Terrapin Station

The question is kind of a mine field, as there are so many possible ways to address it, and there will be many different answers for each track depend...

On my view we have to add "if someone judges that a proposition has the right relation to (other things in) the world." I say it's exclusively mind-de...

Adding "exclusively" to "mind-dependent" just says that there's no part of the world that's not mind that is a part where truth obtains.

Right--for example, I'd say that's true. What makes it true to me is that I'm making a judgment about a proposition. That's what truth is. All truth i...

m-theory, again, that diagram was in response to you saying this: And the explanation for it was this. Also note the word "apparently," by the way: If...

Right. So that's what I was referring to by "separate" for one. As I said above: "they're not the same in every respect, including numerically." If th...

Sure. So for one, that's a difference between actual and potential points, right?

Sure. Isn't there something numerical about the two actual points?

Okay, but there can be two points?

You'd say there can be two adjacent points?

So you'd say you're depicting a contradiction there? Why would you think it was supposed to be? I specified what that diagram was.

So you'd maybe say that two adjacent points are numerically the same?

Ah--I'm not meaning separate as in "disconnected" or "having nothing to do with" or something like that. I mean that either they're the same in every ...

One could believe anything constrained by demands for consistency, too. Not everyone has the same views on what's consistent, and folks can rationaliz...

Are you just reporting your own view that inequity, unqualified, is wrong? Or are you claiming that some population of other people believe that inequ...

Re this, by the way: No--I don't think it would make any difference if space and time were discrete rather than continuous. However, I won't discuss t...

You're not really addressing what I asked you though. Do you see this as a third possibility between properties only in particulars and properties tha...

I'm not sure how to answer that. Preferring something is just being in a state where you have more positive feelings towards one option rather than an...

But no one was saying that truth is dependent on everything in the world. Rather, truth is just dependent on one part of the world, namely minds.

What you're apparently saying here is that IF: * ? is a property of Fs * ? is ONLY a property of Fs; ? is not found elsewhere * Fs are Gs * The class ...

If it's some major decision--career, where to live, whether/who to marry, etc., sure. I prefer to be informed about the aspects that are important to ...

Which has nothing to do with the claim you made. Your claim was about the conditions required for comprehensibility.

I don't believe there's any plausible way to estimate likelihood for this.

Right. So "That man is Barack Obama and that man is the president of the United States" is a sentence that denotes two different things extensionally ...

So "and" necessarily denotes a difference of extension in your view?

Explain what the difference would be then.

They're the same thing if something is world-dependent solely by virtue of being mind-dependent, where minds are part of the world.

For example, it depends on just what the judgment is about. Just what beliefs are we talking about? There are certainly beliefs where someone who beli...

Not enough information in my opinion. There are way too many variables that factor into this.

They'd be the same. Truth is exclusively mind-dependent. Mind is part of the world. It would be like saying (1) Everest's peak is Everest-dependent an...

That's a claim for which you're supplying neither any empirical evidence nor any argumentation.

If minds are part of the world, and truths are dependent on minds, then aren't truths world-dependent (on the part of the world that is minds)?

What I've been talking about. Again, it seems to me that there are only two logical possibilities (I'll give the nutshell version;) Either A. Properti...

Because you don't consider minds to be part of the world, right?

In talking about the logical relationship I'm focusing on, I'm talking ONLY about the logical relationship, and I'm trying to avoid any ontological co...

You mean a la making a sharp distinction between minds and worlds so that minds are necessarily not part of the world?

Correct, and I do not believe that anyone claimed otherwise. That, however, is incorrect, because we can state it at T1.

It seems like there's something else that you're confusing here. Say that at time T1 there are minds, including my own. At time T2, there are no minds...

P can't change. You'd have to say that we're either asserting and denying either "Truth is mind-dependent" OR "The world is absent of minds."

Not to be patronising, but just in case you need an explanation regarding what I'm talking about: "p" is a variable for a proposition. Just to keep th...

All of that is p?

What's p in the contradiction? (Contradictions being instances of p & ~p)

It's not a mind-independent truth about the world. It's a mind-dependent truth about the world. This isn't a matter of you reading "about" as "a prope...

That makes no sense. Truth is mind-dependent. So when we make a claim about anything, we're saying something mind-dependent, right? So when we make a ...

It's not a mind-independent truth about the world that there are no mind-independent truths. What you quoted made no claim to being a mind-independent...

Right. And why is that a problem?

Although why is it a problem that it cannot be a truth about the world without minds?

Yes. You're offering what seems to you to be a reasonable interpretation, where you "modestly" see your interpretation necessarily as identical to Ari...

What I'm trying to avoid in my last post, though, is any suggestion of what sort of ontological stuff anything is. It gets frustrating sometimes becau...

It would be fun, maybe, if we had a month on the board where: (1) To maintain your registration, you have to post at least 30 times (once per day on a...