Banno

But I do see the cup - "physical" or not; always with the qualifications. Indeed, I pick it up, fill it with tea (sometimes, instead of coffee), drink...

"Big mind" strikes me as a joke. The reality you have when you don't have a reality. It's a replacement for God, and so subject to the same problems a...

And yet the alternative is that you know all there is to know. Are you willing to claim omniscience?

You know this a priori? 'cause it don't seem right to me.

I agree*. Folk keep pointing this out, as if it were a problem for me. I don't see it. Again, I suspect the realism/idealism, realism/antirealism disc...

Sure. And my car is real. yep. You're getting it!

Is that so? If you dream of driving your car, you are not really driving your car, anymore than when you imagine driving your car. But in each case, i...

Neat. A painting of a unicorn is not a model of a unicorn. The "models" here are weightings in neural networks.

For a short black?

What do you want to refer to? The dream-cup, perhaps, or the real cup that you are now dreaming of... there need be no "one right answer". I find drea...

I like that.

But I don't use tea cups, I use coffee cups. :wink:

The instrumentalist takes on an unjustified degree of doubt. So they think "It looks like a cup, so I will defeasibly assume that it is a cup, until p...

:up:

Indeed, thy might. My response would be along the lines of's post, following Austin. What we see is not the "emergent phenomena", but the cup... And I...

Nice work. In previous discussions along these lines. the end point is where the account the antirealists present begins to look so much like realism ...

To be clear, it is not that you are still using god, but that you hav replaced god in the argument with a something that takes on the same roll. My ob...

Sounds interesting. Does the proof do this? Seems to me it uses (~Kp) for "p is not known". (p v ~p) is p is true or false, not known or unknown.

It does, but then the conclusion wouldn't be what we want...

It needs to be singular to substitute in to (2), so as to get (3) right.

That's not an instantiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_instantiation is the rule being used. But also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un...

Probably.

No, I didn't. Science has developed somewhat since Kant's time.

I sometimes wonder if Kant, were he around and able to avail himself of our understanding of chemistry and physics. would puzzle that there were still...

So there's a "something" that is "outside the scope of observation by any living being" and yet despite that accounts for what we see. As opposed to t...

And I've pointed out that these variations on noumena, because they are ineffable, can't serve as explanations. They are as nothing.

Sure, I'm aware of such oddities. It looks like a reworking of god as the answer to the three problems I listed. Pan-psychism brings with it all the p...

On the bright side, Dow nunder, we aren't going to church like we once did.

This is on of the reasons for my preferring to set out realism in terms of there being truths that are not related to minds. It replaces the analysis ...

Not keen on judgement... not modal enough!

For me, this shows that the formal version is clearer.

Using the SEP proof... (KP) All true statements might be known (NonO) There are unknown truths (1) There is a truth that is not known (instantiation f...

Nice try! This is a good example of how informality introduces problems. I don't see the "knowable/known" distinction in the formal version. There's j...

Bully for you. So rather than set the task for poor @"Michael", have a go at it yourself. You have the background, and doing so will give you a much b...

Ha. Rather, modal arguments are far more difficult to present informally. They are just difficult arguments.

, so you find logical notation challenging. So do I. It takes effort to see what is going on. But many arguments are clearer when presented formally. ...

If you want me to choose one, I'd go for the model- theoretical argument, and take the position that reference is indeterminate - after Quine and Davi...

But the conclusion of Fitch's argument can be "translated back" into plain english - and has been, multiple times, in both articles and in this thread...

The argument is expressed clearly in both the Wiki and SEP articles. No more than a basic comprehension of formal logic is needed. It seems to me that...

I don't think Putnam’s arguments show that realism is not viable. But the detail is as always important. My overall position is that the realism/antir...

I'm not doing all the work. If you care to set out the argument as you see it, we might proceed. (After all, the article lists three main objections, ...

@"Michael", Don't - it's a trap! :wink:

Ah, I se you have used it. Nice.

I just assumed your were adopting the convention of restricting that "something" to propositions. And I understood your "simple logic" to be classical...

Self reference in itself is not a problem. This sentence is six word long. This sentence contains thirteen words. No worries. SO saying the paradox in...

That's right. What's difficult to see is if @"Olivier5" has a point or has just not understood the logic of the argument. If he has a point, it remain...

Some useful stuff. The Bible says nothing about abortion. So being anti-choice is a cultural and political decision, not a biblical one

Were'd it go?

I understand that he has antirealist leanings, so I suspect he would follow on and apply the logic from his theory of truth to Fitch's paradox. It wou...

Have you seen Kripke's theory of truth? It denies that all such propositions have a truth value.