Dotoar

I think you're confusing the objects themselves with our cognitive concepts which refer to said objects. Because I don't think that you would deny that there are such things as what we commonly refer to as stones for example, right?

The key issue here is what I bolded which once again points back to the abovementioned; Our conceptualization of existence, or rather, the objects and phenomena that are suspended in it.

What I was hinting at was that "I dont think there's any true answers" is a claim that, like every possible claim one can think of, owes its existence to, well, existence itself.

__________________

TockTockTock

Oh, these debates. I had a lot of fun with these on that Big View website. Eh, I like Persig's concept of existence which states how nothing can exist until a human being acknowledges its existence. Because enable for something to truly exist, then it must be perceived as such. Seems like an egotistical concept, but if you think about it a little while... well, it MAY make sense.

EDIT: There's no such thing as truth. There's only opinion.

ProggyMan

I see what you're saying but understand that there is no underlying reality behind the concept of a 'stone'. Just as there is no underlying reality to a concept of 'self'. These are simply methods we've evolved of putting reality into pretty little boxes. Consider this: Would it be possible, hypothetically, to take the stone and put it into a vacuum? Is it possible to fathom such a thing? That's all I mean when I talk about no-thing existing.


Same as above, I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Dotoar

I'm open for that possibility, but extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.

Yes, of course. That applies to all cognitive processes that may or may not lead to conclusion.

It was pretty easy to pick apart on a fundamental level. If the premises are wrong, the conclusions will be too. There's no use in dabbling in wrongly derived opinions if the issue lies within their foundation.

Whack or not, would you say that it was wrong?

Now, remember what you said here...

...contradicts with your obvious presumtion of 'reality' here.

Yes, it's perfectly possible on a logical level. Anyone can imagine a stone and nothing but a stone, right? A stone bears some typical qualities, such as colour, size, shape, structure, hardness and material, all of which consists the substance of the concept 'stone'. The concept is indeed imaginary, but it points to an object that we can identify in reality.



Is it the truth that that statement was made and is upheld by you?

__________________

TockTockTock

Nope.

ProggyMan

Really, you can imagine a stone with nothing to contrast it with? Seriously try to imagine only a stone and nothing else. It's impossible.
a semantical error on my part, it's just a convenient word to use, no bearing on the discussion.

Dotoar

So it's the truth that that statement is untrue?

Yes, I can do that. I can't really prove it unless you hook up my brain to a screen that extracts and displays my cognitive vision. Are you seeking to find an opposite to 'stone' or something, to which you can compare that stone?

I kinda thought it was, but I've met stranger arguments so one can never be sure.

Just as not to stagnate in nitpicking: Is it your conviction that there are no real objects, independent of a mind interpreting them, that bears the qualities equivalent to the mental conceptions which we commonly refer to as 'stones'?

__________________

TockTockTock

No. It means you cannot know with certainty. I could really dive deep down into eastern philosophy when regarding this subject, but (being lazy) I don't see a huge point in it. You can think about it, but I don't feel up to getting into a debate about it. You seem to be a follower of western philosophy so I think it would get really complicated (not to say there's anything wrong with western philosophy - I love Plato).

ProggyMan

No, but I highly doubt that you are actually seeing the stone without something (Or nothing) else. I can't really 'prove' you wrong here so I'll just ask you to look at your mental image of the stone again, and ask yourself, 'am I really seeing this stone and nothing but this stone? Then read some Taoist philosophy.

No, that's the thing, I'm just saying that the way we classify things as objects is fairly arbitrary and is used simply because it was the most evolutionarily advantageous thing.

Dotoar

The truth is not dependent on what one knows, but if we cannot agree upon that a statement can be either true or untrue and nothing else, then there's no point in discussing that alright.

I've nudged the subject of taoism but I don't see the point of it in here. I can imagine a stone and nothing but that stone, and you'll just have to take that. I believe you can too.

Yes, that I agree upon. In other words, we are obviously discussing the mental concepts here and not the actual objects to which they apply.

__________________