Random Thought Thread

yoko said:
Wait..... am I poster posing calender pics in front of some ones truck again???

I'm not washing the wheels again cause last time was creepy



Hahahaha
Click to expand...
These Yokos ... lol
20210710-124955.jpg
 
Synov said:
That's just a truism, how is it a problem? Are you saying reality is restricted to what you can imagine? I don't see how you could prove that.

A wave occupies various spaces simultaneously. It's not that hard to grasp, and it's laughable to say that physicalists cannot "replicate" a fact of physics. You can imagine anything as a mental entity, that doesn't explain anything that physics didn't already tell you.

And an individual not being able to experience something doesn't cause it not to exist either. That's the analogy.

I didn't say all glasses have to observe it, just A pair of glasses. The glasses of God, if you will.

By definition, no. So what? That's not what you initially stated. You stated that you can't imagine something independent of mind. I can, a rock independent of mind. The rock can simply exist in its own universe without a mind. What's conceptually wrong with this? Ah that you need a mind to imagine this. But that doesn't change anything about the concept, anymore than needing glasses to see changes the thing you're looking at.

Of course not, it just takes whatever facts science discovers without mind having anything to do with it and adding mind to it 😆

Yes, but "observation" in physics is an interaction in which information is generated, such as a photographic plate that light has reacted with. It has nothing to do with a mind or observer in the colloquial sense.

There are a lot of silly beliefs that have persisted for a long time.
Click to expand...
You must be a tremendously fast reader to have already gone through the Three Dialogues already. Tell you what, I'll commit to rereading it by January and we talk over DM once we've both had a chance to read Berkeley?
 
StoneAndSteel said:
You must be a tremendously fast reader to have already gone through the Three Dialogues already. Tell you what, I'll commit to rereading it by January and we talk over DM once we've both had a chance to read Berkeley?
Click to expand...
I have already started reading about subjective idealism. I so far have not found much that I haven't already argued against in previous discussions. I also find it funny that my immediate reaction to the master argument is basically the same as Bertrand Russell's criticism of it:
If we say that the things known must be in the mind, we are either un-duly limiting the mind's power of knowing, or we are uttering a mere tautology. We are uttering a mere tautology if we mean by 'in the mind' the same as by 'before the mind', i.e. if we mean merely being apprehended by the mind. But if we mean this, we shall have to admit that what, in this sense, is in the mind, may nevertheless be not mental. Thus when we realize the nature of knowledge, Berkeley's argument is seen to be wrong in substance as well as in form, and his grounds for supposing that 'idea'—i.e. the objects apprehended—must be mental, are found to have no validity whatever. Hence his grounds in favour of the idealism may be dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top