Only if you parse that as a false dichotomy between "constant change" as not having a regularity to it, and "non-constant change" as being only or per...
I think you give yourself (and Plato) too much credit. It's not that because everything is always in flux that there is no general stability to things...
I think you're missing my point. I didn't say that the changing things ("relata") being referred to entail that the mental relations are constantly ch...
Feser's argument is making a positive claim about different "types" of material processes having some commonality, namely, that they don't posses inhe...
It's not entirely clear to me what you mean. Anyway, I'll try to guess and make a stab at it! Firstly, in my ontology, all existents are constantly ch...
I must admit, after having looked into it, I didn't realise there were a few popular philosophical and non-philosophical definitions of fact/states of...
It's not changing the topic. In my view, a cat is never objectively feline because "feline" is a meaningful term that is assigned to animals like cats...
You'd have to explain how "particular things interacting in particular ways" looks like a non-particular event. It seems coherent to me, obviously. Bu...
Two major problems with this argument are: Firstly, brain processes aren't anything like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, or an ...
Yes, nominalistic materialism is true, in my view. "Truth" is a property of propositions/claims, and propositions are assertions (made by individuals/...
I've been pondering about our debate to try and understand it more clearly. I think we're talking about different things. I think you're basically say...
I mean that mental things are identical to physical things, namely, "types" of brain states. Physicalism is pretty much the same as materialism for me...
Well, that's because I'm a physicalist, and it doesn't make sense to me how a non-physical thing can exist. It's not as though I haven't thought about...
Three thoughts came to mind when reading that sentence: (1) Why you're deflecting the question back to me? (2) It seems you're implying that I haven't...
Sure. Behaviour involves the (autonomic and voluntary) motor movements (exhibition/inhibition of muscles via efferent pathways) as processed by noncon...
It doesn't make sense to me to suppose that, literally, "intentions lie behind" anything, apart from skulls, since intentions are mental phenomena. In...
Sure, but I'd also like to know from you how non-physical things exist if they have no properties, and therefore no spatio-temporal location? I can't ...
My aim wasn't to say that one can't observe behaviours/forms of communicating as objective to try and determine what the intentions of a person are. M...
Ok, thanks, I'll go with that definition. Let me try to rephrase what you're saying there in an attempt to make progress. If we are not perceiving/exp...
Btw, in my view, what makes something meaningful to a person is that it is a coherent set of beliefs (mental associations) that are assigned/imposed u...
This will take us into new territory, which can only make me think these posts will grow even larger. :S Perpendicular: if we're only talking about me...
Yeh, that's good. I was being facetious, btw. :) Ah, I think I can see how you're defining fact a bit better. My criteria for "facts" include unknowab...
What if you spun the situation around? That instead, it was you who posted on this thread after it began 6 months ago, and you disagreed with the OP a...
Well, since meaning is mental events, then anything that is not mental events has no meaning or cannot produce meaning. This is because ontologically,...
My definition of "information" is a combination of the phenomena perceived that is then cognitively organised, and communicated via various means if t...
Yes. I'd say that "any brain can interpret a piece of writing in any way that it wants," (there's no objective rule saying everyone must interpret any...
I am starting with your definition/explanation of what "truth" is because I think this informs the other parts of your recent post, in terms of where ...
Well, at least it shows you're trying to agree! :P I've never comes across this definition of "fact". Anyway, a reason why "fact" is the same as "even...
Thanks, but to which post/claim(s) are you referring? (Btw, I'm currently in the middle of responding to your last (big) post to me, but I won't be ab...
Let's substitute the word "event" for "fact" here. And let's assume there's the event occurring of someone driving in another country. Before I introd...
That would depend on what you think meaning is ontologically. Correct. Although I don't often invite notions of reduction as part of my view; reductio...
So you're describing information as a (meaningful) judgement about phenomena (I'd include any experience of events or objects, including recipes or eq...
Well if you disagree with nominalism then that might make sense. Again, I don't think "information" is some static, object-like thing to get "right" o...
As a physicalist, I'd say every thing that exists is physical. In your thought-experiment, it seems that, generally, "information" is being characteri...
Sure. A person driving a car in another country. Yes. A tree in the middle of the forest is an event. I'd say events in this sense are "situational", ...
"Activity" (in the observable sense) refers to the behaviour one takes in a particular situation. In this sense, "activity" involves intentions, where...
Well, thanks for your honesty. I don't know what you mean by "a preference to be referred to in a certain outdated way", but re "haughtiness", I defin...
I don't think "collective mind" makes sense outside of thinking that it refers to multiple minds thinking in particular ways. But meaning is personal ...
I wouldn't say all facts are subjective. Some facts don't happen in the mind. The reason I believe this is because I think facts are essentially event...
Because "truth" is an aspect of statements in which we make a judgement about things. Judgements are mental, something you agreed with in an earlier p...
I view truth as mental too. Maybe you mean "fact" by "truth"...? I use the conventional definition of "fact" as "states of affairs". Also, when it com...
"They" are the objects that we judge, sure. I'm saying, ontologically, judgements etc. are mental though. Without minds "comparisons" and the like don...
You mean with regards to the conventional definition, right? I don't know if I use the terms "better/worse" unconventionally then. Two things you've h...
Correct. With the proviso that "bucket of chemicals" refers to "biological properties"; mental states are brain states, and brain states are biologica...
I wasn't trying to forward a formal argument (I shouldn't have used the word "therefore"); but if I were, it'd go something like this (btw, "subjectiv...
The idea of "complete knowledge" of anything seems absurd to me. What you're talking about there is the difference between first-person experience and...
Yes, the answer is simple: judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc. are subjective. Therefore, people aren't objectively "better" or "worse"--you ca...
It's your usage of the word "explain" there that I'm not clear about. I'd rather say that "collections of chemicals/particles/etc." are identical to p...
Eh? I was using "subjective" there just to clarify that explanations are subjective, since you wrote "the bucket of chemicals does not explain, for ex...
Comments