The project has been a horrendous failure so far and it has no current prime representative. But capitalism has been in many ways a horrendous failure too, so the spectre of socialism will continue to haunt the world. — Jamal

One of the reasons it has failed is because socialism was never able to mature into a classless society because the ones that led the revolutions against monarchies and capitalism were privileged oligarchs themselves and did not recognize human rights.

Both sides are authoritarian in that power over many is consolidated into a few, whether it be elitist politicians and their families, CEOs, or the cleregy.

For liberalism to work power needs to be dispersed not just over space but over time in that every person in power cannot be in power until they die (term limits).

Our conversation is unraveling quickly. What is meaningless is your use of language.

I’m trying. Part of the problem is that most basic assumptions are part of the language, such as all the verb tenses that presume presentism. It’s all very pragmatic, but not so useful when it gets in the way of understanding a different point of view. So other than my continued nattering about using existence, ‘is’, or being real in an objective way, please point specific points out where my language gets in the way. — noAxioms

And I appreciate your intellectual honesty and the time you are devoting to addressing all points. I wish that was a more common virtue on these forums. I can't complain too much as this forum is far better than any interaction you can have on Twitter or FB, and the moderators seem to have loosened their grip on some of the speech that can be used over the past year or two. It's certainly one of the better places to have these kinds of discussions on the internet. First, I'd say that we need to eliminate any contradictions.

I didn’t say it doesn’t exist. I said that there is no meaning to ‘X exists’ or ‘X doesn’t exist’. It puts us and the unicorn on equal footing. To the unicorn, I don’t exist, so all nice and symmetrical.
Continuing to use language that presumes realism is inhibits the ability to discuss a view that doesn’t. I looked at nihilism, but it seems to give meaning to such a property, but asserts that nothing has it. So it gives meaning to ‘exists’, but then says nothing exists. So I’m not a nihilist. I cannot find a reference to what I’m describing. — noAxioms

You're free to use language however you wish, but I would think that you'd want me to understand so that you aren't wasting your time. I'm fine with abandoning terms like "realism", "exist" and "real" if that works for you. My main goal here is to figure out where we might be using different terms but are still talking about the same thing or not.

First, I need to understand what you mean by "exists". You contradict yourself by saying that there is no meaning in using the phrase, "X doesn't exist", and then you go on to say that that to the unicorn, you don't exist. It seems to me that the unicorn's existence is dependent on your existence to imagine it's existence. If the term, "exists" is the problem and is what is causing this contradiction, feel free to use a different term that captures your meaning.

In what way did you exist before you and I had our first interaction? Did I exist? Did you exist prior to our first interaction? If so, in what way did we exist? Again, you are free to use whatever terms you want, so saying that it is meaningless doesn't help. If it is meaningless then tell me what you do mean without contradicting yourself. Contradictions are meaningless.

If you'd like, for the purpose of this discussion, we can say that existence, or exists, is just a state-of-affairs, or what is the case. X and Y are each separate state-of-affairs and any potential relation between them is another state-of-affairs. If there can be two states-of-affairs prior to any relation (potential vs. actual) then the the two states-of-affairs are not dependent on the relation. You could say that once they do form a relation the two states-of-affairs are now different states-of-affairs, but not totally different as they still maintain links to the past as in each subsequent relation is an effect of prior states-of-affairs.

If X exists in relation to Y, then what are X and Y independent of the relation? Just because I had no information about you prior to us meeting, does that mean that you didn't exist until I did? Does this mean that there are not parts of the world that have changed as a result of you being in it independent of my first meeting with you? This is what I mean by exists - that it is a relation of causation. As such, the unicorn in your mind exists as a causal event of you having experienced the idea before. The unicorn in your head is not the unicorn in my head and this is the result of us both having different experiences in learning about and conceiving of unicorns. This also puts us and the unicorn on equal footing in that we all exist as a result of some causal relationship as well has being the cause of other things, like this conversation we are having - something that would not exist if we did not exist prior to starting it.

Are you saying that X and Y are states-of-affairs prior to the state-of-affairs of existing in relation to each other? Does one come before the other?

unicorns only exist as abstractions

Under a relational view, this statement is not even wrong. It references a realist bias (that there is a property of ‘exists’ and we have it and unicorns do not, making us real and not the unicorn). Step one is to drop that bias, because the view needs to be driven to contradiction without resorting to it. — noAxioms

But that isn't what I've been saying at all. I've been saying that unicorns exist as well as us because they are both causal. Abstractions are the effects of an experienced mind and the ink scribble, "unicorn" is the effect (representation) of that abstraction. Certain experiences cause certain abstractions to exist within our minds and those abstractions in turn cause us to behave in certain ways like drawing scribbles and pictures of unicorns - none of which would exist had not the previous conditions been met.

So all the components of a structure are related as being a member of the whole, which is very different from the concept of an ‘existence’ relation which involves measurement and only applies to temporal structures with causal physics. — noAxioms

I don't see how. You're simply talking about spatial relations in the components being a member of a whole. I don't believe in any fundamental scale of reality independent of some view of reality. Wholes and members of wholes are the products of different views (measurements) of the same thing.

I bring all this up for terminology purposes. Level 1 is universes separated by physical distance (visible universes). Level 2 comes from inflation bubbles that have different physical constants like multiple dimensions of time and field strengths that don’t allow particles to form and such. Level 3 is other worlds per MWI. Level 4 is unrelated structures, of which I have a few choice examples. All of these ‘universes’ are inaccessible to us, hence (in relational terminology) don’t exist relative to our Earth. — noAxioms

If they don't exist (have a causal relation) relative to the Earth, then how did humans on Earth come to contemplate it or know about it? How did we acquire this information? How do physicists and philosophers come to talk about this? How did you come to talk about such things?

There are views that are realist about relations. I’m trying to avoid being realist about anything, so no, it is not meaningful to discuss the existence of relations except as relations to its relata. Yea, I suppose ‘measures X’ can be thought of as a property of Y. — noAxioms

The only property of Y? If so, then it seems that Y is dependent upon the there being an X to measure, but then what is X?

What you seem to be saying is that there is X and Y and Z is the relation (existence) between them. My question is what is X and Y independent of this relation, as in you and I before we ever met.

I'm not sure if this is an adequate example, but think of a 3D open-world game installed on your computer. Before you run the game, the game is just a program written in some computer language stored as an executable file on your hard drive. All the events within the game have already been written. The past, present and future events within the game all exist at once within the program. The programmer already knows what will happen and has happened before running the program, but the player does not. It is only in playing the game - of living the life of one of the characters in the game - that time's passage becomes apparent, but outside of the game there is no time as all the causal events of IF-THEN-ELSE in the code happen all at once. Everything is happening all at once and it is our own mental participation within this that stretches these causal relations into independent causes and effects (time).

the Moon and Earth existed prior to humans as a measurement?
Relative to what? Question is meaningless without that.
— noAxioms
Relative to each other. — noAxioms

Think MWI here. The moon seems a direct result of a specific Theia event. So some worlds have a moon, and yes, it orbits what can be named Earth. Some worlds have a different Theia event leaving a much different Earth any different moon or no moon. Relative to a world where the Theia impact did not occur, there is probably still something that is the future version of what had become our Earth in our world. Some (most) worlds don’t have our solar system at all. Some worlds have unicorns on them, but probably not human maidens to adopt them. The ones with unicorns (evolved from the same primitive live as did we) very much have a moon in their sky. The exact same Theia event exists relative to the unicorn as it does to us. The branching of worlds that cumulated in those two states most certainly occurred. It’s like two very different chess game states (one with (horny) knights still on the board, one with only bishops) both sharing a common first dozen moves. — noAxioms

Sounds like causation to me. Seems that thinking of MWI is thinking of causation. So we seem to be using different terms while talking about the same thing. "Results of specific events" is talk of effects of specific causes.

