Empiricism is a matter of how we know, — Marchesk
?? Check your dictionary maybe. — Terrapin Station
That everything we know is derived from sense-experience? That's still a matter of knowledge, not ontology. An empiricist might limit their ontology to what can be sensed, but that's still too different kinds of inquiry.
Also, one can be an empiricist and a skeptic about the nature of the external world. They fit quite well together. — Marchesk
I'm not talking about "empirical" in the sense of epistemological empiricism obviously. — Terrapin Station
What sense are you talking about it in? — Marchesk
In the sense where we're talking about the "furniture of the world" so to speak a la things that can be known via experience, whether directly or not, and whether extrapolatively/interpolatively or not. — Terrapin Station
So in all possible worlds where the furniture of the world is exactly the same, do you always have consciousness, intentionality, abstract categories, etc? — Marchesk
ou're trying to skip to the "point" or "meat" of the argument. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in what "logically possible" or "logically accounting for" is supposed to refer to, because I'm challenging that it refers to anything significant in the argument. — Terrapin Station
The rules of the game of life plus it's initial starting position logically entail any patterns that emerge during that game. — Marchesk
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.