Right, this is why dismissing the predicate would be a mistake for any ontology. It breaks down the categorical division between the object (particula...
So you have relations without boundaries, how? OK, I'll see if I can make sense of this. You are assuming "a square", that is your premise. Now you ar...
No, I don't agree. You are simply assigning to the "recognition of things", a relational existence. You are simply assuming, falsely concluding, or so...
OK, so what you are saying is that anything written can have absolutely any meaning whatsoever, depending entirely on the interpretation. What the wri...
I don't think that this really resolves the issue. The issue is not that we can make two different types of descriptions concerning the same thing, it...
Well I guess this is quite different then, because it now appears like you are allowing for the actuality of things, but there is a property or attrib...
If any brain can interpret a piece of writing in any way that it wants, then on what basis would you say that there is any "information" in any writin...
What could I have possibly done wrong to deserve this? Now the next point the premise "that there is something" supports the cosmological argument. Yo...
I don't see how "self-containment" is even relevant. I would think that if the descriptive terms used to describe the properties or attributes of the ...
I'll reiterate. This is not what "distinct" means. Your premise that distinct realms must be "self-contained" is simply designed to support your monis...
I think the assumption "there is nothing", would need to be supported, and this would be impossible to support. All the evidence indicates that there ...
To separate two things as "distinct" things, does not require that those things do not interact with each other. You and I are distinct things yet we ...
Kinds are not things at all, they are the activities of things. As concepts they are the habits, activities, of the human mind. As properties of objec...
Right, "blue" is something created, conceptualized, and defined by human beings. It corresponds to the colour that the sky is. Likewise, "soul" is som...
That's just confirmation bias. I want verification, as you say, a demonstration that it is true that the colour of the sky is blue. That there is a ra...
The problem with this triadic ontology is that it is really just a veiled process monism. The logical contraries of being and not being do not allow f...
Here's my problem. You seem to be implying that some ideas (matters of fact) can be verified and some other ideas (matters of metaphysics) cannot be v...
It was T Clark who suggested soul is a matter of choice. I know you believe in determinism, so you can't with sincerity choose to believe anything. Bu...
I don't understand, some ideas we can verify and some we can't? What do you mean? Doesn't it seem more reasonable just to believe that different types...
Why do I need to say either one? And of what use would such an answer be? Let's first decide what it means to be, to exist, then the question "does an...
You can choose whether or not you have a soul? Perhaps you really mean that you can choose whether or not to believe that you have a soul. So how is t...
I have no problem "reduction", I think it's a useful tool. I've been accused of being reductionist but generally speaking I don't see how that's bad. ...
I'll assume then, that you mean interaction or something like that, when you say "correspondence". So, there is interaction between the mental and the...
A tree is a type, therefore "tree" is conceptual. I may judge something as being a tree, or you may judge something as being a tree, but how would suc...
Numberjohnny claims to be both physicalist and nominalist. That ought to play out nicely. I would think that there is no room for meaning in such an o...
I see you're still clinging to that mouthful of illogical incoherencies. Why don't you just give it up? Obviously this "new physical view of reality" ...
I'm not saying that the external whatever it is is not what we make of it. I said it's not necessarily similar to how we represent it, just like the w...
Why would you think that things in one realm ought to correspond with things in the other? Shouldn't they just be two complimentary aspects of existen...
This is the root of the problem. If you take away this premise, "that experience arises from a physical basis", there is no such problem. Why accept a...
The point I am making is that it is incorrect to say that a perception is "caused" by the thing which is present to the senses. Do you not understand ...
If you say "there must be one", then you imply necessity in relation to what you have described as contingent, the perception. Since a cause is requir...
You ought to recognize, that nothing, unless it's left unspoken, is truly private. And maybe the neuroscientists can extract it right out of your mind...
Yes, it appears to be as if you have no real understanding of "meaning". I don't see how this is possible. What a given proposition means to me is pro...
"Lost" is an appropriate word here. The empiricism places an emphasis on the importance of the reality of the "external object" as sensed, thus denyin...
The point is that the "thing itself" is not an object. The object is produced in the mind of the perceiver, in the act of perception. This is where I ...
As Wayfarer explained, the circularity is only avoided by turning to first person experience. From this perspective we can ask questions such as "what...
I would think that the subject, being the perceiver, is the cause of the perception. The phenomenon is the perception, so it cannot be the cause of th...
There are a number of different ways that "objective" is used, and we ought not equivocate. "Objective validity" does not mean "objective certainty" b...
There is no object though, it is an "unfocused anxiety". That is how these emotions, feelings of desire and intentionality present themselves to the c...
The issue, as Wayfarer explained is in the necessity of such assumptions. So you have removed the circularity of that act, of measuring one ruler with...
I agree, but the issue is how do you derive objectivity (of the object) from agreement, convention, or inter-subjectivity? A group of people might all...
Right, I agree with this. But my point is that these "feelings" do not inform conscious thought as objects. Nor does the conscious thought of an indiv...
You are proceeding from "observed phenomena" (of the subject), to conclude "observable phenomena" (of the object). Isn't this like jumping across the ...
I think this is where representationalism fails, as Procrastination Tomorrow explains. All the emotions derive from vague feelings, such as your feeli...
Phenomenon, is by definition subjective, of the subject. I don't see how you manage to turn this around, and make the claim that it is objectively cer...
Comments