These include that my sensory input is not a lie. If I’m being fed fiction (evil BiV scenario), then I have zero knowledge and cannot help getting it wrong, — noAxioms

You know that you exist. How you exist is a different story. You know you have a mind, but the relation between your mind and the world would be a different story. So you would still possess some knowledge. Even evil BiV scenarios cannot make a case against "I think, therefore I am". Anything beyond that would be assumptions. An evil BiV scenario would still be a world in which brains and vats exist, and I wonder if the evil scientist knows if he isn't a BiV himself, or what it's universe is like that can have brains and vats and evil scientists - doesn't sound much different than the universe I currently find myself in.

But I am a realist. So now what?

Now you punch holes in my idea. — noAxioms

First, I have to understand your idea. :smile:

You like to postulate other universes when you don't believe that there actually are.

Same with the unicorns, but I don’t postulate their existence, I just reference them. Yet again, it is meaningless to talk about if they actually are or are not. Lacking the meaning of the property, the other universe is on no more or less stable ground than this one. That’s the beauty of it. — noAxioms

Would it be fair to say that you are referencing a state-of-affairs (potential or actual)? What is the nature of the thing that you are referencing and how is it different than the state-of-affairs of referencing, or what is the case of referencing?

Is it so hard for you to pretend that maybe you're not an anti-realist? You say 'real' has no meaning and then go on to categorize your beef as being real and existing as a relation with you.

Which is different than any of that just existing. — noAxioms

Then "real" and "existing" are dependent on each other - you cannot have one without the other? In a way, I do agree with you. Abstractions exist and are real in the same way as non-abstractions in that they are all states-of-affairs. They are what is the case. They have causal power. Again, we seem to be saying the same thing in some respects, just using different terms and means of expressing it.

That is the difference between what makes a scribble a number or word and not just a scribble. So are 2 and 4 scribbles or numbers?

I’m talking about the latter. What is written down is a representation, an abstraction of sorts, not the thing. — noAxioms

But scribbles are concrete things as well, ink marks on paper, patterns of light on your computer screen, or voices in the air. The abstraction is the causal relation between the ink marks and what caused them, which is some idea in the mind. How does an abstraction cause ink marks to appear on some paper? How does reading ink marks on paper cause an abstraction in the mind? To answer such questions seems to me to require thinking of unicorns and ink marks, as you put it, "on equal footing.", in dissolving the distinctions that we normally think of between mind and world, body and mind. They both have a causal influence. They are both effects of prior causes and causes of subsequent effects. In this sense, I think of everything as information - the relationship between causes and their effects.

If they are numbers, then they represent something.

Well, that goes against my original question of if they needed to represent anything. I think somebody working in pure mathematics (not applied) would still say that 2+2=4. — noAxioms

Which my response was that they wouldn't represent anything. They'd be scribbles. I don't know what pure mathematics (scribbles) is if it isn't applied (representations). I'd have to ask the pure mathematician why they are thinking of or writing the scribbles, 2+2=4. How did they come to think of these particular scribbles? Are they just copying some scribbles that they have seen, or is there some purpose to thinking of and drawing the scribbles, 2+2=4?

Humans are far too embedded in their social institutions for even the most ardent individualist — Banno

More assertions. I'm winning our game.

The game cannot continue if Sartre decides to exercise his radical freedom, regardless of what the majority say. — Banno

Wait, doesn't this contradict what you just said?

How could it possibly be that there are individuals that rebel against the social institutions they find themselves embedded? Would they be playing a different game? If so, with who if the rest of society finds themselves embedded within the old game?

That we are social animals is not the most comfortable thing. — Banno

Seems like something a sociopath might say. Oh, and it's another assertion.

If language is a game, who is the winner and who is the loser? If society is a game, who is the winner and who is the loser? If there are no winners and losers, then maybe, "game" is an inadequate term to use here.

Conservatives use the "far left" as a rhetorical device to devalue liberals. A meaningless term. — Jackson

Independents and moderate Dems, like Bill Maher and Elon Musk, use the term, "far left" to show that "liberal progressives" arent liberal or progressive, but are wacko-wokesters that are actually status-quo authoritarians. When you have an incessant need to control other people and continue to vote for people that have been in power for decades, they are anything but liberal or progressive. Both sides mis-use the terms, "liberal" and "progressive". Both extremes are authoritarian in that they want to tell you how to live your life. One or two-party systems are the status-quo and abolishing political parties would be considered progress.

That's interesting. Neither extreme can accept diverse viewpoints, so in a sense they're both collectivist in their own ways. Is that what you mean? — frank

Yes. Being a moderate or independent typically means youre anti-extremist and anti-collectivist.

You're saying the left fears individual autonomy. People need to be controlled, guided, and cared for.

On the one hand, this is just valuing life. On the extreme, it wants to reduce all citizens to children. — frank

The same could be said of the moderates and extremists for both the left and the right. Again, the difference lies in who wields the reins of power over individuals. Both extremes are forms of collectivism, while the moderates of both sides value individual liberty.

It seems that you are going to received skewed explanations of what is the extreme versions of the left and right. Left-wingers are always going to try to make their side look like saints.
Example:

Put it another way:
left wing cares about social equality.
right wing cares about rich. — SpaceDweller

The right does the same thing. It seems that if you want an unbiased view of both sides you will need to ask someone that is a member of neither side.

Since China and Russia are capitalist states now, is there really any true representative of leftism today?

What is the left now, and what is the far left? Who is the far left? — frank

China and Russia are not fully capitalist states. The governments in each hold their thumb on the economies, choosing winners and losers. As such, the left-wing is for more government control over all aspects of society, whereas the right-wing is for less government control. The right-wing is really just a transfer of power from the government to the corporations or the church where the corporations or the church will have greater control or impact on society which includes the government itself.

The extreme on both sides is about more power being consolidated with a select few. The only difference is who is wielding the power over the rest of us - the government or corporations/church.

The far-left is the faction that wants government to have complete and total control over everything - how we spend our money, what we are allowed to say, etc. While it may seem that the far-left values and fights for the little man or minorities, they are really just using identity politics to create a problem of victimhood for certain groups as a reason to acquire more power over everyone's lives.

Moderates and independents are generally for less control over our individual lives whether that control be from the government or from corporations or the church.

The point of the unicorn example was to show that expression of such relations is commonplace. I picked a unicorn because it exemplifies a thing lacking the property of existence. I’m talking about a unicorn, and not the abstraction or representation of one. — noAxioms

But how can you talk about something that doesn't exist? As I said before, it can't be a representation if what it "represents" doesn't exist. It is the thing itself and "unicorn" the word is the representation of the abstraction. Yes, you are talking about unicorns, and unicorns only exist as abstractions. Abstractions are the relation between various sensory impressions. Unicorns are an abstract amalgam of horses and horns. We can only ever talk about our ideas and mental states. Whether those ideas and mental states are representative of other things is a different question. I don't see a difference in the idea of existence for abstractions or non-abstractions for they both have the causal power and I defined existence as having causal power.

Now that seems like what you are talking about here:

X exists relative to Y. If you want to get down and dirty, the relation seems to depend on the nature of the structure defining X and Y. So for instance, in this universe it seems that quantum decoherence defines X to Y: Y measures X when information of X leaks to Y. — noAxioms

Then the structure for defining X and Y is prior to the relation of X and Y? How does this structure exist as a relation to what? And when I ask how does it exist, I'm asking how does it have causal power as in causing a relation between X and Y?

