We have to show that relations exist. We already know (from above) that, if relations exist, then they have the special ontological kind of existence required - because everything that exists has that special kind of existence. But we don't yet know whether relations exist. — Cuthbert

The Lego example is pretty contentious because you can recover an individual Lego from a block as opposed to say an atom which cannot, in principle, recovered from a molecule. — Ignoredreddituser

How does the relation "X is west of Y" exist in a universe with no minds? What's the ontological status of that relation? — RogueAI

Some Republicans say it is racist — TiredThinker

Yeah, you really need more old white men. Been working for hundreds of years, why change. — Banno

Stop it, Harry. You can't will that rational assessment freely like that. Others are required to provide that freedom to you in the form of not impinging it with violence, and vice versa. — Garrett Travers

Hence I agree with your "Only if we establish relationships towards others that are free, might we be free." — Banno

It's almost as if the domain of freedom requires individuals within that domain to value freedom for that domain to exist — Garrett Travers

Hence I agree with your "Only if we establish relationships towards others that are free, might we be free." — Banno

Hence I agree with your "Only if we establish relationships towards others that are free, might we be free." — Banno

The line that urged the thought upon me was "it must appear strange indeed that the faculty of the will whose essential activity consists in dictate and command should be the harborer of freedom". — Banno

So one can't wish for something without deciding and moving to obtain it? I desire chips, but I've not the will to get up and go to the shop. — Banno

That broken clock is working) has been proposed as the belief from the beginning. Any change was for elucidation only, not as a way to avoid valid objection. Evidently you do not understand what's being argued. — creativesoul

However, after becoming aware of the fact that he believed that a broken clock was working, by showing him that clock had stopped, after becoming aware of exctly how he had come to believe that it was 3 o'clock, he could no longer believe that that clock was working. — creativesoul

I take it to mean, something that at least can be shared by different sentences (e.g. “Jim loves Alice” and “that guy called Jim loves Alice” ), by different propositional attitudes (e.g. I believe that Jim loves Alice, I hope that Jim loves Alice), by different languages (e.g. “Jim loves Alice” and “Jim aime Alice”) and determines their usage/fitness conditions. Those who theorize about propositions have richer answers than this of course (e.g. Frege’s propositions, Russell’s propositions, unstructured propositions, etc.). But I’m not a fan of these theories, so I’ll let others do the job.
Anyways, I hear people wondering about images as propositions or as having propositional content, without elaborating or clarifying, so this was my piece of brainstorming about this subject. — neomac

To know that I’m confusing the propositional content of that image, presupposes that you know what the propositional content of that image is. But I’m not convinced it’s that simple, see what you just wrote about that image: <it is a sheet of paper with red ink in shape of diamonds and a “7”> while you previously wrote something like: <it’s a seven of diamonds >. Is it essential for the propositional content of that image the mention of ink or paper? A seven of diamonds tattooed on the the body doesn’t share the same propositional content of the image on paper? How about the arrangement of the diamonds on the surface of the card? How about the shade of red? How about the change of light condition under which the image is seen? If I warped that image with an image editor to make it hardly recognisable but still recognisable after some time as a 7 of diamonds, shouldn’t we include in the propositional content of that image all the features that allowed me to recognise it as a 7 of diamonds, despite the warping? And so on…
Again, I’m just brainstorming, so no strong opinion on any of that. Indeed I was hoping to get some feedback from those who talk about propositional content of images, or images as propositions. — neomac

So one can't wish for something without deciding and moving to obtain it? I desire chips, but I've not the will to get up and go to the shop. — Banno

If you prefer. One thesis of the article is that, as a result of this, freedom has it's being in the shared space in which we live rather than in the privacy of what one wills. — Banno

However, after becoming aware of the fact that he believed that a broken clock was working, by showing him that clock had stopped, after becoming aware of exctly how he had come to believe that it was 3 o'clock, he could no longer believe that that clock was working. At this point in time, Jack could readliy admit to having once believed that that particular clock was working, and that that particular clock was broken at that time, so he had once believed that that particular broken clock was working. — creativesoul

This is obviously in tune with the point I've found myself obliged to make a few times recently, that ethics begins not when one considers oneself, but when one considers others. — Banno

Anyway, I'm linking to the Arendt essay in order to ask again her question: What is freedom?, and to give a space for considering her essay. Given the "freedom convoy" that trickled into Canberra yesterday, and the somewhat more effective equivalent in Canada, It seems appropriate. — Banno

