Yes. It becomes perceptive because these contexts may vary from one individual to another. — NuncAmissa

So, then Posty McPostface is just another empty name, no? The meaning as per other examples is derived from associating the name with a concept in your mind...

Yes. Since it's perceptive after all. — NuncAmissa

So, then, how is meaning obtained from examples like Pegasus, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker? Context, yes? This also touches on how is meaning shared?

Your online name and your offline name(s) have only one thingly referent - there can be no other. — Dawnstorm

But, ontologically I exist as a concept in your mind made possible through our context of my interactions with you on this forum. The thingly is a concept as you have noted, no?

Now when it comes to the thingly layer, I find Husserlian phenomenology attractive: it's unaccessible in pure form; all we know are phenomena. — Dawnstorm

Indeed. What are "thinglys" as you describe them?

Hi John Doe. Do you recommend any particular companion to use for this reading group of the Investigations. Your last suggestion in the Tractatus reading group was very helpful.

Sorry to bother otherwise.

But are you claiming those observers/participants to be themselves physically real or computationally simulated? You are failing to flesh out the critical part of the argument. Thus there is no "argument" as such. — apokrisis

The argument is valid either if we're simulations or not. I don't see the issue here.

I guess my concern is that I don't believe in objects. — macrosoft

Well, then I don't know what to say. Objects are what populate logical space.

So when you say that "Posty McPostface" doesn't refer to your true self, you're talking on the level of concept, not on the level of thing. The concept of "referent" is generally the thing-level (I'm not 100 % confident about that, but that's how I've always seen it). — Dawnstorm

Can you expand on this? It's quite interesting...

Well, I'm glad we agree that there is some kind of shared space, however we elaborate upon it. — macrosoft

Yes, logical space is just a two-dimensional coordinate system where relations between objects designate their meaning, contextually speaking. But, obviously we don't live in a two-dimensional world, hence the Investigations.

I didn't say this either! — StreetlightX

Okay, then I'll refrain from engaging in posts that are irrelevant in your view.

I don't know why you start dragging in words that were not even mentioned in my post. You do this often, and it's really quite annoying. — StreetlightX

Okay, then I'll stop doing it. But, as you mentioned, rigid designators alone have no meaning. Only contextually do they make sense to us.

And would you elaborate on what it means for you? — macrosoft

Logical space means a state space where meaning is shared. That's all I can say without sounding metaphysical. This goes to the heart of some of my earlier posts about how facts obtain in reality and the world.

IMV, that is a beautiful spider-web, one more attempt to grab the phenomenon in concepts. How do you make sense of Wittgenstein himself abandoning his youthful vision? — macrosoft

I'm an astute Wittgensteinian, meaning that I believe that the Tractatus was a preface to the Investigations. One is supplementary to the other. Wittgenstein wanted for both works to be published alongside one another. I think I'm on point in this regard.

To be clear, I don't know exactly what 'meaning space' is. — macrosoft

I think I do. It's a state space for atomic propositions to be understood. Wittgenstein referred to it as 'logical space'. The ontology of it is still a mystery to me; but, understanding the world as the totality of facts and not things, is illuminating to my mind.

The question is over the nature of this directness. And the point is that such 'direct reference' does not differ in kind from 'non-direct' reference. — StreetlightX

What's the answer to that question then?

Are we talking now about modalities and necessity?

So the mental is somewhat public. — macrosoft

Why "somewhat"?

And that's it. Same denotation. — Terrapin Station

But, you aren't posting under your REAL name, are you?

I have been told that the concept of having a "mind" in philosophy, generates more problems than it solves. What's your take on the Chinese Room Argument?

Before we can plug a thesis into the argument machine, it has to born in someone's mind. And then the argument machine can't just be a dead machine operating on syntax. So how does what we argue about exists for us? — macrosoft

So, your talking about understanding, having a mind, and intention here? Have you heard of the Chinese Room Argument?

Same denotation. Different connotation. — Terrapin Station

And?

The tripartite idea at least introduce complexity. I'd say that we are mostly flowing and reactive as we move through life. We 'live' the 'unconscious.' It's hidden in plain sight. It's our retrospective narrow accounts that betray that complexity. — macrosoft

Yes, I think that empty names refer to concepts and ideas. But, does that make meaning only mental? Isn't there cases when we have sensical, nonsensical, and senseless propositions?

The problem is that no-matter what meanings you attach to them real world referents aren't really divisible in any other way than analytically. — Dawnstorm

What do you mean by that?

