Hello everyone On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Dan: In order to come to this conclusion you are presupposing Don's experience tells him the dog dish exists even when he isn't around the same way we presuppose trees falling in forest exist when no one is around. What is the difference? Thank you, Dan PS That's been the whole thrust of our discussion, so far as I can tell. Calling one hypothetical and the other concrete and particular only serves to confuse the issue and bypasses the question under consideration. 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
