In other words: your brain isn't observing facts. Your brain is creating them. — YuZhonglu

This has gone from bemusing to annoying. I'm going to leave you and your silly language game be, as you aren't reasonably engaging when you say stuff like the above.

All examples of tautological, logical or empirical judgements. They are not really judgements at all but facts. So you haven't answered the question; I asked for an example of a philosophical or aesthetic judgement which could be intersubjectively corroborated by incontrovertible evidence. That the epistemological status of philosophical and aesthetic judgements are comparable to that of moral or ethical judgements and not to that of empirical or logical facts was the point.

All examples of tautological, logical or empirical judgements. They are not really judgements at all but facts. So you haven't answered the question; I asked for an example of a philosophical or aesthetic judgement which could be intersubjectively corroborated by incontrovertible evidence. That the epistemological status of philosophical and aesthetic judgements are comparable to that of moral or ethical judgements and not to that of empirical or logical facts was the point. — Janus

No, you simply asked for an example, without explaining yourself properly, and now you're doing your usual thing of blaming me instead of taking responsibility.

And I deliberately ignored your arrogant attempt to pigeonhole me instead of listening to what I've actually said. I define my position, not you. I haven't even used the term "empirical" once.

I don't care about your "intersubjectively corroborated" rubbish enough to treat it as a serious criterion that I must fulfill. You already know that we disagree over that, so I don't know why you'd expect me to do that when I don't need to. You seem to just be in your own little world right now.

I keep getting sucked into posting on here even though I should be focusing on the practical matters involved in the massive task of selling my house and moving. So, given your unreasonable attitude, your apparent inability to refrain from insult and provide actual arguments I'll leave you to it.

That's your usual thing of blaming me instead of taking responsibility.

You're paranoid as well as defensive and abusive; nice combination!

You're paranoid as well as defensive and abusive; nice combination! — Janus

You think you're talking about me, but what's funny is that you're really talking about you.

You're right. There's little point in discussing things with you as you are arrogant and abusive. Please don't respond to my threads anymore.

You're right. — YuZhonglu

Yes, I'm right about many things: one of them being that you're playing a silly language game without realising it.

You don't understand, or are wilfully ignorant, that saying something like, "brains create facts", has zero significance outside of your language game.

And I will respond to what I like, whether you like it or not. If you're going to be just one more person who blocks out good sense because it sounds arrogant and rude, then that's your loss.

Real solid rebuttal.

Real solid rebuttal. — whollyrolling

The irony... :roll:

Consider the game Cluedo. Who killed Dr Black?

- The "fact" as to the identity of the murderer refers, by convention, to a single name within the envelope in the middle of the board.

- The fact is constructed to be a hidden element of a finite set of suspects that is also decided by convention and known a priori to all players.

-The fact is decidable within finite time.

-At any time during play, a player's belief-space consists of the finite set of cards he knows of, but has not so far personally witnessed during this game.

So in this game, there is a clear convention for distinguishing epistemology from metaphysics, that is to say, for distinguishing 'belief' from 'fact'. The question the OP raises, as i understand it, concerns the extent to which the Cluedo model of truth applies in the real world.

Consider for example, what if two names were placed inside the envelope? Does this modified game denote epistemological uncertainty, or metaphysical ambiguity as to the culprit? Doesn't the answer to this question depend upon whether a second game will be played as a decider?

@ Sime

In America, the game is called "Clue." I'm assuming you're referring to that because I'm looking at the name "Cluedo" and I'm wondering "what country calls it that?".

In regards to the other points made, um, my point is more like this:

Are we even thinking of the same game? I mean, we might call it by similar names, but the thought processes you go through when you think about "Clue" or "Cluedo" appears to be really different from the thought processes I go through when I think about it.

In America, the game is called "Clue." — YuZhonglu

Lol! Americans are funny people with their simplifications of the English language. I can imagine it being discussed in a board meeting:

"Yes, but if we call it 'Cluedo', Americans might get confused".

What do you guys call Monopoly? Money Game?

Wow, yeah, I didn't realize we all had to bow to Imperial America and conform to American English.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/53/ad/2353addb8189b7dc60ad19b6461b7e25.jpg

A "fact" is just an opinion that a person is confident about. — YuZhonglu

Yes, just as I believe something that I also know. But that's just my opinion. :smile:

:lol:

Wow, yeah, I didn't realize we all had to bow to Imperial America and conform to American English. — NKBJ

Worse: there is no "American English", only the American language. English is the language spoken by the English, who live in England.

[No, I'm not taking your joke seriously, just adding a dash of cynicism and nationalism into the mix. :wink: ]

Please don't respond to my threads anymore. — YuZhonglu

I'm afraid that will only make him worse. In the end, we have only this:

Don't feed the trolls!

This and many such incidents are the reason that many of us keep to ourselves, children and so alike are now engaging in talks beyond their reach of understanding and the dimension of their computer screens......which i am assuming not much........and that's how much they can view the world from>>>>>

These forums are created so that all of us no matter who, what, where, how , when and so on can be engaged in a conversation that at least can put some lights on what they are after or can take it to others.....

I agree. I'm not responding to his posts. Don't know if he's a troll but it's pretty obvious he's a sociopath and I don't want anything to do with him.

I'm afraid that will only make him worse. In the end, we have only this:

Don't feed the trolls! — Pattern-chaser

You know, if you're going to keep publicly slandering me like that and attempting to manipulate others against me, then you can't at the same time act like you have the moral high ground without hypocrisy.