Interesting read, but I gotta tell ya, man......

“....All I hear is
Radio ga-ga
Radio goo-goo
Radio ga-ga....”

....not quite, but you get my drift, right?

Anyway. Leading on, re: pg 8. You reject idealism in any way shape or form, so do you reject subjectivity as well? If not, what is it? — Mww

Mahna mahna
Do do, dododo

Mahna mahna
Do do, do do

Mahna mahna
Do do, dododo dododo dododo dododododo do do dodo do

No, and see my argument. (By the way, I find that kind of lazy and unhelpful reply far more insulting than "mean, rude, etc.", comments).

I would also suggest that "experience" is about as subjective as it gets (can I ever have an identical experience to you?), so I am not sure how this follows:

all empirical knowledge absolutely depends on experience for it’s proof
— Mww

, unless we begin to summarize meaning like I have been suggesting. — ZhouBoTong

It might not seem like it on the surface, but given this context, I think that that line might be an indication of his extreme empiricism. I am an empiricist. I am onboard with Hume that a huge amount of things require experience. How would I know stuff about rocks, like what they look like, if I hadn't acquired that knowledge through experience? How could I even engage the thought experiment if I had never undergone the experience of learning English? But there is some knowledge which doesn't require experience in every respect, for example, that I know that there would still be rocks in the scenario doesn't require that I am there to experience it, not that that would even be possible, since it would violate the thought experiment and result in an obvious contradiction.

This is the distinction between empiricism, of which I am an adherent, and extreme empiricism, of which @Mww is an adherent.

Yes, indeed, we have been through this already. You play around with semantics and disregard my meaning. So you don't even begin to engage the argument on its own terms. Even after 12 pages, you still haven't even begun to engage the argument on its own terms. For that, you would have to remove your blinkers.

If you're not willing to engage the argument on its own terms, but instead misinterpret it and bring in your own premises, then what are you even doing here? Please go away.

True. I do remember you saying that several pages ago, and I suppose your discussion of overly-high standards is continuing that. My stupid brain always thinks people just need to hear something in a different way and my view will suddenly make sense - whether it is my ego's fault or their biased thinking, I should have learned by now that it is unlikely to work. — ZhouBoTong

Don't worry, it's not just you: we're all mad. Some of us are mad-mad, and the rest of us are mad for trying to get through to them. :lol:

This is the part of this discussion that has baffled me the most. They do not seem to even care if there ideas have explanatory power. It seems if they are right, and I KNEW IT, it would still change nothing about how I live...so, so what? — ZhouBoTong

Yeah, tell me about it! That part has really been neglected. It does require a sort of meta-discussion, and a sort of thinking about how we're thinking. It's not actually difficult at all to be right on one level, but be wrong on a meta-level about how you're thinking about the issue. It's really easy, for example, to say that knowledge requires certainty, and that we therefore don't know this, that, and the other; or that an hour is a measurement, and a measurement requires a subject, therefore I'm wrong; or that everything requires experience, and I'm not there to experience it, therefore I'm wrong.

Easy-peasy lemon-squeezie. But wrong on a whole 'nother level.

Set an alarm clock of some kind for an hour, kill off all the humans.......what does the alarm sound or look like?

If the alarm is not sensed, the indication for the duration of an hour is not intelligibly given. If there is no intelligible indication given for an hour, there is no reason to think there would be an intelligible indication given for the duration of a day. If not an hour or a day, then no intelligible division of time at all follows. If no division of time, then there would be no indication of time itself. Humans “tell” time; no humans, no time “telling”. No time “telling”, no temporal reference frame, time itself becomes nothing.

I’ll be damned. That paragraph right there, is a synopsis of what I and U.M have been saying for 6 pages. Rough around the edges, but that’s to be expected from one thinking like an idealist of some degree but refusing to admit to being one. Failure to grasp the understanding that EVERY rational human is just that. It is the dualistic, comparative nature of the intellectual beast. Get used to it.

This part hasn't been neglected. Go back and count the times I’ve said it doesn’t matter.

Correct; it is possible to be right on one level and wrong on another about the same thing. You’re doing it. Wrong on a whole ‘nuther level. The subjective level, where a priori knowledge lives, and resides over knowledge not given from direct experience. The a priori allows retention of knowledge of rocks after the experience of them, but not the existence of rocks without the experience of them, which is empirical knowledge. The a priori domain is the exact OPPOSITE of “extreme empiricism”.

