Half and half: I don’t hold with minding (aka consciousness), such minding activity I would stipulate as reason, but agree that none of those is an en...
quote="Eugen;d14278"]I. ''absolutely anything you could think of": A. is fundamental B. is not fundamental Sorry. That was a supposition, not a query....
I would not affirm either of those things. How could it possibly be comprehensible, that time exists without the intellect that uses it? Actually, how...
That’s a lot simpler question than the original, isn’t it? Before, you asked for one or the other. Here you’re asking if something other than one or t...
Yes, as far as we’re concerned anyway. You’ve conflated the time of objects with the time of space. That notwithstanding, while it is the case objects...
Ehhh….I’d give that a big fat no. Can’t buy it by the pound, can’t store it in the freezer. Usually when we say something exists we can lay a hand on ...
There are properties; there are fundamental properties. These all belong to objects alone. There is the conception of reality, a metaphysical placehol...
“…. By whatever and by whatever number of predicates—even to the complete determination of it—I may cogitate a thing, I do not in the least augment th...
Would you entertain the notion finite beings don’t experience the passage of time, but rather, only experience change? And even if change makes explic...
Maybe not so much nonsense, as violation of principles. Reality doesn’t have fundamental properties; the objects which constitute reality, do. A prope...
Ironic, innit? The human thinks in images, but cannot express himself by them. So he invents language to represent his thoughts, but finds words somet...
A few. The brain. Amazing piece of machinery. In humans, the irreducible source of knowledge, except the knowledge of how it is that the brain is the ...
Dunno, but Quinne at least, wishes to avoid such appeal by substituting “ontic necessity”, in that if a scientific theory is grounded by abstract math...
It is not the case. Kant does not tell us what we should or should not think, but only gives the conditions under which whatever we do think, is held ...
Then there is no sufficient reason to think….. ….this has any approximation to being the case. If a process is not empirically observable there’s no r...
Yeah, my fault, sort of. You began by claiming a necessary decision-making process for construction of human sensory apparatus, and I took that to dec...
The only method for judgement I can use is right between my ears, and since that cannot be the creator of me, whatever that creator is, if it is, is s...
“…. Thus the criterion of the possibility of a conception (not of its object) is the definition of it, in which the unity of the conception, the truth...
No. The object of perception is that which is perceived. It is external to the senses, and is merely that by which they are affected, depending on the...
Cool. I was hoping someone would mention looking at the shadow to switch the rotation. Doesn’t happen all the time, but often enough. Could just blink...
Did that already. Sort of. Gave you the what, even if not the how. Doesn’t matter; we’re not concerned right here right now with how it’s done, insofa...
And there it is. Right in front of you the whole time. I wasn’t going to use the word until you did, which sooner or later you must. No silver platter...
Another unwarranted deductive inference. Excepting perception, no concept used thus far in this dialectic can be associated with a material system. In...
“….. When we try to discover the nature of the reality behind the shadows, we are confronted with the fact that all discussion of the ultimate nature ...
There you go again. We’re not talking about the location of a system, but only the location of a faculty within it. Man, your system is nothing like m...
I do not work with gists; proper dialectics require I work with only what is given to me, and that subjected to my own understanding. All you’ve said ...
These are declarations, mere assertions, with no detailed explanation accompanying them. And I reject anything needing quotation marks that merely sub...
The validity of the one does not necessarily follow from the validity of the other. There is no necessary relation between a form of subconscious “jud...
Day-um, man!! How big is your ego, anyway??? You got “you realize I’m right” out of “have it your way”? Like….the only possible analysis of the one re...
This is tantamount to proposing that sensibility thinks, from which follows that given that understanding is the faculty of thought, there are now two...
Agreed, but does to exist carry the same meaning as to be named? I maintain that the objects in pictures meant to demonstrate human perception shouldn...
My sentiments exactly. The average Joe isn’t philosophically discerning, but he could be, given proper instruction. And the limits of empiricism is no...
Nice. Something not often brought about, but a metaphysically….logically….valid premise nonetheless, we generally being more concerned with knowledge....
Ahhhh….the Treatise. Ya know, and in no way to (not much) pat myself on the back, re: appearances, even ol’ Dave says, “… Those perceptions, which ent...
Comments