You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Mww

Comments

Granted, of course. No one claims the unperceived simply ceases to exist. But is that tacit entitlement for an affirmative truth claim with respect to...
February 23, 2019 at 23:40
HA!! Good one!! I seem to recall (oh oh....memory trust again) you agree with S, there is a rock, in the future without observers. If so, what is the ...
February 23, 2019 at 23:25
Bummer. I knew I shouldn’t have trusted my memory. Thanks
February 23, 2019 at 23:02
If you were to construct an argument for my position (no knowledge of the existence of future objects is possible) all it could ever be is half-decent...
February 23, 2019 at 23:00
Sounds like Rod Serling opening an Outer Limits episode.
February 23, 2019 at 22:11
Relax your blood pressure, there, bub. Call it a course correction, aligning the stars. The question remains the same, and so do all my replies. —————...
February 23, 2019 at 22:01
If I’m misunderstanding over and over, why aren’t you telling me how? Your experiment is really simply worded, which implies simple responses. Now, I ...
February 23, 2019 at 16:23
The methodology for remedying the possibility of illusion has already been given. On the modern idealist model, which is still in force philosophicall...
February 23, 2019 at 15:13
I am specifying empirical knowledge because you are demanding knowledge of a physical object. Asking about whether there would be a rock must use empi...
February 23, 2019 at 14:30
I’m back. I packed a lunch, got my walkin’ shoes on, went looking for cats and optical illusions. Didn’t find any.
February 23, 2019 at 13:19
You know, I never understood this fixation with language. I just figure those guys with PhD’s in philosophy had to do something different because Kant...
February 22, 2019 at 23:59
On common sense: “......For the common understanding thus finds itself in a situation where not even the most learned can have the advantage of it. If...
February 22, 2019 at 23:21
I grant the practical aspect for knowledge is more suitable for the man on the street, who would perhaps think me wacky for maintaining we cannot know...
February 22, 2019 at 22:05
We both know you keep harping on my “extreme empiricism” because you refuse to accept the correctness of my idealism for this particular foray into th...
February 22, 2019 at 21:57
Yep. First line of the OP. Nike drop (Right foot Nike and I want it back, dammit)
February 22, 2019 at 21:43
I’ll go look, because I can’t even remember what I had.....no wait, if I had breakfast this morning. Better not be a wild goose chase.
February 22, 2019 at 21:10
ROFL. Excellent comeback.
February 22, 2019 at 21:07
You’re getting closer and closer. YEA!!!! What you listed as possible negation of the existence of the clock pertains in principle to the negation of ...
February 22, 2019 at 20:53
Oh PluLEEEEESEE!!!! Not the falling tree again. Say it isn’t so, Mr. Bill!!! Can you say......anthropic principle??? Carbon chauvinism run amok. (Bost...
February 22, 2019 at 20:38
There is a subject smuggled in, by the very nature of the experiment, because someone is being asked if there are still rocks after what would be the ...
February 22, 2019 at 20:22
This argument was never refuted because it was never presented. There is EMR throughout the Universe, passing through or by any and all other objects ...
February 22, 2019 at 20:14
All good. Half of irrational is still irrational.
February 22, 2019 at 15:34
‘Tis a hollow laugh, my friend. “Rock” is nothing but a human-developed word contained in a human-developed language given to a human-developed concep...
February 22, 2019 at 15:31
I agree with half, disagree with the other half. The two propositions are mutually exclusive, because only one or the other can be the case. The forme...
February 22, 2019 at 15:20
Agreed, consciousness is inseparable from the objects of consciousness that we call the world. However, there are objects of consciousness that are no...
February 22, 2019 at 13:39
Yeah, well, the counter-argument’s going to be...it’s a hypothetical scenario and as such, POOF!!! All the humans are gone, so nobody is there to set ...
February 22, 2019 at 13:17
Watch out for tomatoes!!!!! Talk like that’ll get you pummeled from the balcony. Look at me; I’m fairly dripping with ‘em. (Grin)
February 22, 2019 at 12:11
Not rejecting subjectivity shows hope. What argument? I haven’t seen subjectivity mentioned once in 12 pages. I asked “what is blue” and got a bunch o...
February 22, 2019 at 12:03
I’ll be damned. That paragraph right there, is a synopsis of what I and U.M have been saying for 6 pages. Rough around the edges, but that’s to be exp...
February 22, 2019 at 11:46
Set an alarm clock of some kind for an hour, kill off all the humans.......what does the alarm sound or look like? If the alarm is not sensed, the ind...
February 22, 2019 at 11:13
A theory predicated on spontaneity isn’t going to have any mechanics behind it’s causality. The mechanics follow from it, re: will, maxims, imperative...
February 22, 2019 at 01:41
You mis-read.
February 22, 2019 at 01:31
I don’t think a theory of spontaneous causality is indeterministic. Freedom doesn’t determine anything, it is the condition by which the will is enabl...
February 21, 2019 at 23:42
Interesting read, but I gotta tell ya, man...... “....All I hear is Radio ga-ga Radio goo-goo Radio ga-ga....” ....not quite, but you get my drift, ri...
February 21, 2019 at 23:28
Because the notion of free will is metaphysical, the derivation of its origin should be as well. Enter the notion of freedom in the metaphysical sense...
February 21, 2019 at 16:59
I have those, but in my Critique of Kant, there are those Latin phrases that don’t come with translations, so I’m missing a lot of the particulars of ...
February 21, 2019 at 16:19
Reasonable to believe...certainly; Set the bar higher.....ditto. Problems for myself.....not from where I sit. Reasonable to say we believe something ...
February 21, 2019 at 14:19
You may well call time a dimension but Kant does not follow; he calls it a pure intuition, one of two, the other space. Dimension is not what makes ti...
February 21, 2019 at 13:22
Sure they would. But considering the medium we’re using for our conversation, here and now......... ————— If I have a point, THAT is the matter. Whate...
February 21, 2019 at 12:45
Say what???? You must be WAAAYY undercover not to accept the ideality of time. All the cool kids are doin’ it, doncha know. (Kidding.....it’s a tough ...
February 21, 2019 at 12:01
Done deal. Keeping mind it is quite murky down here in the weeds.
February 20, 2019 at 19:50
Where did the Kantian “I”, the thinking subject, the unity of apperception, the representative of consciousness, go? Is that what it’s become?
February 20, 2019 at 18:08
The following of rules requires a faculty or source of principles such that following rules doesn’t disempower the source of the rules. There can’t be...
February 20, 2019 at 17:23
I don’t have any problem with the idea I can’t dream except for what resides in consciousness, even understanding the vagary and ambiguity of consciou...
February 20, 2019 at 16:16
Understood. What do you think of the proposition we can’t dream anything we haven’t already experienced, either directly or indirectly, that is, what ...
February 20, 2019 at 15:34
First, I was leaving the argument with that as the major premise to you because you brought it up, and second, I don’t think S is ready to accept the ...
February 20, 2019 at 15:24
Agreed. I can smell bacon in life; I cannot smell bacon in dreams. I can dream I am smelling bacon but that is not a sensory experience. But that does...
February 20, 2019 at 15:11
Intervention?
February 20, 2019 at 14:38
A’) It can still be said is the epitome of speculation. While it is true such speculation can be unknowingly true, because it is speculation, at the t...
February 20, 2019 at 14:22
Accepted, with all due respect to your humility.
February 20, 2019 at 12:21