Your wording uses ‘exist’ as a property, and is thus meaningless in the relational view. In short, using quantum rules, a thing doesn’t exist relative to Y if Y hasn’t measured it, and thus there is no existence relative to Y in the absence of measurement. A photon ‘in flight’ for instance isn’t measured by anything. It is probably the number one example of a counterfactual. Existence of an unmeasured photon is denied pretty much by any non-counterfactual interpretation of physics. Not so with a classical pulse of light, but such a pulse has been measured. — noAxioms

It seems to me that a relation is a type of property.

Do relations exist? If so, then relative to what?

If any interaction is a measurement and humans/lifeforms are not special in this role, then the Moon and Earth existed prior to humans as a measurement?
Relative to what? Question is meaningless without that. — noAxioms

Relative to each other. So for the Moon to exist it must have a relation with something, say the Earth, and this relation existed before humans, right? If humans are not special in this role then you don't necessarily need an observer for quantum decoherence. You just need other relations, no?

Are you saying that it is measurements, or relations, all the way down, and are what is real or exists?

Relations all the way down, yes. Exists no, since that isn’t a relation. No, I’m not saying relations are ‘real’. — noAxioms

:gasp:
So relations are like unicorns?

There’s only finite stuff that exists relative to me for instance, all of it in my past light cone. — noAxioms

Yeah, but that stuff exists relative to other stuff, not just you. It also existed before you and will continue to exist after you, no? Or are you saying that all other relations of things other than with you do not exist when you don't? That would be solipsism.

It being categorized as ‘real’ is meaningless (not even wrong). It is real to me, and also to you regardless of my having explained it or not. — noAxioms

Not being a realist, my ‘beef’ does not have the property of being real, but it’s real to me. — noAxioms

But I am a realist. So now what? You like to postulate other universes when you don't believe that there actually are. Is it so hard for you to pretend that maybe you're not an anti-realist? You say 'real' has no meaning and then go on to categorize your beef as being real and existing as a relation with you.

Our conversation is unraveling quickly. What is meaningless is your use of language.

It’s actually pretty hard to do. Closest I can think is a self driving car which needs to glean objects and then sort out which ones are potentially mobile. The cars still get it wrong sometimes. — noAxioms

Not really. My iRobot vacuum cleaner seems to locate the walls of the house just fine and never tries to clean the outside. It also seems to sense areas that are more dirty as it focuses on cleaning those areas and then moved to other areas when done.

I can also program a computer to send me e-mails when its temperature or power consumption reaches a certain threshold.

Basic sensors can be designed to detect basic boundaries. Boundaries can be stable or dynamic, like in your driving car example. Dynamic boundaries I would agree are more difficult to manage.

I don’t like the talk of scribbles since I’m not in any way suggesting that the numbers require representation in any way in order for them to relate in this way. — noAxioms

Scribbles don't necessarily represent anything. That is the difference between what makes a scribble a number or word and not just a scribble. So are 2 and 4 scribbles or numbers? If they are scribbles then asking if any relationship between them is objectively true is a silly question. If they are numbers, then they represent something.

mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems.
— Harry Hindu

Could you kindly expand and elaborate? Gracias.

Are you going Wittgenstein on me? — Agent Smith

I'd prefer to say that I'm going logical on you. It seems that one can logically arrive at that conclusion without ever having read Wittgenstein.

Every argument always involves a single claim about a single thing. Fallacies of language are ones in which the language you are using confuses this.

One kind of fallacy is called equivocation. In this fallacy a word or phrase has more than one meaning. In the argument, it is not clear which meaning you are using.

Another kind of fallacy is the misuse of metaphor. In this fallacy, the words and phrases that you are using do not have different meanings. However, you are using them in a non-literal fashion. — SimplyPhilosophy.org

https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/fallacies-of-language/

Neither do I, which is why I don't understand why Isaac thinks that we can turn lead into gold by changing the meaning of "lead" and/or "gold". That's a use-mention error. Regardless of the words we decide to use to refer to lead and gold, lead has 82 protons and gold has 79 protons. Regardless of what we decide to mean by "leg", dogs (typically) have four legs. Regardless of what name he chooses to call himself, Joe Biden is President of the United States. — Michael

Yes, changing names is a language act. Changing elements is a chemical act and changing presidents is a voting act. Changing one has no effect on changing the other because different causes are required.

With that in mind it is quite straightforward to say that being paper is a brute fact but being money is a human institution. There is no money if there are no people, but there will be paper. — Michael

Humans and their societies with their institutions are planted firmly within the world and not separate from it. Talking about our institutions, or even our mental states, is talking about the world. It is a brute fact that humans have mental states and use paper to make money to exchange for goods and services.

Doesn’t everything have a status?

This piece counts as a bishop in chess.
This cord counts as a leash in walking.
A circle counts as a o in English.
A circle counts as a zero in math.
A circle counts as a o in tic tac toe. — praxis

Which the same as asking, isnt everything a state-of-affairs?

Pretty much. — Banno

:clap:

P1. There is 1 red pill and 1 blue pill in a bag
P2. All red pills are poisonous
P3. All blue pills are not poisonous
C1. There is only 1 poisonous pill in the bag (from 1, 2, and 3)
P4. We now decide that the word "red" shall refer also to the colour blue and that the word "blue" shall be retired
C2. There are 2 poisonous pills in the bag (from 1, 2, and 4)

C2 is both false and contradicts C1. — Michael

Changing the name doesnt change the pill. Its so simple i dont understand why theres any issue. I think that too many here think that making it complex also makes them smart.

Yes, the analysis becomes ubiquitous.

So pity poor Harry Hindu, who sees all language as mere assertion, and hence can't begin along the path. — Banno

This appears to be all assertions to me. I win everytime you type scribbles on your screen, Banno, because everytime you use scribbles you assert your intent to communicate.

We do not have black man and white man experiences. We have human experiences.
— Harry Hindu

That is not always the case. You are conflating an ideal with reality. The fact of the matter is that prejudice has not been eliminated. A white man in the US will not experience this discrimination when buying a house or applying for a loan or applying for a job or being stopped for a motor vehicle check. — Fooloso4

But that's not a black man or white man experience per se. It is a human experience of finding yourself in an environment that is hostile to you based on the differences of skin color. I'm sure a white man's experience will be like a black man's experience depending on where they are. Any human is capable of feeling discriminated against. It just depends on your skin color and the environment you find yourself in.

The banning of books is a topical example. "Cancelling" is another. Restrictions on speech. — Fooloso4

You said,

Both extremes come close together in excluding what is regarded as 'other', even though they do so for very different reasons. — Fooloso4

I asked what was different about the reasons and you give me the ways in which the extremes exclude others, not the reasons they do so. Both extremes are the same in their reasons and in how they implement them. Hate and ignorance are the reasons of both extremes. They implement their hate and ignorance by banning books, canceling each other and restricting each other's speech.

You exist relative to me. It’s a relation born of measurement, at least in this universe. It is not a function episemology. There are billions of people I don't know which nevertheless exist relative to me.
Being a non-realist means that the property of being real (existence) is undefined. Relations are not affected by the meaningless property. There is precedent. People have no problem saying a unicorn has a horn on its head despite the lack of existence of the horn, or running a simulation of a car hitting a wall to measure its safety properties despite the lack of existence of the car. The unicorn horn exists relative to the unicorn despite their lack of the meaningless property. I don’t exist to the unicorn since it doesn't measure me. — noAxioms

It comes down to what you mean by "exist". Imaginings exist in the same way non-imagined things exist. They are both real in the sense that they have causal power. The imagining of a unicorn (mental states) can cause a human to use colored ink and paper to form an image of a unicorn on it (physical states). The difference between an known thing and an imagined thing is that one is understood to represent things whose existence is not dependent on a mind and the other's existence is completely dependent upon a mind. An imagined thing is not a representation of anything. It is a thing in and of itself. The word, "unicorn", or a piece of paper with colored ink would be the representation of a unicorn in and of itself.

