But has he an argument for this? Or is it just obvious? — Banno
.so if we can’t talk about some things we can’t talk about anything? — Mww
This discussion is not only going on in the space between your ears
— Banno
Of course it isn’t, only. But the ground of it, the beginnings, the source, the construction of it, are, and are only. — Mww
If everything begins with what is between your ears, — Banno
I don't agree that everything begins with what is between your ears. — Banno
Drop the notion that the stuff between your ears has primacy. — Banno
The stuff you might describe as "out there" is just as valid. — Banno
you can't have one without the other. — Banno
Oh my. The goalposts went from the end zone clear out to the farging parking lot!! — Mww
Sure, but that still asks, do you not compare the words you hear, to the words you yourself use, and is that not an analysis? And doesn’t that analysis transpire between your ears? And is not the space between your ears your own personal private space? If that is the case, and every single rational agency does the same thing, it is clear none of them are analyzing each other, but each of them are analyzing themselves. In this sense, you are correct, insofar as it is not my analysis of your private, ineffable attributes, but is really my analysis of their affect on my private, ineffable attributes. — Mww
But the philosophical challenge is to then get literal again. Lest your poetry be seized on. — bongo fury
You [too] want to settle: for different levels of description, not literally commensurable. Then, unfortunately, I have to dispute your continual claims to have risen above dualism. — bongo fury
Drop the notion that the stuff between your ears has primacy. The stuff you might describe as "out there" is just as valid. Minds do not come into existence by themselves, but by interacting with the world. — Banno
science IS NOTHING BUT representation of reality by minds.
— Olivier5
Or is it the creation of texts and pictures by organisms able to play a social game of agreeing to pretend that these symbols point at the world, according to principles of pointing that differ in interesting ways from those of art, music and literature? — bongo fury
Do you see that in order to understand each other, what goes on between our respective ears must be at least congruent, if not fully matching? — Mww
The cat can't form an attitude towards a proposition, because it cannot form a proposition. That is, it can't believe it is hungry, but it can be hungry.
Talk of cats having beliefs is at best metaphorical. — Banno
Then, unfortunately, I have to dispute your continual claims to have risen above dualism. — bongo fury
Obfuscation is disappointing. — creativesoul
It's not my accounting of belief that has been found wanting. — creativesoul
In so far as we ascribed beliefs to cats, we are not treating beliefs as attitudes towards propositions. We are using the word differently. — Banno
What happens in the head of the grocer is irrelevant. — Banno
Do you see that in order to understand each other, what goes on between our respective ears must be at least congruent, if not fully matching?
— Mww
No. What goes on between the ears is irrelevant. That's rather the point pushed by PI, that it's what happens that counts, not what goes on in heads. — Banno
Red cups, apples, and pains in hands are not propositional content. — creativesoul
They are most certainly always part of the correlational content of belief about them. — creativesoul
Too poetic — Banno
... leads to conflating pre-theoretical language less conscious experience, pre-theoretical linguistically informed conscious experience, and theoretical linguistically informed conscious experience. — creativesoul
Only the first of the three consists entirely of directly perceptible things. — creativesoul
Clean away the strawmen piled in the idea of phenomenal consciousness, — frank
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.