How can a realist prove objects exist independently of observation then? — TheMadFool
Also how can an idealist prove objects exist only in the mind? — TheMadFool
It's a catch 22 situation and I see no way out of it. — TheMadFool
There's no contradiction there. Not under my position of realism. So why wouldn't objects exist independently of observation? — 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. — Terrapin Station
And not only that, but the idea of extramental abstracts can't even be made coherent. — Terrapin Station
(Since nonphysical existents can't be made coherent; the notion of existents without any location can't be made coherent, etc.) — Terrapin Station
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. — S
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.