Banno

Too obscure a reference for our foreign chums? When I was a kid I had a job pulling lantana with a chain on a tractor. Several times I was nearly kill...

Then I don't understand what your "external world" is. I take a cup to be paradigmatic of an object in the world. Notice that I dropped the word "exte...

Not I. Existence has been given an excellent and clear analysis after Frege. Being suffered many confusions in Germany, which doubtless will carry thi...

Ok, that's a different reason. Seems to me that the juxtaposition against idealism is clear from the question. There were indeed seperate questions ab...

Yep. So we need to be clear as to whether we are talking of existence or being. Plenty of pedantry to be found on this topic.

So the self ceases to exist when asleep. Sounds about right.

Really? What is it we talk about , then? It seems we need to differentiate realism as opposed to anti-realism from realism as opposed to idealism, in ...

How very odd. In several ways. "Proper" implies the use of some sort of norm, presumably a scientific one. I'd have taken "the cup is in the cupboard"...

Then I don't understand why you did not vote for realism.

Why, or how, would a quantum field theory qualify as idealism?

Anyway, up to 31 votes and the discrepancy remains. If anything, the realist vote is dropping.

Do others here feel a certain disquiet in the framing of these arguments in terms that date from the 1700's?

, a noice juxtaposition of views. Can either of you posit a way in which you might both be right? A quest without an outcome?

So now we need Kant and Quantum and relativistics and Husserl to explain dinosaurs.

Might leave this. I can't make sense of whatever it is you are trying to get at. For anyone else, I am simply pointing to the many problems with causa...

You were? Strange for you to say. I, on the the other hand, was referring to Searle's argument, introduced by , to which I previously gave reference: ...

Sure - I agree. But our knowing or not knowing has no impact on the number of branches on the tree. It either has three branches, or not. That is, the...

I did? Here? Not sure how that limits causation. There are alternatives to causation, the conservation laws being a case in point. But hereabouts caus...

I don't understand, again. The conservation of energy requires that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant -whether it be in t...

Yep. There's some suggestion he would take an anti-realist stance, but I suspect that's anti-realism trying to take him on board. See IEP.

This is about what we know about the tree, not about the tree. It's like saying something like "The tree has three branches if and only if it is obser...

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that energy is not conserved when light induces an impulse in one's optic nerve? I'm thinking of Russell...

https://scontent-nrt1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/331336534_1556926978126328_5984905727541413565_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=CtQ...

...and then there's realism/anti-realism... That's a harder case.

Which debate? For him the idealism/realism debate is " a misfiring attempt to express what can't be expressed like that". But the direct/indirect real...

The neyballs werenot for you, but for a now-deleted comment.

There's the bad argument again. I prefer my waffles with honey.

I wasn't intending to push Wittgenstein as taking any sides in this rather silly debate. I was attempting to show you how your picture of the process ...

It's brilliant. Occasionally.

Uncomfortable with that. Better to say something like that every mental even is a physical event. I'm not at all happy with assuming the causal closur...

This, by way of formulating my objection... I think Davidson has shown that such an equation is both fraught and unnecessary. Anomalous monism require...

Yet there are plenty of people here with no idea.

Me, too. Not seeing an answer here. yes, so it seems.

There's a big difference, sometimes lost, between supposing that we don't see the world, and that there is no world. So here's the thing: would Hoffma...

For good reason. One doesn't go to "The Hunting of the Snark" for advice on navigation. I was introduced to Bernard Gert the other day, who's catch ph...

I want to stop the question there, as I think it's this framing that is problematic. Basically, what could reality be if not the stuff we know about v...

How so?

My recent preference is to use a flat pan at very high heat to induce a Maillard reaction in the skin while keeping the middle of the tomatoes at rela...

From the plain language point of view, the problem does go away. Or better, doesn't even get started. ...which it treats by treating the nature of 'x'...

Yesterday I made a salad of charred zucchini slices, sheep's feta, Grampians garlic-infused olive oil and fresh basil leaves - all the veggies fresh f...

Again, a change of topic. I think this in the main a question for neuroscience. The contribution of philosophy might go no further than pointing out a...

That's an observation, not a problem. I'm not seeing it.

I wouldn't use cause. Consciousness is not a thing like moving billiard balls. I advocate treating it as a difference in seeing as, a la duckrabbit. T...

Indeed, I might purchase it - potentially a counter to the more abstract stuff found in ethics.

I'm being quite specific here. The error I see in idealism is that a fact about the world - say f(a), is treated as a relation involving mind, say f(a...

Ok, so if we agree to leave aside the exegesis, do we agree that idealism errs in treating facts about trees as facts about minds?

Again, I'm not so interested in interpreting Kant as taking about trees. The thing-in-itself strikes me as nonsense on stilts.

I take idealism to be pretty much defined by this transformation of facts about trees to facts about minds. Not at all sure what you are saying at ...

Grumph. Too much emphasis on causation for my taste. A better epitome of a metaphysical principle would be the conservation laws. The causal relations...