It’s something like the Rovelli view, except I’ve seen it expressed that it implies a sort of momentary ontology where a system exists only at the moments in which it is measured, and not between, but the moon is quite there (relative to us) when not being looked at. For one thing, it is pretty impossible to not continuously measure the moon, and for another thing, you can’t un-measure a thing, so the moon once measured exists to all humans, even humans that might not exist relative to me say in some other world.

Humans/life forms play no special role in this. It isn’t about epistemology. You always existed relative to me long before either of us posted on any forum. We exist relative to my mug since it too has measured us, despite the fact that the mug doesn’t know it. Any interaction whatsoever is a measurement, so the only way to avoid it is by isolation by distance or Schrodinger’s box and such. — noAxioms

This is the really mind-bending part. In what way does some system exist independent of it being measured? If any interaction is a measurement and humans/lifeforms are not special in this role, then the Moon and Earth existed prior to humans as a measurement? Are you saying that it is measurements, or relations, all the way down, and are what is real or exists? Any system is a relation between its constituents and the constituents are also systems. It seems like an infinite regress, but it could also be that reality is infinite and eternal.

My big beef against realism is how one explains the reality of whatever one considers real. — noAxioms

Is your beef against realism a real state-of-affairs that can be explained? I understand your explanation (your use of scribbles) to not be the actual beef you have against realism but the explanation of such and that your beef against realism is a real state-of-affairs that I can only be aware of by your use of scribbles, with your scribbles being the effect of your beef with realism and your intent to explain just that. So, am I correct in my assumption that your explanation is of a real state-of-affairs (that you have a beef with realism) that is true despite if you had explained it or not, or even if I believed your explanation or not?

OK, about the 2+2=4 thing: This is probably the shakiest part of my view: Is the sum of (just to pick a non-counting example) 3.600517 and 12.8119 objectively equal to 16.412417 or is it contingent on instantiation of those values somehow somewhere, on say a calculator adding those specific values. — noAxioms

The answer to the question of if values added together objectively equals another value seems to be proved by finding those values in the universe independent of the scribbles we use to represent those values - meaning that values can't be just other scribbles. What is the relationship between the scribbles. 3.600517 and 12.8119 and 16.412417? Why is there a relationship at all? There must be something going on inside the calculator that forms a relationship between them that is more than just the rearranging of scribbles.Why does the calculator always display 16.412417 when pressing specific buttons in a specific order on a calculator?

My goal doesn’t involve anybody or anything actually performing a calculation. That would make the truth of 2+2=4 contingent on the thing doing the adding. — noAxioms

Your goal doesn't perform the calculation. It determines what kind of values and the calculations, or measurements that you will use, as well as how specific you need your measurement to be successful in achieving your goal. The success or failure of your goal is dependent upon those values and calculations being representative of some actual state-of-affairs or not, and not just being some scribbles being rearranged in your head at whim.

On what statement of mine did you conclude something like that? Done correctly, the quotes are signed. — noAxioms

This:

I wasn’t talking about the difference between a cat and something similar to a cat. I’m talking about the boundaries of a specific cat or river or whatever. Which atoms belong to the cat and which do not, and precisely when does that designation change? Physics doesn’t care about it. It is just a language thing. But build a physical device that say cleans a cat and you’ll have to define the boundary to a point so it doesn’t waste it’s time grooming the carrier or something. — noAxioms

Which scribbles belong to you and which belong to me, and why? It seems that physics is what explains how some scribble is yours and which are mine by causation. If it were just a language thing, then I can simply rearrange quotes, and some of your posts would be mine. What is plagiarism?

Doesn't the fact that I can design a physical device that isn't a human being but possesses sensors like a human being that can determine the boundary of a cat in the same way a human can, mean something? It must have something to do with both of us having sensors and what those sensors were designed to sense (a boundary) that exists independently of the representations of those boundaries in the human mind.

Because the part in charge doesn’t believe the ideas that the rational part comes up with. The boss very much believes the lies and the rational part is fine with the goals that come from them. Mostly... — noAxioms

If the rational part is fine with the goals, then the rational part must share the goals because the rational part must realize that the boss and itself are part of the same being that the outcomes of their behaviors affects them both. Then the rational part doesn't seem rational at all if it doesn't at least attempt to overthrow the boss when it determines that the boss is making the wrong decision that will impede their natural and social fitness.

No immediate argument, but * rant warning * I do notice that we rationally can see the environmental damage being done, but the parts in charge do not. For all we pride ourselves in being this superior race, we act less intelligent than bacteria in a limited petri dish of nutrients. The bacteria at least don’t see the problem. We do and we (temporarily at least) have all this technology at our disposal, and don’t do anything different than the bacteria. * end rant * — noAxioms

This is not specific to humans. Alpha-males in most species are fine with maintaining the status-quo where they maintain their power and access to resources and mates at the expense of everyone else in the group.

If someone dehumanizes you because of your differences, then it is the differences that we should be ignoring, not focusing on.
— Harry Hindu

It is not that the difference should be ignored but rather that such differences should not be regarded as exclusionary factors for what it means to be human. — Fooloso4

Exactly - to be human. For us to understand that black men and white men can have the same experiences is to understand them both as being human, not black men and white men. We do not have black man and white man experiences. We have human experiences. All humans have different experiences when they are in a place where a majority/minority of of one skin color exists. The fact that there is a majority/minority of skin color in a particular corner of the world is just a basic unavoidable fact. What we can avoid is using those distinctions against someone, which starts with ignoring those distinctions in situations where they do not matter as in hiring someone vs being diagnosed with a disease.

There must be a reason to focus on one or the other.
— Harry Hindu

It has been said that extreme views on opposite ends of the spectrum come close to each other. Rather than a straight line with two poles they are more like the Greek letter Omega:Ω. Both extremes come close together in excluding what is regarded as 'other', even though they do so for very different reasons. — Fooloso4

If the reasons are different, then what is it that is shared by the extremes to say that they are close to each other?

Well, I'm of the view that definitions, like propositions, are subject to the Münchhausen Trilemma:

1. Infinite regress of definitions/proofs
2. Circular definitions/proofs
3. Undefined terms/unproven assumptions.

What I wished to convey was that, at least in math, the choice is 3: We begin with undefined terms e.g. points. — Agent Smith

Then it seems to me that you believe that ultimately no one is talking about anything. We would simply be making sounds with our mouths and making scribbles on this screen. What makes some scribble a word, and not just a scribble?

It seems to me that your trilemma only describes the mis-uses of language that I described as being the the root of most philosophical problems. Ironing out our definitions and determining whether or not they actually refer to some non-contradictory state-of-affairs resolves those philosophical problems.

point = .

That was easy.

Nor am I suggesting it is, but I can build a model of a car out of cars. these four cars represent the wheels, these two cars are the doors, this car is the engine...and so on. There's no problem with building a model using that which is being modelled. — Isaac

A car is not it's engine. It is a car. Models are typically a smaller scale than what is being modeled and typically less complex. You can't sit in or drive model cars. As such you shouldn't be able to use models of language-use because it wouldn't be an actual language. You would be simply using language, not models of language, and using language is using scribbles and sounds to refer to some state-of-affairs, which could be how someone uses language, or how someone plays chess, or how the sun sets in the sky.

Likewise with "that stone is iron", it's contingent on the human activity of us classifying elements by their proton number. The moment we stop doing that, its status as iron is called into question. — Isaac

...which is a different state-of-affairs than that stone's properties independent of our naming conventions. You're confusing one state-of-affairs with another.

