That’s not what he said. — Noah Te Stroete
I thought he said the phrase referred to the concept which is mental and refers to something extra-mental, — Noah Te Stroete
No, he's disagreeing that the concept refers to something extramental. It's not clear that he even believes there is anything extramental. — Terrapin Station
No, it doesn't it doesn't refer to itself. Frames of reference are not concepts, though there is a concept of them., Why don't you look it up if you're not familiar with it? — Terrapin Station
He said the concept refers to the concept. — Terrapin Station
"sensible" is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station
which I do understand is not necessarily conceived as a human observer — Janus
No, he's disagreeing that the concept refers to something extramental. It's not clear that he even believes there is anything extramental. — Terrapin Station
Okay, so you understand that it doesn't imply a percipient, right? — Terrapin Station
No, again I haven't denied that the concept is taken to refer to something extramental. — Janus
And you understand that physics doesn't use the terms "observer"/"observation" to refer to percipients, right? — Terrapin Station
Likely he's misunderstanding the way that physics uses the terms "observer" and "observation." There's a tendency to interpret those terms in the colloquial senses where they're referring to people. — Terrapin Station
If you know that, then why would you write "Particular frames or points of reference exist only (predominately) for humans and perhaps (and if so, much more minimally as far as we know) other percipients, do they not?" And why would you disagree with comments that they do not? — Terrapin Station
Because the fact that we can imagine or conceive frames of reference as existing independently of percipients does not entail that they actually do. — Janus
What you still seem to fail to grasp is that physics is a model created by a percipient. — Janus
Is there reference absent percipients, according to you? — Janus
Are you talking about frames of reference as used by Einstein in Special Relativity? — Noah Te Stroete
So you were figuring that I was probably an agnostic about realism? You were just checking to confirm this? — Terrapin Station
Still having problems with the use/mention distinction. — Terrapin Station
You're not thinking that "reference" in "frame of reference" is the semantic sense of "reference" a la "sense/reference" are you?'' — Terrapin Station
By the way, since we have so much problem communicating with each other and agreeing on anything, how about if we try to see if we can keep things simple enough to (a) conjointly feel there's not a communication problem, and (b) agree on at least one thing? I wonder if we could do that. — Terrapin Station
We don't have to agree — Janus
If it's any solace, I think that the majority of people who regularly post here are idiots while being ridiculously arrogant... The arrogance comes from the fact that they're educated idiots--they know some things, in the sense of being familiar with them and being able to regurgitate them, but that's not at all the same thing as intelligence. — Terrapin Station
“I’m looking at the man in the mirror! (Oh, yeah!)
I’m asking him to change his ways! (Oh, yeah!)
And no message could’ve been any clearer!
If you want to make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and make that change!” — Noah Te Stroete
I already noted that he thinks I'm an idiot. You might, too. — Terrapin Station
Yes, mental properties are from the frame of reference of being (identical to) a particular brain. — Terrapin Station
I understand frame of reference in epistemic terms, but I don't really get how distinct things can have a phenomenal frame of reference. Brains are contiguous and electrons don't care what they are part of. — Forgottenticket
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.