Personally, I am convinced that we can deduce from the cogito - despite problems with "Who is this 'I'?", and so forth - that something has actual (Objective) existence. Therefore Objective Reality exists, and that something is all or part of it. — Pattern-chaser
Re my views, they have nothing to do with certainty, proof, etc. Those things are red herrings for empirical claims. — Terrapin Station
Because something can match another thing regardless of anyone thinking it does. — AJJ
How would that work? We'd need to be able to describe/detail the process.
What I'm challenging is that there's no way for it to work outside of minds. That's one of the primary unique things about minds--intentionality, the "aboutness" ability, the ability to think about something as denoting other things. — Terrapin Station
If we say that objective truth exists out there but we can't access it or not all of us can access it, then how is that an objective truth? If no one can access it then it's an idea, not a thing, and if only some can access it then it is personal, not objective. — leo
However if we say "There is only personal truth", then we are not stating an objective truth, we are stating a personal truth, and that way we can remain coherent. — leo
then some experiences and observations made me realize I was mistaken — leo
If instead we say that what is objective is what everyone agrees on — leo
The question as to whether there are mind-independent objective facts is not en empirical question. — Janus
Sorry......I’m missing halfs. For my benefit alone, and for no particular reason other than peace of mind....what are the halfs you had in mind? General idea will do; no names needed. — Mww
What's stupid about it is that it's believed despite the complete lack of any cogent support for it. It's as bad as religious belief.
Come up with a good reason to entertain it, and then it might be worth bothering with it. — Terrapin Station
By "no congent support", do you mean to say that no idealistic philosopher ever advanced an argument that convinced you, or that they are all fundamentally flawed? — Echarmion
If you extend your logic here you will realize that there's no way to match what we see with any purported mind independent existence of the things we see. — Janus
There are just things that people generally agree upon or generally accept. — thewonder
If we're talking past each other or living in different realities, then how can you say that we are disagreeing? Agreements and disagreements would be incoherent. Your view loses any distinction between delusions and any other kind of thought. And if we can only talk past each other, then what is the point of talking at all? Why should anyone care about your's or anyone else's subjective "truths"?Well, guys, I have found people who agree with me, and people who disagree with me in a way that it feels like we're living in different realities and talking past each other, so I rest my case :wink: — leo
If we're talking past each other or living in different realities, then how can you say that we are disagreeing? Agreements and disagreements would be incoherent. Your view loses any distinction between delusions and any other kind of thought. And if we can only talk past each other, then what is the point of talking at all? Why should anyone care about your's or anyone else's subjective "truths"?
Its so funny to watch you claim that truths are subjective while in the same post you go about telling how it is for all of us not just yourself. From my point of view you are simply maintaining your own delusion of having your cake and eating it too.
All you have done this entire thread is render your own posts and ideas as useless because they don't apply to anyone else's reality except yours. — Harry Hindu
If we dont mean the same thing when we use the same word then we are talking past each other.There can be a limited common ground that gives a basis for disagreements, our use of the same language is a common ground, even if we often don't mean the same thing when we use the same word. — leo
Thats what I said: that your view obliterates the distinction between delusions and other thoughts. Delusions would be just as true as any deductive conclusion, which is preposterous.You talk of delusions, delusion is defined as a belief that contradicts reality, the concept of delusion presupposes a mind-independent reality, right now I don't believe in a mind-independent reality so to me the concept of delusion is meaningless, see the problem? — leo
Exactly. So you're misusing language by implying that you are talking about other's views when you're really talking only about your view. So you're really talking past everyone who talks about their views or about a mind independent world. What is the point of having such a conversation? What would it be about?I'm not saying how it is for everyone in an objective sense, I am saying how it is for everyone from my point of view. — leo
Another misuse of language. You're misusing the term "reality".That doesn't make talking with one another and sharing ideas pointless. Precisely because in my view, our realities are not disconnected, they can influence one another, and through speech we can get an idea of the commonalities and the differences. — leo
This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995.
Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.
Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.
This is reposting something I've posted here a number of times over the years, but here it is again:
‘P’ is true for S iff S judges ‘P’ to have relation R to either S’s phenomenal P, and/or S’s stock of previously adjudged true propositions, depending on the relation R. Relation R is whatever truth theory relation S feels is the appropriate one(s)—correspondence, coherence, consensus, pragmatic, etc.
So in other words, what it is for some proposition, 'P' (quotation marks denoting the proposition literally as a sentence), to be true to some individual, some S, is for the proposition to have the relation R to S's phenomenal P (their phenomenal perception etc. of some state of affairs) or their stock of previously adjudged true propositions, in S's judgment. — Terrapin Station
Just curious what those experiences and observations were. — Terrapin Station
hen I had psychedelic experiences, which opened myself up to the idea that there is much more than what we usually call the universe. The best way I could describe these experiences, is that while I was having them I could understand things that I am not able to understand the rest of the time, I could see things that I do not have the ability to see or even to imagine the rest of the time. If 10 years ago someone had told me what I am saying now, I would have thought they were just hallucinating. But these experiences weren't hallucinations, they were much more profound than anything else. I remember telling myself that by the time the effect wears down I would stop understanding what I understood then. And indeed, there are things I wrote down during these experiences that have lost their meaning and depth, if I read them now they just sound cheesy, because I am not able to understand them anymore... — leo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.