This argument was never refuted because it was never presented.

There is EMR throughout the Universe, passing through or by any and all other objects in space. The EMR is indiscriminatory, insofar as it is precisely the same for any object of contact, and even without. Yet, as far as we know, only one species with a certain sensuous receptivity has the sensation of “blue”. Therefore, it is not a matter of frequency or wavelength alone that satisfies the sensation, they being merely the conditions required for the sensory apparatus to give the sensation. There would be no “blue” if eyes and the human optic system didn’t translate specific EMR physical properties as they do.
—————-

Yes, and I agree on moral subjectivism. Because the name itself makes it explicit, nobody can be a moral subjectivist without the employment of pure practical reason, no matter what moral theory or disposition is in play. Nobody can employ pure practical reason or construct a moral theory or have a moral disposition without being an idealist of at least the transcendental denomination. End of story.

Mic drop.

There is a subject smuggled in, by the very nature of the experiment, because someone is being asked if there are still rocks after what would be the observing subjects have been rendered dead!!!!!!

YOU are smuggling, and everyone else is trying to unsmuggle themselves by telling you there’s no one that capable of answering the question. And THAT is why the experiment is irrational. Or more correctly, that is why the experiment has only irrational answers if the answer is required to be affirmative in any way.

Mic drop

...it can also not be distinguished from non-rock, and seeing as this violates a condition of its meaning rock... — Baden

I'm glad that you agree with me on some important points. You agree with me that, in my sense, the word "rock" would still mean what it means. Yes?

The above quote, however, is a disagreement between us. I agree that (obviously) no one would be able to distinguish it from other things, because (obviously) no one would be there. But I see that as beside the point. Distinguishing particular things from other things is a subjective activity that isn't required for the word "rock" to have linguistic meaning. It has linguistic meaning if and only if the language rule applies. The language rule applies, therefore it has linguistic meaning.

Similarly, rocks can neither exist nor not exist under the first scenario's speculative conditions. — Baden

Wow. Did you just violate one or more of the three fundamental laws of logic? Seems so.

This argument was never refuted because it was never presented. — Mww

What I meant is that I logically demonstrated (ages ago) that your claim about the meaning of words leads to absurdity. Do you remember me bringing up my cat and optical illusions? That was when I gave a strong and reasonable basis for rejecting your claim. You never actually addressed that, come to think of it.

I doubt that anything you can muster up will be enough to recover from that.

Oh PluLEEEEESEE!!!! Not the falling tree again. Say it isn’t so, Mr. Bill!!!

Can you say......anthropic principle??? Carbon chauvinism run amok. (Bostrom, 2002)

I ran out of mics.

the experiment has only irrational answers if the answer is required to be affirmative in any way. — Mww

:up:

Is there a rock? Yes or no? — S

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

Mu.

I ran out of mics. — Mww

How can you seriously believe that you're competent enough to argue against me when you're not even competent enough to hold a mic without constantly dropping it. Butter fingers!

See 1:30. You are pre-enlightened Bart Simpson. — Baden

Correction: pre-duped. Don't have a cow, man. I'm not gullible enough to fall for Lisa's faux-problem. Bart is struck by the faux-significance of a faux-problem! He is stupefied by it! He was wiser to mock it.

unless there was a malfunction with the clock or it was destroyed by an asteroid or something like that before an hour had passed) — S

You’re getting closer and closer. YEA!!!!

What you listed as possible negation of the existence of the clock pertains in principle to the negation of the existence of the rocks. Because no one can prove none of those things did not happen, he cannot know the rocks, or clocks, are still there, because one of them might have happened.

Somebody gimme a damn mic!!!!!

Given that a "rock" is defined by the way it looks like, feels like, sounds like etc. how is anyone supposed to talk about rocks? Can you provide us with a definition of a rock that doesn't consist of subjective impressions? — Echarmion

I already have, you're just reading that into it. That's not the same as me failing to provide one without that. That's a very important difference.

Now, to reduce your suggestion to absurdity. When, if ever, is a rock not a rock? What about when something fits the definition of a rock, but doesn't look to me like a rock, or feel to me like a rock, or sound to me like a rock? Imagine I'm under an illusion. In this case, a rock is not a rock? :brow:

If a rock is what looks, feels, etc., to me like a rock, then there won't be a rock if I die. But there will be, meaning that the way we use language in that context, it makes sense to say that there will be. So that's a bad definition to use in this context.

ROFL. Excellent comeback.

ROFL. Excellent comeback. — Mww

You forgot to say "mic drop" or some other brilliantly witty remark related to mics.

Wait, I think I get the idea of it. That's what you're supposed to say after you've mad a really poor argument.

I’ll go look, because I can’t even remember what I had.....no wait, if I had breakfast this morning.

Better not be a wild goose chase.

You’re getting closer and closer. YEA!!!!

What you listed as possible negation of the existence of the clock pertains in principle to the negation of the existence of the rocks. Because no one can prove none of those things did not happen, he cannot know the rocks, or clocks, are still there, because one of them might have happened.

Somebody gimme a damn mic!!!!! — Mww

Sigh. Why are you so excited? You are still stuck, it seems. Here is a challenge for you related to logical relevancy. Can you feedback to me what I've said multiple times about what you seem to be suggesting here, which once again seems to relate back to absolute certainty? And can you feedback to me what I've said about the proper and improper way to interpret what I'm saying? Do you see the problem?

You don't deserve a damn mic!

But have you demonstrated this supposed necessary dependency, or merely asserted it? Oh, you've merely asserted it. I see. And that's reasonable because...?

Necessary dependency, necessary dependency, wherefore art thou, necessary dependency?

