Per how I use the terms, how I define them, it's what you said. — Terrapin Station

Right, and I said:

Why would it matter how many brains? We don't make that same distinction when it comes to planets and how they function. — Harry Hindu

and you didn't answer.

So, no argument for idealist logic so far, just Terrapin's fallacious attempt to shift the burden. (And Metaphysician Undercover's humorous attempt which I get to later on).

Right, I didn't answer because I wanted you to just address that first part and not skip it.

Re "Why would it matter how many brains?" I don't understand what you're asking. I didn't say anything about quantity of anything. So from where are you getting the idea that "it matters how many brains" in anyone's view?

So, no argument for idealist logic so far, just Terrapins fallacious attempt to shift the burden. — S

That is a common tactic of his, but at least he is trying to defend his definitions with me at the moment.

Meaning is not an objective feature by my definition, because objective refers to the complement of brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

Your definition isn't relevant here. The question here is whether it is objective by my definition.

So, no argument for idealist logic so far, just Terrapins fallacious attempt to shift the burden. — S

Re the things that I'm an antirealist on, re the stupid "burden of proof" convention, you're not arguing that we don't think things like meanings, are you?

Your definition isn't relevant here. — S

Harry brought up my views in posts directed at me.

I have no idea what your definition of "objective" even is.

So "objective" is a relationship between brains and "subjective" is a property of an individual brain?

So "objective" is a relationship between brains and "subjective" is a property of an individual brain? — Harry Hindu

What? Where are you getting anything like that from? Could you answer what/why you're asking re "it matters how many brains"?

objective refers to the complement of brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

I use the word "subjective" to refer to brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

I'm not quite clear on your distinction here.

This is an impossible scenario. Who determines the point in time of an hour past when we all died, if we all died? That's the problem with scenarios like this. You want to remove all human presence, yet still presupposed the means for designating a particular place at a particular time, and ask "what's there?". But who would do that designating? — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, my favourite inadvertent comedian has showed up. Figuring out how much time has past and what is there and designating this or that and other human activities are completely irrelevant. If you can, in a logical manner, demonstrate the supposed relevance, then we can take it from there.

Mind/not mind

Right, and we went over this in the previous thread where we discussed this. I thought you had something different for this discussion. You are making the case that minds are special in some way that deserve this kind of distinction. Why don't we use terms to make distinctions between planets and non-planets, specifically?

It's relevant because your hypothetical scenario assumes the capacity to designate a particular time and a particular place when there are no human beings.

So, let's start from the beginning. All human beings die. What next?

I'm not making the case that anything is "special" . . . the distinction comes up often especially in philosophy, though.

We could make a distinction for planets/not-planets, too. If people talked about planet versus not-planet things a lot, I'm sure we'd have a variety of synonyms for that.

We could make a distinction for planets/not-planets, too. If people talked about planet versus not-planet things a lot, I'm sure we'd have a variety of synonyms for that. — Terrapin Station

We do all the time. Whenever you talk about something that isn't a planet you'd be referring to that property of reality that is non-planet.

Right, I didn't answer because I wanted you to just address that first part and not skip it. — Terrapin Station

Frustrating, isn't it? People skipping important things. So, on that note, are you going to address my argument against your position yet? Or are you still pretending that you have no idea what I'm talking about, and you're powerless to do anything about it? :lol:

Specifically as "non-planet," not that it just happens to be that.

Whether something is mental or not is an evergreen topic in philosophy.

So, are you going to address my argument against your position yet? — S

What would be the motivation for not either exerting the massive amount of energy it would take to point to the post or to simply copy/pasting it?

What would be the motivation for not either exerting the massive amount of energy it would take to point to the post or to simply copy/paste it? — Terrapin Station

To teach you a lesson about quid pro quo.

I'm not making the case that anything is "special" . . . the distinction comes up often especially in philosophy, though. — Terrapin Station

Yes you are. You are saying that mind's deserve a special term that distinguishes their uniqueness from everything else. Planets are just as unique as minds. Everything has special properties that distinguishes it from other things, yet you are only focused on the uniqueness of minds.

Philosophy, like your definitions, is often an anthropomorphic endeavor.

All it teaches me is that you don't care enough to not do the same stupid thing everyone does in conversations like this. You don't care about actually discussing it. You only care about "winning."

I'll type the same shit over and over, I'll reexplain things every way I can think of doing so as long as someone seems interested in a conversation.

You don't care enough about it to even post a link to a post you're claiming to want to talk about. You've got to play a stupid game about it.

If you even just give me three or four words from a phrase in the post you're talking about, I can search for it.

Re the things that I'm an antirealist on, re the stupid "burden of proof" convention, you're not arguing that we don't think things like meanings, are you? — Terrapin Station

What does that even mean? We think them up, we set them, then they no longer depend on someone thinking about them. They simply mean what they do. Why would someone need to be there thinking about what a word means for it to mean what it does? The meaning has already been set.

Yes you are. You are saying that mind's deserve a special term — Harry Hindu

No, I'm explicitly NOT saying this. It's nothing about "deserving" anything. And I didn't invent the terms. There's nothing special about it. It's just a fact that there are minds and things that aren't minds (and a fact that philosophers talk about all the time in various guises).

I'm not saying anything about comparative uniqueness whatsoever.

Harry brought up my views in posts directed at me.

I have no idea what your definition of "objective" even is. — Terrapin Station

Of course you don't. You won't do if you don't pay sufficient attention. Why not take this as a lesson? You would benefit from it.

"We think them up"--okay, so you're not saying that meanings don't occur in minds.

So what am I supposed to be "proving." You already agree that meanings occur in minds. That's my view.

We just disagree whether meanings occur outside of minds. So I simply asked what you accept as evidence that they occur outside of minds, a la pointing me (even if indirectly) to any non-mental meaning properties.

I've had to tell Harry what my definitions are about 50 times, and I'm still not sure he gets it. I'll gladly tell him again, in as many different ways as I can think of telling him, because I'm interested in him understanding it and having a conversation about it. I couldn't care less about anyone "winning."

I'm not saying anything about comparative uniqueness whatsoever. — Terrapin Station

You imply it with the application of your terms and the fact that you don't have alternate terms that refer to planet/non-planet, star/non-star, rock/non-rock, human/non-human, etc. etc. ad infinitum distinctions.

You imply it with the application of your terms and the fact that you don't have alternate terms that refer to the planet/non-planet, star/non-star, rock/non-rock, human/non-human, etc. etc. ad infinitum. — Harry Hindu

You might be reading that into it, but I can only keep repeating that I don't at all believe that there's anything "special" about it or anything to say about comparative uniqueness or anything like that. You don't have to believe me, but I'll keep telling you. ;-)

I use lots of synonyms/synonymous phrases for things like logical entailment (implication, following, etc.) versus irrelevance (non sequitur, doesn't follow, arbitrary, etc.) ,because that's a common topic in philosophy, too. Things we talk about all the time tend to have a lot of synonyms or synonymous phrases.

And part of the reason for that is via trying to both clarify and explain something to others. We frequently have to put things in other words for that. Other words can't be the same words. ;-).