Clearly that's false. Hallucinating still makes use of light, it is a misuse perhaps, but we still see depite the fact that we are hallucinating as we...
I couldn't see the relevance of Cavacava's post. TS and I were discussing the reality of time. TS thinks that in reality, time is nothing other than c...
Instead of saying things like the "brain doesn't actually know", let's refer to what the brain does in relation to sensing, as interpretation. Let's s...
I think that in a TV screen there is a source of light radiation, right there in the screen, but in the case of glass, the source of light is further ...
Do you really believe that we learn ethics through empathy? I'm not interested in debating, it's not something I would enjoy, so I think that learning...
OK, there is a set of things named "changes". You want to refer to those things under a different name, "time". What justifies this change of name? Yo...
Now you have taken a generalization, an abstraction, change, which is what we say about any change, that it is a change, and assigned the name of a pa...
That's what I've always been asking you, because it's what you assume to be justification for your claim that there cannot be time passing without cha...
According to what Bittercrank wrote though, it is not the same "lightwaves/photons" that touch the stick as which touch your eyes. The ones that leave...
OK, you have two distinct phrases, "time is passing", "change/motion is occurring". My question is, on what premise do you equate these? You have just...
I'm talking about dukka's claim, that what we see is the water, not the stick inside the water. If the light after it leaves the stick within the wate...
Yes, now do you agree that "T1" and "T2" implies a difference in time? And, that the difference described by T1 and T2 can only be supported by an ass...
This seems to support dukka's position. In the stick in water example, what we are seeing is the light being emitted from the water, not from the stic...
I don't know how to make it any clearer, except to explain to you that 1 is not the same as 2. 10:42 is what the clock reads. Then 10:43 is what the c...
No, the clock indicates "10:42" is, the clock indicates 10:42, just like the clock indicates "10:43" is the clock indicate 10:43. You need another pre...
You seemed to be arguing against the possibility of a priori knowledge. You argued that we can only produce conceptions through the means of sense exp...
This is the point of the op though. What allows you to assume a T1 and a T2? Unless you can justify your premise that T1 is separate, or different fro...
Seeing straight lines, such as ones draw on paper, or occurring on manufactured things, gives you a representation of a straight line. From this repre...
Well, time and change are quite clearly two distinct things. Change refers to difference, and time refers to a continuance of existence. So they are c...
I'm saying that this statement is not sound. One is the means by which we measure the other. But a thing does not have to be measured, or even measura...
Didn't I tell you that the boiling temperature of water is dependent on the pressure? Where do you get these strange ideas of what my position entails...
As the thing which is measured, there is no necessity for something to change when time passes. Change is the means by which we measure time passing, ...
No. I'm dualist. Assuming a demon still assumes something external, and my point is that once you assume something external, you have what is required...
So long as you allow that there is a real separation between you and others, there is no such problem. The world around you is not constituted by your...
"Why this is so" is not at all complicated. It's a rather simple thing called intention. It so happens though, that most people deny the existence of ...
I don't get the end of chapter 7 at all, where he starts to say that the infinite différance is itself finite. Then he says absolute knowledge is clos...
Let me see if I have this straight. We are part of God, and everything else is part of God. When we want something bad enough, we can cause it to happ...
Sorry, but I never claimed to have anything more than fanciful speculation. However, that should never be equated with gibberish. Are mathematics and ...
Now I think we're getting to the point of the op. The geometrical "point", being non-dimensional, and occupying no space, really can't exist, in the s...
So objectivity is defined by agreement? I disagree. I think it has been demonstrated and learnt, that water boils under similar conditions. These cond...
The thing being measured is a quality of the physical world. The act of measuring is to represent that quality as a quantity. The size of an object is...
We can predict what temperature water boils at, because the scale is built around that. When water boils, this is one hundred degrees, by definition. ...
Right, moral ethics are not supposed to be "influenced by personal feelings or opinions", they are supposed to be objective. Do you think that scienti...
Do you understand how a point has no spatial extension in any direction? If so, then why can't you understand a point in time with no temporal extensi...
Yeah thanks, I saw your post. What I'm wondering is how knowledge of what is is supposed to be more "objective" than knowledge of ought. I don't think...
I don't see why you say this. "Moment" is used in a number of different ways. 1) it is used to signify a brief period of time, as you say, 2) it is us...
I don't believe that's true. You do not need to show that something is worse than something else, to prove that it is bad. You just need to describe t...
Ok, let me try again. You said that something which is demonstrated scientifically has a better chance of being objective, than ethics. You say that "...
Assuming that the passage of time is discrete, as you say, let's say that there is a moment, which consists of a very short period of time. That's the...
The Buddhist perspective is very interesting. If we consider that anything in the world can be changed at any moment of the present, as time passes, t...
It's very difficult having a discussion with you Sapientia. You keep making unsupported assertions, and when I ask you to justify them, you insist tha...
We have two distinct ways of understanding the world,1) in terms of what is, and what is not, 2)in terms of becoming. Being and not being refer to wha...
At least you're not accusing me of straw manning. Oh, I take that back. Science is objective, and ethics is not. Could you justify that assertion? OK,...
We can look at time in two distinct ways. One is as an undivided continuity, in which any insertion of "a moment" as a point of division between one p...
Comments