Philosophy Now Forum

How can you identify a particular instance of a universal if there are no universals?
If there are no such things as unicorns how can I point out a particular unicorn?
If there are no universals there is no description of what you are looking for.

I looked up "pictures in the brain". I think you are confused. True,they say that they are starting to be able to see what you see in your mind's eye. However, there is no physical image in the brain. They take the brain waves etc and then decode them. Imagine Wittgenstein's duck/rabbit. E...

Anyway, the wife is furious! GOT TO GO NOW!

There is no distinction between a universal and a particular for a materialist because for a materialist there are no universals. Well, OK, there is a distinction between something and nothing. My point is that concepts (universals) do not exist for a materialist. Since materialism is a concept, and...

" If these two individuals exhibit the same behaviour, does it make any sense to argue that the phenomenological characteristics differ?" Ginkgo Yes! Ironically, that was Denett's "quining qualia" argument. I have left the conversation before, promised to return and I always did....

Of course modern physicists will claim that information is fundamental not matter. They even claim to be materialists! But information without substance is more mind like then tangible. To me, their position is word games (semantics) and has nothing to do with reality.

My argument proves that if you can visualize a triangle, there are qualia. Do an empirical experiment. Try to visualize a triangle. If you can you have just proven to yourself that qualia exist! Well OK, empirical in the sense of sense data. Obviously the experiment cannot be verified by other peop...

"understood " in the common sense definition. I understand something if my comprehension of it makes sense. Ok, so what would be your comprehension of 'understanding Einstein's brain' in the materialist view that you outline? If the materialist's position is correct,he cannot understand a...

I think that Montgomery is saying that meaning =puns.
That was a working man's translation of his academese.

The light switch in the "on" position is only an ink pattern (for the materialist ). It is not about the light being on.
Only when "on" refers to the concept "on" can it be about something.

Wow! Sartre, Hurssell, Chalmers, Searle...all tremble in the wake of your massive intellect. Those that are alive admit that they were full of drival. And those that are dead cry from their graves! :lol: :lol: :lol: And to think you used a fallacy (ad hominum) to prove your point! Sheer genius!!!!! ...

Actually, even "refer" is problematic for a materialist. Physical objects lack intentionality. Note that I am using "intentionality" in the philosophical sense. That something can be about something. For example, the ink pattern (signifier) "5" is not about anything, it...

Of course materialists use names and even concepts all the time. However, since they do not believe the signifier "concept" refers to anything they are being disingenuous.

"Person " is a universal. Something a materialist cannot believe exists.
A materialist can not use the term "person" because it can refer to many shapes and sizes of people. Everything physical has a specific location in space-time.

What is your definition of "materialism "? Remember you can only use physical terms (mass, size etc).