RE: Contra Metaphysical Idealism
April 15, 2014 at 11:16 pm
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2014 at 11:17 pm by bennyboy.)
(April 15, 2014 at 7:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: As such?As experiences.
Quote:As what? What are you categorizing experiences as, with the emphasis on the 'what'?They would be categorized by their properties. Some experiences are highly subjective and abstract; some seem to reflect the properties of objects in a shared reality. No source attribution is required; nor should any be attempted if we know for sure that we don't have access to any method or mechanism of verification. We can refer to the physical universe as a convention of speech-- it is a good category name for the kinds of experiences we have when we interact with the world. It's the source attribution that piggybacks on the speech convention that ends up at falsehood-- or at least at an unsupportable assumption.
Quote:If you say ideas, you've just replaced one undefined term with another. What is an idea, where does it live, what is its substance, and how do you know whether or not all experiences are of the same kind of stuff?What stuff are quarks made of? What is energy made of? How about time and space? Where did the Big Bang singularity exist?
