No, of course not, since there is no such thing as objective truth. It is a fact, however. Okay, but it's been an explicitly-expressed (maybe first in...
Which he explains is not the same as, or at least need not be the same as a truth claim. This is incorrect. It can be true, it's just not verification...
Aside from that not being the name of a stance (although you could make it one I suppose), you'd have a problem there because that's not at all my sta...
Citation for that? I'm not denying that (though I am denying that that's about senses of those terms that are different than the senses used in modal ...
Okay, but in my case, using Chalmers' terminology, my claim that the moon is independent is an ontological existence claim, not an "ordinary existence...
Via familiarity with a wide span of philosophcial literature, as well as definitions such as those in the dictionaries and encyclopedias I quoted earl...
Some comments on the stuff leading up to the passage I quoted before (these will make more sense if you're familiar with the paper; I'm just quoting t...
I found a place where Chalmers says, "We are now in a position to state ontological realism and anti-realism more precisely. Ontological realism, at l...
And I'd not disagree with that in the slightest. But I already explained this. It's a correlative belief. It's not part of what realism refers to. It'...
I started reading through it already. So far, the mention I see of the number analogy has absolutely nothing to do with truth realism. I'm searching f...
That seems completely unsupported/arbitrary by the way. Does he have some sort of argument for that? It might make sense if one were defining realism ...
By the way, I do personally adhere to correspondence theory, but on my analysis it is a subjective affair--as all "truth phenomena" are, whether peopl...
You can say that, but you're simply saying it. It would require extensive empirical evidence. And that empirical evidence would have to support not th...
That would work if one were a truth realist. I'm not. Realism, in general, doesn't imply truth realism. Realism, in general, doesn't imply anything li...
Well, realism isn't usually understood per Dummet's definition, or with respect to something specifically about truth claims. Conventional philosophic...
That certainly doesn't work for me, because of my view on what truth is/how it works as well as my view about whether sentences can refer mind-indepen...
Haha, oh--well, I wouldn't say that realism implies any particular epistemological view. I don't see how that wouldn't be misleading to suggest. It wo...
My definitions of mental disorders and insanity: Mental disorders: Relatively unusual mental processes that regularly prohibit their bearer from funct...
According to "many worlds," all possibilities are real/are actualized. You're in this particular actualized possibility. You're not in other ones. Thi...
Haha, you're talking about possibility and necessity, so yes you are. That's what modalities are. No, not at all. Well, ultimately this is relating to...
That wouldn't be the case just because you're saying it is, though. You're not at all explaining what you have in mind here. I wouldn't agree that tha...
Do I agree with that? It depends on what we're saying, exactly. If we're referring to how we're naming things/defining terms, then no, I don't think t...
Okay, but MY point is that we need to have an accurate understanding of "a universe open to observation." When we have that, mind is no longer such a ...
Thanks. That seems clear on its surface, I suppose. But I'm a bit confused then about your earlier usage. So a chair is an existing thing, but "it exi...
People say all sorts of things about materialism here that I don't agree with as a materialist. This is one of them. Maybe it's just a matter of how y...
The universe is wide open to observation, but only from one reference point at a time. The big error that's leading to the conceptual mess that you're...
A lot of your argument is based on likelihood. What are you basing likelihood on? (For example, when you comment that dog-gods, pug-gods etc. are unli...
If you're using the term that way, it's your usage. That's not a claim that you invented it, and it's not a claim that you're the only person to use t...
What is the semantic difference you're denoting via a capital versus a lower-case "b" there? (And just as a note of trivial curiosity, what do you do ...
If we say that God is being/existence itself, then God certainly exists, but the problem is this: what does being/existence itself have to do with any...
Say what? First, what the heck are we referring to exactly with "relationships of necessity"? Although we might want to just jump ahead to your idea t...
I wasn't thinking of God there, as I'm an atheist, but sure, for someone who believes in God, that would do. As with everyone else, though, it would j...
But what is that relationship on your view? Where does it obtain? Just what, ontologically, is it? That's what I'm asking you. Is it part of the ink o...
Okay, so how, outside of someone thinking about it this way, does a set of marks on paper or a piece of metal or whatever stand for or refer to someth...
No. Eliminative materialism isn't the default position. There's no standard definition of "material" or "physical" that have it so that necessarily, n...
As a materialist/physicalist, I don't believe that mind is reduced to non-mind. Minds and brains are identical. Brains are not "non-mind." For the ump...
If logical reasoning has led you to conclude that everyone around you is a "p-zombie," then you'd better abandon logical reasoning, because it's defec...
This would not be asserting that something is the case just because someone says that it is, though, would it? You have other reasons for trusting tha...
This is where we disagree. It is an act of creating relationships, and interpretations and understanding involve creating meanings. There are no meani...
Comments