It's not so much about description, but about how identity is assigned. If a group of people think of it in the way that you describe above, and assig...
@"protectedplastic", perhaps you'd like to be a dominatrix. That way, you'd still have a job where you get to pull a creature around on a lead, give i...
It's a bit boring without Agustino. Maybe we should create a new one to replace him with. Who wants to be the new Agustino? Or maybe we could have an ...
Or such statements are simply incorrect and false. That is, if you reject his pluralistic relativism and only accept a monistic relativism in which on...
His explanation had to do with custom or habit. To address just the first of those, he advanced the bundle theory of the self, which gives a sceptical...
That plays a big role, but then, so does the fundamental role of experience. He set out on an enquiry into human understanding, to make some headway i...
But the quality of the evidence is what matters more than the existence of the evidence. I doubt its quality. And there's a semantic element to this t...
We're going around in circles now. That's a false dilemma. It needn't be either. And addressing "X is red" seems like a red herring. I'm not claiming ...
It's neither. It's not a contradiction, and it's not a category error, but it is more like a category error than a contradiction. If I were to state t...
Then you're rejecting something I never accepted in the first place. It may well refer to some qualia sort of thing. And if so, then it'd be right to ...
That's not a problem for me. It is sensible. Test it out on people, they'll agree. Things aren't always what they appear to be, whether we're talking ...
You're blaming me for a problem with your philosophy, which stems from artificially creating a logical connection between appearance and reality. That...
Sure, if there are taste illusions or errors, just as there are optical illusions or errors. That really doesn't follow without a mistaken hidden prem...
Okay, let's say that it's the same meaning. It still makes sense to say that X appears red, but X isn't red. It's just saying that X isn't how it appe...
Then go back and address my prior criticism: here. By the way, I accidentally posted my unfinished reply. I didn't mean to do that, since I had more t...
It matters in general, but I question the relevance to my point. The former isn't a valid option, and you've denied conflating them in that way. "X is...
What is your ultimate aim in making money? And is that more or less important to you than happiness? We can't answer this for you. Or is your ultimate...
I reckon that we can agree that we're seeing the same thing, whatever it is, and that this speaks to some external reality. But unless you've retracte...
Because they're not analogous in important respects, as I've explained. Why is that beyond you? You want me to accept a general principal based on a f...
Does it matter? The important distinction is between appearance and reality. Whether "red" means the same thing in each instance, or whether in one in...
You don't actually see Johnny Depp, but it's acceptable to say that you do in a typical context, and those around you will understand what you mean. Y...
Unless you're suggesting that atoms are visible to the naked eye and have colour and shape, then that's a false analogy. In this case, I described wha...
>:O You're supposed to play along! Michael already clarified this issue to Metaphysician Undercover. It's a reflection, as you know full well. And ple...
It's not irrelevant - in what I am addressing - that there were any pixels at all. No pixels, no words. Yes, structure is relevant. That's where numbe...
I mean something beyond appearance. I'm talking about the thing itself, at least inasmuch as I'm talking about what it is not. Whether it has no colou...
You said that "in this context", "appears" and "is" mean the same thing. But they obviously don't mean the same thing when people say things like "My ...
What we say isn't always what we mean and anything can make sense given the right interpretation, so your question doesn't get to the issue. It can se...
What are the dark shapes? Do atoms have colour? I see the dark shapes, and the dark shapes are pixels, therefore I see the pixels, or I see the pixels...
My phone has a retina screen. But although I cannot differentiate one pixel from another with extreme precision, I am nevertheless seeing a number of ...
That talk may be ordinary, but if you saw a ghost, that would be extraordinary. So that talk doesn't reflect reality, otherwise it would be a relative...
There doesn't have to be a single meaning. There can be multiple meanings, and some can be more sensible than others. I have highlighted the shortcomi...
If by that you mean only the way that you're using them, then sure. In that context, they mean the same thing. And I can create a context in which thi...
Nope. If you can get away with that, then I can get away with stuff like this: I think I saw a ghost, so I saw a ghost. But that's codswallop. I know ...
Colour is not just appearance, if it is appearance at all. Otherwise I couldn't appear red without being red, but I'm not red, and your red tinted gla...
How can you see the words if you can't see the pixels? You cannot. The words would not appear to you if not for the many tiny black pixels which form ...
Interesting that you've targeted what you call the "naïve understanding" of colour, rather than the ordinary way of speaking. What if my understanding...
Comments