I won't make sense to you unless you grasp the basic idea --or rather phenomenon point at by the idea. — macrosoft

What do you mean by that?

By that time, the mind has been thoroughly poisoned and it is not so obvious that one will ever climb out of the hole they have long been digging for themselves. — Tzeentch

I am depressed and recognize the problem. Is it too late for me?

I think Searle is just pointing at meaning. Such meaning generates problems because the fantasy is that one can create a explicit system that does not break down. — macrosoft

What's wrong with this pursuit? There's no other way to address the issue, then treating it explicitly.

If you're looking for something simple and straight-forward why not just go with the relevant Routledge Guidebook? — John Doe

I think I will. Any pointers? Is it available also for free?

Amen.

There are things that we derive meaning from that are and never will be subject to appraisals. Like the Mona Lisa or Bach's Sheep May Safely Graze. I used to be a utilitarian; but, setting up the criteria upon which we could appraise value is a hopeless and soullessness task.

Yes, so it's all mental constructs then and webs of belief, yes? Meaning that is.

Santa Clause, your username, and Harry Potter are not "Empty Names" because is referring to something/Concept. — diesynyang

What is that something you are referring to? Is it just a mental constructs of sorts?

I find philosophy therapeutic to a large degree. I've always been a sort of believer in reason, contrary to Hume I don't think reason is the handmaiden to the passions. There's something divine and mystical about reason and logos, noesis, and such.

The limits of my language are the limits of my world; but, then I learn something new and expand on those limits.

I might call my chair Alan The Kangaroo, which from now on I think I will (seriously!) — I like sushi

:smile:

Is this philosophy, mysticism, religion? The words break down. The categories fail, especially if we add to this portrait a familiarity with sophisticated thought that doesn't get trapped in it. This 'ignorance' is an ignorance revealed by striving against ignorance. It is a mystery painfully-at-first revealed to those who would demystify. — macrosoft

I would say in the positive that it is mysticism of sorts. Often interpreted as sophistry!

Ok, no disagreements on my end.

Imagine what a fun forum this would be if we were all posting anonymously. — Dawnstorm

Yes, but haven't I already proven that we are posting anonymously with my silly nickname?

Yeah, the seventh proposition of the Tractatus is intense. Does it lead to philosophical quietism?

I don’t see your point nor the point of “empty names.” Maybe I’m missing something. — I like sushi

Well my entire point is that Posty McPostface is like a fictional character like Homer or Harry Potter. Thus, it's an empty name that denotes me; but, is not really me.

What is most worth saying cannot be said clearly and ultimately. — macrosoft

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent. My favorite quote by Witty.

Hmm. So, does that imply some form of idealism? Reminds me of the problem of Universal's. But I think I finally get your nick.

And what does that number denote?

I'm with you on this one. Otherwise what would we be talking about? Does the name "two" denote anything?

That's a good question. — macrosoft

I think the point is that the correspondence theory of truth is bunk when talking about empty names. Therefore, what can we substitute to qualify empty names as meaningful content?

That doesn’t mean people don’t understand what “mountain” means and my understanding of Posty McPostface is cery likely shared by many others here. So you’re wrong. — I like sushi

But we can't talk about concepts in isolation. They exist as mental constructs that are mapped and described by language. Hence, Posty McPostface is just an empty name that you can attach meaning to through interactions with the real person posting under the guise of "Posty McPostface".

That doesn't really matter. Ive skimmed the book but haven't read it cover to cover. Preferably if someone had already read it, they might do a better job at managing this reading group.

I'm still unsure which reading guide to pick. Once some consensus on what reading guide should we use I'll upload it to be shared by other participants in the reading group.

The point is this: as long as I have enough information to identify you, it doesn't matter how accurate my picture of you is. — Dawnstorm

I don't know about that. You can always be wrong about me being a nice Posty McPostface and am evil instead. When is "enough information" accurate in forming a picture about someone?

Hmm. I think the correspondence theory of truth fails us here. What does Pegasus correspond to?

