Idealist Logic

Part 1

Thought experiment!

There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously.

Is there a rock? Yes or no?

Yes, a rock is an object, and the existence of objects don't depend on us being around perceiving them.

It is not the case that to be is to be perceived. To be is to be, and that's that.

Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock, because that would be a contradiction. But there isn't a contradiction unless you go by an idealist premise, an idealist premise which is demonstrably false, as it leads to absurdity, as per the above scenario.

Part 2

The word "rock" means the solid mineral material forming part of the surface of the Earth and other similar planets, exposed on the surface or underlying the soil, in my language, which is based on the English language, and which you can simply refer to as English or my language. However, no one is there to understand what this word means, because we all died an hour previously.

Does the word "rock" mean anything? Does it mean what it means in English?

Yes, it means something, it means what it means in English, because "rock" is a word, and words have a set meaning, and once set, this does not depend on us being around to interpret or understand the meaning.

Some people believe otherwise. They consider that to be impossible, as it would be a contradiction. But that's just because they're going by a false premise resembling the idealist premise from Part 1.

It is not the case that for linguistic meaning to be, it must be interpreted or understood by someone at the time. It means what it means, and that's that.

I am a realist regarding both the existence of objects and the meaning of words. I am consistent. Where do you stand and why? Is your position logical, like mine, or, when put to the test, will it be exposed as illogical, i.e. unsound?

Terrapin Station

The word "rock" means the solid mineral material forming part of the surface of the Earth and other similar planets, exposed on the surface or underlying the soil, — S

That's a definition, not a meaning. They're not the same thing. Objectively, the definition is just marks on paper, or activated pixels on a computer screen (or whatever particular thing we might be referring to). Meaning is a mental activity, a way that we think about things like marks on paper, sounds that other people make, and so on.

"Definition" is a handy term for the marks on paper, the text strings, etc.

I'm a realist on things like rocks. I'm an antirealist on things like meaning.

There are things that at least creatures with brains do, mental things--"mental" being a property of those brains functioning in particular ways, where those phenomena only occur in brains functioning in those ways (or perhaps in some other materials functioning in particular ways, too--but we're not aware of any mental activity outside of brains yet). Not everything is just a brain functioning mentally, but some things are. Not everything that brains do when they're functioning mentally is identical to some other phenomenon in the world, either (which is what some people who seem to want to insist everything is objective seem to believe). If we (and other creatures with similar brains) were to disappear, those sorts of phenomena would disappear. Just like if planets were to disappear, then phenomena unique to planets--like plate tectonics, for example--would disappear.

TheMadFool

↪S

I don't know how to respond. Why can't it be a blend of realism and idealism like there are real objects but our minds modify their appearance to us - the image.

So the object continues to exist without mind but the image is gone.

Harry Hindu

Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock, because that would be a contradiction. — S

The contradiction is believing that their are external minds, but not external rocks when we basically have the same access or information to both. Idealism inexorably leads to solipsism. Solipsism is basically direct realism as the mind IS reality. So idealism defeats itself and realism has the final word.

However, no one is there to understand what this word means, because we all died an hour previously. Does the word "rock" mean anything? Does it mean what it means in English? — S

Archeologists are able to determine what long dead civilizations meant with their words, so the words still carry meaning through time - just like everything else. It is this meaning that scientists are getting at - the meaning of the scribbles on this vase, or the meaning of the vase itself. Just like everything else, it takes time and observation to come up with a consistent explanation of what some phenomenon means, or is caused by. With the necessary tools, like a Rosetta Stone or a microscope, scientists can get at reality and it's meaning. Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.

Harry Hindu

Why can't it be a blend of realism and idealism like there are real objects but our minds modify their appearance to us? — TheMadFool

That's indirect realism.

That's a definition, not a meaning. — Terrapin Station

Of course it's a definition. It's also a meaning. I just publicly expressed through our shared language what the meaning is.

They're not the same thing. — Terrapin Station

I didn't say that they're the same thing. When I say that the definition I gave gives us the meaning, I'm not saying that the definition I gave gives us the definition. Even if we were to use the words interchangeably in some cases, what I'm saying is informative, like that water is H20.

Objectively, the definition is just marks on paper, or activated pixels on a computer screen (or whatever particular thing we might be referring to). Meaning is a mental activity, a way that we think about things like marks on paper, sounds that other people make, and so on. — Terrapin Station

Your first sentence seems irrelevant to my argument, in that even if true, it doesn't seem to refute anything in my argument.

