Not my POV, and not yours. If the cup is in the cupboard, then it is true that the cup is in the cupboard, but only God sees it. Is God the third person? It is seen that the cup is in the cupboard, by whom?

It has been called the view from nowhere. "Right there" is an appeal to me to see something, but I don't see it, and if I did see it it would be a first person view. It's not right there; it's not anywhere. The cup is in the cupboard and not on view.

If the cup is in the cupboard, then it is true that the cup is in the cupboard, but only God sees it. — unenlightened

It would remain true even if god did not see it.

Perspective is removed in the third person account.

Perspective is removed in the third person account. — Banno

So it ain't a point of view, but an abstraction. I'm not arguing for idealism here, merely against the reification of grammar, I agree shit can be true if nobody sees it, but if nobody sees shit there is no point of view. It's an account sans point of view; there is no third person in the cupboard.

"I see the cup on the table" does not imply that "The cup is on the table". Nor is "I see the cup on the table" implied by "The cup is on the table". — Banno

This might be true, but then it's also true that "Donald Trump is the President" does not logically imply "Donald Trump won the most electoral college votes" and that "Donald Trump won the most electoral college votes" does not logically imply "Donald Trump is the President".

The fact of the matter cannot be solved simply by pushing semantics (as I've said before, and as I recall you've agreed with before). There are other facts that must be considered, and so too with the issue of seeing a cup and there being a cup.

"The cup is on the table" will only be true if the cup is indeed on the table.

And "Donald Trump is the President" will only be true if Donald Trump is indeed the President. But it's also the case that "Donald Trump is the President" will only be true if Donald Trump won the most electoral college votes.

So leaving aside simple semantics, it may be a (meta-)physical fact that the cup is on the table only if one sees that the cup is on the table. That the one does not logically imply the other isn't sufficient to rule this out.

There i

It would remain true even if god did not see it.

Perspective is removed in the third person account. — Banno

Suppose that an object that is not being observed by a mind is simply in a quantum state and looks like this. Is it still a teacup? With quantum physics there is no removing the observer. There is no way to talk about anything without an observer.

Suppose that an object that is not being observed by a mind is simply in a quantum state and looks like this. — Rich

Is it reasonable to suppose that something not being looked at looks like something?

Is it reasonable to suppose that something not being looked at looks like something? — unenlightened

We have no idea what something might be without being observed. This is a holographic plate of apple. It needs a reconstructive wave to create the image.

This might be true, but then it's also true that "Donald Trump is the President" does not logically imply "Donald Trump won the most electoral college votes"

Except it does, since this was an electoral college election.

Except it does, since this was an electoral college election. — Thanatos Sand

That fact is incidental to the meaning of the sentence "Donald Trump is the President". The argument "Donald Trump is the President, and so therefore he won the most electoral college votes" is invalid. It needs the additional premise "only the person with the most electoral college votes wins the Presidency".

That fact is incidental to the meaning of the sentence "Donald Trump is the President". The argument "Donald Trump is the President, and so therefore he won the most electoral college votes" is invalid.

No, it's not since he could only be president if he won the most electoral votes. So, the statement is valid.

No, it's not since he could only be president if he won the most electoral votes. So, the statement is valid. — Thanatos Sand

That's an additional premise, as I've said. Without that premise the conclusion doesn't follow.

No. it's a predicate.

"He could only be president if he won the most electoral votes" is a premise.

Whether predicate or premise, the argument ""Donald Trump is the President, and so therefore he won the most electoral college votes" is a valid one.

and it is a predicate since the first statement is dependent on the second.

Whether predicate or premise, the argument ""Donald Trump is the President, and so therefore he won the most electoral college votes" is a valid one. — Thanatos Sand

No it isn't. Nothing in being the President logically entails that one won the most electoral college votes. Having won the most electoral college votes isn't part of the meaning of being the President.

Of course it is since you cant' be president without having won the most electoral votes. Go read up on that and get back to me.

Of course it is since you cant' be president without having won the most electoral votes. Go read up on that and get back to me. — Thanatos Sand

This is false. See the United States presidential line of succession.

Of course it's true. The line of succession has nothing to do with the results of the electoral college election. So, we're done here. And keep that "premise" schtick up...it's a good one.

Of course it's true. The line of succession has nothing to do with the results of the electoral college election. So, we're done here. — Thanatos Sand

It has everything to do with being the President. If Trump and Pence become incapacitated then Paul Ryan will become the President, despite not having won the most electoral college votes.

Therefore your claim that "you can't be president without having won the most electoral votes" is false.