When we see each other through the lens of a well-intentioned but disingenuous ideological lens there is a danger of dehumanizing them. Our differences is what makes us individuals. Problems arise with how one regards and treats others in ways that are harmful on the basis of race or sex. — Fooloso4

We have differences and similarities. It all depends on what you or someone else wants to focus on. If someone dehumanizes you because of your differences, then it is the differences that we should be ignoring, not focusing on. Identity politics includes focusing on your own differences as well as focusing on the differences of others. Both are wrong because they are both forms of racism and sexism.

As to the OP, I think it is misguided and all too easily drifts to the absurd. If "lived experience" or "personal experience" is the determining criteria, then all representation must be limited to autobiography. — Fooloso4

True, but then we'd be focusing on our differences again. We have both differences and similarities. There must be a reason to focus on one or the other.

There are mixed race people and mixed culture people and life is complicated.
— unenlightened
Not really.
— Harry Hindu

No, really! — unenlightened

My point was that it was not complicated, not that there are not mixed race and mixed culture people. I thought that would be obvious had you read the rest of my post.

No it isn't. One does not wish to erase the memory of slavers or colonial exploiters, or of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or whoever. But one wishes to change a culture that lauds them as heroes and role-models. It is fairly clear that a culture that is defined by its oppression of others such as nazism or slavery, cannot coexist with one that defines itself as fair and open. so we object to graffiti swastikas and statues that celebrate slavers. — unenlightened

That's a fair point. But we should also take into account people are products of their time, and the progress that was made since could not have been made if we didn't start somewhere, and that there are other places on the planet that are far more oppressive than the U.S. I also don't think that having a statue of George Washington causes people to be racist, nor do I think that taking it down stops racism.

Acquisition of what amounts to a measurement of an unmeasurable thing is of little concern to me. Not being a realist, I don’t give meaning to realist statements like “there are X many universes”, be X 0, 1, some other number, finite or otherwise. My universe is confined to a limited distance. That’s a relation relative to any given event (physics definition) in my life. — noAxioms

Hmm. It seems strange to say that you are not a realist when you've been engaged with me in this conversation for some time now. Is it your belief that I only exist when you are reading my posts? Is it your belief that I am only a post on an internet philosophy forum and not a real human being even though you have never seen me? Do you only exist when I read your posts?

You're the one that brought other universes into the discussion, no?

Is 2+2=4 a realist statement? Is it conditionally true only if either quantity is real or there are real things that can be quantified, or is it unconditionally true even without there being anything real to count? I can make it a little harder by picking a non-integer since it eliminates the relevance of just counting things. — noAxioms

Now I'm not really sure by what you mean as "realist". I am a direct realist when it comes to the mind and an indirect realist when it comes to the world. Our minds are of the world and about the world, thanks to causation (information).

Math and language are approximations of the world and about the world thanks to causation (information). As you pointed out, math problems like dividing by three gives you a an infinite regress answer. Our present goal in the mind determines how many significant digits we use (how close the approximation needs to be) to accomplish that goal. Is the goal to divide the last piece of pie among three people equally, or is the goal getting a spacecraft to Mars?

I see the reality as like an analog signal and our minds are digital interpretations of that analog signal. Our minds need to categorize the world to make sense of it to accomplish even the most basic goals.

Tegmark listed four different ways to do that. His first is the kind I referenced above, a set of finite sized hyperspheres that overlap, separated only by distance. That’s four different ways to define a cat.
I’m the first to admit that defining a word is a human language thing. It isn’t a physics thing at all. What delimits the cat from the not-cat? At exactly what point does the cat and food system become just cat?
In Dr Who, a character had a teleport device strapped to his wrist. Hit the button and you’re suddenly somewhere else. My immediate (no hesitation) reaction to that was to ask how it knew what was you and what wasn’t. In terminator it was a nice define sphere and if your foot was outside that line, it doesn’t go with you. But the wrist device needed to know apparently that the clothes needed to go with you, but not say the post against which you’re leaning, despite the post being closer to the device than many of your body parts. It really bothered me, never mind the whole impossibility of the device in the first place, which I readily accept as a plot device. — noAxioms

So we can't determine whose posts are whose on this forum? I have often thought about it the way you are describing it but I eventually come back to the idea that there must be some kind of distinction between objects that does not only exist in our minds.

Sure there exists similarities in all animals, but there are clear differences too. It depends on what you are comparing. When trying to explain how life evolved there will probably some issues in distinguishing a non-living cell from a living cell, but there is surely a difference between a cat and a fish that does not simply exist in our minds.

It seems to me that similarities and differences exist not as a product of our minds, but as a result of similar or different causes, which are not necessarily mental.

If categories only exist in our minds does that mean that every organism is unique (there is only one of everything) and we can share similarities as a result of common causes, or does that mean that there are no boundaries and there is only one thing (reality, mind, etc.) and there are no individuals? The latter seems to imply solipsism.

I’d have said that abstract is abstract and there is no cat until something names/models it. The word cat is strictly a mental construction. So are atoms if you come right down to it, but at least atom has a physics definition that the cat lacks. I’m not asserting anything here, just giving my thoughts. — noAxioms

Then what are we naming or modeling? There is something that we are naming and the naming refers to the similarities of particular organisms. I don't think the similarities and differences are products of our minds. Categories are useful most of the time and are only challenged when we find things that challenge the boundaries. But those are few and far between, which must mean something. It means that similar causes leave similar effects, but every cause is unique. Similarity and uniqueness are not contradictions. You can share characteristics of others thanks to your similar causes but you are also an individual in space-time accumulating your own life experiences.

The lies have a huge bearing on my ability to survive. So it must be the rational beliefs, far more likely to be true, that have no bearing. I’d say they do, but the rational side isn’t in charge, but instead has a decent advisory role for matters where the boss hasn’t a strong opinion. Fermi paradox solution: Any sufficiently advanced race eventually puts its rational side sufficiently in charge to cease being fit. — noAxioms

If you are able to say that they are lies, then you obviously know what the truth is is yet you are still able to survive. How is that?

It seems to me that the ability to adapt to a wide range of environments is a result of our our rational side (science and technology). Being able to survive in a wide range of environments, and potentially all environments, is about as fit as you can get.

I have to admit that the rational side is like an engineer, not having goals of its own, but rather is something called upon to better meet the goals of its employer, even in cases where the goals are based on known lies. But I’m not sure whose goals you think are not being realized. They’re working on ‘live forever’. — noAxioms

Then the engineer has the goal of meeting the goals of its employer, or of having an income to support themselves and their family, which are not lies, but are actual states-of-affairs in the world. When you lie, you have the goal of misleading others or yourself. To be capable of lying you must know the truth.

You seem to be describing.....
— Harry Hindu

Good that it only seems. — Mww

Seem: to give the impression of being; To appear to be probable or evident.

If it isn't how it seems, then maybe you should explain what you see the difference between belief and knowledge as being, instead of being sarcastic? But if sarcasm is all you have then that is sad, not good.

I must admit I'm a bit lost. Do pardon me. — Agent Smith

We not only adapt to truths, we do the opposite as well, adapt truths to us. Stoicism may have been popular 2.5k years ago, it no longer is; in fact the modern world is distinctly anti-stoic, won't you agree? — Agent Smith

Yes, we are part of the world, not separate from it. The world affects us and we affect the world. This is simpler than trying to think of us as separate (dualism) from the world (soul vs body, mind vs. brain, physical vs. mental, etc.).

Come now to definitions vis-à-vis simplicity.

How, in your view, do the two relate?

As things get simpler, are they easier/harder to define?

