Dan said:
>From what I gathered, Dave wanted to adhere to to common sense notions like
>the concept of object permanence... that if a philosophy doesn't abide by
>that, then it is useless. I saw that as the end of any possible discussion,
>especially since many aspects of the MOQ go against common sense notions.
dmb says:
That's not even close, Dan. I was trying to explain the DIFFERENCE between
common sense objects and metaphysical objectivity - and that difference centers
around the fact that the hypothetical tree is part of nobody's experience while
Matt's friend was dealing with his own concrete and particular experience. The
question about the hypothetical tree presupposes metaphysical objectivity while
the question about that dude's dog dish only supposes that his dog-feeding
experience wasn't a dream or hallucination.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