The way things are going, the longer M.U. and I keep pissin’ you off, the closer you’re going to get to seeing we are right. But again......it doesn’t matter.

Everyone who thinks that there wouldn't be a rock an hour after we died, or who doesn't think that there would be, or who thinks that we don't know enough to justifiably make that claim, should stop whatever line of argument they're pursuing and explain how it is that there were rocks before we existed, for hundreds and thousands of years, or how it is that we know that.

If you fail this test, then your position is untenable. — S

There aren't any rocks, and there have never been any rocks, outside of human minds. The history of rocks exists only in human minds, as a useful tool to predict the future.

If present rocks are human constructions, then certainly so are past rocks as well. This question does not strengthen your argument. That history is a construction of our minds seems far less controversial than the claim that the present is, as well.

Not rejecting subjectivity shows hope.

What argument? I haven’t seen subjectivity mentioned once in 12 pages.

I asked “what is blue” and got a bunch of scientific fluff. What will I get if I ask “what is subjectivity?”

Watch out for tomatoes!!!!! Talk like that’ll get you pummeled from the balcony. Look at me; I’m fairly dripping with ‘em. (Grin)

If you're not willing to engage the argument on its own terms, but instead misinterpret it and bring in your own premises, then what are you even doing here? Please go away. — S

The terms of the discussion are specifically:

There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously.

Is there a rock? Yes or no? — S

You have failed to explain how "we all died an hour previously" makes any sense at all. Who is going to determine this point in time an hour after we all died?

Set an alarm clock of some kind for an hour, kill off all the humans.......what does the alarm sound or look like? — Mww

Right, you, or S more likely, is going to set the alarm clock the moment you die, and assume that you are the last to die.

If the alarm is not sensed, the indication for the duration of an hour is not intelligibly given. If there is no intelligible indication given for an hour, there is no reason to think there would be an intelligible indication given for the duration of a day. If not an hour or a day, then no intelligible division of time at all follows. If no division of time, then there would be no indication of time itself. Humans “tell” time; no humans, no time “telling”. No time “telling”, no temporal reference frame, time itself becomes nothing. — Mww

Yes, this is what S refuses to acknowledge. Human beings "tell time", and "an hour" is a human being telling time. Not only would the ringing of the alarm not be sensed, but the alarm would not even be set. This whole talk of "an hour after all human beings died", is utter nonsense.

Yeah, well, the counter-argument’s going to be...it’s a hypothetical scenario and as such, POOF!!! All the humans are gone, so nobody is there to set a clock anyway. But if that’s true then what does an hour have to do with anything. The only way it could mean anything is from the perspective of a third party observer who CAN tell time.

The scenario would be exactly the same if it had been stated as, POOF!!! All humans are gone. Are there still rocks and do rocks have the same meaning? That would have saved exactly half the argument’s intrinsic irrationality.

I still see consciousness as being in separable from the objects of consciousness that we call the world. But we cannot reduce the world to 'mind' any more than we can reduce mind/consciousness to the objects it experiences. I would say they are mutually interdependent modes of being. — Ryhan

Agreed, consciousness is inseparable from the objects of consciousness that we call the world. However, there are objects of consciousness that are not objects of the world, re: beauty, liberty, particular colors, shapes. That is to say, those conceptions understanding thinks for itself a priori. As such, there are interdependent modes of being, the empirical given as phenomena and the intellectual given as thought.

And no, we cannot reduce the world to mind alone.

Good call.

I’ll be damned. That paragraph right there, is a synopsis of what I and U.M have been saying for 6 pages. Rough around the edges, but that’s to be expected from one thinking like an idealist of some degree but refusing to admit to being one. Failure to grasp the understanding that EVERY rational human is just that. It is the dualistic, comparative nature of the intellectual beast. Get used to it.

This part hasn't been neglected. Go back and count the times I’ve said it doesn’t matter. — Mww

Look, it really isn't helpful to keep comparing me to an idealist. Yes, we have empiricism in common, but that's not what the realism-idealism debate hinges on, so it's not important at all in that context. Are we talking here about how I know what a rock looks like? No. Are we talking here about whether there would be a rock? Yes. I say that there would be a rock. I say that it's reasonable to believe that there would be a rock. And I say that I know enough to rightly say those things. All of this I have suitably qualified. Either you agree or you disagree. Which is it?

