I think we are to an extent. But that’s debatable. One has to be aware of all the nuances of a given item before one can be held responsible for holding a belief about that item. Perhaps it isn’t always in our control what we are aware of.

No other way, I see. — Wallows

Huh?

I get the distinct impression from some that ‘baby boomers’ really means ‘privileged white males’. — Brett

Was that meant to be a reply to me? If so, then I commend you for your efforts. Sometimes we need to hear these things so we can become aware of them. Only when we are aware of our biases can we address them.

we are not responsible for our feelings, we're responsible for our behavior. — T Clark

True. But where do you stand on beliefs? Are we responsible for them?

Ok. But it’s not always fun to be surrounded by only people who agree with you. Fight me! LOL

Are you being sarcastic? I’m not always quick on the uptake.

Based on what you've been arguing, Terrapin cannot speak of himself extra-mentally. — Marchesk

To Terrapin Station, his own mind is the “given”. To speak of himself is the mental.

Why does it feel like you wont the point? — Marchesk

I don’t understand.

You’ve convinced me. Now work on Terrapin Station.

I guess to Terrapin Station, his mind is the “given”, the stage where things happen.

What do you mean by “only” and by “perceive himself”?

I think his mind would take issue with “only”. :wink:

Just because we cannot even conceive the fallibility of math isn’t warrant for suppositions concerning other things that are merely possible. — Mww

That’s true. I mean I think I agree, but what exactly do you mean? Could you expand?

LOL and we’ve arrived back to Terrapin Station.

I’d say that about covers it. And all from the absolutely strictest human perspective. — Mww

Certainly an alien being would have different mental phenomena, but his maths should correspond to our maths. We would both have minds perceiving the same matter.

I would have to interrogate a physicalist to know for sure.

I think so.

I suppose when I say that you can’t have one without the other, I mean that physicality is needed to give a venue for the mental, while the mental is needed to give meaning to the physical.

That’s right. We are on the same team. :grin:

...ok. So what is the importance of that distinction when generally speaking? — DingoJones

Nothing. It’s just high-faluting philosophy. :lol:

Sorta? I’m disappointed in myself. I meant to convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt. :smile:

“To be is to be perceived” is true in a sense but not in the way Bishop Berkeley supposed.

Yes. Matter is real. I never denied that. “Light waves” and “photoreceptors” are also mental concepts informed by matter.

but our ability to experience color does give us information about those things. — Marchesk

That information is also a conceptual framework which requires minds.

I mean that idealism vs. materialism is a confused area of study. You can’t have one without the other.

You would stop experiencing of course. There is “something” that caused your death, viz. matter. But that’s all we can say about it. “Highway”, “cars”, “traffic” are all mental representations of perception.

You’re presupposing other minds observing your death.

how does me describing things to you that I've observed about people's feelings about old people turn into me endorsing those feelings? — T Clark

That’s the mistake I made. My bad.

That “thing” isn’t what’s being spoken of.

I think I can speak of things extra-mental, even though my experience of them is mental. I think that's confusing the experience itself with the thing being experienced, or what the experience is about. Just like the word "rock" is different from specifying a rock that one kicks. — Marchesk

“The thing being experienced” presupposes a mind experiencing it.

That also requires a mind of course. What are you getting at?

We speak about perceptions, which requires a mind. We don’t speak about the extra-mental apart from perceiving.

LOL. Ok. Never mind.

Are you calling me a dewlap? Because my google home hub is bad at translating.

Nothing that is spoken of is truly extra-mental. What you speak of is a mental representation of the matter that is imprinting on your senses. Of course it’s a “something” outside of your experience causing your mental representation, but what you are speaking of is sensory in nature, so talking about what the matter that is being “eaten” is extra-mentally is a confusion of how perception works.

Jawohl, mein guter Mann — Bitter Crank

Say what?

It is understandable that in ghetto culture, "respect" is such a big issue. People who are residents of the various ghettos "don't get no respect" so have to be hyper alert to interpersonal signs of disrespect. — Bitter Crank

You’re preaching to the white trash, former ghetto living choir. I know all about this.

What you call a “burger” is your perception of the matter consisting of what you ate. What it is like without a mind perceiving it cannot be conceived.

Sick joke? You mean like a Nazi? I suppose we all have an inner Nazi to some degree.

The material and the ideal are inextricably intertwined. You are speaking of a material burger in a sense, but you can’t extricate it from your perception of it. What the extra-mental “burger” is like cannot be spoken of. We have no conception of it.

You probably know @T Clark better than me. I maybe got a faulty impression.