Sorry, lets' try to be clear here - the rigid designation comes about as a result of the stipulation. That the name refers to the object might well be...
Rigid designators are not discovered, they are stipulated. When one asks what the world might be like if Thatcher had lost her first election, one is ...
Yes - accessibility again. Beans are such that if we would be successful bean famers we ought consider only those possible worlds in which beans need ...
That there is an "ontological connective tissue" to be referred to remains undecided. What we have is an accurate description of what happens. What mo...
"Venus" rigidly designates Venus becasue we choose it to work in that way; nothing more. We are using the word "Venus" to mean that exact same thing i...
What an appalling sentence. What could it mean, and why should it be given any credence? Yesterday, upon the stair... Again, they cannot be said to be...
The error here then is to supose any name may be substituted. What can be substituted salva veritate is a rigid designator. So much for singular terms...
One needs minds in order to have meaning. But that does not imply that there is no time without mind, or that time is mind-independent, or that events...
Things might exist, unbeknown. What a surprise, to discover ants under the floorboards. What a mistake, to have believed the tank contained enough fue...
Well, bullshit in the way that it is pretty much self-serving pop nonsense. If genes are explained by consciousness, then it is circular to then expla...
Begging the question. Or better, how could we make sense of the sentence "Time is mind-dependent"? We know time passed before humans evolved, before E...
De re and de dicto. Believing that there was a time before humans is mind-dependent. There being a time before humans, isn't. You are making an error ...
What is the "evolutionary and developmental processes" apart from "a pre-existing external world"? What does evolution take place in, if not the world...
You can't know that. that's the step too far. All you can say is that you do not know what that structure might be. At least until it is understood, b...
Nothing odd about that, except that the world already has some structure apart from that mind, and hence novelty, error and agreement. Your next step ...
Yep, and the common problem is that they suppose one description - usually that of the physisist- to be the "true picture". This, incidentally, is a p...
Each of these supposes a world, independent of our beliefs, in which there is "external data" that is novel, shared or at odds with those beliefs. Yet...
I have read carefully. Repeatedly. For years. And I do not see that you have answered these questions, but rather that you backtrack on your claims wh...
How can there be intersubjective agreement without a shared word independent of each individual's beliefs? What is it that this "language, social prac...
Well, not for you. You need to conflate belief and truth. But to admit agreement, error and novelty, you have to admit that sometimes our beliefs can ...
This is the bit where you walk back your own claims, were you are obliged to agree that there is a world that is independent of what you or I believe,...
I quite agree. It's no coincidence that Heidegger and Nietzsche are becoming again fashionable in a world that denies truth, that claims there is not ...
A pity you have fallen for this. Before we go further, notice the collective here, the "Our" in "our particular cognitive apparatus". With that in min...
Sure. Your account is much more sophisticated and much more coherent. But there are similarities. Yep. And yet time might pass, unnoticed. (My emphasi...
Fair enough. What might be said is that our knowledge of time - indeed, our knowledge of anything - has a "subjective" component in that knowing requi...
Yet it sufficiently impress the Swedish Academy that they awarded Russell the Nobel Prize for Literature . Something that Zarathustra, with his swolle...
You are being quite carelss. You asked: To which I replied: Not that we do not know anything about time. Others will understand that one might well kn...
Rubbish. You know what time is, despite your claims to the contrary. And you know what movement is, despite your claims that it does not require time....
I did answer, quite directly: It has a sense, it has a use. You know that. Indeed. And i have given you counter arguments that show that movement requ...
Time wasn't invented. Yep. I am here replying to your post, made in the past, while you are reading this thread, after I wrote it. Most certainly. "Pa...
Movement presupposes time. Movement is being at one place at one time, and another place at another time. The claim that movement does not involve tim...
What has any of this to do with the definition of movement? An object moves if it is at a different place at a different time. Hence movement involves...
A category error. Caring is not the sort of thing that movement does. Movement does require time. Yes. You seem to think this implies that time only o...
No. If an object has moved, then it is in a different location at a different time. That's what "movement" is. We do know things about time. Quite a b...
This shows a deep misunderstanding of both movement, and knowledge. Movement involves an object being in one location at a given time, and at another ...
You want to change the subject? Not surprised. I don't know - indeed, the question may well be useless. We don't need to know where time comes form in...
Nothing moves but that a period of time is involved. If it moves in zero time, the force involved would be infinite. Not at all. The notion of time be...
Comments