In my humble opinion, it should be harder for the reason that entire series of definitions must begin somewhere (to avoid an infinite regress) and ergo there should be some undefined terms to get the ball rolling, these being invariably the simplest of them all. — Agent Smith

I don't see how having undefined terms to get the ball rolling actually gets the ball rolling. It seems to me that our terms have to refer to something or else there essentially is no ground to roll the ball on.

I think that our language-use has become so complex that it seems like the world is more complicated than it actually is. Most philosophical problems are the result of a mis-use of language, or poorly defined terms.

Well, yeah. But you've yet to demonstrate that it doesn't represent what it models, you've only shown that it's possible to model language in other ways (as about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.) — Isaac

Sure I did. You're not paying attention. Is Searle's use of language (his model of language) about language-use? Is language-use a state of affairs? If so, then his model is about a state-of-affairs. If not, then what it Searle saying (modeling)? What is he talking about? Yours and Banno's interpretation of Searle's model defeats itself.

I don't see why. I can model a car with cars, I could build a model of a brick out of bricks... — Isaac

model: an example for imitation or emulation.

A model is not the real thing.

Do you know what it feels like not to be a white male?
— ZzzoneiroCosm

I do not know what it feels like to be a white male. — Jackson

Exactly. As if every white male has the same experiences, and as if every black man has the same experiences and needs that are different than white males. ZzzoneiroCosm is a racist and sexist - stereotyping people based on their skin color and sex.

If black actors can be cast as white characters, then why not the reverse? It seems that shared experience only works in one direction.

"Group solipsism" is a contradiction in terms.

Solipsism is the philosophical position that only one mind exists. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, yeah the group mind, as in group-think.

Its why anti-free-speech snowflakes are leaving Twitter in droves. They cannot cope with opposing viewpoints. Their viewpoint can be the only viewpoint, and any others must be "misinformation" :scream:

"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson

Everyone should be able to say what they want as long as reason is free to filter it. A competition of ideas with reason being the judge is how progress is made, not by silencing any opposing viewpoint. Why do you think science has progressed as rapidly as it has compared to religions? Religions only seem to progress when science forces them to.

There are mixed race people and mixed culture people and life is complicated. — unenlightened

Not really. When we see each other simply as fellow humans, instead of focusing on our differences of race and sex where it isn't appropriate (category error), it becomes very simple. Why can't we all be like dogs? Dog breeds exhibit the diversity of the gene pool. Dogs of different breeds breed with no quarrels. The don't seem to notice the differences amongst themselves.

Alas it is the result of your thinking, not mine. I do not think cultural differences should be erased - you do.

and The Chinese communist Party agrees with you. — unenlightened

Then tearing down statues of a particular culture isn't trying to erase a particular culture?
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/502492-list-statues-toppled-vandalized-removed-protests/

Does this mean that Nazi and Communist cultures should be free to express themselves?

No, cultural difference should not be erased, nor should they be the focus of your identity. People change religions, adopt the customs of other cultures, so the culture you grew up in and your ancestry does not necessarily define you. You are a human-being first, not a black man, or an white woman. Those are only PARTS of what it means to be a human-being, not the entirety of what it is to be a human-being. By focusing on those parts you only end up diminishing yourself.

Nirvana fallacy? There are certain margins of error we must be willing to accept, especially since the world is, for some reason, imperfect. The human mind, all life in fact, has been, for the most part of its earthly existence, has been a constant struggle against nature's imperfections, oui? I frankly find it odd that you would demand flawlessness in a world that is, well, flawed. Perhaps it's proof, as Plato believed, our minds are not of this world. How else could it have ever conceived of forms? — Agent Smith

But that's the point. Are we talking about defining objects in the world, or defining objects in the mind. We need to make that clear or else we end up talking past each other.

It's not that the world is not perfect. Perfect is just another model in the mind, and not a feature of the world outside of the mind. The world just is a certain way and the way we model it is another, but representative of the way it is. Life is not adapting to imperfections. It is adapting to the way things are, which is constantly changing. Using the terms, imperfection/perfection is implying that you have knowledge of what a perfect world would be like and that everyone would agree with you.

A circle is a (geometric) shape, true, but its precise definition - the set of all points equidistant from one other point (the center) - is more precise and is in words.

However, my point is if one faces difficulty with defining something, it might mean you're dealing with an undefinable (point, space, time, etc.) or that you've come to the realization that you're up against — Agent Smith

Then the precise definition only refers to imaginary objects in the mind. There is no such thing in the world in which the set of all points are equidistant from one other point (the center). If what we are talking about only exists in our minds, then that is something that I cannot show you and can only describe to you, hence my explanation that we use words to describe something to someone else that they cannot actually see. You can try to draw one based on the precise definition, but you will fail utterly. Depending on what measurement we are using, one point will not be equidistant as all the other points. There will be a point that is a micrometer more or less distant from the center than other points.

Just wanted to say thanks for the dialog. You’re one of the single digit of posters whose feedback I’d not lightly dismiss, even if I’m in total disagreement with a few of them. — noAxioms

Thank you. I appreciate that. I can say that same about you. :up:

Your profile says you're Indonesian, not an "American white guy". — noAxioms

My profile actually says that my location is Indonesian fields, not necessarily that I am Indonesian, but then don't believe everything that you read on a person's profile. :wink:

That would be a meaningless question if the sum of two and two is not objectively meaningful. You’re asking an objective question there, not one related to a particular set of laws.
You said that 2+2=4 is true in our universe, which I’ll call U0. So U0 → 2+2=4
But I’m going for a relation in the other direction: 2+2=4 → U0, U1, etc.
If mathematical law holds objectively and not just relative to our universe, then I can explain the existence relative to us of our universe. That’s why I’m interested in it being objectively true. It has been a weak point in my argument.

Would it make any sense at all to say that we can add 2 universes to 2 other universes to get 4 universes yet 2+2 does not equal 4 in a certain universe?
I suppose in the universe where 2+2=7, there would objectively be 7 universes, but we’d count only 4. That sounds like a contradiction since it is an objective quantity being discussed, not a quantity of anything that is part of one universe or another. That’s fair evidence that 2+2 objectively is 4, but I’ve not enough of a formal mathematical background to assess the validity of that argument. — noAxioms

For it to be objective, it would have to be true regardless of what is true in each universe. It would be true outside of all the universes. If there is only one universe, then there isn't a problem.

Like I said, it doesn't make any sense to say that we can count universes - which is an act that we can only do if we put ourselves outside of all universes - while in a particular universe counting works a different way. It's like saying that in one universe there is only one universe, when there are actually many. How would you acquire the truth if not by leaving this universe and going to another? The truth that there is only one universe isn't true within a particular universe. It can only be true if you are outside of all universes.

I admit that this is all challenging my ideas of objectivity vs. subjectivity and my ability to communicate how I am trying to conceive them. But I think that ultimately we need to go back to what I said before that counting itself seems dependent upon (mental) categories prior to what is being counted. You can only count cats if you have a "cat" category that individual members are a part of. If you have no "cat" category, then there is only one of each individual animal. The same can be said of universes. What qualifies a universe to be a universe, or part of the category, "universe"? It seems that needs to be answered before we can even begin to wonder if there is more than one in the first place. So the question is, do (mental) categories exist independent of minds? Are categories objective features of reality?

I obviously hold multiple self-contradictory beliefs. As I said, the lies make you fit, and I’d not survive the day without them. — noAxioms

For me, it is the ironing out of the self-contradictory beliefs that make me fit. All knowledge must be integrated. It's more likely that your self-contradictory beliefs have no bearing on your goal to survive, which is why you can hold them and still survive. When you actually apply those beliefs to goals that they have an impact on, then you will find that your goals cannot be realized.

