What does the principle mean by simulating a physical process? Does it mean replicate? Can a quantum computer replicate consciousness, the Big Bang, e...
You said "Indirect realists are saying that we're only aware of the paintings, we're not aware of the processes leading up to the paintings". I'm sayi...
I thought it was about perception? So indirect realists are saying that we're only seeing the paining, not whatever processes lead up to the painting....
No, I've said my piece. Your account of meaning and truth precludes you from being a realist. At best it's quasi-realism/fictionalism. At worse it's a...
I have every interest in a discussion. But discussion isn't a one way straight. We both provide answers to questions. And accusing me of avoiding is b...
You did this every time. You refuse to answer my questions and instead insist that I keep answering every one of yours. So I'm not going to even ask y...
Your claim that the moon is independent of us has everything to do with our language. How am I to make sense of this claim. Does your claim that the m...
It's the same thing. What does it mean to say that it is an objective fact that the moon is independent if not that the proposition "the moon is indep...
So whether or not the proposition "the moon is independent" corresponds to a fact is a subjective judgement and not an objective fact? And yet before ...
So you're saying that the sentence describes a verification-transcendent fact. That's what I mean when I say that realism requires verification-transc...
And he continues by saying that "ordinary and ontological existence assertions differ with respect to an important sort of utterance evaluation, which...
That it's to be understood as saying that the truth of "the moon is independent" is verification-transcendent. That's what distinguishes an ordinary f...
I'd say that they're anti-realists. Their claim that the moon is independent is, to use Chalmer's terminology, an ordinary existence claim, not an ont...
And how do we determine what realism refers to? Ask self-proclaimed realists what they mean by "I'm a realist". I'd say that for the most part they'd ...
Not to hand. But you just need to read what people have said (and often between the lines). Very few self-proclaimed realists will claim that the exis...
Sure, and my claim is that traditional realism is (implicitly, if not also explicitly) truth-realism. It's historically tied to the correspondence the...
And I understand this as saying that the truth of "the moon exists" is verification transcendent. Or at the very least, that this is what it must mean...
Which is why I (and I believe a few others) think that your self-proclaimed realism isn't realism (as it's usually understood) at all. Of course, if y...
I think the easiest way to understand the independence of things is with reference to Dummett's account of realism and anti-realism. If the truth of "...
Realists argue for the independence of things. Materialists argue that all things are material. The latter might entail the former, but the former doe...
It doesn't matter if it's 5 or 5 million feet away. What is the connection between brain activity and some other physical thing such that the former i...
I said that there isn't a physical connection to future, past, or distant things. The first two because (unless eternalism is true) past and future th...
Sure there's a connection (according to the realist). But there's a physical connection between our brain activity (which is us thinking about the Sun...
The ontological separation of thought and subject does seem problematic, especially if one is a physicalist and reduces thoughts to brain activity. We...
But can you choose to experience whatever you like? Can you make it so that you experience yourself as rich, powerful, and successful? Can you make it...
From what I can read, Metaphysician Undiscover is saying something akin to "it's the ball hitting the window that caused the window to break" and jkop...
Depends on the kind of necessity. Metaphysical necessity is not the same as logical necessity. As a possible example (correct me if I'm wrong), it doe...
So what's the nature of the special kind of relationship between marks on paper and some other thing such that the former represents the latter? Is it...
Then it's a matter of epistemology, not ontology. So I might not know that other minds exist, but it is nonetheless the case that to be is to be perce...
I don't know why this fallacy keeps repeating itself. There's a difference between "to be is to be perceived" and "to be is to be perceived by me". Yo...
Sure. But I don't see the difference between saying that conceptual content exists independently of anyone's mind and saying that thoughts correspond ...
Is the "independent existence of the world" here to be understood in a deflationary sense or in a non-deflationary sense? If the latter then this defl...
What does it mean for a concept to apply to something? And in the case of me dressing up as Harry Potter, how do thoughts apply (in a way that they do...
Comments