Your second sentence I disagree with, because it leads to absurdity, as I demonstrated, so you have the burden of getting yourself out of that pickle.

Over to you.

"Definition" is a handy term for the marks on paper, the text strings, etc. — Terrapin Station

Sure.

I'm a realist on things like rocks. I'm an antirealist on things like meaning. — Terrapin Station

It's the same logic, so it seems inconsistent.

There are things that at least creatures with brains do, mental things--"mental" being a property of those brains functioning in particular ways, where those phenomena only occur in brains functioning in those ways (or perhaps in some other materials functioning in particular ways, too--but we're not aware of any mental activity outside of brains yet). Not everything is just a brain functioning mentally, but some things are. Not everything that brains do when they're functioning mentally is identical to some other phenomenon in the world, either (which is what some people who seem to want to insist everything is objective seem to believe). If we (and other creatures with similar brains) were to disappear, those sorts of phenomena would disappear. Just like if planets were to disappear, then phenomena unique to planets--like plate tectonics, for example--would disappear. — Terrapin Station

This seems to be where some people go off track. It's like saying, "But I need eyes to see!". Yes, you do. So what? The rock is there, even if you can't see it. I accept that we rely on various mental or perceptual functions for various things, like seeing and understanding, and obviously we would need to be there to begin with in order to see the rock or understand what the word "rock" means. But that is not relevant to my position, and it is only relevant to those who go by idealist logic because of that idealist logic, which ought to be rejected.

Terrapin Station

I accept that we rely on various mental or perceptual functions for various things, like seeing and understanding, and obviously we would need to be there to begin with. — S

Right, and meaning is another one of those things.

We simply disagree on whether meaning is one of those things. So your challenge would be to point to the objective properties that are meaning.

TheMadFool

That's indirect realism. — Harry Hindu

:up: :ok:

Harry Hindu

So your challenge would be to point to the objective properties that are meaning. — Terrapin Station

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

Terrapin Station

↪Harry Hindu

So you'd say that there's nothing in the world that doesn't "do" meaning?

Like bacteria deal with meaning all the time in your view?

Harry Hindu

↪Terrapin Station

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

Right, and meaning is another one of those things. — Terrapin Station

Incorrect. I accept that we rely on various mental or perceptual functions for various things, like seeing and understanding, and obviously we would need to be there to begin with in order to see the rock or in order to understand what the word "rock" means, but we only need to be there, doing those things, for these ends, and these ends are clearly irrelevant. Meaning does not depend on understanding. That's your burden of proof, in addition to your burden of trying to escape my reduction to the absurd with the scenario where we died an hour previously.

We simply disagree on whether meaning is one of those things. — Terrapin Station

It isn't.

So your challenge would be to point to the objective properties that are meaning. — Terrapin Station

I've already ruled out the alternative with a reduction to the absurd, so your challenge is to sort that out.

As for the above, meaning is objective. Whatever "properties" meaning has, they are such that it is objective. I don't need to get into specifics, I've demonstrated that this is how it must be.

Terrapin Station

↪Harry Hindu

Well, do you have an idea of what I'm saying if I say that "Joe utilizes meaning"?

Harry Hindu

↪Terrapin Station

Do you mean that Joe uses meaning like a tool - something that exists independent of his mind?

Terrapin Station

Meaning does not depend on understanding. That's your burden of proof, — S

"Meaning depends on understanding" is not a view I hold.

I've already ruled out the alternative with a reduction to the absurd, — S

No idea what you're talking about there. So I guess you can't point to the objective properites that are meaning? How surprising.

Terrapin Station

↪Harry Hindu

Employs it in any manner. However you want to think of it.

Do you think that people do not use meaning in some manner?

No idea what you're talking about there. — Terrapin Station

Then pay closer attention. I told you that I was talking about the hypothetical scenario and what I conclude from it.

So I guess you can't point to the objective properites that are meaning? How surprising. — Terrapin Station

You are being evasive and you seem to be confused about how the burden of proof works.

Over to you.

Terrapin Station

Then pay closer attention. I told you that I was talking about the hypothetical scenario and what I conclude from it. — S

Still no idea. You could spell it out (or at least reference what you're talking about so I can look at it again), or I can just not worry about it.

