Ok, no prob. It is true there are apt to be rocks in the future. No different in principle than believing there will be rocks in the future. No different in principle than having no reason to think there wouldn’t be rocks in the future, all else being equal. None of those are congruent with the truth statement in the OP. And, truth-apt statements can be false, which means the statement there are no rocks when all the humans are gone is truth-apt. — Mww
Ironically, this was your type of error from earlier on, when I was stating the meaning of "boat", and in response, you were talking about a definition.
A small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, sails, or an engine. That's not a definition. A small vessel isn't composed of words. — S
Yeah, well, more than 15 pages of debate are indicative of how uncontroversial your position is. — Echarmion
But post-human rocks are not simple and easily understandable if you actually think about it. This is a bit like saying quantum physics "fails" because it goes to great lengths to explain away such simple and easily understandable concepts as discrete objects, or measurements that don't affect that which is measured.
Expain to me how this is not just an argument from ignorance? — Echarmion
The guy on the street doesn't understand a great many things outside of their personal expertise. — Echarmion
I find your language wacky as well. — Echarmion
The key phrase I used was, "on the face of it". And that matters because it has to do with intuitiveness, common sense, our common language, what makes sense to us without assuming something bizarre like idealism, without having to come up with a convoluted explanation or an explanation which causes more problems than it solves. — S
Because it's not just simply about the truth of the matter, it's also - as it almost always is - about the language we use. — S
That's part of what I meant earlier when I said something along the lines that I accept the science, but reject your related philosophical conclusions about it. You lack conformity with how a normal person normally talks. In that language, it sounds insane to say something like, "There are no rocks". Again, to me, that just indicates that you're doing something wrong. — S
Yes, and the philosophy-type can be oblivious to the problems that come with not properly considering and appreciating how the guy on the street talks. They have a tendency to think that it's all simply a matter of sophistication or knowledge, thereby missing something important. — S
I am also a philosophy-type, but I'm the type who talks more sense. — S
The error you're making is that the only way to connect "boat" to the referent is to engage in the mental activity of associating the sound or text mark with the referent. — Terrapin Station
What the word means is already established in English.
— S
How does that happen physically? — Terrapin Station
But that Idealism is "bizarre" is entirely your opinion. — Echarmion
Perhaps it's worth pointing out the reason a lot of philosophy starting from the Renaissance has idealist tendencies? What we experience most directly is our thoughts. These are, in a sense, the most "real" thing to us. Hence, Descartes started with cogito. That our world starts with our thoughts is hardly bizarre, or unintuitive, is it? — Echarmion
That sentence doesn't even begin to make sense to me. — Echarmion
Technical language is required to talk about complex topics. Do you think lawyers are "doing something wrong" because they use words in a very peculiar and sometime highly unintuitive way? — Echarmion
And that something is? — Echarmion
Your humility is staggering. — Echarmion
Again, the problem is that you're refraining from this "weird question." That's leading you to untenable ontological stances about it. — Terrapin Station
Alright, so when you say, "let's use x to mean y," how, exactly, in terms of what's going on physically, does that create x meaning y? (If you think you need to start somewhere else in the process, feel free to start wherever you need to) — Terrapin Station
It's not something a physicist could find through science. — S
Has nothing to do with when the truth statement was made. Has only to do with when the truth statement applies. — Mww
“Is there a rock? Yes.” makes explicit the truth statement applies to the present of rocks but is premised on the future of humans. In effect humans making a truth statement about a present of which they are not a member and of which, accordingly, they could in fact know nothing about.
