Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

Londoner wrote:'nerves' . . . 'an experience of pain' . . . an "experience of seeing fibrous tissue'

Are those things identical to mental-content-only in your view?

It is good to practice your serve, but if the other player never attempts a return it becomes boring.

You're skipping something here. You have to believe that you have nerves in the first place in order to believe that you can poke them and block them. And so I do, however I do not things 'nerves' are the same thing as 'an experience of pain'. Nor do I think 'nerves' are just 'the experience of see...

I'm aware that you do this. I'm asking you to support why you do. Why do you posit nerves as an explanation of the mechanics of experience. Why do you posit that there are others who do investigations where they elaborate a theory that involves optic nerves. What is your support for that? It is in ...

Because the rock cannot directly place itself in my mind. It can only come into my mind through things like nerve impulses, which are not that rock. I therefore have to construct the idea 'rock' by interpreting those nerve impulses. But how would you be getting to the point of even believing that y...

I have taken enormous care in several posts to explain why even if one is not a solipsist , even if we do think there are things 'out there', it does not follow that we would think our perceptions directly represent those things. That's beautiful, and the lecture was filed where I believe is approp...

Londoner. First--one way to save yourself a lot of typing is by keeping your responses shorter. Depending on who I'm talking to, how it's progressing or not, I won't do long back and forths with some people at some times. Ultimately I'd prefer to chat, and for philosophy, I prefer to chat in the ma...

I see other people But you don't on your view. You said that you can never know anything external to you (know by acquaintance presumably, since the other two connotations of knowledge wouldn't make sense there). Per your view, what you see are your own mental phenomena. So this is exactly what I'm...

First, because different people report experiences differently. Which is exactly what I expected your initial answer to be, which sets me up perfectly for this question: Given your views, how in the world can you know that there are other people in the first place, in order to know that they report...

Me: It may be that there is some 'thing' out there that is in some sense the originator of those two people's experiences, but if so we can never know it. As I asked Hobbes, what do you take to be empirical evidence or a logical argument for this view? In other words, how can you know that you're o...

You'd be implicitly adding some additional claims here, including that: (1) Events as we experience them (colored as they may be on your view by representational perception) are identical somehow with our descriptions of them ("somehow" because we'd be glossing over how events would be id...

You do not believe that events occur? I would say, not in the sense that what we choose to call an event corresponds to any particular state of affairs. What we describe something as 'an event' we are singling out just one part of the mass of sense impressions we receive, then interpreting them in ...

As for time and change those are "material succession of events", and are also how events are differentiated one from another. Please tell me, Hobbes'Choice, if you agree that if every event was indistinguishable from every other event we could not live. But if we only differentiated betw...

Change would only cease if relative movement ceased, every particle: electron, neutron, proton, quark, boson; or planet, asteroid, dust, etc. Change is all about relativity; relativity is all about change. 'Change' arises if we divide the universe into parts, as you do here - not only into types of...

The world is round (well roughly more than a square or flat). Is that a fact? A belief? An opinion? True? Knowledge? An assumption? Etc. Language is imprecise and people often disagree about the proper usage of and the proper meaning of words. How about evolution? (its essentials, natural selection...

Belief has no place in my lexicon, except to demonstrate a faith held position. ....JTB is equivalent to knowledge . All knowledge is contingent on the information which furnishes it. Belief requires no justification but faith. I don't think that makes sense, not even in the religious sense. How co...