Yes, warm fuzzies so you can sleep. Most people rationalize the lies rather than rationally analyze them, but most people don’t give a philosophy forum a second thought.
I’ve watched my mother rewrite her memories as a method of holding on to the warm fuzzies. It’s harder to see yourself do it, but it’s a necessary coping mechanism. Humans are excellent at rationalizing, but incredibly poor at rational thought. I struggle to be otherwise, and maybe even fool myself into thinking I’m on some kind of right track, but deeper down I realize that’s probably a rationalized conclusion. Go figure. — noAxioms

That's the thing that we need to iron out. Is our goal to feel warm fuzzies and cope with the reality of life, or is to acquire true knowledge of reality? When we are discussing what is the case independent of ourselves, then bringing your emotional state into the discussion isn't useful at all.

&

The Greeks liked to divide knowledge into knowledge of and knowledge that. Russell called it knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. Either way, the dichotomy reduces to knowledge before submission to the cognitive system and knowledge as a result of the system. Like..... I know I just got bit, but I don’t know what bit me. That I got bit is not something the least a priori knowledge, for it is an affect of some kind on the senses, and if I don’t know what bit me, that can’t be a priori because it isn’t anything.

Regardless, if one thinks knowledge to be a relative condition of certainty, that is only possible by being justified by something. — Mww

You seem to be describing the difference between belief and knowledge, not different kinds of knowledge. Beliefs seem to be those interpretations of sensory data from a single sense, while knowledge seems to include justification from all the senses. How do you know that you were bitten if you don't know what bit you? After all, it could be that you stepped in a claw-trap. You interpreted a single sensory perception (tactile) based on previous experiences of being bit, rather than confirming with your eyes what the source of the tactile sensation is. When you use your eyes, you are getting real-time information about the circumstances, not from the past in the form of memories or past experiences.

Now our eyes can "lie" to us too. Initial visual observations can lead us to believe that water is on the ground (mirage) when there isn't. It isn't until we make more observations, like moving towards the "pool of water" and observing it disappear that we go from justifying based on prior (and possibly outdated) experiences (information) to justifying based on current experiences (information). So by accumulating more observations over time, can we say that we have acquired justification for what it is that we claim that we know. So the difference seems to be the degree of justification. Ideas based on preliminary observations that have not been confirmed using real-time information of other senses qualify as beliefs. Ideas based on the information acquired by more than one sense, and over a period of time, and is confirmed with current observations, is what qualifies as knowledge.

Essentially, the difference between beliefs and knowledge is that beliefs are justified by either empiricism or rationalism alone, while knowledge is justified by using both together.

I remember watching a video lessons on geometry back a decade or so ago. The speaker, a lady, goes to great lenghts to point out that geometric definitions must end at some point (pun unintended). Either this must be because the simplest geometric idea (like a point) can't be defined for there's nothing simpler in terms of which a definition could be constructed or because the problem of an infinite regress rears its ugly head. The only viable option seems to be use circular definitions, despite the rules of good definitions forbidding such tomfoolery.

What sayest thou, sir? — Agent Smith

All definitions end with what the definitions point to in the world. You may look up a word in a dictionary and get more words, but eventually those scribbles on the page refer to something that is not just more scribbles, or else what do the scribbles mean? What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble? If you wanted a definition of "circle", would you look in the dictionary, or would it be better if I just pointed at several examples of actual circles in the world? It seems like the latter is more direct while the former is indirect. It seems like the former would only be useful if there were no circles around for me to point to to show you what a circle is.

What would it mean for you to be wrong if there are many possible models?
— Harry Hindu

Between models, utility, within models, it depends on the model. Usually they have criteria for correctness within them.

Is Searle's model wrong? How would we know?
— Harry Hindu

I find it useful, so no. I strongly suspect it wouldn't have made it this far is everybody thought it was useless, but in academia, stranger things have happened...
— Isaac

:brow:
Hmmm. I would have thought that, being a model, it would be wrong in that it does not represent what is being modeled, therefore it becomes useless as such. In what way can Searle's model of language be used so that we may test how well the model represents the actual state-of-affairs?

Searle is modeling actual language use, but his is not the only possible model. — Isaac — Isaac

Searle is modeling language using language? Is an actual car a model of a car, or is it just a car? Seems like circular reasoning to me.

The distinctions Banno, by way of Searle, is making are useless when you understand that all language use is about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.
— Harry Hindu

It's not a matter of 'understanding that...'. You're just presenting a different model, and it's not for you to say what I, or others, find useful. — Isaac

So you wouldn't be interested in knowing why your models are not useful to others? If they are not useful to others, then why would it be useful to you? Use is a manifestation of our goals. So if it is useful to you, but not useful to others, then you and others must have different goals, and therefore you would be talking past others.

Philosophy is irrelevant then, so I disagree. It actually matters a lot to me. OK, it being true in this universe is enough for a priori knowledge, but I’m interested in it being objectively true. — noAxioms

That would be a disappointment, but barring an example, I suspect otherwise. — noAxioms

If there is more than one universe then are we not already acknowledging that there are a number of universes, and that there might be different universes where there are two universes in which 2+4=4 and 2 in which 2+2=7, but there are 2+2=4 total universes?

Would it make any sense at all to say that we can add 2 universes to 2 other universes to get 4 universes yet 2+2 does not equal 4 in a certain universe? So it seems that 2+2=4 isn't dependent on the property of some particular universe, but is dependent on there being more than one of anything (including all universes). Even if there are only two universes, then 1+1=2 would be true regardless of what is true in either universe.

You misunderstood what I wrote then. I was trying to illustrate why the ‘why am I me’ question is baffling only if dualism is assumed. — noAxioms

Because you are assuming that there is an I that is separate from the individual (dualism). The question, "why am I me?" is a meaningless question (many philosophical questions are) if you understand that you are the result of a causal chain of events, and that if there was a different chain of events, it would not be that you would be some one else, rather you wouldn't exist at all.

I said I (the self) could no more be a bug than it could be me. I denied its existence. There is nothing ‘being’ me.
The point of the example was to illustrate that everybody knows what Paul Simon meant by those lyrics. People have a dualistic instinct, a lie that is pretty much impossible to disbelieve.
Without it, the lyrics don’t make any sense since X is X (a tautology) and cannot be Y. But it makes sense to suggest the experiencer of X were to experience Y instead. — noAxioms

Dualism is not an instinct. Babies are born solipsists. Most animals are solipsists. Solipsism is instinctual. After a period of mental development, babies become realists in realizing object permanence (that objects continue to exist even when not being observed or thought about).

Dualism is indoctrinated at an early age with the introduction of religion (soul vs body). The notion that you can exist independently of your body is a delusion created as way to deal with the knowledge of your death.

Yes, given dualism, there are a lot more non-human things to be (bugs being one example) and thus odds of winning the ‘human lottery’ are suspiciously low. Some get out of this via anthropocentric assertions, that humans are special this way. Questioning the lie is often not an option. — noAxioms

There is no lottery. There is no luck. Things happen for a reason (prior causes or pre-existing conditions). If something else happened instead then you wouldn't be here asking these questions. Someone else would be.

Even that makes no sense. How can say a cat be a dog? A thing is what it is and cannot meaningfully be something else. — noAxioms

That was my point. Either way you put the question, it's a silly question given that we know that you are the outcome of a particular sex act between two specific people and the subsequent development (life experiences) without which you wouldn't exist at all, not that you'd be something else - as if that were ever possible. It isn't.

That’s why your physical appearance is what it is, which wasn’t the question. The question asks why you look out of Harry’s eyes and not the eyes of another. The question makes no sense outside of a dualistic context since under monism it is tautological that a creature looks out of its own eyes (exceptions to robots with bluetooth). — noAxioms

Well, yes, which is why I said you need to abandon dualism if you want to avoid asking silly questions that simply don't take into account what we know today in modern times when religion and it's dualistic thinking is on the decline and replaced with scientific theories of biology, genetics and evolution.