Maybe regardless of any specific card game, but the challenge here is to express the propositional content of that image (something that an image can share with sentences, different propositional attitudes, different languages): so is the propositional content of that image rendered by “this is a seven of diamonds” or “this is a seven of diamonds in standard 52-card deck” or “this is a card of diamonds different from a 1 to 6 or 8 to 13 of diamonds” or “this is a seven of a suit different from clubs, hearts, spades” or “this is a card with seven red diamond-shaped figures and red shaped number seven arranged so and so” or any combination of these propositions? All of them are different propositions which one is the right one? BTW “this” is an indexical, and shouldn’t be part of the content of an unambiguous proposition: so maybe the propositional content is “something is a seven of diamonds”? And so on.
At least this is how I understand the philosophical task of proving that images have propositional content, but I'm neither sure that others understand this philosophical task in the same way I just drafted, nor that this task can be accomplished successfully. — neomac

But what about this? — frank

What I do not understand is the move to set (that broken clock) outside of the scope of Jack's belief and replace it with (that clock) when the example hinges upon the fact that the clock is broken but Jack believes what it says. Jack does not know it is broken, so he cannot believe that it is broken. I grant that much entirely, but there's no reason to say that he cannot believe that broken clock. — creativesoul

Jack believed that a broken clock was working.
— creativesoul

Is there a point? I don't understand how it is that you don't understand.

(Jack believed that a broken clock was working) is ambiguous.

Is (the clock is broken) within the scope of Jack's belief? Then you have Jack believed that: ((The clock is broken) & (the clock is working)); Poor old Jack needs help.

Or is it outside the scope? Then you have: The clock is broken and (Jack believed that: (the clock is working))

No problem. In both cases the belief is presented as a propositional attitude. — Banno

I don't know. What do you think? — frank

Just jump right in there and answer. — frank

What does a language that you don't know look like? And when describing what a language you know looks like, are you describing the language or your knowledge of the language? — Harry Hindu

First of all, I'm neutral on the question. I'm just exploring the implications.

I'm starting with the assumption that my beliefs are limited by the limits of my language.

Why some fucker would assert that is a different topic. Maybe we could start a thread:

Why do some fuckers believe the limits of their languages are the limits of their worlds? — frank

Why some fucker would assert that is a different topic. Maybe we could start a thread:

Why do some fuckers believe the limits of their languages are the limits of their worlds? — frank

If someone says "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world" is this assertion self contradictory?

What is the pov of the assertion? I'm asking you because you're mentally flexible. You could probably see it better than me. — frank

Yep, this is correct if we take strings of characters, independently from any pre-defined linguistic codification. The difference is that with words (notice that the term “word” is already framing its referent, like an image, as a linguistic entity!) — neomac

You can have all kinds of sets of rules (e.g. the codification of traffic signs). Concerning the problem at hand, one thing that really matters is to understand if/what systems of visual codifications disambiguate an image always wrt a specific proposition: think about the codified images of a deck of cards. Does e.g. the following card have a propositional content that card game rules can help us identify? What would this be? — neomac

I totally agree there is an objective truth. I even know what it is at the physical fundament. Still, it's a story. — Cornwell1

Yes, it is my opinion that you are wrong, firstly on your assertion that truth and accuracy are synonymous and your assertion that paradox is useless. — universeness

You seem to assign some priority to what you decide is useless to you regardless of its usefulness to others. God is a useless concept to me but I respect its usefulness to others and its status as fundamental to some. — universeness

I have never once claimed that 'all truths are subjective,' I stated the posit as part of a paradox. I don't agree with your claim that there is a logical position that exists, within which, it's impossible for an individual to be wrong. The best that can be achieved is paradox, neither true nor false. You say this is a useless state. I think it's an intriguing state. You say I am not making sense, I say I am. So we reach panto stage. so hey ho, who cares? I will still dance with you, if you want to keep the music playing. — universeness

It's confusing because it is confusing. All people, or more realistically, groups of people, see a reality which they think exists separately of them. Individuals can change it and the group reality influences the individual. Is there an all embracing reality, capturing and directing all these realities? No, because that would be a new reality believed to exist independently of us. Which is a justified belief, as anyone wants his beliefs to be objectively true. But this is only a story we tell, like the story of God being the one and only Truth. — Cornwell1

Confusing indeed... — Cornwell1

Let me add this. You can add everything to the story we tell without the need of proving it, as is asked for in the scientific story. I saw a discussion on this forum about the reality of electrons in the double slit experiment. Their reality as a particle. They can't be seen directly and it was conjectured that there were only lightening unicorns traveling between the emitter and screen and they don't like to be observed. Which is actually a pretty good description! — Cornwell1