"Are you Posty McPostface?" is equivent to the question "Are you the person who posts on thephilosophyforum.com under the name Posty McPostface?" It has no other meaning. — Dawnstorm

But you just created meaning right now by referring to the place where I post under the guise of "Posty McPostface".

Okay, let's say I lie so convincingly that you end up thinking my hobby is polishing tomatoes. Since that's a rather unusual hobby you remember it. So we meet, and you say "Ah, you're that guy who's hobby it is to polish tomatoes." You'd be wrong, but you'd be referring to the right person. — Dawnstorm

I'm a tomato polisher too. How awesome to meet someone with the same hobby. :)

In my mind there's no difference between the two. Although, now I'll refrain from using having where being is more appropriate.

No, good Sir. I am wondering what exactly are your qualms with the argument. All I could figure out given my limited understanding was that you thought biological organisms are far too complex to simulate. Is that correct?

So, the alternative to names being rigid designators is that they have rigid designators? — Janus

About this is what I'm having trouble understanding. Are you saying they're distinct or the same?

The distinction isn't apparent in my mind. Care to expand on what you have said?

Shucks, and here I was hoping Bitter Crank would lead the reading group. :)

I don't understand your pessimism on the matter of those futuristic ideas. They will be a reality in the future if it's economically viable and possible. Which then renders it an engineering problem.

One thing that Musk is good at is generating interest in more economical and efficient solutions to our current dilemma of transportation (depending on where you live).

I believe Musk is creating the conditions with his Boring company and SpaceX, to be able to travel to any part of the world in an hour's time. That's pretty radical if you ask me.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Could you distill your qualms with Musk's argument?

Do names "have" rigid designators or are they not themselves thought to be rigid designators? — Janus

Depends on how you view things. Again, if I were an indirect realist (which I am), then objects are akin to noumena, and their representations or 'concepts' are what actually integrate their meaning from. Borrowing from Wittgenstein, if I lion could speak, we wouldn't be able to understand it, even. Dunno if that was irrelevant but felt like the right thing to say in this regard.

A direct realist would assert that we have immediate access to objects in the world, and the phenomenology of their perception is irrelevant. I don't agree with this for the matter.

It maybe "empty" but not necessarily meaningless. — NuncAmissa

Yes, so we're stuck at square one. How do empty names have meaning?

It's really circular from what you can figure out by now.

Yes. And that's the only mode of your existance that's accessible to me. I do think that's not the full extent of your existance, though. — Dawnstorm

I agree, and think that Posty McPostface is just a persona on these forums. Nothing more to it given the limitations of this form of communication between us. If I were to meet you in real life, I could tell you my real name.

Phenomena are things as they appear, and the as-they-appear part is what connects things to concepts, though concepts exist even if no things appear. It's a little messy. — Dawnstorm

I think I'm getting it. If you were a direct realist and didn't believe in any homunculus or representative realism, then that would be true. But, given the nature of thought, which makes me assume a indirect realist position, then I don't think this person known as Posty McPostface is my real character or personality. It's just an alter-ego.

Why should a name have to refer to a concrete entity in order not to be considered "empty"? — Janus

Well, if we're on the same page, meaning that we are 'realists' in some sense, then that would mean that proper names have to have rigid designators to be called proper names in the first place.

I mean what possible effective difference could the concrete, as opposed to say fictional, existence of an entity have on the name itself? — Janus

None, with respect to the name itself. Just an issue if we're trying to discern meaning derived from empty names, that are contextually bound to have meaning and not as a 'fact' or 'proposition' that one could analyze and claim is valid.

What if a name refers to someone everyone thinks really exists/existed but in fact does not/ did not; would that mean that the name is "empty" (whatever that might mean) even though no one knows that its referent is fictive? — Janus

Yes, that's the Santa Clause paradox in a nutshell. Children genuinely believe in Santa Claus as the old man that gives presents for being a good Samaritan.

Are you arguing over the observer effect in QM, and how it might impact a simulated reality? Non-locality and locality would be an issue if we were to live in a simulation, I think.