I don't think I understand what you're asking there. If I read the question literally, you're asking "what is the nature of "individuals thinking about x in a semantic manner," but then I'm not sure why you'd be asking that. — Terrapin Station
One argument for this is that exactly the same ideas can be represented in completely different symbolic forms. — Wayfarer
Sure, we are maximally similar to other human beings, but we are also similar to rocks in a whole load of ways. We still need a principle to tell us when we can make the inference and when we can't. Do you have a way to decide? — bert1
Are you fishing for certainty with regards to "needing a principle" to make inferences about where consciousness is located? — numberjohnny5
Why isn't that enough? What else are you looking for? — Terrapin Station
We know from a lot of evidence that consciousness is a property of our brains. — Terrapin Station
Just think about the argument on its merits. If you can demonstrate something wrong about it, then I'll revise my view. — Wayfarer
It's not enough for a more general conclusion, such as the one you give: — bert1
...there's too much missing. I'm not insisting on a strictly deductively valid argument, but I'd like to see some of the gaps filled in. — bert1
The premises do not mention consciousness, yet consciousness appears in the conclusion.
The conclusion is a general statement about consciousness, but the premises are all about experiences in humans. — bert1
Is that addressing my question? — Terrapin Station
First off, I'm not forwarding anything in the manner of a deductive argument. Why would you be reading it that way? — Terrapin Station
I thought you were trying to say something, — bert1
offering evidence for a conclusion.
The problem with it on my view is that you're positing numerically distinct identicals (as in different instances of "the same (exact/identical) thing"), and there are no such things on my view (as I'm a nominalist). — Terrapin Station
If your principles are challenged by an argument, then you've either got to defeat the argument or change your principles. — Wayfarer
The argument is defeated because it's positing something false about the world. — Terrapin Station
What makes THIS assortment of molecules (humans) conscious where THAT one isn't (machines, inanimate objects). If you exclude supernatural explanations (souls and the like) then you see that humans are nothing more than date processing, self duplicating biological machines. — khaled
But, you haven't given any argument for it. You've simply said 'Because of nominalism, it can't be true'. — Wayfarer
So, nominalism isn't the case because of an argument for it. It's the case because it's what the world is like factually. — Terrapin Station
As for knowledge of your own mind - well, it's kind of contradictory to say that you know your mind - the mind is the subject of knowledge, "that which is knowing". But you can never really know it, in the same sense that the eye cannot see itself, and the hand can't grasp itself. But the mind is the unknown knower. — Wayfarer
First - your argument is not empirical, but metaphysical. — Wayfarer
You have a wonderful way of expressing concepts, I always enjoy reading them — ernestm
Tibetan buddhism defines concentric spheres of knowledge: — ernestm
Secondly, it is empirical, — Terrapin Station
How is nominalism an empirical argument, then? — Wayfarer
as soon as you argue about ‘what kinds of things exist’ then you’re no longer talking empiricism but philosophy — Wayfarer
How many species of X there are, how many types of Y, what causes A to happen - they’re empirical questions. — Wayfarer
That's a matter of what sorts of things there are, just like any other empirical matter. — Terrapin Station
Just to re-focus: the discussion about whether only particular things are real, or whether universals are also real, is not an empirical question, because it's *not* about existing phenomena. — Wayfarer
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.