Our beliefs (concepts) about the Moon, and the word, "Moon", are mind-dependent. But the Moon is not mind-dependent. You really have to distinguish between beliefs or concepts, and what it is that they are concepts of, and beliefs about.

So you see your beliefs as the best possible options available to you without any eternal truth value attributed to them?

You are presenting yourself as a materialist/monist but you don't seem to realize this fact.

'The moon' makes no sense without human intercession. The real question is: what does the moon look like in a completely objective sense? What is the moon really? These are philosophical question regarding the nature of the physical world or physical universe.

If someone existed who could see absolute truth (let us call him God) then we may ask, what is the moon from God's perspective? Because one would need to be both independent of the moon and at the same time be able to perceive the moon, something which humans cannot do. Humans do not have access to the truth. This is what makes philosophy possible.

-

You are presenting yourself as a materialist/monist but you don't seem to realize this fact.

'The moon' makes no sense without human intercession. The real question is: what does the moon look like in a completely objective sense? What is the moon really? These are philosophical question regarding the nature of the physical world or physical universe.

If someone existed who could see absolute truth (let us call him God) then we may ask, what is the moon from God's perspective? Because one would need to be both independent of the moon and at the same time be able to perceive the moon, something which humans cannot do. Humans do not have access to the truth. This is what makes philosophy possible.

-

The real question is: what does the moon look like in a completely objective sense?

What is the moon really?

Humans do not have access to the truth. This is what makes philosophy possible.

The essence of the Moon can only exist because the mind constituted it. The word Moon, the idea of evolving around the Earth, the knowledge about craters which cover it; these are all concepts which have been constituted by minds, therefore they're mind dependent characteristics.

If humans do not have access to truth, then what you say cannot possibly be true, can it?

We've not talking about the concept of the moon, we're talking about the moon. Do you know what the difference is?

Yes by you can only refer to it through the Nominous which is something rather then nothing...otherwise you can only be referring to the concept of the Moon !

All I maintained was that the Moon existed before people with minds existed. Do you believe that is true, or do you believe it is false?

I believe it to be an assumption, albeit a very justified one. I try to set up my theory of knowledge off of a probabilistic framework. Syntaxes such as language are 100% knowable. Empirical theories are 99% knowable. However, metaphysical theories don't have a probability, IMO. So I think to claim the Moon existed before people is an assumption, but I place 99% confidence on it.

But what does that matter? Even if we cannot perceive the moon as the 'thing-in-itself' that you all seem to be hinting at, that does not mean that the moon doesn't exist. It seems to me that the mere fact we're perceiving anything means there is something which exists, even if what we perceive is flawed in some way.

And, no, I'm not referring to the concept of the Moon. The concept of the moon is certainly not the moon. For some reason people believe that.

So do you believe it is true, or false? Did you answer the question?

You can only possess the concept once reference is symbolic, you are referring to the nominous, X, and not the Moon !!! Jeeeesus, good Lord!

It depends on the scope. Empirically the moon exists (with 99.99999% confidence). Metaphysically I do not place a probability on my confidence of what the Moon is, so I refuse to state certainty at that scope.

What does that matter? The fact is the moon has existed before we knew of the moon. That seems to be blatantly obvious.

Is a question which asks nothing, but appears profound. Discard, I'm sorry.

If humans do not have access to truth, then what you say cannot possibly be true, can it?

This is a prime example of anti-philosophy i.e. nihilism.

You are not asking philosophical questions.

So, when I said to my friend, "Look at the moon!", on a beautiful, starry night, I wasn't referring to the moon?

Interesting idea. I wonder why my friend looked up, then. She probably didn't think I was referring to the moon either. Must have been a coincidence that she looked up.

Very odd how you bypassed the question again. You either believe or you don't believe the moon existed before us.

You don't think it is possible to suspend judgment on the issue at a metaphysical level?

Empirically the moon exists, I have already said that I believe that with 99.9999% confidence. I operate at the empirical level, so the moon exists at that level. However, we are talking about a different scope, the metaphysical idea of the Moon, and I see no way to place confidence on a belief at that level, because it is out of the scope of my experience. The empirical scope cannot be used as justification for a metaphysical claim, IMO.

Yes, I believe your question is. And that's why it was discarded.

We should strive to talk about something, not nothing. Nothing gets us nowhere.



Your confusion may lie in thinking that a philosophical question is one that must appear profound, difficult to answer, and vague. I'm trying to help you here.

Hm, have you ever tried reconciling these two thought processes - the metaphysical and the empirical? What belief do you have when they are, for lack of a better word, combined?