Correct; it is possible to be right on one level and wrong on another about the same thing. You’re doing it. Wrong on a whole ‘nuther level. The subjective level, where a priori knowledge lives, and resides over knowledge not given from direct experience. The a priori allows retention of knowledge of rocks after the experience of them, but not the existence of rocks without the experience of them, which is empirical knowledge. The a priori domain is the exact OPPOSITE of “extreme empiricism”.

The way things are going, the longer M.U. and I keep pissin’ you off, the closer you’re going to get to seeing we are right. But again......it doesn’t matter. — Mww

So we disagree then.

Regarding your last paragraph, I very much doubt that. For a start, you're not right. So that might make it a little difficult for me to somehow see that you're right.

I think that our disagreement is too fundamental. If your metaphysics doesn't even allow for the existence of rocks without someone being there at the time to experience them, then your metaphysics is fundamentally wrong. It begins with a false premise that no one here has actually bothered to support. On the other hand, we can reasonably reach the realist conclusion that there would be a rock, regardless. I have demonstrated that in this discussion.

There aren't any rocks, and there have never been any rocks, outside of human minds. — Echarmion

Thank you. I needed a good laugh.

The scenario would be exactly the same if it had been stated as, POOF!!! All humans are gone. Are there still rocks and do rocks have the same meaning? That would have saved exactly half the argument’s intrinsic irrationality. — Mww

Half an irrational argument still leaves us with something irrational. S likes to veil behind semantic maneuvers, the simple fact that without anyone to establish a relationship between words like "rock" and "hour", and what those words refer to, the words really are meaningless. So regardless of the fact that you and I and everyone else have ideas of what a "rock" is and what an "hour" is, after we all die there is no such thing as what a "rock" is, or what an "hour" is, because what a "rock" is, and what an "hour" is, are ideas, and there would be no one who holds those ideas. Therefore it's irrational for S to speak about there being such a thing as what a rock is, and what an hour is, after everyone is dead.

I say that there would be a rock. I say that it's reasonable to believe that there would be a rock. — S

Either you agree or you disagree. Which is it? — S

I agree with half, disagree with the other half.

The two propositions are mutually exclusive, because only one or the other can be the case. The former is a statement of affirmation, the latter is a statement of possibility. Only one can be the case because the criteria for their respective determinations are categorically opposed, insofar as knowledge absolutely requires an object but belief only requires a possible object or no object at all.

If I was a rock in a world where humans had just disappeared, I would ask myself...how am I to be known? I can be remembered, sure, but what intelligence is there that knows of me now? And to be remembered is to be known as I was, not necessarily as I am. If I should be buried in an earthquake, the humans that were here wouldn’t know what happened to me, so why is that any different from not knowing about me if there wasn’t any earthquake to begin with?

Woe is me....without something that knows, I am unknown. Here in my world, or anywhere else.
—————————-

My metaphysics has no problem with allowing the existence of objects without experience of them. Just like you, I find it reasonable to think those rocks are going to be there all else being equal. I said as much way back in the beginning, sentience is not a requisite for existence. Dunno why you can’t get that through your head. My metaphysics does not allow empirical knowledge of conditions for which any experience whatsoever is impossible, re: the future, impossible or inconceivable objects, spiritual objects, supernatural objects. If you agree with all that, yet insist you know rocks will still be there, or it is in fact true rocks will be there, in the future, then your metaphysics is catastrophically wrong.

‘Tis a hollow laugh, my friend. “Rock” is nothing but a human-developed word contained in a human-developed language given to a human-developed concept given to a human-perceived real thing. “rock” is only rock because we say it is, and we say it is only in order to not confuse it with “bicycle”.

There are things outside the human mind; there are not rocks. This is true because “rock” presupposes the thing represented by “rock”, the thing must be antecedent to its conception.

All good. Half of irrational is still irrational.

Not rejecting subjectivity shows hope.

What argument? I haven’t seen subjectivity mentioned once in 12 pages.

