Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be admitting (at least) that there could not have been any statements had there not been any intelligent life, but why? In your view, what is it exactly about intelligent life that makes the existence of statements possible? — Theorem
Yes I do, mostly because I subscribe to the notion that statements are sign relations that require one or more minds as fundament in order to be instantiated. — Theorem
Unfortunately, a lot of people think that philosophy amounts to "playing stupid." (I can explain why a lot of people misinterpret it that way.) Philosophy really isn't playing stupid though. This is a case where either you're playing stupid or you effectively really are. — Terrapin Station
No such thing as the world! That's a good one. — Sapientia
What makes you think that your assumption of "the world" is the correct one, and these speculative physicists who believe in many worlds are wrong? — Metaphysician Undercover
You can use "the world" all you want, but I do not know what this refers to — Metaphysician Undercover
You can't talk about whether some definition or another is correct if you don't even have any idea what the term refers to. — Terrapin Station
That's what I am asking. I'm not the one claiming the reality of "the world", I'm the one asking what that means. — Metaphysician Undercover
It was suggested that the world is something which exists independent of minds, and also that I am a part of this world. To begin with, that appears contradictory to me, unless I don't have a mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
What is this "world" which I am supposed to be part of?. — Metaphysician Undercover
A bit of hay may adhere to the fleece. It doesn't mean the fleece is hay-dependent. (I'm shopping for a spinning wheel. Woo Hoo!) — Mongrel
I'm not overly fond of your wording here. Partitioning the world invites questions about whether its boundaries are finite or infinite. World here means a domain and I believe it's an abstract object because it's a set. — Mongrel
How could the fleece be hay-independent if the hay is part of the fleece. — Metaphysician Undercover
Exactly! — Metaphysician Undercover
If the fleece could persist beyond the removal of the hay. It's not the definition of "world" you should be preoccupied with here. It's "dependent." — Mongrel
f I am part of the world, how is it possible that the world exists independently of me? That is the explanation I am waiting for, in order that I can understand what is meant by "the world". — Metaphysician Undercover
The latter statement is based on the obvious fact that as a being, an organism, we have to differentiate ourselves from what is not ourselves. That is not an ability that we're born with, but is learned in very early stages of infancy. — Wayfarer
Whenever I think of the world, I seem to be faced with this division, this separation. "The world" seems to signify all that is other from me, and I cannot seem to force it to signify something that I am a part of. — Metaphysician Undercover
We could start a thread to explore different sorts of ontological dependence. — Mongrel
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.