I would like to share my formulation of an argument for the world being mind-dependent and qualitative; and see everyone's thoughts thereof. — Bob Ross
Modus tollens:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
That being said, what would a mind-independent world be? Is that just objective reality? Is it what was there before there were minds? Did nothing exist before there were minds? I don't think that is a ridiculous idea to propose.
In other words, you don't have to go as far as the idealism of Bishop Berkeley to posit a world created by our perceptions and cognitive apparatus. — Tom Storm
Do you think that the entire world is mind-dependent, or just certain of its features? — charles ferraro
Do you think that the entire world is mind-dependent, or just certain of its features? — charles ferraro
I don't grok your statement. Clarify what you mean by "objective reality" and/or "mind-at-large".I would say that objective reality is a mind-at-large ... — Bob Ross
P3: If a view multiplies ontic categories without necessity, then it should not be accepted (Occam’s Razor). [p → q] — Bob Ross
Hello chiknsld,
Modus tollens:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
Therefore, not P.
Correct. In my case, it also uses double negation and modus tollens—which I forgot to mention in the argument form:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
C: Not P.
In my case, Q = ‘!T’, so it becomes:
1. If P, then !T (If P, then Q).
2. !!T (!Q).
C: Not P.
It’s the same form of inference: modus tollens. Granted it also assumes the law of double negation. — Bob Ross
You are correct in your concern. Applying double negation in the way described does not align with the standard form of modus tollens and, in fact, changes the logical rule being used. Modus tollens is a valid form of inference, but it should not involve double negation in the manner shown in the argument.
The standard form of modus tollens is as follows:
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
C: Not P.
This form follows the classical rules of deductive logic. However, the argument presented by adding double negation:
If P, then ¬T (If P, then Q).
¬¬T (!Q).
C: Not P.
While this argument might still lead to the correct conclusion, it deviates from the standard modus tollens form and introduces the law of double negation in an unusual way. Double negation elimination is a valid law in classical logic, which states that if you have a double negation (¬¬P), you can eliminate both negations and arrive back at the original statement (P). However, in the context of modus tollens, it is not common to introduce double negation in the premises or conclusions.
To maintain clarity and adherence to standard logic, it's best to present the argument in the standard form of modus tollens without introducing unnecessary double negations. So, the correct form of the argument should be:
If P, then Q.
Not Q.
C: Not P.
In conclusion, the original argument you presented without double negation was valid modus tollens, but the modified version with double negation deviates from the standard form and may cause confusion or misunderstandings.
I don't grok your statement. Clarify what you mean by "objective reality" and/or "mind-at-large".
Also, if "the world is mind-dependent", then "mind" is world-independent (i.e. separate from the world, or disembodied), no? Evidence?
As you are using specific vocabulary, it would help to make your point clearer by also defining exactly what each piece of the vocabulary means to you.
What is a quantity by your view? What is quantitative vs qualitative to your view?
Logic only works when you have immutable properties that do not change or are open to interpretation. Definitions often times are immutable based on the internal definitions of the reader, as well as the context in which they can be placed accidentally by the user.
Without very explicit terminology, I do not think the proposal can be evaluated.
I'm somewhat of an amateur fossil hunter.
It would seem odd to me, that when I find fossils I am not holding the remnants of the bodies of animals that existed a long time ago, but am instead holding... ?
I suppose under the 'all is quality' view, I am holding nothing more than mind-dependent qualities - the way the fossil looks, feels, it's texture. It only signifies the past to the degree that I build an explanatory narrative around my perceptions (i.e. there is nothing more to the past than this narrative).
But I think what's missing from this account that reduces our existence to 'quality only' is our pre-theoretical lived experience as being human bodies.
When we speak of "quality" what we are really referring to is our bodies sensory perceptions - our visual field is predicated upon our eyes.
It would seem incoherent to think both my hand and its touch are 'in my mind' - my body would be 'in my mind' yet my sensory perceptions are dependent upon my body?
It appears nonsensical, especially considering my body will remain when I die, much like these creatures whose fossils I find. You have direct evidence of this every time you eat a chicken - a plate full of bones.
Surely this leads to solipsism - why posit minds beyond your own? But I think applying Occam's Razor to ontology is a misapplication. There is no requirement for the ontology of the world itself to be as parsimonious as possible.
I think mind-dependence is misleading. Neither pure subjectivity nor pure objectivity can be conceived in isolation
"the unity of the I does not come before that of the object, but rather is constituted only through it."
The universe is dynamic, dynamism requires energy, and energy is the result of a tension between opposites.
The quality of quantity; quantities of qualities.
I have been waiting my entire life for a simple tool like chatgpt...my entire life.
I believe that is what I was trying to tell you, but I know that you will probably understand it better if it comes from another source right? ...hehe
Applying double negation in the way described does not align with the standard form of modus tollens and, in fact, changes the logical rule being used. Modus tollens is a valid form of inference, but it should not involve double negation in the manner shown in the argument.
In conclusion, the original argument you presented without double negation was valid modus tollens, but the modified version with double negation deviates from the standard form and may cause confusion or misunderstandings.
P1: A quantitative process cannot produce a quality — Bob Ross
Since you said you agree that the world is mind-dependent, what do you think that entails or implies? — Bob Ross
I would say that objective reality is a mind-at-large, and our conscious experience is a survival-based dashboard of experience of mental events. Since you said you agree that the world is mind-dependent, what do you think that entails or implies? — Bob Ross
Doesn’t the fact that idealist points away from his mind and towards something else betray his own argument? — NOS4A2
It may not be the case that they are arguing that world is wholly in their mind, but every object or substance they claim constitutes reality cannot be found anywhere else, which is suspiciously convenient. — NOS4A2
I think you overshot their arguments and went right to incredulity. Implicitly direct realism presumes animals like humans have a god-like (near) perfect view of reality. Too many problems arise from this.
I've read their arguments but they cannot show me a single mind-dependent object. Hence my incredulity. Are you able to point to one without pointing to your own forehead?
A better explanation for me is that the idealist holds a naive view of his own biology (he cannot see his optical nerve, for instance), and so assumes that the observable parameters of biological arrangements cannot explain mental phenomenon. — NOS4A2
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.