I asked “what is blue” and got a bunch of scientific fluff. What will I get if I ask “what is subjectivity?” — Mww

Irrelevant: that's what it is. Why would I reject subjectivity? I don't outright reject it. That would be absurd. And you know that I'm a moral subjectivist, don't you? I just reject its supposed relevance in a particular context. Subjectivity: feelings, thoughts, tastes, opinions, preferences, beliefs, looks like, etc.

Do you think it matters to the rock how we feel about it? :grin:

And the colour blue is what I described in scientific terms, not your related subjective fluff which I demonstrated leads to absurdity, thus refuting it. You didn't even address my refutation.

Who is going to determine this point in time an hour after we all died? — Metaphysician Undercover

You must surely realise that that question is a loaded question. Do you acknowledge that?

Set an alarm clock of some kind for an hour, kill off all the humans.......what does the alarm sound or look like? — Mww

Jesus. You guys are asking the wrong questions. How can you not see this?

Guys, seriously, what is the point of begging the question by implying your conclusion in your premise? Can you please consider what you're doing and why it is fallacious? "Who" implies a subject. "Looks like" and "sounds like" implies a subject. You can't smuggle in the necessity of a subject, and then conclude that there's a necessity of a subject. Does that seem reasonable to you? Yes or no? I genuinely want an answer to that, because it's important. Especially when you're calling me things like unreasonable, irrational, and nonsensical.

Since there isn't a subject, there is no "who", and there is nobody for anything to "look like" or "sound like" to. It's a completely pointless road to go down to direct that stuff at me.

If the alarm is not sensed, the indication for the duration of an hour is not intelligibly given. If there is no intelligible indication given for an hour, there is no reason to think there would be an intelligible indication given for the duration of a day. If not an hour or a day, then no intelligible division of time at all follows. If no division of time, then there would be no indication of time itself. Humans “tell” time; no humans, no time “telling”. No time “telling”, no temporal reference frame, time itself becomes nothing. — Mww

This is a terrible argument because it's composed of points I already accept, and therefore don't need to be made, and bare assertions.

First, the pointless points. Time won't be intelligible, you say? Yes. It won't be intelligible to anyone, because no one would exist. No one would be able to tell the time, you say? Yes, because no one would be there.

Second, the bare assertions. It doesn't make sense! There wouldn't be hours or days! Why? Because no one would be able to tell the time! Because no one would understand stuff about time! But have you demonstrated this supposed necessary dependency, or merely asserted it? Oh, you've merely asserted it. I see. And that's reasonable because...?

Necessary dependency, necessary dependency, wherefore art thou, necessary dependency?

You can't just assume some idealist principle like "to be" is "to be understood" and at the same time claim to be reasonable.

An hour passes if a certain amount of time passes. If this certain amount of time passes and there is no one there to understand that an hour has passed, has an hour passed? Yes. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it fall, does the falling tree make a noise? Yes. If we all died, would there still be rocks? Yes.

Yes, yes, yes. It's more reasonable, has greater explanatory power, is not counterintuitive. What's your alternative got going for it? Oh, really? Nothing at all?

Some people have asserted that some part of the scenario doesn't make sense. Yet it makes sense to me, and it makes sense to others. Funny that, ain't it?

..."an hour" is a human being telling time. — Metaphysician Undercover

How absurd! :rofl:

So, when I ask how many hours would pass in a year after we've all died, you think I'm asking how many human being telling times would pass? No wonder you think I'm talking nonsense! You interpret what I'm saying nonsensically! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Try taking your nonsense-tinted glasses off. It might make more sense! Hopefully they're not super-glued to your head! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, well, the counter-argument’s going to be...it’s a hypothetical scenario and as such, POOF!!! All the humans are gone, so nobody is there to set a clock anyway. But if that’s true then what does an hour have to do with anything. The only way it could mean anything is from the perspective of a third party observer who CAN tell time. — Mww

Why on earth do you think that you need to remark that it wouldn't mean anything to anyone, as though I disagree? Of course! There wouldn't be anyone there for it to mean anything to! I reject the relevance of that, not the truth of that!

If at 18:00 we're all alive, and by 18:05 I had set an alarm for 20:00, and then we all die an hour later at 19:05, then the alarm would nevertheless go off at 20:00 (unless there was a malfunction with the clock or it was destroyed by an asteroid or something like that before an hour had passed) as any reasonable person would accept. Reasonable people don't interpret that as implying that it's absolutely certain and there are no possible alternatives. And reasonable people don't merely assume a wacky idealist premise or a wacky idealist interpretation of what I'm saying. They go by common sense realism. That's where reason leads.

