I was watching my dear little chicken As he clucked down below in the kitchen His beak opened wide As I stood there and sighed Something in the plot b...
Surely the thought about an experience comes after the experience, though? And even if they were simultaneous, insofar as the one is about the other i...
Yes, well I don't see it as an experience but as a thought about experience. And all it says is basically 'what I think is what I think'. True by defi...
No, I have already agreed that what you have been arguing is tautologically true; I just don't agree that it is of any significance to the thrust of t...
No, you are just mistaken about the sense of the OP, in my opinion. What would be the point of arguing for a tautology, as you admit you have been? It...
If you're just trying to say that you cannot be mistaken about the fact that whatever you think you are is experiencing is what you think you are expe...
Yes, but the argument isn't over whether when you have the sense data present, you have it present, which is tautologically true, whatever "having sen...
Believing something in the kind of manner in which one could be mistaken or not, for example "I am seeing a pink elephant" is always a matter of what ...
It is more accurate to say that the already established past does not change but it is constantly being added to. So, yeah, the past only changes inso...
It's plainly obvious that by definition you're not mistaken about thinking you are having the experience when you are having the experience. But how d...
So, what makes you think you cannot be mistaken when you say you see a pink elephant? I would say it is highly likely you are mistaken. Also, do you n...
What do you mean by "present phenomenal experience qua present phenomenal experience"? How about you give an example of that, so that I know what kind...
Haha, surprise, surprise! Well, it's not really a surprise; I've seen it over and over with Terrapin. When the inconsistencies in his position are exp...
It would be nice if you would make the effort to identify and answer the actual questions being asked of you. Unfortunately this just muddies the wate...
:) None taken BC, none at all taken...and just in case, and just to be clear, the "lumpen prole" comment was NOT in the slightest degree directed at y...
Thanks for the spontaneous didactic ejaculation. I'm figuratively wiping myself off as I write. However, "bitch" as a term of abuse is not referential...
If you can think of it as "divisible into parts" and the parts are prior or subsequent to other parts, then the present contains elements which are pa...
You say there can be no such thing as a dimensionless point instant, right? So presumably the present must, for you, either have duration, or be durat...
I don't think this is right at all. Is truth not "defined in relationship with actuality"? If factuality and actuality are the same thing, as Terrapin...
Because whether we identify facts with being true, as would be shown by the equivalence of 'It is true that the cat is on the mat' with 'it is a fact ...
I think you are mistaken about that. To say that facts is not to say that facts exist. That is a category error, which is what I have been tying to po...
I've explained that if there can be factuality then in those same terms there can be non-factuality. It remains for you to show how there can be factu...
You really are either a very poor reader or deliberately and dishonestly evasive. I've already pointed out that I haven't claimed that anything "obtai...
People are more or less entrenched in their views, and then they debate. Debating with others doesn't not often changes people's view, as far as I hav...
Bullshit, you wrote this there: It is obvious that my question refers to what it would mean for factuality to obtain ontologically. Explain to me exac...
Bullshit, you wrote this there: Explain to me exactly how you think that answers the question as to what "obtaining ontologically" means? The question...
No, I suspect you're trying to tendentiously distort what I have said. On my view 'false proposition' is synonymous with 'non-factual proposition', an...
It is perfectly normal usage to refer to "non-factual statements'. What do you think 'counterfactual' means? It means the same as 'non-factual' or "co...
Your analysis contends that truths and facts are different because truth and falsity are two modes of one thing. But this is nonsense because just as ...
This analysis is nonsensical; there can no more be false truths than there can be false facts. Qualifying this I would say, though, that facts are pro...
Sure, but in science there is determinate consensus. There is no determinate consensus in regard to smiles or artworks. For me, 'consensus' is the wro...
But, I've already given the reason for thinking that. Philosophical ideas cannot be empirically confirmed or disconfirmed, and thus no intersubjective...
So what? Even if that is so, it doesn't follow that metaphysics is a science? He considered his method to be an a priori method. If this is true then ...
I don't think metaphysics can be an exact science, because its 'truths' cannot be intersubjectively confirmed or disconfirmed by observation. Only the...
Comments