DoubleDutchy

'Starboy' does exist in my mind, that is true. He also exists in his own mind and in his mother's, and for the moment the three 'copies' have few, if any, traits in common. We could concentrate on the common ground and try to enlarge it, which could include lots of redrawing and intricate hypotesis-testing. That would be 'scientific' work which can be rewarding and useful in its own right. We can however safely predict that we won't achieve a 100% overlap . Your stand seems to be that only the overlapping parts can apply for 'reality' status and that these are not mind produced. The others are just mind products and as such do not belong to any reality. The producing minds themselves however do. Reality is not produced at all, it just is, lying around through eternity, waiting for a Starboy to find it. Please correct me if I am false, this is all hermeneutics; you didn't really state anything positive about reality other than it being 'centric'.
As for your second point about my mind not minding .. etc. that's of course a non sequitur; selfcriticism is no less painful than criticism. The opposite is true, that is why its so rare.

Tyler Durden

"Nothing confounds the wise man as much as the laughter of a dunce."

Tyler Durden

Well met, fellow Jackass. My application is pending and in a few months i will receive my official license of Jackassdom.

DoubleDutchy

:notworthy :notworthy

Hugo Holbling

I thought you were in the business of giving them out? I have mine right here with your signature on it.

DoubleDutchy

He might be right or wrong depending on the circumstances.

If the bat had been on a projection screen he is wrong.
If the Bat had been a hologram he would be right but beside the point, the bat has never been there anyway.
If the bat resides on a sub-quantum level then he is deadly wrong.
If the bat were at an astronomical distance, there is no way to decide the matter, he can only write down his observations for the generations to come.
As for zoölogical bats, I used to live at a place where they abide; they sometimes even entered the house. If you want them to leave the best thing to do is open the windows put off the light and be quiet for while. From an engineering point of view I would say putting off the light makes them disappear but there is room for argument here. (This is a statement; NO invitation).

Starboy

My stand is that philosophy's view is "mind" centric. That is poses questions and explanations based on what it conceives of reality strictly in the context of a mind. This view is well reflected in your posts. I am not even sure that you are aware of it.

Instead of what you did post you could have posted that DoubleDutchy's mind is embedded in reality, Starboy's mind is embedded in reality and Starboy's mother’s mind is embedded in reality. In as much as any of these minds exist in reality and can detect and interact with other parts of reality they are aware of each other. This is a reality centric view of the situation.

Yes, I know you are aware of something that you call a mind. I agree it is something we all have an immediate experience with. A reality centric view is a way of creating different explanations of what we perceive. The only reason to consider such a view is the incredible success that science has achieved by its use.

Hugo, I am not ignoring you, it is just that I have zero free time.

Starboy

DoubleDutchy

Don't worry.


Six questions about your 'reality centric view'
'Minds embedded in reality, what does this mean ? Are they just a part of reality or do they have a special status ?

This embedding thing, the rest of reality (i suspect you mean 'physical reality' but I am not sure), what are its constituents? Atoms and empty space ? (+ of course photons gravity fields etc etc.) Whatever they are , they shouldn't be mental concepts or am I at fault here ?

Minds (hopefully) interact with embedding reality. What is input to mind? Photons , smell detectable chemicals and audio-waves ? ( or for that matter their coded counterparts, nerve-pulses)

One of my very favorite readings is Lao Tse. I am aware of his mind (much more so than I am of yours) . Unfortunately he passed 2500 years ago. Is his mind part of reality ?

What do we two exchange ? Basicly photons (or rather lack of photons since we write black on white) but I guess also from a 'reality centric view ' there is some more to say.

Did you ever get a bit into the theory of relativity ?
Do you consider it to be a fruit of a 'reality centered' approach ?

Starboy

DoubleDutch, I am not trying to concoct a philosophy based around a reality centric approach. I don't even know what a philosophy is let alone have any idea how one would be concocted. My main point is not the promotion of a reality centric approach for philosophy. What I am trying to say is that philosophy has an implicit "mind" centric approach. Since it appears to be oblivious to this it suffers from a bias that it is completely unaware of. Because of this it is diffucult for me to see how it could possibly be competent to comment on a reality centric enterprise such as science by way of philosophy of science. As I see it, it is not competent to comment on anything that is part of reality. In other words:

Philosophy uh ha, what is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!

Starboy

Frotiw

Hehe this is getting more and more redicules. The bat "argument" is a philosophical argument used against the metaphysical stance idealism. The completely redicules thing is that the mayority(or many atleast) of philosophers agree on the bat argument and reject idealism. What starboy apparently doesn't understand is that this is not a controverse of philosophy or not philosophy. You my discuss all you want mind-centric or not mind-centric this is discussion of metaphysics(perhaps epistemology some may argue). What you say that is that when e.g. I use the bat argument against other philosophers in a attempt to reject the very same "mind centricism" I reject philosophers all together including meself. What About the thousands of philosophers who reject "mind centricism" they are rejecting themselves or what? I am not sure how much I bother discuss any more. My only motive now is a small educational(frustrated) one all intellectual challenge went away some time ago now, especially after the arguement of philosophers being "mind-centric". Repeating myself: Lots of philosophers spend much energy fighting "mind-centriism" or what I take to be idealism perhaps anti-philosophy never the less in anycase they are being philosophers doing philosophy(completely uncontroversial). It's a stance in philosophy they attack not philosophy all togehter. They themselves along with Starboy and the bat argument is philosophy it would be very redicules had they done so.

For that reading list I stronly advice varius empirists attack on idealism. There is huge number of possibilites.