Terrapin Station

The substratum is everywhere, but not in space? So if we point to a spatial location, the substratum isn't there, even though it's everywhere. Is that...

The substratum is everywhere that existence is? What's "non-local" about it?

What would a "non-local substratum" be? The substratum isn't located where the substratum is?

So how would you say that God wouldn't be the same as Paris if he's omnipresent?

Well, or you're part of God. (This is all of course, assuming that someone buys the notion of a God, buys omnipresence, etc.) Because Omnipresent mean...

If God is omnipresent, yes. That's a requirement for omnipresence. The other option is simply not to say that God is omnipresent.

So "individual morality" is only a dot in the center of "the existing individual who is directly concerned with the ethical"?

If there's something separate from God then there are places where God is not located.

So you're using the colloquial "transcending the physical world" sense? In philosophy, the bulk of metaphysics is ontology, which is simply about "wha...

The problem I always had is it is this: just how is that supposed to work ontologically? How, ontologically, does Adam and/or Eve doing something get ...

What are you thinking "metaphysical" refers to?

Then God can't be omnipresent.

(1) If conceiving of an object is identical to the object literally being present, then what work is the word "conceiving" doing there anyway? In othe...

Must. Repeat. The. Mantra.

I'm not even sure what "ethical existence" would refer to. If it's "where ethics exists" then the circle would be a small one inside a much larger "in...

So in my view, morality works the same way.

Thanks for answering. I'm wondering why you think that you can't know that I'm picturing something if you think that you can know that I'm thinking so...

Just in case you don't know, I'm an atheist, so I'm not commenting on the following to try to convince anyone that God exists. I'm just addressing the...

I know I shouldn't address this, because you'll probably just ignore the other question, but that is incoherent, because the dichotomy exhausts every ...

What would be an example of something mental, that you don't directly apprehend, that you can know (propositionally)?

"Blind guess" implies it's not based on any evidence or reasoning period. "Ambiguous"/"unambiguous" is relative/subjective. It depends on the meaning,...

No, it isn't. "Blind guess" implies that it's not based on any evidence or reasoning.

It's not a lack of care with wording. You can't parse speech like a robot. You won't understand a huge percentage of what people say if you do that. I...

Look at it this way. When a baseball player says to himself, "If I don't chew my gum exactly nine times between pitches, I'm not going to be able to g...

It's not careless if you're used to conventional conversational English. The two are saying the same thing. No, they're not. Almost everyone is basing...

If someone assigns meaning to something, it's meaningful to them. "Meaningful" is always to an individual. Re the other part, what does it conventiona...

I don't think that people often make blind guesses about things. And when they do, they usually announce it; often they're rather apologetic about it....

Unless you're using "meaning" in some very odd manner, why couldn't a blind guess be meaningful to someone? If the very notion of nonphysicality is in...

Do you think that every single mental thing that goes on in the mind of another is something you can directly apprehend? For example, if I picture a c...

No, that's not correct given the distinction as it's been made.

It would be a huge discussion to get into because there isn't just one way that we do this, and it's not something simple in any case. We probably don...

Who knows why you're arguing with me? :wink: I was simply explaining that nominalism is about indenticality, and there are people who claim identicali...

Just what I explicitly typed. The short version was the first sentence: "In general, there's no requirement that you directly experience something (an...

The analogy didn't say anything about predictions. That's not what it was about. Not that it's true that you can't make predictions with respect to ot...

In general, there's no requirement that you directly experience something (and so know it by acquaintance) to know it in the propositional sense. For ...

The passage you quoted there does not use the word "identity," it's not saying anything about identity (per the distinction between identity and ident...

First off, the world isn't solely comprised of morals. That's all I'm talking about there--morals. Secondly, even if we were saying that it's "solipsi...

"Numerically identical." You preceded "if you define that . . ." with "Numerically identical," followed by a colon, because that's what I had just exp...

If morals/morality is only internal to individuals, then my morals/morality are internal to me, Joe's is internal to Joe, yours are internal to you, e...

I said nothing even remotely resembling that. Not that it has anything to do with the conventional definition of solipsism. That doesn't follow from "...

You're calling me a fuckwit and you still can't even get straight if we're talking about identicality or identity per the distinction you introduced e...

But you're using the term in some mysterious, unconventional way.

How about just explaining how you think it would imply that you somehow have my morality?

Via saying that a simple description of identicality being multiply instantiated "defines it away" so that no one would hold the view.

Learn what "solipsistic" conventionally refers to.

If morals are only internal, then you internally possess my morals because? Try that with something else that is internal to individuals. If desires a...

"if you define that as meaning that an entity is absolutely unchanging from one moment to the next then you have defined away the possibility that any...

I don't know why you're changing to a focus on "meaningful." At any rate, one example of something you can base an assertion on is whether nonphysical...

For one, not understanding that people don't universally deny identicality multiply instantiated.

Such as understanding what the different sides of what the nominalism versus realism debate are even claiming.