But again, even it it's true it wouldn't matter. Being the president doesn't logically entail having won the most electoral college votes, just as being a man doesn't logically entail that one is mortal. You need the additional premises "you can't be president without having won the most electoral votes" and "all men are mortal" to have valid arguments.

No it isn't. Nothing in being the President logically entails that one won the most electoral college votes. Having won the most electoral college votes isn't part of the meaning of being the President. — Michael

It has nothing to do with logic or necessarily facts.

The State election boards declared certain results (which can and has been disputed) which entailed Trump being declared and recognized as President which was then accepted (reluctantly in many cases) by citizens and the legislative and judicial branches of government. It was a formed consensus which is all entangled with lots of other events.

I wish logic would just go away. It has nothing to do with life as we experience it.

It would remain true even if god did not see it. — Banno

The issue is knowledge. A proposition may be true, but if it was asserted, then someone is claiming to know it. Knowledge internalism says that the knower must have access to some justification. Knowledge externalism rejects the need for justification. Take your pick.

You can free yourself of the POV shenanigans by saying that you aren't talking about assertions. But then the question becomes... what are you talking about?

That inner voice people talk about... is yours usually in first, second, or third person? — Mongrel

The inner voice inside of me is usually in first person.
However occasionally I have that Good Angel on one shoulder, debating the Devil on the other shoulder and THAT makes me wonder in what person, that additional voice is offering the counterbalance.
Geez, I hope that made sense.

I have always spent most of my time alone, and when I was a kid, I used to repeat the same words or phrases over and over again in my head, and speaking seemed so slow. I then realized that I always knew how everything I was saying in my head was going to end, and it was as if I was just practicing saying it to someone, and the inner monologue of full articulation was unnecessary. I then began practicing just cutting it off the moment I already knew. So my inner monologue tends to happen rapidly, and is rarely fully represented. Like when you suppress the inner monologue when you're reading, and you can read much much faster. I'm also two people, so I'm the thought stream, which is like the one that feels natural to identify with, and then there is like an ocean of feeling underneath of it that the thoughts ripple through. I've come to think of it more like that's the real me, or the soul, that is being affected by all of the thoughts running through my head that aren't actually really "mine".

In that life, as hypothetical as your previous one, there’s no memory or indication that there was ever a different life. — Michael Ossipoff


There is memory. It is called inherited, innate, instinctual traits or unaccountable skills (idiot savants, prodigies, etc.). — Rich

Even those people don't remember a previous life.

Possibly their remarkably early abilities are consistent wlth attitudes, general approaches to life, general inclinations, that remained present among their Vasanas.

Michael Ossipoff

Even those people don't remember a previous life. — Michael Ossipoff

Memory in the form of instincts, inherited traits and abilities is remembering. What you are saying that it's that people don't seem to remember past physical lives, but apparently some claim that they do. We x even can't remember in most cases even what happens in one physical life.

So it ain't a point of view, but an abstraction. — unenlightened

SO "the kettle is boiling" is an abstraction from "I see the kettle boiling"! This is a new misuse of "abstraction"!

But it says nothing about "the kettle is boiling" being true under quite different circumstances to "I see the kettle boiling".

You unleash madness.

I'm not arguing for idealism here, merely against the reification of grammar, — unenlightened

There is reification here, to be sure. What is being reified are cups, tables, and kettles. The stuff that our language talks about.

If you could find that objectionable... well, it takes all sorts.

910

Even those people don't remember a previous life. — Michael Ossipoff


Memory in the form of instincts, inherited traits and abilities is remembering. — Rich

Ok, fair enough. I was just referring to the kind of remembering by which someone could actually say that they've previously lived.

What you are saying that it's that people don't seem to remember past physical lives, but apparently some claim that they do.

Haven't some of them been debunked?

There are various explanations for reported past lives:

1. The person genuinely remembers a past life.

2. Intentional hoax, fraud by the individual in question or hir (his/her) parents.

3. More or less subconscious coaxing by parents

4. The child has heard conversations about historical times and historical people (including people who weren't famous)

5. The author of the book that describes the "seemingly true" cases is a liar or hoaxer.

Don't underestimate #5.

A person can quote something from a book, and say, "Aright, how do you explain that?!!"

The author made it up.

And yes, that's been well documented in numerous occasions, from UFO's to all sorts of other kinds of things.

With so many prosaic explanations for someone telling details of a past life, there's no need to assume the explanation (genuinely true reports) that, itself, doesn't have any known explanation.

Skepticism implies reincarnation, but not reporting of details of a past life.

We x even can't remember in most cases even what happens in one physical life.

Quite so.

Michael Ossipoff