Great job denouncing shit that I've not said. — creativesoul

No, I’m talking about images. Images are visual entities like strings of letters written on a paper, yet we can take images and strings to represent something (again intentionality is a presupposition here for understanding images and textual strings as representational). If we were to describe with sentences what images can represent, we would notice that there can be many descriptions that could correspond to the same image (this is particularly evident in the case of so called “ambiguous images” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguous_image), yet they do not share the same proposition. And so on with the other remarks I made. Don’t forget that my brainstorming was about the propositional nature of images. — neomac

There will be agreement and disagreement. There is no overarching world bubble which is the same regardless of all subjective bubbles. — Cornwell1

Of course, all subjects will think their own bubble is a measure for all. And rightly so. I want my theory to have objective existence. I want to know how reality looks like. But it will always be a theoretical picture. It's hard to leave the idea of one true reality, an idea that was formed in ancient Greece and found its way in western society. I think it's a dangerous idea. Of course, I have my ideas about the universe, where it came from, the triplets of massless particles giving quarks and leptons, etc. And I think these things really exist, also when I'm not there. But that by itself is a subjective idea. It's hard to give in to such relativism, but I think that's how it is, objectively...

Which doesn't mean that just every fantasy is right, considering science. At the moment there is no proof for quark and lepton sub-structure. But still I see it, because it offers great perspectives. — Cornwell1

Our discussion is in general a quite minor issue. You suggested T Clark saw no difference between the term accuracy and the term truth and your comment about T Clark was:

But in saying that conceptual models are accurate TClark is saying they are true. "Accurate" is a synonym for "true".
— Harry Hindu

I think you are being inaccurate when you say 'Accurate is a synonym for True.' I think there is a difference between them. I explained why I thought this in my examples about 'measurement' and 'paradox' That's what started our exchange and we have simply been expanding on our positions since. Its general importance is very minor. — universeness

What part of this proposition, "Neil Armstrong is the first human to walk on
the Moon.", is subjectively true and which part is objectively true? — Harry Hindu

The proposition is not true in the sense that you cannot prove it to be absolutely true. No matter how hard you try, a skeptic will find a way to question this proposition. Maybe Apollo 11 was fabricated; Buzz Aldrin was technically the first one to meet the criteria of walking; perhaps Neil Armstrong wasn't a human; someone had done this before Neil and kept it in secret; and so on.

The proposition is objectively true in the sense that you're referring to a specific event that objectively happened.

The proposition is subjectively true in the sense that it is grounded in your subjective assumptions. You're referring to a specific Neil Armstrong and not any other person with the same name. You're referring to a specific moon. You have a specific idea of what it means to walk on the Moon, in oppose to stepping on a lunar meteorite found on Earth, standing barefoot on a celestial body, or perhaps walking all the way from Earth to the Moon on foot. — pfirefry

Really? What does a language that you don't know look like? And when describing what a language you know looks like, are you describing the language or your knowledge of the language? — Harry Hindu

If the limits of my language mean the limits of my world, it means I do not have freedom of thought. It means there are things I'm bound to believe simply because that's how my language structures my world.

If all that is true, what is a philosophical debate? What's actually happening with philosophy? — frank

What is the content of a proposition? And is it propositional?
— bongo fury

What is the colour of a proposition? — Banno

Language is more than scribbles and sounds, ya know. — frank

The risk exists, but I think we can explain what we see. We can talk and articulate what we think we see. We are all people who look at a world. Nò world stands separate from other worlds. People don't exist as isolated entities. — Cornwell1

Did you see that movie Arrival? If you haven't, I won't spoil it, but it's related to this question.

“the limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. What does this mean to you? — frank

I disagree. Saying that you are choosing to ignore the paradox state is a comment about your choice not your understanding of paradox. — universeness

No, I don't take that as problematic to my premise. I find something that is not true or false, intriguing.
You find it useless. The Universe continues regardless.
There are many other paradoxical scenarios presented in propositional logic. I'm sure you are familiar with many of them, the barbers paradox, the liars paradox etc. If they or they're like do not stimulate your idea of 'useful' or 'meaningful,' then that's your prerogative. I feel no responsibility for that. — universeness

Some do some dont. Some believe in god(s) because they have been told to and are too scared not to. — universeness

I have little interest in metaphysical musings. I have no confusion. I have already stated I support a democratic system, so it follows that I would listen to minority views, dissenting voices. You are stating the obvious. A republic is described as "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives." The term 'elected representatives' indicates a democratic system. — universeness

One person's rationality is another person's irrationality. People reports based on the 'same observations can vary wildly. People are emotional creatures. Some people are highly emotional. Emotions are not necessarily rational but they can be just as powerful and useful as logic. A combination of the two makes the psyche of most individuals. — universeness