The evaluable facts for truth-claims about Harry Potter are the words written in the books or the statements made by J.K. Rowling. With math and logic...
I'd say they're self-referential via proxy. Kripke's solution addresses these examples. There must be some evaluable fact about the world for the stat...
Your exact words were "When I perceive something, what I'm perceiving doesn't seem to be a 'set of sensations,' it seems to be a computer screen, or a...
It was the original point all along. The painted unicorn is made out of paint. The perceived chair is made out of mental stuff. The point is that you ...
So you're saying that if I show you a painting of a unicorn then you'd say that the painted unicorn is made of something other than paint? I don't und...
Compare with "it's a painting of a unicorn, not a painting of paint". But the unicorn is just paint. Or "it's a story about the battle of Hogwarts, no...
The point is that it's not enough to say "it's a perception of a computer, not a perception of visual sensations". You also have to say "the computer ...
Then you're saying something akin to "The Persistence of Memory is a painting of clocks, not a painting of paint". That doesn't change the fact that t...
If a computer screen just is a set of sensations then that you see a computer screen isn't that you don't see a set of sensations. So it needs to be o...
Maybe: P1. The object exists even when it isn't seen P2. A set of sensations cannot exist when it isn't seen C. Therefore, the object is not a set of ...
Ha. Looking there would have been a much simpler solution. I was trying to be clever with domain name lookups and whatnot. At least I had the right an...
Sure, each of us individually is under the legal jurisdiction of whatever country we live in (and I believe also our home country if living elsewhere)...
I don't think that's right. .com domains are seizable by the U.S., but I believe the actual website is under the jurisdiction of whatever country hous...
But Berkeley's claim is that they are the same thing, not different things, and so the conflation is justified. His very argument is that the set of s...
What they're saying is that the claim that there isn't a difference is wrong because there is a difference, which begs the question. It's like arguing...
What I'm saying is that if someone is trying to argue that such a separation is mistaken then it's question-begging to claim that such a position is w...
To refute a position is to show it to be false. You don't show a position to be false by arguing that it hasn't been shown to be true. That's an argum...
Again, maybe he is, but that isn't what's at issue here. What's at issue is whether or not his position has been refuted. An argument from ignorance i...
Maybe, but whether or not Berkeley has successfully supported his position isn't at issue here. What's at issue is whether or not you (or Moore) have ...
Again, you're just begging the question. You have to show that there is such a thing as a material object that isn't just a collection of sensations. ...
The broken mug is just a collection of sensations. The unbroken mug is just a different collection of sensations. You haven't shown that there's more ...
All that's happened here is that the image (and any other relevant sensation) has changed. We then describe this change as some material object breaki...
What he says is "Thus, for example, a certain colour, taste, smell, shape and consistency having been observed to go together, they are taken to be on...
Section 2 of Principles of Human Knowledge: "As well as all that endless variety of ideas, or objects of knowledge, there is also something that knows...
No, the bearers of ideas are spirits. Properly speaking his idealism is that only ideas and spirits exist. The focus was just on non-spirit things (e....
The analogy doesn't work. 4) would have to be "The non-existent God still perceives them". But then that isn't what Berkeley believed. He believed "th...
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I'm not defending Putnam here, just in general when it comes to these matters. Here, I'm criticising the criticism "Berkel...
Well, he actually said "esse is percipi" (mixing Latin and English). ;) The second and third paragraphs weren't supposed to be an explanation of Berke...
I hardly think it appropriate to say that he confuses them when he's trying to argue that they are the same thing. Such a response just begs the quest...
And how does a proposition come to be related to either the value "true" or "false"? Understanding what it means to be true or false is necessary to r...
Yes, see the first reply to this discussion. ;) Yes, it's true if it's false. But what does it mean for it to be true? Are you saying that it being tr...
Its syntax is what misleads people into believing it's truth-apt. The Liar Paradox is a natural language sentence, not a sentence made in some formal ...
It's misleading because, as you say, it seems like a truth-apt sentence, being that it looks like most other truth-apt sentences, but it isn't. And it...
Comments