Not Mind-Independent not = Mind-Dependent

[Skepdick]

"nature" has at least two different meanings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

This is an example of not being able to process meaning/context.

I can't process what hasn't been communicated.

Do you have to make every thread about your brain deficiency?

No. I am making every thread about the superiority of your brain.

Why is somebody with such a superior brain having such a hard time communicating their meaning?

It's becoming a pattern for you - blamingme for your incompetence.

[Atla]

As such I am a realist in one sense and non-realist in another.

I got that. But in an ultimate sense your fundamental ontological position is that things do not exist when we are not there to see them. There is no unperceived set of things.

So what is that reality like.

What is the parallel model to the realist overview but from the non-realist perspective.

PH: So what is that reality like.

There is no question of things must come from something.
Literally, anti-philosophical_realists don't give a damn to 'what is that reality like".

To do so, would be falling on
philosophical realism which is driven psychologically to pine [cling] for what is ultimate, an absolute mind independent reality.

What an empirical realist focus fully on is what is empirical [emerged and realized and supported by critical and rational thinking], thus his reality [emerged and realized] is reinforced by the various human-based*FSKs of which the scientific FSK is the most credible.
*human-based thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

When reality isn't 'like' anything to you, then how do you know that the human-based FSKs aren't the products (parts) of a mind-independent reality (that pre-existed humans)?

[Skepdick]

When reality isn't 'like' anything to you, then how do you know that the human-based FSKs aren't the products of a mind-independent reality (that pre-existed humans)?

So what's mind-independent reality like and how is it different in likeness to a mind-dependent reality?

[Skepdick]

When reality isn't 'like' anything to you, then how do you know that the human-based FSKs aren't the products (parts) of a mind-independent reality (that pre-existed humans)?

How could you possibly learn anything about a reality that pre-existed humans now that the humans are here learning about it?

[Atla]

"nature" has at least two different meanings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

This is an example of not being able to process meaning/context.

I can't process what hasn't been communicated.

Do you have to make every thread about your brain deficiency?

No. I am making every thread about the superiority of your brain.

Why is somebody with such a superior brain having such a hard time communicating their meaning?

It's becoming a pattern for you - blamingme for your incompetence.

Everyone here except you understood the "nature" word for example. Where we disagree are much more difficult concepts and views.

[Skepdick]

Everyone here except you understood the "nature" word for example. Where we disagree are much more difficult concepts and views.

Obviously. Because everybody is smart and I am stupid.

So explain your meaning, genius.

Lets agree on this simple issue.

[Atla]

When reality isn't 'like' anything to you, then how do you know that the human-based FSKs aren't the products of a mind-independent reality (that pre-existed humans)?

So what's mind-independent reality like and how is it different in likeness to a mind-dependent reality?

Google it if you have no idea

[Skepdick]

When reality isn't 'like' anything to you, then how do you know that the human-based FSKs aren't the products of a mind-independent reality (that pre-existed humans)?

So what's mind-independent reality like and how is it different in likeness to a mind-dependent reality?

Google it if you have no idea

If I wanted Google's answer I would've asked Google.

I am asking you.

Still, it's very weird how Google and ChatGPT (mere automatons) can produce answers to such questions but you can't.

[Atla]

Everyone here except you understood the "nature" word for example. Where we disagree are much more difficult concepts and views.

Obviously. Because everybody is smart and I am stupid.

So explain your meaning, genius.

Your not stupid as in low IQ, a part of your brain simply isn't working. The part that would be needed for explaining to you what meaning is.

[Iwannaplato]

"nature" has at least two different meanings. This is an example of not being able to process meaning/context.

Do you have to make every thread about your brain deficiency?

Ironically he once told me that we should be looking for common ground not picking at each other's words and trying to destory every argument encounter. The way hateful and horrible philosophers do in his experience of philosophy.

Some quotes from him....

In rhetoric I place charity as the highest rhetoric.

The whole dance is about manufacturing disagreement even when none exists. It undermines the whole ordeal.

You seem to pay far too much attention on what is being said; and far too little attention on what the words imply.
Two different people saying two different things effectively agree if their different words have the same implication.
Words without implication are not worth listening to.

Fine. And I have sympathy for his assuming I am up to all that he hates since I have been very critical of both VAs posts and VA himself.

But here I was actually asking him to explain his overview. But he leaps in snarling and lashing out. Not really understanding my post on the attack against yet another philosopher. How dare I be critical of a post of someone he called the stupidest poster at PN.

But I wasn't being critical. I wanted to see what his model is or to start mulling it over. To explore.

I have found with incredible regularlty he has no concept of context. Add to this that his main tactic is to turn everyone's strategy against them. What he perceives as their strategy. IOW he sees himself as someone who is charitable and not like philosophers, who tries to find common ground, but when people treat him in ways he considers philosophical, then he attacks then with strategies he thinks they use on others or just used in relation to him or used in response to a third party.

I have found that a number of people do not get that he is doing this and think he has philosophical positions he does not have. They have some responsibility for their interpretation, but his approach is so volatile and his inability to read contexts is prevalent, he's got a lot of responsibility for that also.

So here is, intervening, attacking 'philosophers' for reaction to VA - again the person he called the stupident person here from the deep well of his charity - who are actually trying to tease out more understanding of VA's position. I can't speak for your motives, but I'm curious.

