= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Previous Post Revised - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (26)
Does that mean 'soul'?
It is a terrible turn of phrase, for sure. Souls are commonly conceived as one type of ontologically basic mental entity. God is another. Basically I take the claim "ontologically basic mental entities exist" to mean something like "there are things that think that do not have extension in space".
Edited: So that the words ontologically, basic and mental aren't repeated vertically three times right next to each other.
So the number three doesn't exist? Freedom? Relationships? Holes?
This doesn't strike me as a serious question but it also isn't funny enough to definitely be a joke. So I'm not sure what you're doing.
My answer are exists, depends on what you mean, exists and exists.
Edit- with low confidence because ontology isn't something I'm that interested in and I have not thought a lot about these questions. The Holes piece is a classic one.
Yeah, I love the Holes piece. I thought you were originally denying anything non-physical existed, but on re-reading it seems like you're just denying dualism. Sorry if I misread.
Denying "the existence of ontological fundamental mental entities" is probably more efficiently expressed by, "I don't believe there are any minds without physical brains." This rules out God, ghosts, and pretty much all of the supernatural, since things like homeopathy are contingent on water being able to "remember" or "know" things.