The wavefunction does define the quantum state of the system, mathematically: it quantifies the probability of each possible measurement outcome; onto...
As you noted, naturalism is more open-ended. Materialism is less so, and physicalism is most restrictive. More restrictive= a more parsimonious ontolo...
Here are 2 aspects of the model you are overlooking: 1. Strict identity means conforming with Leibniz' law. Individual (strict) identity does not endu...
[ You're referring to complementary properties, like the position & momentum of an electron. These are not intrinsic properties of an electron (like -...
I start with natural: That which exists (has existed, or will exist) starting with oneself, everything that is causally connected to ourselves through...
I started by saying it's possible there is some aspect of reality that accounts for feelings, that is otherwise undetectable. This doesn't justify bel...
Do you REALLY want to get into each of those topics? That would extend this long discussion several more years. I've contributed to threads on all the...
It's a metaphysical underpinning for that methodological assumption: the world is a natural one, evolving entirely due to laws of nature; that everyth...
Yes, but it's a cautious belief - I know it's not necessarily true - it will always ONLY be a best explanation. I don't think you'll admit it, but it'...
Sorry I overlooked your question. A being that was built,which lacked feelings is generally referred to as a "Zombie." The being would have experience...
It's a point I've acknowledged from the very beginning of our conversation, months ago. As I've repeatedly pointed out, every theory of mind has expla...
Fair point, but until we have such a methodology, this comprises an explanatory gap. IMO, it's a narrower explanatory gap than alternative theories - ...
To be discoverable, there needs to be some measurable influence on known things. So there could be particles, or properties, that have no measureable ...
You miss the point. If the processes can be programmed, then an artificial "mind" could actually be built that had 1st person experiences. You conflat...
I didn't say, "non-physical", I said it may be partly due to "components of world that are otherwise undiscoverable." You haven't established that thi...
You are misrepresenting what I said. Here it is: I have consistently said that processes are not things (objects). That's why I agreed consciousness i...
Materialist theory of mind does not entail reifying the process of consciousness- considering it a thing. I brought up the limitation of the 1st perso...
The quote you asked me to respond to did not mention process. He alleged consciousness isn't "comprehensible". My position is that it IS comprehensibl...
I agree that consciousness is neither a thing nor a property: it is a process. If it's a process, then it isn't some "misleading name we give to the p...
Nothingness entails non-existence. The notion that nothingness preceded somethingness is nonsensical: it suggests non-existence existed - which is sel...
Your logic seems reasonable, but a theist will see an escape hatch between these 2 premises: Premise 3:A world where all sentient beings are equally o...
It's perfectly fine to have such an outlook on humanity, but projecting this onto the universe as a whole is unjustified: After humans inevitably ceas...
There's certainly much to be discovered, and probably much that isn't discoverable. But this doesn't falsify any metaphysical theories (including, but...
There are 2 facts that I think you agree with: 1) mind-independent, objective reality exists 2) You (Wayfarer) exist. I infer that you regard each of ...
Yes, but I was using this as an example of "feature": this one indisputable fact is a feature of objective reality (not merely phenomenal reality). Ar...
You have an inherent existence, do you not? You know this because you think, but your existence is surely not merely a phenonenol truth. I used the wo...
You are damning knowledge for being what it is. Knowledge can only be a reflection, or interpretation of what exists. It's logically impossible for kn...
You're assuming, without support, that the actual world lacks objects, or any aspects that a human perspective might consistently identify as an objec...
You seem to have not read this part: The "mind created world (model)" is a mental construct that fits my definition. You argue that this construct is ...
It's unclear what you mean by a "factual matter", since I regard facts as true beliefs. I'll elaborate of "facts" later, but first discuss "belief". Y...
Irrelevant to my point. He is not establishing that I exist. Our belief in our own existence is, as you put it, a "pre-commitment", although not in an...
Consider this: His statement does not account for WHY we believe in our own existence. He was not solving a controversy, in which people were unsure o...
Where does this "thoroughgoning skepticism" lead to? It seems to me that if skepticism (of even your innate beliefs) is your starting point you have n...
It depends on the premise that the "nature and relations of objects" lack objective existence- they depend on "the subject". Similarly, it also depend...
The epistemic foundation is subjective. But I believe that (mind-independent) objective reality exists - irrespective of whether or not any metaphysic...
I haven't objected at all to your version of idealism, which I believe I understood. My criticism is that the essay does not provide a justification f...
No, it's not because of my acceptance of mind-independent objects. It was because of the words you used*. Can you understand why "mind is foundational...
You made these assertions that apply to ontology: 1. Mind is foundational to the nature of existence 2. To think about the existence of a particular t...
When I perceive a brick in front of me, I have developed beliefs about an object: the brick. This includes the belief, "there is a brick at some appro...
Nothing you've described is inconsistent with physicalism. Human mental experiences are unique, among those of other living things, because we're phys...
This is an unjustified statement: you have provided no basis to claim reality has a mental aspect. I infer from other statements that you really mean ...
The core problem in our discussion, in this thread, is your false dichotomy: physicalism or your view. In case you haven't noticed, I have not been di...
I had read that Op, and the longer article you linked to. I had it in mind thoughout my comments in this thread. You article simply laid out a point o...
I think they get carried away, following a path of philosophical analysis based on a hypothetical possibility, without ever considering whether or not...
I surmise that you have no rational justification for your claims, and you have rationalized your position by blaming me for failing to grasp what you...
You're right. My issue is how one uses possibilities in further reasoning. Conpiracy theories begin with a possibility. It's possible some vaccine inc...
Of course the subject is me! It's a different perspective - but a different perspective of the same me. It's like working in building: you know the bu...
Comments