Skepdick himself can shift between modes of interaction, from curious to cutting, to bridging, to exploratory...but no one else is capable of this so he assumes what he considers the worst - all in the name of bringing positions nearer each other.

He hates philosophers and their approaches but comes to a philosophy forum. Well, that's a misison, I guess.
His goals are to bridge and find common ground, but he jumps to insults faster than any person here and is an utterly terrible reader of context.

I actually do some of the same things around aiming strategies at strategies. AGain and again he would miss this and expect me to defend the strategy I was mimicking in the person I was responding to.

I can look at the claims of the person: what they supposedly value - or I can look at the actual main trend of their participation. They don't match at all with Skepdick.

[Skepdick]

Your not stupid as in low IQ, a part of your brain simply isn't working. The part that would be needed for explaining to you what meaning is.

I never asked you to explain what meaning is. I asked you to explain what your question means.

Do you understand the difference in meaning, or have you misidentified whose brain is dysfunctional?

[Skepdick]

Ironically he once told me that we should be looking for common ground not picking at each other's words and trying to destory every argument encounter. The way hateful and horrible philosophers do in his experience of philosophy.

Ironically, looking for common ground is precisely what I am doing. But for some reason you can't seem to understand that.

The person asking the questions is in control of the dialogue.

When you ask a meaningless questiion (which is NOT an argument) e.g "What is the nature of reality?" you are driving us both into a wall.

So admitting that you have no fucking idea what you are asking, and realizing that your incompetence in the domain of asking meaningful question is derailing the conversation would be precisely the common ground we can start the dialogue from.

Asking you to explain what your question means IS practicing the principle of charity. Rather than assuming your meaning which would be totally precumptious on my part!

And the cherry on top would be to understand (in your very own words) why you keep asking meaningless questions. You know - instead of me making up a story about your intentions. Letting you produce the interpretation framework for your own words!

How is it that you don't recognize that as charitable?!?

[Atla]

Your not stupid as in low IQ, a part of your brain simply isn't working. The part that would be needed for explaining to you what meaning is.

I never asked you to explain what meaning is. I asked you to explain what your question means.

Do you understand the difference in meaning, or have you misidentified whose brain is dysfunctional?

That's probably one and the same part.

[Skepdick]

I have found with incredible regularlty he has no concept of context.

So you have arrived (with incredible regularity) at the wrong conclusion.

That sounds like a you-problem.

There's only so many times I can ask you to make your assumptions (a.k.a CONTEXT) explicit.

[Atla]

"nature" has at least two different meanings. This is an example of not being able to process meaning/context.

Do you have to make every thread about your brain deficiency?

Ironically he once told me that we should be looking for common ground not picking at each other's words and trying to destory every argument encounter. The way hateful and horrible philosophers do in his experience of philosophy.

Some quotes from him....

In rhetoric I place charity as the highest rhetoric.

The whole dance is about manufacturing disagreement even when none exists. It undermines the whole ordeal.

You seem to pay far too much attention on what is being said; and far too little attention on what the words imply.
Two different people saying two different things effectively agree if their different words have the same implication.
Words without implication are not worth listening to.

Fine. And I have sympathy for his assuming I am up to all that he hates since I have been very critical of both VAs posts and VA himself.

But here I was actually asking him to explain his overview. But he leaps in snarling and lashing out. Not really understanding my post on the attack against yet another philosopher. How dare I be critical of a post of someone he called the stupidest poster at PN.

But I wasn't being critical. I wanted to see what his model is or to start mulling it over. To explore.

I have found with incredible regularlty he has no concept of context. Add to this that his main tactic is to turn everyone's strategy against them. What he perceives as their strategy. IOW he sees himself as someone who is charitable and not like philosophers, who tries to find common ground, but when people treat him in ways he considers philosophical, then he attacks then with strategies he thinks they use on others or just used in relation to him or used in response to a third party.

I have found that a number of people do not get that he is doing this and think he has philosophical positions he does not have. They have some responsibility for their interpretation, but his approach is so volatile and his inability to read contexts is prevalent, he's got a lot of responsibility for that also.

So here is, intervening, attacking 'philosophers' for reaction to VA - again the person he called the stupident person here from the deep well of his charity - who are actually trying to tease out more understanding of VA's position. I can't speak for your motives, but I'm curious.

Skepdick himself can shift between modes of interaction, from curious to cutting, to bridging, to exploratory...but no one else is capable of this so he assumes what he considers the worst - all in the name of bringing positions nearer each other.

He hates philosophers and their approaches but comes to a philosophy forum. Well, that's a misison, I guess.
His goals are to bridge and find common ground, but he jumps to insults faster than any person here and is an utterly terrible reader of context.

I actually do some of the same things around aiming strategies at strategies. AGain and again he would miss this and expect me to defend the strategy I was mimicking in the person I was responding to.

I can look at the claims of the person: what they supposedly value - or I can look at the actual main trend of their participation. They don't match at all with Skepdick.

I guess he's one of those people who can't really communicate with anyone, and could never do so it in the past either, and has accumulated an endless need for attention and to be "understood". I think he's simply on such forums for some semblence of attention, communication, and he didn't even get banned here because no one gets banned here. He's also somewhat narcissistic.

I'd just ignore whatever he says, he isn't actually here to make points, arguments. He's just after attention. Maybe by being an a-hole he can get a little more attention.