No, I am not. Saying that you've failed to show that the commonality establishes identity doesn't mean that I think you claimed to have done so, or even that you tried to do so. It just means you've failed to do it. As long as the commonality isn't identity, your argument fails. As long as knowledge and existence are not the same thing, locating the one does not mean the same thing as locating the other.You are pretending I did
"Experientable" isn't a word, Tercon. Again, so long as your commonality falls short of identity, knowledge and existence remain different things, meaning locating the one is different from locating the other. You have presented no evidence at all that all existence is the product of any mind. This isn't even possible, as the mind would have to predate all of existence in order to produce it, meaning that mind would not itself exist.How is it irrelevant if it is true that they share a commonality that both are ONLY knowable and experientable in and with a believing mind? The fact that they do share this commonality is evidence that both knowledge and existence are the result of a believing mind. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to suggest otherwise.
How so? What was the analogy? How was it not analogous to your position? Lets' see if you're even following the discussion here.Your analogy is a strawman because it's not representative of my position.
A mind is the only place the tree can be known, so knowledge-of-the-tree requires a mind. But a mind is not the only place the tree can EXIST (another place being my garden), so the tree's existence (i.e. the tree itself) does NOT require a mind. As always, you conflate knowledge and existence.Again, if a believing mind is the ONLY way and place that can know and experience both the existence and knowledge of that tree, then that tree cannot be known to exist or occur without a believing mind making it possible.
Again, we were discussing existence, not knowledge. As always, you continue to conflate the two.Strawman. Actually you are pretending that things can be known to exist and occur without or outside of a believing mind.
And if the ONLY way and place that knowledge and existence can be known and experienced is in and with a believing mind, then both knowledge and existence must be the result of a believing mind. And there must be a correlation between knowledge and existence.
Tell us all about what you know to exist and occur without a mind silly?
Get back to me when you can show that you understand what object permanence actually is, and are able to understand the difference between means and ends. Until then you can keep compaining that your car is inedible and therefore completely useless for getting you to the supermarket for food.If "object permanence" entails and requires a believing mind in order to occur, then "object permanence" isn't a demonstration of how or why things can exist without being known to exist silly. As if "object permanence" entails and requires a believing mind too, then "object permanence" is a demonstration of how and why a believing mind is required and entailed in order for everything to exist and occur; including "object permanence".