...it can also not be distinguished from non-rock, and seeing as this violates a condition of its meaning rock... — Baden
Similarly, rocks can neither exist nor not exist under the first scenario's speculative conditions. — Baden
This argument was never refuted because it was never presented. — Mww
unless there was a malfunction with the clock or it was destroyed by an asteroid or something like that before an hour had passed) — 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? — Echarmion
You’re getting closer and closer. YEA!!!!
What you listed as possible negation of the existence of the clock pertains in principle to the negation of the existence of the rocks. Because no one can prove none of those things did not happen, he cannot know the rocks, or clocks, are still there, because one of them might have happened.
Somebody gimme a damn mic!!!!! — Mww
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. — S
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. — Mww
We both know you keep harping on my “extreme empiricism” because you refuse to accept the correctness of my idealism for this particular foray into the sublime. All you gotta do is acknowledge that the only way to know it is true those rocks are still there is to send us back to look.
I’m sure the rocks would be glad to see us. Well.....me anyway. You they’re probably quite unhappy with. — Mww
I grant the practical aspect for knowledge is more suitable for the man on the street, who would perhaps think me wacky for maintaining we cannot know about the rocks. — Mww
But if I asked that man on the street if there were any frozen French fries left in the freezer case at the local Piggly Wiggly....what do you think he’d say? He being an honest man and all. — Mww
I already have, you're just reading that into it. That's not the same as me failing to provide one without that. That's a very important difference. — S
Now, to reduce your suggestion to absurdity. When, if ever, is a rock not a rock? — S
What about when something fits the definition of a rock, but doesn't look to me like a rock, or feel to me like a rock, or sound to me like a rock? Imagine I'm under an illusion. In this case, a rock is not a rock? — S
If a rock is what looks, feels, etc., to me like a rock, then there won't be a rock if I die. But there will be, meaning that the way we use language in that context, it makes sense to say that there will be. So that's a bad definition to use in this context. — S
Can you feedback to me what I've said multiple times about what you seem to be suggesting here, which once again seems to relate back to absolute certainty?
— S
Yep. First line of the OP.
There is a rock
— S — Mww
No, you have not. Solid, mineral, Earth. All terms that refer to observations. — Echarmion
A rock is never not a rock. — Echarmion
No, in that case you are under an illusion. Your observations no longer conform to the observations of the majority of other observers, and so other observers will, by and large, conclude you are wrong. — Echarmion
There won't be any rocks for you, since you'll be dead. Presumably, there will still be rocks for other people. Unless you're crazy, and everyone is playing along and agreeing with you that sure, rocks exist, so as to not disturb you. — Echarmion
If I accept your internal definitions and logic, then I clash with common sense and common language use. — S
Why isn't it a language if you don't understand it on the later occasion? Where is the requirement coming from that in order to be a language, you have to understand it in perpetuity?
Imagine that some virus strikes Earth that rapidly spreads and gives everyone a cognitive fog. A symptom of it is that there are many words in all natural languages that no one understands any longer.
Did we not have languages in that case? — Terrapin Station
You know, I never understood this fixation with language. I just figure those guys with PhD’s in philosophy had to do something different because Kant had already set the bar so high for epistemology and reason nobody could do any more with it. Maybe Schopenhauer, another transcendental idealist, and Russell, an empiricist with prominent a priori tendencies due to his math and logic distinction, who added stuff because of the major advances in the science of his day.
Common language is fine most of the time. Even technical language is fine as long the understanding remains consistent with the language being used. That is to say, a guy talking in the technical language of chemistry isn’t going to communicate too well with a guy using the technical language of astrophysics. Even so, where the terms overlap there shouldn’t be any language or understanding issues.
Bet you didn’t know Bohr answered Einstein’s “I can’t believe the moon doesn’t exist if no one is looking at it” with “try as you may you cannot prove it does.” Look it up.
Hand me my Nike, wodja? — Mww
I can deal with this with a copy-and-paste: you're just reading that into it. That's not the same as me failing to provide one without that. That's a very important difference. — S
Can, road, kicking. Imagine the majority of observers are under an illusion. — S
No, you don't seem have properly read what I said. I began "if a rock is what it looks like (etc.) to me..."
Either a rock is what it looks like to me or it isn't. If it is, then what a rock looks like to other people is beside the point. — S
You could say that a rock is what it looks like (etc.) to most people, or even to everyone, but that would still lead to absurdity through a thought experiment. — S
If we were all under an illusion, or we all developed some sort of genetic mutation where we no longer saw rocks as rocks, then it follows that there would be no rocks. — S
But a) that's strongly counterintuitive, and b) that's illogical if you go by a sensible definition of rocks, where rocks are rocks, not what they look like (etc.). — 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.