You are being evasive and you seem to be confused about how the burden of proof works. — S

LOL

Harry Hindu

There are things that at least creatures with brains do, mental things--"mental" being a property of those brains functioning in particular ways, where those phenomena only occur in brains functioning in those ways (or perhaps in some other materials functioning in particular ways, too--but we're not aware of any mental activity outside of brains yet). Not everything is just a brain functioning mentally, but some things are. Not everything that brains do when they're functioning mentally is identical to some other phenomenon in the world, either (which is what some people who seem to want to insist everything is objective seem to believe). If we (and other creatures with similar brains) were to disappear, those sorts of phenomena would disappear. Just like if planets were to disappear, then phenomena unique to planets--like plate tectonics, for example--would disappear. — Terrapin Station

Right, and planets are objective things that exist independently of not just minds, but everything else. Your mind is external to mine and is therefore as real as a planet and it's unique phenomena. If plate tectonics are an objective feature of reality, then meaning (by your own definition, not the definition I use) would be an objective feature of the reality too.

My definition makes meaning objective without contradiction

Terrapin Station

Right, and planets are objective things that exist independently of not just minds, but everything else. Your mind is external to mine and is therefore as real as a planet and it's unique phenomena. If plate tectonics are an objective feature of reality, then meaning (by your own definition) would be an objective feature of the reality too. — Harry Hindu

Again, I use the word "subjective" to refer to brains functioning in mental ways. (Well, or anything functioning in a mental way, but so far there's only good evidence of brains being able to do this.)

"Real" I usually try to avoid unless the context is clear, because there are technical ways that it's been used in philosophy historically that are very confusing to common, modern usage. So I avoid it unless it's pretty clear that a conversation is using the term in a particular way.

Meaning is not an objective feature by my definition, because objective refers to the complement of brains functioning in mental ways.

Still no idea. You could spell it out (or at least reference what you're talking about so I can look at it again), or I can just not worry about it. — Terrapin Station

Don't worry about it then. I've already spelt it out. If you're going to be so hasty and careless, then that doesn't bode well for how the rest of the discussion will go.

But if you want to use your brain and do this properly, then show me that you can and get back to me.

Terrapin Station

↪S

Cool.

Metaphysician Undercover

There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. Is there a rock? Yes or no? — S

This is an impossible scenario. Who determines the point in time of an hour past when we all died, if we all died? That's the problem with scenarios like this. You want to remove all human presence, yet still presupposed the means for designating a particular place at a particular time, and ask "what's there?". But who would do that designating?

Harry Hindu

Again, I use the word "subjective" to refer to brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

And "subjective" would be an objective feature of reality being a function of minds, which are an objective feature of reality. How is that I am able to be aware of your mind and your meanings without using my senses in some way?

Meaning is not an objective feature by my definition, because objective refers to the complement of brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

Why would it matter how many brains? We don't make that same distinction when it comes to planets and how they function.

We've already had this discussion and it didn't end well.

Cool. — Terrapin Station

This means I win by default, as feigning ignorance or not trying anywhere near as hard enough on your end is not an excuse.

Terrapin Station

↪S

LOL (quite literally)

Terrapin Station

And "subjective" would be an objective feature of reality being a function of minds, which are an objective feature of reality. — Harry Hindu

Minds are a non-mind feature of reality?

I don't know how to respond. Why can't it be a blend of realism and idealism like there are real objects but our minds modify their appearance to us - the image.

So the object continues to exist without mind but the image is gone. — TheMadFool

That doesn't answer the question. Is there a rock or isn't there?

Harry Hindu

↪Terrapin Station

That isn't what I said. Remember how I defined the difference between objective and subjective for you in another thread? I'm one of the few people on this forum that is consistent between threads.

Archeologists are able to determine what long dead civilizations meant with their words, so the words still carry meaning through time - just like everything else. It is this meaning that scientists are getting at - the meaning of the scribbles on this vase, or the meaning of the vase itself. Just like everything else, it takes time and observation to come up with a consistent explanation of what some phenomenon means, or is caused by. With the necessary tools, like a Rosetta Stone or a microscope, scientists can get at reality and it's meaning. Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

I knew I wouldn't be the only one to take a sensible position on this. A little faith in humanity has been restored.

Terrapin Station

↪Harry Hindu

Per how I use the terms, how I define them, it's what you said.

Idealist Logic

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions