An electron is a posit?

.......

yes

To me you are a concept. You probably indeed exist in a physical way, but you are still a concept in my head.

You have never experienced a star. You have only associated sense-perceptions with a concept. Are you aware of Kant? I don't take him for gospel but he raised some potent issues.

You could not refer to the "real" star without the concept of the star. The "real star" is itself still a concept. All you've got is concepts and sensations and emotions, etc.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 03:28 PM ----------

Probably?

I'm not in your head. I'm not in anyone's head. Hell, I'm not even in my own head. And I'm not playing!

Prove it

There's a reason I said "probably indeed", because there is the possibility that you are just a figment of my imagination.

Exercise a little more confidence. There is no need to allow little things like logical possibilities to repel your confidence from believing the obvious.

A to B: "I am an extra-terrestrial".
B. You are not"
A: Prove it.

What sort of possibility would it be that someone you were talking to was a figment of your imagination? Can you say, or even explain what you mean by that?

"Nothing is so absurd that no philosopher has not said it". Some people think that stars are words, or that facts are words, for instance. It is very peculiar what people who philosophize are willing to say with straight faces.

Am I a concept?

.......

*EDIT* (strike-out)Are you asking me what I mean because you don't see what I'm saying at all, or so I can be more specific?(just saw your last post) */EDIT*

Children have imaginary friends, some "mentally ill" people think people exist who don't.

The example does not do my post justice.

A to B: "I am a figment of your imagination"
B: "You are not"
A: "Prove it"

B to A: "You are a figment of my imagination"
A: "I am not"
B: "Prove it"

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------



What makes you so sure that you are not missing something? I understand Reconstructo, and I understand he is not equating stars as being words. You saying the above with a straight face is peculiar to me for instance.

Probably?

I'm not in your head. I'm not in anyone's head. Hell, I'm not even in my own head. And I'm not playing!

precise mode of its existence, its name ('star'), distance, and so on - the reality of 'star' is nevertheless a function of cognition.

But even given all that, it should be clear that cognition is a bodily and mental phenomenon. Within it there is a realm of experience we designate (rightly) as 'objective' or 'external'. But even though we think of it as such, and it is indeed external or objective to us, the way in which it exists is still intrinsically generated by our sensory and cognitive faculties. So the star is really there - it is not 'an idea in your mind' in the sense of not having an intependent existence - but the precise mode of its existence, its name ('star'), distance, and so on - the reality of 'star' is nevertheless a function of cognition.

Does that mean that unless the star is known to exist, it does not exist? I think that is false. If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean? (And why is the word star in quotes. How are you using the term, star? When you place a term between quotes, doesn't that mean you are using the term in some unusual way? If not, then why did you do it?

Well said. We've interpreted those points of light in different ways throughout the history of our species. Even to see them as points of light is already a conceptual organization of sense-data. We now infer that such points of life are fusion reactions at an immense remove from us. But this inferrence, when considered with any seriousness, is obvious a human invention. No doubt, science strives to address itself to the inferred non-human reality that causes our perceptions. But this too has been "revealed by discourse." This "non-human reality" is also a concept, and therefore a quite human reality. We can't see out of our human form of life. But the human form of life is seemingly sophisticated enough to conceive of this limitation.

Ask him. ..........

Is the fact that children have imaginary friends any reason for thinking that it is possible that a person you are talking to is a figment of your imagination. You are not a child, are you? Are you mentally ill? I asked you in what way is it possible. Any answer?

Why does my example not do your post justice? Any reason? It commits the same fallacy as your post. The argument from ignorance. Look it up.

Are you mentally ill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_realism

Representational realism states that we do not (and cannot) perceive the external world as it really is; instead we know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is. This might be said to indicate that a barrier or 'veil of perception' prevents first-hand knowledge of the world, but the representational realist would deny that 'first hand knowledge' in this sense is a coherent concept, since knowledge is always via some means.
An indirect realist believes our ideas of the world are interpretations of sense data derived from a real external world (unlike idealists). The debate then occurs about how ideas or interpretations arise. At least since Newton, natural scientists have made it clear that the current scope of science cannot address this. Nevertheless, the alternative, that we have knowledge of the outside world unconstrained by our means of access through sense organs that does not require interpretation would appear to be inconsistent with every day observation.
Aristotle was the first to provide an in-depth description of indirect realism. In On the Soul he describes how the eye must be affected by changes in an intervening medium rather than by objects themselves. He then speculates on how these sense impressions can form our experience of seeing and reasons that an endless regress would occur unless the sense itself were self aware. He concludes by proposing that the mind is the things it thinks. He calls the images in the mind "ideas".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9b/Rep-perception.jpg/700px-Rep-perception.jpg

No more than the fact that we kick a stone with our foot means that what we kick is our foot.

I always thought the point of this anecdote was to show that Samuel Johnson completely misunderstood Berkeley.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 10:40 AM ----------

the idea that we are separate from the world and that reality is something outside us is actually the source of a huge amount of irresponsibility and suffering in the world today. It is very convenient for the modern person to retreat into the air-conditioned citadel of the private self. But our collective activities are at this very moment driving thousands of species to extinction, threatening many traditional societies, undermining morality and wasting precious resources. It is collateral to this basic attitude that we are separate to reality.

Don't fret, it is nothing personal.