Even an average philosopher should see the fallacy in that reasoning. — Mww
Regarding my conversation with S., in this thread, just for the record, that conversation ended by S. being asked what he meant, and being unable to tell what he meant. — Michael Ossipoff
I think we all know your argument by now. What's the point of repeating it? That reply of yours doesn't progress the debate or engage productively. It merely reasserts premises I rejected ages ago, and anything that follows from rejected premises is irrelevant to my position. — S
It ended with me informing you that I was going to ignore you, because we reached a dead end whereby you kept asking me to do something which is demonstrably unnecessary - provide a definition - and thus a waste of my time, and I had already explained that. The meaning is understood by both of us, but the difference is that I don't pretend otherwise for the sake of pushing some rubbish argument. — S
But post-human rocks are not simple and easily understandable if you actually think about it. — Echarmion
Yes, you reject all reasonable premises which could explain what you are talking about, as non-progressive, and assert "there is a rock an hour after all people die", as the only reasonable premise. OK. — Metaphysician Undercover
Whenever someone gets you to the point where your op might begin to appear unreasonable to you, you say, I'm going to ignore you because this does not progress the debate. Nice work. — Metaphysician Undercover
Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.'
I've clarified that the question here is whether there would be a rock. I clarified that many pages ago. — S
How in the bloody hell is it possible to misinterpret “Will there be rocks? Yes.” This truth statement is the conclusion of the Part 1 argument. If the conclusion is deemed false, then it is required to find the fault in the premises that ground the conclusion, which means they MUST be deemed incongruent with the originals. If they weren’t, the conclusion would hold. But it doesn’t So.... — Mww
Yes, I could avoid the problems by relaxing my criteria. — Mww
You, on the other hand, could avoid the irrationality by strengthening yours. — Mww
Apparently, average is good enough for you? I am truly disappointed. — Mww
Given your impression of what knowledge is, and how you characterize what blue is, I dare not ask what you think time is. — Mww
Also, given you must know how expensive that Rangpur gin is, why you’d even consider throwing it at me must have been derived from reasoning as irrational as is the reasoning behind this thought experiment. — Mww
I’ll have another, if you’d be so kind. In a glass this time. — Mww
Yes, I reject all premises you erroneously believe to be reasonable, and go by my own premises, which actually are reasonable. — S
First, we're not talking about whether physicists, specifically, would work on this. — Terrapin Station
But are you claiming that what's going on is somehow "beyond science"? Do you believe that somehow it's not the case that something is going on physically here? Are you saying that you believe there are nonphysical phenomena? Is something supernatural going on? — Terrapin Station
Funny. Your question was put in terms of the physical. Who knows about that better than a physicist? That's why I specifically brought up a physicist. — S
I go where good sense leads me. I don't put the cart before the horse by assuming physicalism and then end up grasping at straws when I hit a bump in the road. There's a problem here, but like I said, it may well be a problem with what you assume or a problem with the way you put your question. Until that's ruled out, I don't accept that it's a problem on my end rather than on yours. — S
Incorrect. It ended with me informing you that I was going to ignore you, because we reached a dead end whereby you kept asking me to do something which is demonstrably unnecessary - provide a definition - and thus a waste of my time, and I had already explained that. The meaning is understood by both of us, but the difference is that I don't pretend otherwise for the sake of pushing some rubbish argument. — S
Irrelevant.
The OP shows no edit, and even if it did, the logical response would be the same. “Is there a rock? Yes” has the same declarative value as “Would there be a rock? Yes”, therefore would justify identical responses.
Wiggling is permitted in average philosophy, apparently. — Mww
You don't want to be sensible? — S
Translation:
S. was unable to tell what he meant.
If you can't tell what you mean, maybe you don't know what you mean. — Michael Ossipoff
OK, I think I've satisfactorily proven my case. Yours is a metaphysics of extreme selfishness. It's reducible to solipsism: "I am the only authority". — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you think that archaeology deals with physical stuff? Do physicists know archaeology better than archaeologists? Does biology/medicine deal with physical stuff? There aren't many physicists I'd hire to take care of a cyst, say. — Terrapin Station
Do you think that there are some things that don't work some way in terms of what's going on ontologically? — Terrapin Station
That reply of yours doesn't progress the debate or engage productively. It merely reasserts premises I rejected ages ago.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.