So the physicalist has to claim that in a mindless -sorry!- brainless universe, facts still exist. — RogueAI
but the physicalist can say that an old Encyclopedia Brittanica book still contains facts, even if all the brains in the universe suddenly ceased to exist — RogueAI
But if the materialist claims that my erosion example is not a fact, what about an erosion pattern in this universe that says Pi = 3.14...? — RogueAI
but how is that different than the erosion pattern? — RogueAI
Is "belonging to" a physical thing? They have to be, right? — RogueAI
Doesn't truth have to be a physical thing? — RogueAI
No. We just use the word "true" to describe a sentence that we understand as describing some feature of the world. There's no reason to treat "truth" as being some object that exists. — Michael
Under materialism, don't all nouns have to be physical? — RogueAI
No. You're reifying language. Just because a word satisfies the grammatical role named "noun" isn't that it corresponds to some object that exists in the universe. — Michael
But a noun is always a person, place, thing, or idea. Those are all physical things, in the materialist ontology. If a word is correctly being used as a noun, it has to refer to some physical thing. — RogueAI
Ghosts don't exist. Therefore the word "ghosts" in the sentence "ghosts don't exist" doesn't refer to an idea. — Michael
You're talking about fictional things: ghosts, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, God, etc. Fictional things exist as ideas, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to intelligently talk about them. — RogueAI
Also, if a lawyer tells a jury, "You'll discover what the truth is when the trial is done" he's not talking about something like a ghost, is he? — RogueAI
Again, ghosts don't exist. Therefore the word "ghosts" in the sentence "ghosts don't exist" doesn't refer to something that exists. — Michael
Like the word "ghost", the noun "truth" doesn't refer to something that exists. — Michael
What does it refer to then? — RogueAI
Let's use Sherlock Holmes as an example. Does Sherlock Holmes exist as an idea? — RogueAI
You're talking about fictional things: ghosts, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, God, etc. Fictional things exist as ideas, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to intelligently talk about them. — RogueAI
From ny physicalist perspective you are equivocating between an idea as instantiated in a brain, and what the idea refers to. — wonderer1
I thought that too, except "Sherlock Holmes" refers to something that seems to go beyond something that's just "instantiated in a brain". — RogueAI
I mean, when you're reading Arthur Conan Doyle or Mary Shelly or Stephen King, are you thinking of brains? — RogueAI
Maybe they did. But whatever they saw, equating it to time or spacetime sounds bizarre.Well, you can see gravitational waves insofar as you observe them by checking the spatial distortion that they cause. Maybe that is what they were getting at but I did not see that thread. Not sure what the connection is with what I said though. — Lionino
It would be a form of totemism in disguise for science. Seeing an eclipse, and saying that must a God annoyed at something. A similar logic.For someone who defends physicalism, they are. — Lionino
The fabrication of the mind is the world. No? I am sure when one dies, his world dies too, because he can no longer fabricate anything anymore.I would say no because those facts could be a fabrication of the mind. — Lionino
The fabrication of the mind is the world. No? I am sure when one dies, his world dies too, because he can no longer fabricate anything anymore. — Corvus
It would be a form of totemism in disguise for science. Seeing an eclipse, and saying that must a God annoyed at something. A similar logic. — Corvus
Once you closed eyes and blocked your ears and nose, from the moment, your beliefs and inferences based on your memory of the facts, takes over on the existence of the world outside of you.Sure, we know that at least a world exists, the world being our mind. But we do not know whether there is an outside world (brain in a vat), that is usually what people talk about when we say the world exists or not. — Lionino
Seeing wave of gravity and saying it is time or space time is like saying, an eclipse is God's facial expression. Just a metaphor or simile whatever you call it. :) Are you a French or Greek?Sorry I can't understand, I think this sentence has some words missing. — Lionino
Sure, we know that at least a world exists, the world being our mind. But we do not know whether there is an outside world (brain in a vat), that is usually what people talk about when we say the world exists or not. — Lionino
Isn’t that like saying that we know an organism exists but we dont know if the organism’s environment exists? — Joshs
If the organism is a self-organized system of exchanges with a world, then any line we attempt to draw between inside and outside is arbitrary — Joshs
The mind is not the brain, it is the reciprocal interactions among brain, body and environment. — Joshs
A bit of a performative contradiction, no? — Banno
Second, solipsism merits close examination because it is based upon three widely entertained philosophical presuppositions, which are themselves of fundamental and wide-ranging importance. These are: (a) What I know most certainly are the contents of my own mind—my thoughts, experiences, affective states, and so forth.; (b) There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical. For example, there is no necessary link between the occurrence of certain conscious experiences or mental states and the “possession” and behavioral dispositions of a body of a particular kind; and (c) The experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person. — IEP
Many believe in the existence they don't perceive such as God, Souls, afterlife, the places they have never been but seen on the social media and people they have never met but heard of ... etc. How is it silly asking logical ground for the belief? It is silly if and only if you don't understand the question.But this is not the argument in this thread. That is specifically about not believing that something continues to exist, unperceived. A very silly argument. — Banno
So you have no reason to believe in the existence of the things behind you? When you put the cup in the cupboard, you cease to have any reason to believe that the cup is in the cupboard?...when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world. — Corvus
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.