Abstracts/concepts are actually particular mental events. — Terrapin Station
yes, but all changes are mental events — TheGreatArcanum
because you deny that there is any persistent identity across time, and thus any persistent entity, which could be identified as an object. — Janus
So, when is a particular object that particular object then? — Janus
Why would you believe that? — Terrapin Station
Aristotelian nonsense? Seriously? — Terrapin Station
because there exists at least one final cause, first causes must exist, — TheGreatArcanum
I don't see any relevance in what you say here. — Janus
What that has to do with a claim that change is necessarily mental is something that likely only you have any inkling of, if indeed it makes any sense to you (which I doubt). — Terrapin Station
Would your opinion change if I "prove" mine to you? — Terrapin Station
I said let's be clear that ontological facts do not hinge on how we determine anything. — Terrapin Station
Not even sure why anyone bothers to argue with you. — TheGreatArcanum
So, what relevance do they have? Can we determine them or not? — Janus
and then I repeatedly kick it while it was down some-more, yet still you persist in trying to revive it. for this reason, I don’t think you’re actually capable of proving anything, because the context in which those proofs are being formulated, is faulty beyond repair. — TheGreatArcanum
You just like the extra teeth. — Terrapin Station
You just like the extra teeth. — Terrapin Station
We can determine this by looking at something in a particular reference frame and abstracting out the observational interaction, for example. — Terrapin Station
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.