Nobody says words are about imaginary things. Words describe experiences and experiences are real.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:58 pm Assuming words are about imaginary things does not follow.
This is the opening act of Phenomenology
Nobody says words are about imaginary things. Words describe experiences and experiences are real.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:58 pm Assuming words are about imaginary things does not follow.
Some thoughts are about things imagined by humans.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:14 pmNobody says words are about imaginary things. Words describe experiences and experiences are real.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:58 pm Assuming words are about imaginary things does not follow.
This is the opening act of Phenomenology
Well, there you go...I knew you weren't a nutjob.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:48 pmThat’s all I’ve been saying.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:24 am
But, in deference to my Robot Overlord, I accept some minuscule possibility that I'm, for example, a disembodied brain, maintained in a jar in a Cleveland lab, bein' fed impressions of an apple through embedded copper wires.
Me neither. But I have found the discussion here to be very interesting.
That's gratifying, but a little worrying to. This is the third time someone has agreed with me about something on this thread. When others begin to agree with me, it worries me that I might be making a mistake, since it so seldom happens ... or, maybe I'm just catching up with everyone else.
Don't get comfortable...RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:28 pmThat's gratifying, but a little worrying to. This is the third time someone has agreed with me about something on this thread. When others begin to agree with me, it worries me that I might be making a mistake, since it so seldom happens ... or, maybe I'm just catching up with everyone else.
It's not your list that is the problem. Its just irrelevant. Every universal concept is a way of identifying things that are similar so we don't don't have to completely describe and identify every particular existent. The fact that physical things can be identified as having particular states, solid, liquid, and gas, and one more if you want to include plasmas is not philosophical, "triasm," or, "quadism." There is no end to such divisions, old and new, hot and cold, male and female, paramagnetic and diamagnetic, or canned and fresh. These are not dualisms.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:48 pmMy bad. I thought the list was exhaustive, but obviously I was wrong.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:56 pmNone of the above.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:06 am 1. E is a subset of O ( O is a superset of E)
2. There is an intersection between O and E (they are adjoint)
3. There is no intersection between O and E (they are disjoint)
4. There is a complete overlap between O and E (there is 1:1 correspondence)
Which one best describes your conception?
Care to add the missing option which accurately represents your view?
Thoughts, imagination - I experience both of those things.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:37 pm Some thoughts are about things imagined by humans.
Words are about thoughts that are had by humans
Some words are about imaginary things.
It's not at all irrelevant. You categorized ALL existence into two - ontological and epistemic.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm It's not your list that is the problem. Its just irrelevant.
Do you think concepts (which are epistemic) have ontological existence?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm Every universal concept is a way of identifying things that are similar so we don't don't have to completely describe and identify every particular existent.
Do you think concepts (which are epistemic) have particular physical brain-states?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm The fact that physical things can be identified as having particular states, solid, liquid, and gas, and one more if you want to include plasmas is not philosophical, "triasm," or, "quadism."
Which is exactly why called you out for Pluralism before you ever began....RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm There is no end to such divisions, old and new, hot and cold, male and female, paramagnetic and diamagnetic, or canned and fresh. These are not dualisms.
Does your brain exist with or without the intervention of human action, or as a product of the human mind?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm The distinction I was making was between the natural (that which exists without the intervention of human action) and the man-made (that which only exists because of human action), particularly those things which only exist as products of the human mind.
The label is not important - I am trying to understand what you are saying. You are making it difficult.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm If you call that dualism, well then you do. You are free to call anything what you like.
No.
No.
Oh, you only mean having more than one concept is, "pluralism." Odd, but if that's what you think, that's fine. I suppose if you want to call the fact that ontological existence, which includes human beings and makes concepts possible, "dualism," you may, but I do not think that is what dualism usually means, is it?Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:42 pmWhich is exactly why called you out for Pluralism before you ever began....RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm There is no end to such divisions, old and new, hot and cold, male and female, paramagnetic and diamagnetic, or canned and fresh. These are not dualisms.
All physical entities, living organisms, conscious organisms, and rational conscious (mind) organisms exist without the intervention of human action. Since life, consciousness, and mind are attributes of oraganisms, animals, and man, those attributes exist without the intervention of human action. I regard all physical entities, including all organism, and all their attributes as perfectly natural ontological existents.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:42 pmDoes your brain exist with or without the intervention of human action, or as a product of the human mind?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm The distinction I was making was between the natural (that which exists without the intervention of human action) and the man-made (that which only exists because of human action), particularly those things which only exist as products of the human mind.
