creativesoul

As if this somehow applies to what I've been putting forth? Sure. We're not interacting with things contained within the physical boundaries of our sk...

How convenient. Proving there is an external world does not require stepping outside of subjective experience. Human experience is not the sort of thi...

In much governmental practice as well as most accounting practices thereof. Many government officials have acted and are acting in ways that are quite...

If workers' lives and livelihoods were cared about more than profit margins, there would be no need for collective bargaining measures.

It makes absolutely no sense at all to deny and/or object to the following claim. "14th century humans had cells." That's my answer.

To the basic question asked in the title of the thread... Is there an external material world? If by "external" we mean not within the physical bounds...

Sure looks that way to me...

Okay. I've quoted the relevant portions of our exchange above. Where you claimed "No, I think it's just a matter of definition", what - exactly - are ...

You've claimed that experience is a matter of definition and nothing more, and that experience is what it is regardless of how we define it. Those two...

Are you serious? :brow:

So, that could be established henceforth as a basic agreement. Some thought needs words. While I could agree that "thoughts with words as their object...

I'm guessing that there's a bit Quine influencing your thinking here. In Ontological Relativity he argues<roughly> that what we choose to focus upon a...

Good. Understood. There are a plurality of accepted usages/definitions of the term "experience". Those definitions have no bearing whatsoever upon tha...

I did.

Those Xs are not the sort of thing that exist in their entirety prior to naming and descriptive practices.

Look again. You've contradicted that.

Are you sure about the last statement above?

So, just so I understand this... Are you really objecting to anyone claiming that humans had experience prior to language use? Wow. So then, no sex, n...

The toddler's experience is not a defined concept

I would concur. It only follow then that we can get such things wrong. Our definitions regarding all such things(all that exists in its entirety prior...

Being normal doesn't equate to being accurate, correct, and/or true. Our definitions determine what else we can say without self-contradiction. They d...

Fair enough. According to you, the toddler's experience depends upon how we define the word "experience".

So, I'm imagining a one-year-old human, playing contently in a crib with some toy. Happy slobber. The family dog is lying close by fast asleep... legs...

What - exactly - is a matter of definition, and nothing more? Whether or not a tree is inside or outside my head? emphasis mine Again, what - exactly ...

I think we agree upon much, actually.

Well, no. Some things we think about are themselves existentially dependent upon words. If A is existentially dependent upon words, and thinking about...

Yup.

So, ... You've agreed to all of what's in the above quote. I put it to you that whether or not experience is external, internal, and/or both is someth...

Never claimed otherwise. Red herring. Strawman. Non sequitur. Readers' choice. There are better approaches.

Perfect. Do you object to what's directly below?

I understood the first time. I agree, but that is a trivial point to make. We all know that much. Do you object to either claim in the quote at the to...

When dichotomies are used as a means to divide everything up into stuff that fits into one or the other, then the inevitable result is a failure to be...

If some thought needs words, and some does not, then claiming that thought does not need words is false. Claiming that thought needs words is also fal...

Look at it. Get hit by it. Climb it. You figure we're looking at, getting hit by, and climbing green bundles of texture??? :wink:

I find that the single problem with direct and indirect perception is shared in that both positions drive a terminological wedge into the practitioner...

Agreed. Who would ever say such a thing, whether overtly or by virtue of inevitable logical consequence? Well sure. I've no issue at all with that asi...

"Using words" and "needing words" are not always the same thing. I am responding to a claim about complex thought not needing words. I provided a few ...

I never said that or otherwise... The issue - to me - is what sorts of complex thoughts can be formed in the complete absence of language(without word...

On your view... Are thoughts about the truth of a sentence considered complex thoughts? Thoughts about what's going to happen next Thursday? Thoughts ...

I'm curious though, does that elimination have consequences regarding whether the red leaves are directly or indirectly perceived? P.S. For whatever i...

My pleasure...

Pretty much. As mentioned before in my first reply to you, it's a terminological quibble. However, removing that bit will sharpen the position as well...

1.) Mediation requires a worldview. The biological structures under consideration have none. 2.) The mediator in a discussion is not necessary for the...

That's not what I said. That does not follow from what I've written. It is contrary to it. There are different terminological frameworks and methodolo...

The only notable difference seems to be that you divorce the biological machinery from the experience of seeing red when you claim that the machinery ...

Roughly: Complex thoughts consist of correlations including words by a creature so capable. Simple thoughts would be correlations drawn or being drawn...

I thought all along that our views dovetailed nicely.

Interesting book summary. Seems right up my alley, so to speak. Wish I had more time... ...for that quote is worthy of attention.

In all fairness, I haven't made it clear. That's one of my personality flaws... assuming others are already on the same page as myself, so to speak. P...