Banno

Ah, I see. Yes, I'll go along with that.

I think that risible. Shall we give your perception of the plane a proper name - "Fred" perhaps? Better, surely, to think of the plane as an individua...

In the strict form of the argument comes at the end of a meditation in which he attempts to doubt everything; it is "I doubt therefore I am". ...is st...

We can proceed at your pace, by all means. The OP made mention fo the thread on free logic, so I presented a less formal account of that argument - my...

Have you checked out Making Sense? Sam Harris is also socialized into a soulless, physicalist world, only from the point of view of an experienced med...

Cheers. Yep. What counts as empirical is problematic. See Quine. But this is probably not the place.

So far as I can see, there was none.

You are adopting your usual passive-aggressive stance of objecting without providing any content. Yes, it pisses me off. So I will go back to ignoring...

Hmm. What is it you think rationalism is? Because it is beyond me how you might take what has been said here to imply that Tully and I have been advoc...

Cut the passive-aggressive shite and present something cogent.

:wink: Indeed, theorising about being will inevitably lead to circularity. In that sense all that can be said by ontology is that there is stuff to ta...

Why?

The regress is avoidable by recognising the error of thinking that what you see is a concept-of-apple. It isn't, it's an apple.

And you are tedious. Make an argument.

All you have done is state this. Back it up. I suspect you are confusing two uses of "model". One is the model that is the subject of our cognition, t...

@"Ciceronianus" is eruditer than Hanover, in my humble opinion. The OP is a case in point.

Fair enough. He is erudite, despite being wrong. :wink:

Yep. The models of the things in the world. Realism. DO you have an objection? An argument? Something relevant to say?

Look, to avoid going over this yet again, here are the things that I am objecting to. 1. The notion of a thing-in-itself. This is a nonsense. 2. The n...

Perhaps. Or perhaps you havn't followed the argument.

No. One is a plane. the other is something like an interaction between you and the plane.

Yep. If one cannot doubt one's existence, then why would one need an argument to prove that one exists? Descartes decided to doubt as much as he could...

Your perception of the plane is not the actual plane. Your perception is of the plane.

Why not? What specificaly do you think naive realism is?

Then you are adamantly and emphatically agreeing with realism. Good.

We need to take care with the direction in which the discussion goes. We started by looking at logical structures, but now we are way over at Quine's ...

Dunno. The point I am making is simply that there are objects.

That has to be wrong. Children acquire new concepts. So do some adults. Some folk even invent new concepts. We learn new stuff.

I'm sorry you spent so much time on that post. The point made is that the blip can be used to refer to the plane in much the same way that word "plane...

Not at all. "I think" is true. It's just that "I think" already is about the one doing the thinking. Compare it to the following invalid argument: The...

It's an assumption for the purposes of the argument. That is, it is where the argument starts, in terms of it's logical structure. Sure, it might be c...

"I think" is the assumption; "I think" presupposes the thinker.

An entailment.

Ah, so you have adopted a descriptive theory of reference - the dot is the plane in virtue of some correlation with a description? Here's why that doe...

No.

Indeed. But the relevant point here is that they have made a claim about the plane.

"The plane" is two words. The plane is a plane. The dot is ambiguous. Not at all. It might play into your deciding that two names refer to the same th...

I do not understand why you are confused here. The dot on the screen is the plane, much as the word "plane" in "the plane is airborne" is the plane - ...

So I, and others here, explicitly reject the distinction between internal and external worlds. But you are asking me where the line is to be drawn bet...

Meh. Much the same thing was developed at the same time by Russel, Wittgenstein et al. but without the metaphysical nonsense. But also that's not fair...

It's a shame that the other thread was too technical, but perhaps the discussion therein can be set out clearly with less technical language. This is ...

First time through, i read that as "medicated".

Notice the air traffic controller sits looking at his screen. But do you sit, looking at your perceptions? No. You have your perceptions. The alternat...

Is China going to surpass the US and become the world's most powerful superpower? It already has.

Yep. Perceiving the flower incorrectly is still about the flower. Realism does not claim that our perceptions are always correct. It just rejects the ...

To be sure, the point in Free Logic is that arguments of the form I think, therefore I exist" cannot be parsed. That is and argument that concludes th...

If one stops looking for meaning and instead looks at what we do with language, then this does not seem surprising. The command "Block!" supposes that...

So show me why my choice of Genesis drops out of Friston's equations. Because it's interesting, of course; but perhaps someone who thought in terms of...

Apo, I did, several times. I just made a cheese toasty, using a flatbread that was past it's "best by..." date, but which had been in the fridge, and ...

:razz: I'll bleed on you! Thanks for that link: The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? I notice that it was published in the "Opinion"...