I have no intention of making my explanations difficult and am sorry if they were not clear. I hope I have made my view understandable. If there is still misunderstanding, please ask, and don't worry about being critical. My answers have been brief so there are bound to be questions which would require more explanation, I think.
it's exactly what it means. You have split existence into two. Epistemology and ontology - mind and matter.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:04 am Oh, you only mean having more than one concept is, "pluralism." Odd, but if that's what you think, that's fine. I suppose if you want to call the fact that ontological existence, which includes human beings and makes concepts possible, "dualism," you may, but I do not think that is what dualism usually means, is it?
So your brain falls into that category. And this is where dualism short-circuits - your mind is what your brain does.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:04 am I regard all physical entities, including all organism, and all their attributes as perfectly natural ontological existents.
The brain does not produce the mind. Life, consciousness, and mind are perfectly natural attributes, but they are not physical attributes. Your physicalism is just a bad hypothesis based on the false belief that whatever is not physical is not natural.
The mind is ontological, but it is not, "epistemic." Epistemology only pertains to knowledge which the mind makes necessary and possible, but it is not knowledge itself. Mind is the attribute of human consciousness that makes conscious choice (volition) possible and necessary, the gaining and retaining of knowledge (intellect) possible and necessary, and thinking and making judgements (rationality) possible and necessary. The relationship of the mind to the physical brain is the same the relationship between conscious perception and the neurological system.
Agree.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:01 pmWe may not have that much of a disagreement then. I made the mistake of thinking you were using, "real," in the everyday sense of what is actually so verses make-believe, but if I understand your explanation you use, "empirically-real," to mean actual existence and, "really-real," in the Platonic realism sense of some kind of mystical ineffable reality behind the existence actually experienced.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:58 amWhat is empirically-real is the reality that can be observed and verified. The most notable of this is via Science.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:50 pm ...
I may not actually disagree with you, but I'd have to know how your are differentiating what you call empirically-real from really-real.
What is empirically-real is conditioned by human observations, testings and verification. Hume was the most notable empiricist philosopher.
- Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
What is claimed as really-real is that thing which is not conditioned by human observations, testings and verification. This is the view of the Philosophical Realists. Kant labelled this as the noumenon and thing-in-itself. ...
While your belief is not exactly of Plato's ideas, forms and universals, your "reality = all-that-is" there are both along the same vein/continuum, i.e. both are independent of the human-conditions of different degrees.I do not agree that, "What is empirically-real is, "conditioned," by human observations, testings and verification."
If by, "empirically-real," you mean the existence that we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, it is not, "conditioned," by human observation.
What I mean by reality is all that is and has the nature it has whether anyone is conscious of or knows what that existence is or what its nature is or not. What human observation, testing, and verification do is, "discover," (gain knowledge about) that existence and its nature. They do not make it or condition it.
Reality is what it is and has the nature it has whether any human ever observes, tests, or verifies it.
This may not be your view, so I'd be interested in how different it is from yours.
Isn't this logical and obvious.
I did not state that.Assuming words are about imaginary things does not follow.
You have not mistaken it precisely since there is no deliberate intention in that case.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:47 pm "When one mistaken a length of rope for a real snake, says a lot that one had been duped as to what is real."
When Penn & Teller transform a snake into rope, or vice versa, I've been duped (in a most entertaining way).
When I, because of poor lighting, mistake a rope for a snake, or vice versa, I've made a mistake.
Either way: I don't get all doubt-ridden about the realness of snakes or ropes. In the first case, I applaud P & T for their clever misdirection; in the second, I kick myself for bein' an idiot.
As mentioned, the feel of 'solidness' of the rope is an illusion from another perspective as I had explained above in terms of the spinning of electrons within the 'rope' at the speed of light."Thus the question to ask is, are you also duped when you see and hold on to the 'real solid rope'."
No. I go to Ace Hardware, buy myself some nice nylon rope, then hang myself in despair that folks like Hoffman are actually taken seriously. The rope, its realness, is never in question. The only question: can I hang myself so that I kick quick, or am I gonna hang there twitchin' for ten minutes as I suffocate?
#
"A higher reality of the rope would be what materials the rope are made of and how many strands and how they are constructed to form the rope. Surely this fact has a higher degree of realness than the realness of just being a rope."
None of that is a higher reality. That there is the constituents of the rope, its foundation, none of which I have to be familiar with to recognize the rope as rope, or to use the rope to end my snakeoil salesman inspired despair.
The rope is real, it exists independent of me, its realness is independent of my familiarity with its constituents (nylon, hemp, old lady hair: I'm gonna swing at the end of it just the same).