I was just reporting my understanding of how the tests were performed. If you'd like more detail, I'm sure it's published somewhere. — T Clark

It seems to me that your understanding isn't an understanding at all if you are unable to communicate it without contradicting yourself. It seems as if you are the one that needs to search for the publications and read them if you want to make an argument against anything that I've said (like experience is quantifiable).

Of course he's talking about language use in the world. I could classify my books by author, subject, publication date, or binding colour. The choice is entirely mine, but the classification remains of the actual books and in each case I can be wrong about a particular book's placement within the scheme. — Isaac

What would it mean for you to be wrong if there are many possible models?

Searle is modeling actual language use, but his is not the only possible model. — Isaac

Is Searle's model wrong? How would we know?

The distinctions Banno, by way of Searle, is making are useless when you understand that all language use is about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Searle is not saying "this is how it must be", he's giving a (hopefully useful) account. A counterargument would be that it wasn't useful, not that alternative accounts are also plausible. — Isaac

Then Searle is not talking about language-use in the world. Hes talking about his own feelings about language-use.

So is this thread about language-use or Searle's feelings or views of language use? Is there any relationship between the two?

If scribble-use was not useful then the scribble-use is meaningless.

Assertives, such as statements, descriptions, assertions.
Directives, such as orders, commands, requests.
Commissives, such as promises, vows, pledges.
Expressives, such as apologies, thanks, congratulations.
Declarations, in which we make something the case by declaring it to be the case. — Banno

Directives are saying something about the state of affairs of the wants and needs of the person using sonecscribbles or sounds.

Commissives are saying something about a future state of affairs where the user of the scribbles or sounds will be helpful.

Expressives are similarcto directives in that they are scribbles that refer one's feelings of guilt, gratitude, and happiness for someone's success - all states of affairs in the world.

Directives are like assertions in asserting what is the case in the world, which can be mental or physical states.

Minds and their states are not separate from the world and can be talked about just like every other state of the world.

Every speech act is public, that goes without saying (leaving aside self talk). The distinction is, what is the domain of this rule? Where does it happen? Declarations happen in the world: a naming assigns a name to a being or object. Suppositions on the other hand, happen purely in the mind, of the listener and speaker. — hypericin

Minds, listeners and speakers are not in the world?

It seems to me that every speech act is an assertion because every speech act about some state of affairs, which include mental states like feelings, wants and needs.

Dualistic thinking is what creates the unneccsessary complexity of Banno's own assertions that there is some difference in how scribbles and utterances are used ither than asserting something to be the case. All language use asserts something to be the case.

I think there's a sense in which they're assertions too. All stories might be preceded by the unspoken "in the story...", and so it becomes a declaration about a fictitious story. It is false that 'in the Lord of the Rings' Aragorn takes the ring to Mordor. — Isaac

Just as every command can be preceded by, "I want...". A command refers to the demanding party's wants. The person being commanded can refuse the command, so the actual command couldnt have been used to make someone do something. Its use only displays what the person making the command wants.

Babies have been shown to respond to novelty. Seeing something new interests them and they will look at it longer than something they've seen before. The baby sits in it's mothers lap and the psychologist puts a single item in front of it. The baby will look at it. Then it is repeated until the baby becomes less interested as measured by the amount of time it will look at the item. Then the baby is shown more than one of the same item and it again will show increased interest by looking longer. This is repeated more times with different numbers of items. — T Clark

If babies are shown to respond to novelty, then why would they show more interest in multiple objects that look the same? It seems to me that they would show interest in unique things, not things that are the same.

What would happen if you showed the baby three red balls and one blue ball and a blue cube? How do you know if they would be interested in the quantity of balls or the quantity of the color blue? What if they ignored the balls and focused on the blue cube - being the novel thing in the whole group of things being shown to the baby?

It seems to me that a better experiment could have been performed to show if babies are aware of quantities. It seems to me that we would need to know how the baby forms categories, as in there being a quantity of balls or a quantity of the color red or blue.

Well, I'm questioning if the sum of two and two is objectively four (a priori truth), and I need to stretch pretty far to do this. The god isn't the point. The point is the possibility somewhere different where that sum is seven or something, or better, a universe utterly devoid of 'quantity', thus reducing 'two' to a meaningless thing where any sum of two and two is at best not even wrong. That's still a stretch. 2+2=4 is sort of a symbol of a priori knowledge, even if humans would probably not figure it out without experience. — noAxioms

As I said, the sum of two and two is true in this universe. Whether it is not true somewhere else is irrelevant. Something else would be true in the other universe, like 2+2≠ 4, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true in this universe. We're talking about two different universes, and just like some knowledge of me (I am a white American male) cannot apply to you, or be true about you (you might not be a white American male), the same thing that may be true for one universe may not be true in another, but this has nothing to do with whether or not it is true in this universe.

"Oh, I wish that I could be Richard Cory" -- Paul Simon
The 'I' in that line is the self, and 'Richard Cory' is an individual. The line only makes sense if they're different things, and the self wants to 'be' a different individual than the impoverished employee in the factory. The related question is: "Why am I me?". It seems baffling. There's so many other things you could be like a bug or perhaps even a dust mote. There's so many more of those other things, so why am I not only a human (top of most food chains), but one with the leisure to be pondering philosophy on a forum during the 2nd gilded age of Earth. What sort of lottery have I won? — noAxioms

:brow: Seriously? You really think that there was ever a chance that you could have been a bug? Are you claiming that there is a soul that is separate from the body in that your soul could have been put in a different body? I think that you problem is dualism. As I said, your problem can be resolved by abandoning dualistic thinking. Your Paul Simon quote isn't saying anything other than "I wish that I could be a different I".

Why am I me? Because a unique arrangement of half of my mother's genes and a unique arrangement of half of my father's genes were fused together to make the unique me. We are all unique outcomes of different halves of our mother's and father's genes.

Then explain what you meant by babies are aware of quantity
— Harry Hindu

They are aware of quantities of things. — T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, — Harry Hindu

Right, which is to say that conscious experience/awareness of things are quantifiable - but only by first establishing a category for things first. You must have a category of trees before you can attribute more than one thing as being part of the category of trees.

You seem to be implying that quantities of things is something that is mind-independent that minds are made aware of via the senses.

As I said, quantities of things are dependent upon there being mental categories that quantities of things would be a part of. Are (mental) categories mind-independent? If not, then quantities are not something mind-independent that one can be aware of, rather they are an integral part of the experience, hence conscious experiences are quantifiable, or members of a mental category are quantifiable.

Once upon a time there was a man named Frank. In all appearance Frank was like any man, often wearing jeans and a raggedy old t-shirt he bought at Brittany Spears concert back in 1998, and in the manner of any dude would frequently scratch his balls, in public. But inside, behind the shallow facade performed for the public eye, Frank was gentle, sensitive, and downright emo to the core. People who got to know him, really know him, would say the that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this figuratively, of course.

One day while downing brewskies with his buds in the man cave, Frank felt a sharp pain in his chest. His unhealthy mannish lifestyle had finally caught up with him and he was having a heart attack. He was rushed to the hospital and, long story short, eventually got a heart transplant. The donor was young woman that was killed in a motorcycle accident the day before. After the transplant, people who got to know Frank, really know him, would say that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this literally, of course. — praxis

:roll: So is a heart part of what makes one a man or a woman, or is it some other part of the body? What makes some heart the heart of a woman or a man? Is it something about the heart, or something about the rest of the body?