Harry Hindu

Yet you haven't been able to explain the difference in what they are saying.

Thank You!! This is the best response I've received so far to the point I've been trying to make. Unfortunately, I have to go to class. I'll respond l...

More mental gymnastics. Again, you don't need proof to label something. We can call something anything we like. We only need to agree on what to label...

I don't understand what this means if you're not simply talking about different arrangements of the primary substance.

I'm not getting him to say that. He's performing all these mental gymnastics to avoid the questions I'm asking.

For the umpteenth time, What does it mean to be "material" as opposed to "mental"?

Different things are just different arrangements of the primary substance (whatever we decide to call it). If you define "substance" as something that...

That's what I've been asking all along. If there is no difference (You've finally come around to seeing that they're the same thing), then it doesn't ...

It makes no sense to call the substance outside of you one thing and the substance inside of you another. They are both the same substance because the...

This is a ridiculous response. To say that our ideas come from something is to say that they are caused by that something. You are also saying that mi...

You don't need proof to label something. Labeling things is arbitrary. It doesn't matter if we call the mind "matter" or "mental", or "humpfalump". Th...

No, it is you that is missing the point. The materialist just says that the mind is matter and there you go, now mind is just a process of matter and ...

In other words, your response wasn't an argument against what Terrapin said. It was useless. The point was that you didn't say anything useful.

This is the type of mistake in thinking that dualism causes. This is like asking what duration is water? You're asking for an improper measurement of ...

What about when a criminal confesses to a crime? The evidence is the effect and the criminal's actions is the cause. Is the criminal desribing an infe...

I have no ideas what you or Hume are talking about. Time is change. Causation is change and thetefore the essence of time. Causation is also meaning a...

In a deterministic world, yes.

In my view, there isn't even a difference in what people think. Idealists and materialists think that they have different notions of what the primary ...

..and unicorns and elves and leprechauns, etc...

That is called "recognition". I love it when philosophers try to make up these complex-sounding words and phrases for something that we already have a...

So the distinction is in what certain people think, and not a distinction between the nature of "physical" or "non-physical" things. I'm asking about ...

Newborns are inherently atheistic.

How is it an explanation if you witnessed one ball hitting another. You'd only find an explanation useful if you didn't witness it. Is your idea just ...

And materialists say that ideas are material states caused by something outside of us. Why wouldn't material objects have causal power where ideas do?...

So, the difference between matter and ideas is that matter is incoherent and ideas are not, unless you follow Descartes dualist approach where the dif...

That isn't a useful distinction. Define the words.

It seems to me that what he means is that language is composed of sensory impressions. Language is just sounds and visual scribbles - sensory impressi...

No. That is what you have said. I continually reiterate that I have said that both concepts are incoherent and therefore there are no differences or s...

Exactly. What is "matter"? What are "ideas"? How do they differ if not just by location (Ideas are in a mind. Matter is everywhere else)?

Which is why you gave up when I asked you to define "awareness" as a idealist would define it. The problem is that "awareness" has no meaning in an id...

Again, I'm not saying that they are identical or different. I'm saying that the notion of physical and non-physical is incoherent, so you can't even s...

I never said they were identical. I said the differences between physical and non-physical are incoherent. It's up to the person making the claim that...

Okay, what is "awareness"? I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm simply trying to get at the difference between the two. You've made this claim about the d...

For the idealist and the realist, "experiencing" must mean completely different things. How would they define it?

Yes! Philosophy is a science. The rest is spoken just a like a true realist.

Hmmm. It sounds like we need to come up with a coherent definition of "experiencing" to make any sense of what you said.

(a) I thought we established that the tree is a tree. Why would it be something else? (b) We need the answer to (a) first.

Okay, so the only difference between "physical" vs. "non-physical" is difference in location - "physical" being outside the mind and "non-physical" be...

Idealists typically resort to using God as the ultimate source of ideas, so I always thought that it was a consequence of some hope of immortality (de...

Which would just be another assumption made by someone (Berkeley's word is not the final word) who is being skeptical of others' assumptions. What's n...

Then why do you continue to use the terms if they aren't "good"? What do YOU mean by the term, "physical"? I think it would be more useful to me, beca...

Yes. Idealism is basically anthropomorphism.

This essentially equates to solipsism - that mind is all there is, or that mind is really the world. All idealism does is redefine what the world is. ...

...a general difference to what? You have a "Ship of Theseus" problem there. Apo, my friend, there are no actualities. Change is the only constant. Ch...

You're confusing your forms (your sensory symbols) with what they represent. Your forms are neither physical nor non-physical. My point in this thread...

That's because if something isn't constantly changing/becoming, then they stop changing. There are no more change of thoughts, movement, etc. In other...

An actuality that is constantly becoming never becomes and actuality. More word salad. There would just be a process of becoming. Everything collapses...

Yes, but I wouldn't describe it as a hole. It is something, not nothing. I would describe it as a warm feeling all around (because I start to sweat), ...

I don't understand what you mean by "void". There is a void when you're unconscious. You only anticipate when you are unconscious? The fact that you c...

Silly post. If the device on which this is being written depends on the existence of numbers then numbers must be in the device for which it depends, ...