I wasn't going to, but the time argument is so utterly pointless maybe this will direct things back on course and give @S somethingone else to chew on.

Yes, it means something, it means what it means in English, because "rock" is a word, and words have a set meaning, and once set, this does not depend on us being around to interpret or understand the meaning.

Some people believe otherwise. They consider that to be impossible, as it would be a contradiction. But that's just because they're going by a false premise resembling the idealist premise from Part 1. — S

A distinction without a discernible difference. As in, asking what the difference is between meaning and non-meaning where the circumstances under which meaning is instantiated are bracketed out is to posit an impossible dichotomy. Each requires the other in conditions in which one or other is said to be the case. It's like asking for a choice of heads or tails on a non-existent coin. In one sense, the word 'rock' cannot cease to mean rock because we all disappeared—our physical presence or absence doesn't seem to matter except indirectly when we choose to use the word. On the other hand, the difference between the word 'rock' meaning rock and not meaning rock does require our presence, so though 'rock' cannot cease to mean rock in our absence, it can also not be distinguished from non-rock, and seeing as this violates a condition of its meaning rock, we're left with the paradox of rock both meaning and not meaning rock, which can only be dissolved by realising that the scenario given is engineered such as to undermine the ground of its own solution, and it's meaningless to posit 'rock' as either meaning or not meaning rock under the circumstances given. Similarly, rocks can neither exist nor not exist under the first scenario's speculative conditions.

Or to put it another way.



See 1:30. You are pre-enlightened Bart Simpson.

I agree with half, disagree with the other half. — Mww

Weird.

If I was a rock in a world where humans had just disappeared, I would ask myself...how am I to be known? I can be remembered, sure, but what intelligence is there that knows of me now? And to be remembered is to be known as I was, not necessarily as I am. If I should be buried in an earthquake, the humans that were here wouldn’t know what happened to me, so why is that any different from not knowing about me if there wasn’t any earthquake to begin with?

Woe is me....without something that knows, I am unknown. Here in my world, or anywhere else. — Mww

Wow. That's a lot of words, and a really creative way of saying something I never disagreed with, namely that the rock would at the time be unknown. There wouldn't be anyone there at the time to know anything about anything. That was the condition I set in the hypothetical, remember? That no one would be there. If you were the rock, and no one existed, there wouldn't even be anyone to remember you. Nada. But obviously you'd exist, which is sufficient to prove realism.

Since there isn't a subject, there is no "who", and there is nobody for anything to "look like" or "sound like" to. It's a completely pointless road to go down to direct that stuff at me. — S

Given that a "rock" is defined by the way it looks like, feels like, sounds like etc. how is anyone supposed to talk about rocks? Can you provide us with a definition of a rock that doesn't consist of subjective impressions?

“Rock” is nothing but a human-developed word contained in a human-developed language given to a human-developed concept given to a human-perceived real thing. — Mww

Well, yeah, much of what you just said is really obvious and beside the point. You're indicating that you're talking about the word "rock" with your use of quotation marks. I know what a word is, and I know that the word "rock" is a word, and I know that it is part of a human-developed language, and I know that it is used to refer to a particular real object: a rock, and I know that we tend to use that word to refer to what we perceive to be a rock. I'm not actually an idiot, but it's good to know that you seem to think that I'm an idiot, since you're pointing all of this out to me.

The only important qualification to make here is that what we perceive to be a rock isn't necessarily a rock, but a rock is necessarily a rock, and we do not need to perceive a rock for there to be a rock.

You'll note that the dictionary definition of a rock I gave in the opening post doesn't in itself contain or imply anything about the supposed necessity of a subject. That's what the idealist erroneously smuggles in without any justification whatsoever for doing so.

If there's a [definition of a rock], then there's a rock. There's a [definition of a rock], so there's a rock. (Modus Ponens). Your additional idealist premise is unwarranted, and you don't even seem to be trying to support it. You just seem to be assuming it or suggesting it or asserting it without any supporting argument for it. And I'm expected to believe that doing that is reasonable because...?