Bartricks

Do you think you have reason to avoid death?

Gibberish.

First, it is a category error to conflate the mind and consciousness. Consciousness is a state. The mind is an object. Consciousness is a state of min...

You have asked what has intrinsic value, but then you've proceeded to argue that intrinsic value is subjective, which is a claim about the nature of i...

Omniscience is coherent. You can be omniscient and not know that you are omniscient. To be omniscient is to be in possession of all knowledge. This is...

I have literally no idea what you're on about. There's no excuse for being lost - I presented a deductively valid argument. You seem to want things no...

What?

No, it is a substantial conclusion. It is not an imprecise way of speaking. Some things are not made of sensations - minds, for instance. And some thi...

But if you agree that we are aware of change by sensation, then this - once it is acknowledged as well that sensations can only resemble sensations - ...

I don't understand you. The example of the portrait was to show you how resemblance works. The portrait would not, for instance, give us any insight i...

No, you owe the argument - what, you think that you can 'only' sense something that isn't a sensation? On what basis do you think that means of awaren...

I don't know what you're on about now. It is sufficient for my argument to go through that we have a sensation of change. I do not need it to be the c...

Those seem like confused questions. We are aware of a world via some of our sensations. It's why we call it 'the sensible world'. Now, I have argued t...

I presented an argument that appears to demonstrate that it is a sensation. It is sufficient that there is a sensation of change to establish that cha...

I don't see how that relates to my argument. My conclusion is that change itself is a sensation. That's a substantial conclusion. And it is certainly ...

Your objection is that I am confusing a means of awareness with an object of awareness - an objection I anticipated in my OP and explicitly addressed....

Because the question I am addressing is 'what is change?' Do you have any objection to the argument?

That doesn't engage with my point. A sensation cannot literally 'tell us' something, for then it'd have to be a little person, yes? Sensations are eit...

I don't know what you are talking about. If an event was future and is now present, then it has changed - changed in its temporal properties. It has a...

I said of those who try to analyze change in terms of time, that their analysis will either be circular or no analysis of change at all. If you are su...

I don't understand you. If something goes from being future to being present, it has changed, yes? It's changed from being future to being present. So...

So, you think if a change in temporal properties is not a change? Explain.

For the umpteenth time, it is circular. You haven't bothered actually engaging with the point - you just keep insisting that it is not circular. A cha...

You're the one talking nonsense. The claim that sensations can only resemble other sensations is not nonsensical in any way. A sensation cannot 'tell'...

Circular. You are simply describing when we have a change, but not saying what change itself is. If I ask what yellow is, providing me with a list of ...

It's circular. Becoming different and changing are synonymous. It's like saying 'cheese is fromage'. Yes, but I want to know what cheese is, in and of...

I don't understand your point. The argument I provided was seductively valid, so you have to dispute a premise. Which one are you disputing?

I don't see your point. You asked what evidence I have for a sensation of change. I provided some. I can have the impression there has been a change, ...

As already explained, movement makes reference to change. So to reduce change to movement is to go in a circle.

I have not claimed that all sensations are 'of' things (indeed, the word 'of' is ambiguous anyway). Sensations - some of them - tell us about reality ...

What on earth does that mean? What work is the word 'ontologically' doing? I explained why it is circular. If you say 'change is when an object has a ...

None of that follows. I provided an answer to the question I posed in the OP. Whether is works or not is the matter under discussion.

Possibilities are not good evidence. Note as well that I have argued that change and time are not equivalent, for any attempt to provide an analysis o...

We can get the impression a change has occurred, without being able to identify what, if anything, has changed. Thus there seems to be a feeling or se...

Put down your dictionary and start thinking. If one wants to know what change is, it is no good just offering up some synonym for change. Now, I offer...

Er, Berkeley made that argument. I am simply applying it to change. You clearly haven't read Berkeley. Or me. I could give you any number of arguments...

The clarion call of the internet educated. If the external world bore no resemblance whatsoever to any of our sensations, then in what possible sense ...

I provided an example that appears to demonstrate that one can have cause and effect without change. You reply by just stipulating that 'effect' and '...

Yes there is. I suspect that, like most people here, you don't know an argument from your elbow. Here is the argument: 1. There is a sensation of chan...

Question begging. If you think that there is something that resembles a sensation, yet is not one, provide an example. Note, there is no question that...

No, you are dismissing an argument on the basis of an assumption you have made about the arguer. That's just silly. I don't have an agenda, but even i...

No, you can have causation without change. An example (due, I think, to Kant): imagine a ball on a cushion and imagine that both have existed for eter...

That is circular as well. For what does 'becomes different' mean if not 'changes'? The question is not 'when do we have a change?', but 'what 'is' cha...

What is like a sensation, but not one?

You don't seem to grasp the point.

How is there an exception? Either an argument is sound, or it is not. At no point do the motives of the arguer matter. So, what's wrong with the argum...

I am not sure I follow. If the law describes a change, then change is being invoked, not analysed. If the law itself changes, the same applies. The bi...

My motives - which are pure - do not matter. You should assess a case on it's own merits, not concern yourself with the arguer's agenda.

That's not true - one can have a cause and effect relation without there being any change. But even if that's incorrect and change is what causes crea...

That's not a view about what change 'is'. It's a view about how widespread it is. If I ask "what is bread?" and one answers "bread is everywhere", the...