Terrapin Station

But i wasn't talking about our concepts, perception, knowledge, etc. It's very annoying to keep changing the topic to epistemology. (And/or philosophy...

You're talking about concept-formation there, right? Again, I'd ask why you're talking about that. I wasn't talking about concepts per se.

You're not understanding me. The objective world is perspectival. I'm saying nothing like "the objective world is impossible."

Why would you be talking about "grasping" something?

Good example of reifying mathematics.(Which I see has led him to focusing on nonsense like "multiverse" theory, string theory, etc.)

No I'm not. I'm talking about objective events, objective sounds. Why would we be talking about how people use language? That's not the topic.

We could diagnose you.

That was very persuasive.

When I talk about sensing or experiencing "Kashmir" and music, I'm not talking about ideas. I always refer to particulars by "matter."

I don't see shooting for something that isn't true as an ideal there. The ideal (in my view) would be to get people to realize/acknowledge perspectiva...

I look at it like this. Say that there's a particular kind of mold that only grows inside refrigerators when they're running. I don't know if that's t...

My truth theory (which I'm pretty sure I gave you in detail a few weeks ago) has truth as a subjective judgment, but that's rooted in (though obviousl...

No, I'm not saying that at all. Some matter is obviously mind on my view. I'm a physicalist, an identity theorist. All concepts are the result of indi...

Obviously it's a metaphysical position, yes. I don't agree with any sentence there, but I don't know if it's worth it to spell out why I disagree with...

In other words, you'd probably call something "public meaning" that I'd say isn't actually meaning? That could be.

Obviously. Because people think about them, assign meanings to them, etc. That's so rough that it's inaccurate. You're not literally passing any sort ...

There's a traditional sense (a la scholasticism for example) of "real" that's basically the same as "objective ," but that's a bad idea, because it di...

Okay, but how would the fact that we can agree ("I think that nonconsensual killing is wrong"--"Hey! I think that nonconsensual killing is wrong, too!...

I know this. I'm asking you on what grounds do you believe this, given your views?

What possible grounds would you have for saying she's not just an idea in your own mind then?

Isn't she just an idea in your own mind on your view?

If you have time, I want you to tell me the process by which you reached that conclusion.

To get into my truth theory is going to be a big tangent. Don't you not have time at the moment? And we should probably start a different thread about...

No. A standard way to use "fact," in both philosophy and the sciences, is that it's a state of affairs, independent of our knowledge. We make statemen...

It would be to assume that I was saying "everything is an instrumental model" just because I said one thing is. That's what I was talking about re tha...

Keep track of what you asked about. You asked about the idea of "changing behavior when observed." I didn't say "everything is an instrumental model,"...

Via noting that scientists have a tendency to reify instrumental models. They're particularly bad about that when it comes to anything mathematical.

Why would you believe such nonsense? What led you to that conclusion?

Positing is something that we do. Mind-independent facts are not something we do. They just are.

Positing a fact is different than the fact itself.

Most states of affairs are mind-independent facts. A tree being deciduous, for example, or that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe,...

The first question was "Talking about the human mind, which is the brain in particular (dynamic) states, isn't talking about something not mental, rig...

You ignored the question I asked earlier and then ignored the question about why you ignored the question. I wasn't asking questions simply for decora...

That may be the case, but since someone who lacks a belief in gods but who came to that view via another means is still an atheist, we don't include t...

Right, since a brain scan isn't a moral stance or a normative, etc. What I kept specifying was mind versus mind-independent, no? I didn't say anything...

That's not what I said (and there are reasons I definitely would never say that that way (which I don't want to get into because it would be a big tan...

Sure, a mental way that they work, right? (Otherwise you're not saying something about the human mind after all, no?)

Do they objectively justify the application of norms?

For it to be an objective fact, it has to be a fact that's mind-independent. How is a fact about the human mind mind-independent?

You just told me a bunch of stuff about how some people think, what they believe, what they prefer. Your claim was that "genocide is wrong" can be fou...

Where would you say "genocide is wrong" is located in the world? What is "genocide is wrong" a property of? I don't like "agreeing to disagree" about ...

Nope. There are no objective whatever-you-want-to-call-thems period when it comes to good, bad, evil, etc. (most terms, like assessments, evaluations,...

You can't refer to or grasp the objective reality of anything that's only mental, because it's only mental--by definition not objective. Are you claim...

The meaning of a word is only mental. The sounds or marks etc. are not. Beliefs per se are mental, but if they correspond to something that's not only...

Because we want to know what the world is like, and we believe it's worthwhile to examine that with a methodological approach different than science i...

Hence "If normatives are only mental, then there are no facts about them aside from the fact that a particular mind is thinking about them however tha...

One problem with this is that there isn't anything that's not a particular. That's not to say that there are not abstract or general concepts (types, ...

I think that the idea of anything being nonphysical is incoherent. Meaning can be pinpointed as physical events in our brains. (I wouldn't say "reduce...

Not categorize, per se, but to say what it's supposed to be physically as something public.

I was talking about experiencing things. The whole point was talking about experiencing a tree pre-conceptually. You said that you can experience the ...