(August 30, 2014 at 2:43 am)bennyboy Wrote:My definitions do not use physical monist terms. My definitions apply to any world view; that is why I used them. They can be used by monist, dualist, and pluralist of all flavors. But it is you who has to define mind and reality using your idealist monism terminology. It's dishonest.(August 30, 2014 at 12:54 am)Surgenator Wrote: This is the reason why we're arguing past each other. We can't even agree on definitions. The rest of the discussion if mostly pointless until we do. I'm not gonna accept your definitions because they're inherently biased. I recommend we use mine.Nope. I use the words as they are meant. You use the words as they would mean given your world view is true. I won't accept any definition of consciousness, mind or qualia that don't explicitly define them in terms of subjective experience-- because that's what ALL people mean by those words, except the ones trying to argue for physical monism.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 12, 2025, 9:23 am
Thread Rating:
On naturalism and consciousness
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 16 Guest(s)