Cool. Well you're tripping up on the basics. — Isaac

How so?

How so? — frank

You didn't extend me the courtesy of explaining how I'd gone wrong.

Sigh. Ok. Adios.

Yes. "Mind" acts as a rigid designator. — frank

Is that bad or an error?

Is that bad or an error? — TheMadFool

Um, what do you mean?

Um, what do you mean? — frank

What would Mayr say regarding the mind being a rigid designator?

But the universe is expanding. What is it expanding into if there's a limit?

Apparently there isn't a limit, from the inside it just keeps on expanding at the speed of light. But like a face painted on the surface of a ballon, which gets bigger when you blow it up, it never leaves the surface of the ballon. Just imagine a ballon which expands for ever. A ballon is dome shaped.

By the way this isn't my philosophy, this is astrophysicists and folk like that.

P.s. If you like Max Richter, you might like Flatlands by Roger Eno, composed in contemplation of the Norfolk landscape where I live.

What 'physical' comes down to a lot of the time is, 'what science might agree to exist' — Wayfarer

yes, which is fine, but then given the words apparant position-taking on substance, it would probably be good to change the term.

Scientific analysis 'brackets out' the subjective — Wayfarer

Most belief systems start with a default. Then consider this default as not having an onus in the way other defaults do. This is fine if we view such options as generative, and science has generated incredible knowledge, but problematic when it is considered confirmed ontology.

We embody cultural tropes, archetypes, potentialities, and so on, that are beyond the purview of the physical sciences as such (although not necessarily in conflict with them.) — Wayfarer

If 'physical' has no definition, then nothing is necessarily beyond the physical sciences.

Yes, it's an irony I tend to use a legal analogy for 'fruit of the poison tree'.

Fruit of the poisonous tree (objection) is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.

If res cogitans is unreal or 'less real', then conclusions based on it are even less tenuous. Which should make people laugh, but it tends not to. It's really biting one's mother's teat rather than being grateful.

P.s. If you like Max Richter, you might like Flatlands by Roger Eno, composed in contemplation of the Norfolk landscape where I live. — Punshhh

I'll check him out. May as well go through all the Eno's. :)

The word “process” is a noun, but it is series of actions. These actions are reified into a noun. For instance the word “jog” can be used as a noun. “I went for a jog”. But is a jog a thing? I think the grammar leads to confusions and unnecessary reifications. — NOS4A2

please provide some sort of authority for these unstated rules you have regarding the proper attachment of "thing" to entities.

you seem to make arguments for having such rules without providing any information as to what the rules are or where they can be found.

I will wait here.

please provide some sort of authority for these unstated rules you have regarding the proper attachment of "thing" to entities.

you seem to make arguments for having such rules without providing any information as to what the rules are or where they can be found.

I will wait here.

What rules?

What rules? — NOS4A2

What is the basis upon which you make your claim to the non-thingness of truth, processes, and jogs.

What is the basis upon which you determine thingness/non-thingness.

So far, all you have offered is some ill-defined fear of the potential for grammatical errors and that strikes as insufficient.

What is the basis upon which you make your claim to the non-thingness of truth, processes, and jogs.

What is the basis upon which you determine thingness/non-thingness.

So far, all you have offered is some ill-defined fear of the potential for grammatical errors and that strikes as insufficient.

These words represent verbs and adjectives that modify things in language, yet, with the addition of a suffix or something similar, they are spoken of as things. This is grammar. Thankfully nominalized adjectives are in decline,

When I use the word “thing” I mean an object. Truth is not a thing because it doesn’t have a boundary, doesn’t move as one, doesn’t have any objectivity or reality outside of the mind.

Truth is not a thing because it doesn’t have a boundary — NOS4A2

So you have no criterion other than your own preference for determining thingness/non-thingness.

I respect that and I am going to adopt that.

And truth is bounded by non-truth.

doesn’t have any objectivity or reality outside of the mind. — NOS4A2

What does that even mean? You could not possibly come to understand anything meaningful about the world in which you find yourself in the absence of truth. If you drive to work, you can only do so because you know the truth regarding how cars work (I presume you would consider cars to be outside your mind, whatever that means), where to get gas (I presume you consider the gas station to be outside your mind, whatever that means), and the route to work (also outside your mind?). You could not make your way around in the world in the absence of truth. So even if you really do buy into this internal/external inside/outside subject/object nonsense, you could have no meaningful understanding of anything "outside your mind" in the absence of truth.

So you have no criterion other than your own preference for determining thingness/non-thingness.

I respect that and I am going to adopt that.

And truth is bounded by non-truth.

Reason and evidence is my criterion.

What does that even mean? You could not possibly come to understand anything meaningful about the world in which you find yourself in the absence of truth. If you drive to work, you can only do so because you know the truth regarding how cars work (I presume you would consider cars to be outside your mind, whatever that means), where to get gas (I presume you consider the gas station to be outside your mind, whatever that means), and the route to work (also outside your mind?). You could not make your way around in the world in the absence of truth. So even if you really do buy into this internal/external inside/outside subject/object nonsense, you could have no meaningful understanding of anything "outside your mind" in the absence of truth.

I’ve stated my arguments as to what “truth” means (all things that are true), and why truth does not exist beyond the skull. I believe things can be true or false, however, for instance that a car works in a certain fashion, and I personally aim to be as true and honest as possible. That’s why I do not believe there is something called “truth” because to do so would be untrue.

That’s why I do not believe there is something called “truth” because to do so would be untrue. — NOS4A2

Everybody is different.

I am incapable of rejecting the possibility that there are deeper understandings to be had than the ones I have.

I have always been that way. It is a blessing and a curse.

There certainly are deeper understandings. I mean it would take a sheer act of will to exclude the word “truth” from the mental lexicon. It’s embedded in the language and thus in our thoughts. I am just suggesting one might be careful when reifying certain concepts at the expense of others. Might we be deceiving ourselves a bit here?

I mean it would take a sheer act of will to exclude the word “truth” from the mental lexicon — NOS4A2

I think it is constitutive of who we are. We could not survive without an understanding of truth. Nor could most (if any) other mammals.

But for us (and perhaps other species) it goes beyond that. I see truth/untruth almost as an atmosphere in which we live our lives. So much of our engagement in the world revolves around revealing/concealing truth. And for some, just as much is to be gained by concealing as revealing. We are in the truth business.