Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Jan Ardena, Mar 17, 2011.
But nothing naughty! Or else.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The thoughts and imaginations themselves are real and tangible, not necessarily their real life counterparts as possible objects. Elephants don't fly either, except in Disney movie representation. Some dinosaurs flew, though.
i'm itching to lift that veil of yours.
for some strange reason i smell sam.
( debates whether to click on post reply )
S.A.M.? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, not by a long shot.
I'm male and English.
Although she and I are friends.
Just because you can think of something, it doesn't follow that it necessarily exists. Think unicorns and vampires... ( a la Dywyddyr...).
You're confusing your mind with reality..
Anything that can be imagined has some kind of existence, otherwise, we could not imagine it.
That is so only from the perspective of naive realism, which can hardly be considered the best philosophical stance there is.
Exactly - the minds must necessarily be saying something about the world; otherwise, we have to suppose that minds are not of this world, not of this universe.
The minds must necessarily be saying something about the world - this is so even from the most hardcore neuropsychological perspective.
The minds must necessarily be saying something about the world - this is not to say that everything anyone says is the absolute truth about the world, but it is in some way connected to it, about it.
Otherwise, we are left with naive realism, the mind-body dualism, and the presumption that selfhood/personality is an illusion. (And left with the question of how the illusion arose, and how can we, since we are subject to this illusion, know it is an illusion.)
Quantum entangled particles do not have pre-existing properties, such as polarization, that are independent of any observation. This is the fall of naive realism [At that level]. The result is so random that not even God could know the answer. Thus, randomness is ultimately a consequence of the finiteness of the information. A quantum system can carry only a limited amount of information, which is sufficient only for a single measurement. Two particles collide, and in so doing enter a state of limitation.
According to you perhaps.
You have a better alternative in mind?
However, there is surely macro realism, meaning that it has pre-existing properties; for example, your couch’s properties, such as its color, remain the same no matter how and when you observe it; thus, too, the moon and the Earth are still there even without one’s observing stare; they are even seen to have progressed, as some things have changed or moved.
Quoting and replying to oneself is a good indicator of woo-wooism.
Obviously, alternatives exist - philosophy is the philosophy of many schools and traditions. To whom which one is better is another matter, though.
Dywyddyr lol, always the vigilante one, aren't you?
I have no life. What else am I going to do? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
PS, it's vigilant. Although the idea of a mask (and possibly cape) does have some appeal...
No my dear D, I meant to write vigilante as vigilant just wasn't quite well strong enuf to describe your vigilance! Ha!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then the mask is now on my shopping list.
What you say is correct of course.
But, as pertains to this case, you can propose a more fitting alternative?
One with greater focus on moral reasoning, where the validity/truthness of a stance is measured by the goodness related to it (basically, "If it is good, then it is true / a fact").
Note that "old school" classical education (even if it was secular) was/is like that: with an emphasis on virtue, not on proving, in some detached, abstract manner, what exists and what doesn't.
I was thinking along the lines of an alternative Epistemological / Ontological POV.
Unless, of course, that's what you're suggesting by this.
If that's the case, how could you possibly support an essentialist notion of morality?
Indeed, I am.
On the grounds that our own sense of good and bad, right and wrong is intrinsically connected with "the workings of the Universe".
(We've talked about this before, on a few occasions.)
Separate names with a comma.