Philosophy almost exclusively deals with known unknowns and unknown unknowns. I think go about this issue epistemologically is the only way forward. Once known unknowns and unknown unknowns become known then the issue is settled through dialogue or in a dialectical manner, and hopefully Rogerian agreement. Am I sounding pragmatic?

At the same time, we don't know what we are talking about, and we mostly don't know that we don't know what we are talking about. — macrosoft

Ah, known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Interesting stuff.

I believe you. I think we switch into a certain mode when we publicly talk about heavy ideas. Even just being polite is a transformation of the interior monologue. — macrosoft

Yes, that's all true. In a figurative sense we only have access to our conscious persona, when in reality we're much more complex than just our day to day conscious aspect of being. Think unconscious, super-ego, ego.

Yeah, as I said. Heavy stuff to talk about. I don't have much to comment otherwise.

A test: If you, or I, were to write under our real names, would we say the same thing? — Bitter Crank

At the very least I would put more effort into my posts if it was under my real name. But since nothing is at stake here for me to wallow or post about depression in my other threads, then it makes little to no difference.

Thanks for the wine suggestions BTW.

It would be impossible to name my true self. But it's rather easy to name myself - with different names for different context. — Dawnstorm

I think that's what I'm getting at here. I think the point here that I'm making is that contextualism is the only way to go about discerning meaning present in empty names. There really doesn't seem to be any other alternative.

Pleased to meet you too. I'm Posty but not really Posty. Hehe.

Given the form of the TLP, you can imagine why Witt would have thought about it. — macrosoft

Yes, I can see why you would say so. But care to expand?

I must say that math is a rich territory for philosophy. It is the ideal language in some ways and yet no one is quite sure what it is talking about. — macrosoft

Doesn't it talk about reality? Here's me hovering around Platonism.

I concede nothing. A real person is writing your posts. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I'm not arguing over that. What I an arguing is that I'm not the same person as my alter-ego known as Posty McPostface...

I wonder... do I even have enough processing power and band width to create and maintain an alter ego? I'm pretty much what you see is what you get. — Bitter Crank

Are you still a Bitter Crank? No. My musings with you on this forum indicate that you are no longer a bitter crank.

Indistinguishable to who? — apokrisis

Any observer or participants of that shared reality.

Regarding your other question, I think that as long as the laws of physics don't prohibit such a reality from occurring, then it's possible and guaranteed to occur given enough time.

This post might be flippant, but I'm actually sincerely curious how you explain usage of first person pronouns in a post where the referent is necessarily ambiguous between proper and alter ego, if the two do not refer to the same real world referent. First person pronouns are not names; they're indexical expressions, and their referent is whoever is uttering them. According to your theory that is... who or what? Who or what do first person pronouns in Posty McPostface's posts refer to, so that the quoted reply above makes sense in the way that we both presumably understand it? — Dawnstorm

Yes, no disagreements apart from the fact that I am known on these parts by the nick I go by. My usage of "my" is indicative of showing that I identify with my nick. But, again it doesn't denote my true self.

And when I say "you", I'm talking to Posty McPostface, and not that person. Therefore Posty McPostface can't be your alter ego, it's that person's alter ego. — Dawnstorm

I follow you here but Posty McPostface is just an alter ego of my true self.

This is a post from Posty McPostface, right? So are you, Posty McPostface, claiming that Posty McPostface is the alter ego of Posty McPostface? — Dawnstorm

Yes, a fictional entity denoted by the name "Posty McPostface" has posted this. I am not the same as Posty McPostface.

Posty McPostface is my alter ego. That claim ties into a direct referant claiming to be who I indeed am.

Hope that wasn't too ambiguous.

Yes, I realize there is no one named Posty McPostface and Posty McPostface stand in-between me and thee. And your handle isn't the same as Frodo's handle, because Frodo is a fictional character. Try as you might, YOU are not a fictional character. Somebody living in 1k. CA disguises himself as Posty. Somebody else in the now freezing northland disguises himself as Bitter Crank. — Bitter Crank

So, you concede that Posty McPostface is just an empty name for someone disguised as Posty McPostface?

Well if all you're saying is that reality must exist somewhere then I don't disagree with that. But his argument still holds.

Yes, I think he just expanded on that rationale.

So this is 99% bullshit — apokrisis

How so? His argument is sound. As he mentions, at any rate of progress you end up with the consequences of the simulation hypothesis.

So, what you're really saying is that we are in base zero reality given how old the universe is?