Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iiioiia t1_iz9ly4t wrote

Reply to comment by Gurgoth in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo

> Incorrect.

Also metaphysics.

> > > > Definition: abstract theory with no basis in reality

> > > > Or > > > > Definition: an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception > > >

Are these the only two, consensus (non-controversial) definitions of metaphysics?

> Both suggest we cannot ascertain the reality, however, as I suggest with bats we can indeed do so.

Can we ascertain the entirety of it, with zero chance of error?

What if two people make conflicting claims about a portion of reality?

1

Gurgoth t1_izbr0hb wrote

If claimed on reality, then metaphysics need not apply.

Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com. if those are controversial then I think the field needs to properly define it.

3

iiioiia t1_izc5wl4 wrote

> Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com

Can you please link to both (I want to check if those are the sole definitions for each)?

Which reminds me - you didn't answer this (or my other questions):

>> Are these the only two, consensus (non-controversial) definitions of metaphysics?

> Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com. if those are controversial then I think the field needs to properly define it.

Well, this also happens to exist:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

1

Gurgoth t1_izcb954 wrote

I am sorry, had major surgery this morning and am recovering. Not on top of my game. Your link does support that this is poorly defined still.

I donl apologize, I won't be able to continue thus dialog, but it will reference your point.

2