I slowly move from mind-only schools to middle-way ontology and epistemolog...the path is better than regurgitation of memes.
On Mar 28, 8:13 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > A bit inconsistent Lon - but we should be thinking more like this, if > only to recognise some of the difficulties. My guess that search for > precision in thought is often the first mistake. > > On 28 Mar, 13:07, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that things exist only in our minds, and only some of > > those things correspond as best they can to objects in the real > > world. The idea of object also is only something that exists in our > > heads. > > > Suppose I see a flock of Canada Geese flying South for the winter. > > Then thereafter I was informed that the geese that migrated over my > > hometown we a newly discovered species of Newfoundland Geese who ate > > slightly different things than Canada Geese, and had an entirely > > different mating call. The Newfoundland Geese fly over my town and > > return from their migration as entirely different geese. > > > Say a goat with a congenital defect has a single horn growing out of > > his forehead, and due to a strange reaction to algae in the Amazon > > River his fur is pink, he is worshiped by a local tribe as a holy > > creature. Is that a pink unicorn? A teacup is flushed out out of > > Skylab during an attempt to get rid of worrying odor in the space > > station's galley, does God now exist? > > > On Mar 27, 9:10 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Lonlaz, > > > What do you mean by "exists"? How do you define that word? Isn't the > > > question you should be asking not whether something exists, but rather > > > where it exists? For example, pink unicorns exist, but as far we know > > > they only exist in the subjective mind. Canadian geese exist as well, > > > but they exist both in the subjective mind, and in the objective > > > world. In fact pink unicorns are based on our experience as well. > > > We've experienced the color pink, we've experienced animals with > > > horns, and we've experienced horses. We combine all those > > > experiences, muddle things up, and we come up with something that we > > > never experienced all at the same time, and so we say that it exists > > > only in our subjective mind, but in reality even a pink unicorn exists > > > in the objective world, just not in the order we arranged the objects > > > in our subjective mind. > > > > On Mar 25, 3:23 pm, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Inspired by the perhaps strange idea of asking if something exists or > > > > not. I ask, does anything really exist at all? Does Blue exist, for > > > > example? > > > > > Now some of us would say that the very thought of being able to refer > > > > to something by a name would be common sense proof that it exists. So > > > > does a general concesus mean that something exists? What about the > > > > color blind? > > > > > Now someone may say, of course there is a color Blue! It can be > > > > measured! Blue is photons oscillilating at 450 nm. But another might > > > > say, that is a paltry existence, a bunch of transient particles > > > > without mass waving about, only to be snuffed out of existance by a > > > > retina. And like the tree that fell in the forest, if the wavy > > > > particles don't hit a retina, are they still Blue? > > > > > Muddling the question further, there are those that dispute Blue is a > > > > color at all. These 'Synthenasist' claim Blue is a taste, a sound, or > > > > perhaps even a feeling.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