You can't just assume some idealist principle like "to be" is "to be understood" and at the same time claim to be reasonable. — S

Key point right here, guys. Please try not to overlook it.

Can you feedback to me what I've said multiple times about what you seem to be suggesting here, which once again seems to relate back to absolute certainty? — S

Yep. First line of the OP.

There is a rock — S

Nike drop
(Right foot Nike and I want it back, dammit)

My metaphysics has no problem with allowing the existence of objects without experience of them. Just like you, I find it reasonable to think those rocks are going to be there all else being equal. I said as much way back in the beginning, sentience is not a requisite for existence. Dunno why you can’t get that through your head. My metaphysics does not allow empirical knowledge of conditions for which any experience whatsoever is impossible, re: the future, impossible or inconceivable objects, spiritual objects, supernatural objects. If you agree with all that, yet insist you know rocks will still be there, or it is in fact true rocks will be there, in the future, then your metaphysics is catastrophically wrong. — Mww

Wait, why the heck are you specifying empirical knowledge?! That's doing it wrong. I'm not asking about empirical knowledge of the rock! I thought I made that clear, multiple times. Empiricism is a useful tool, but it is not suited for all jobs, and it is the wrong tool for this job. I'm just asking about whether we know that there'd be a rock.

As I've explained, my realism beats your extreme empiricism in a number of different ways. I have assumed the premise of extreme empiricism - the one about the necessity of experience in the scenario - and shown where it leads. It doesn't lead anywhere sensible. And my practical way of defining knowledge beats your impractical way of defining knowledge. Once again, I have shown this by pointing out the faults of where your way of defining knowledge leads: we can't know, but there's an incongruity there. The guy on the street would probably think that you're an idiot if you said that we don't know whether there'd be a rock. I think that the wrong thing to conclude from that situation would be that the guy on the street is unsophisticated, and the right thing to conclude from that situation would be that you're doing something wrong, like defining knowledge in a bad way, so that it clashes with common usage.

We both know you keep harping on my “extreme empiricism” because you refuse to accept the correctness of my idealism for this particular foray into the sublime. All you gotta do is acknowledge that the only way to know it is true those rocks are still there is to send us back to look.

I’m sure the rocks would be glad to see us. Well.....me anyway. You they’re probably quite unhappy with.

We both know you keep harping on my “extreme empiricism” because you refuse to accept the correctness of my idealism for this particular foray into the sublime. All you gotta do is acknowledge that the only way to know it is true those rocks are still there is to send us back to look.

I’m sure the rocks would be glad to see us. Well.....me anyway. You they’re probably quite unhappy with. — Mww

Why the heck would I accept something so unreasonable as the claim that we'd have to go and look? :rofl:

No, you're just setting yourself up for failure. Whichever way you look at it, there's a failure. If I accept your internal definitions and logic, then I clash with common sense and common language use. The guy on the street will think that I'm an idiot. And I don't think that I can deceive myself into believing that he'd simply be wrong. This situation, I believe, indicates that you've gone wrong somewhere. But you might just rationalise that in some way: you're a clever philosophy-type and he's unsophisticated.

I grant the practical aspect for knowledge is more suitable for the man on the street, who would perhaps think me wacky for maintaining we cannot know about the rocks. But if I asked that man on the street if there were any frozen French fries left in the freezer case at the local Piggly Wiggly....what do you think he’d say? He being an honest man and all.

I grant the practical aspect for knowledge is more suitable for the man on the street, who would perhaps think me wacky for maintaining we cannot know about the rocks. — Mww

You grant it, but perhaps you don't realise how much of a problem it is not to conform with it. Philosophy-types can be exceptionally oblivious on a level, in spite of all of their clever tinkering around. There's that, and they also have a remarkable talent for rationalisation.

But all is not lost! For not all of them are like this to such a notable degree, thank heavens. The good ones are the ones who reason backwards from an incongruous conclusion like, "Rocks don't exist", or, "Rocks are in my mind", or, "The continued existence of rocks depends on whether I continue to exist", or, "We don't know whether there'd be a rock if we all died" to find out where one has gone wrong.

If only there were more like that!

But if I asked that man on the street if there were any frozen French fries left in the freezer case at the local Piggly Wiggly....what do you think he’d say? He being an honest man and all. — Mww

But that's not the same: different probabilities. So it doesn't count. You would need a claim where it's reasonable enough to give an affirmative regarding knowledge of the situation. And for the love of god, please don't interpret "reasonable enough" or "knowledge" as requiring absolute certainty or that you'd need to be there experiencing the situation, because if you do, then you'll go wrong again straight off the bat. For this challenge, you need to remove your blinkers. It's important to be impartial here, as it is elsewhere, or you'll just keep on failing before you've even gotten off the ground.

I already have, you're just reading that into it. That's not the same as me failing to provide one without that. That's a very important difference. — S

No, you have not. Solid, mineral, Earth. All terms that refer to observations.

Now, to reduce your suggestion to absurdity. When, if ever, is a rock not a rock? — S

A rock is never not a rock.

What about when something fits the definition of a rock, but doesn't look to me like a rock, or feel to me like a rock, or sound to me like a rock? Imagine I'm under an illusion. In this case, a rock is not a rock? — S

No, in that case you are under an illusion. Your observations no longer conform to the observations of the majority of other observers, and so other observers will, by and large, conclude you are wrong.

If a rock is what looks, feels, etc., to me like a rock, then there won't be a rock if I die. But there will be, meaning that the way we use language in that context, it makes sense to say that there will be. So that's a bad definition to use in this context. — S

There won't be any rocks for you, since you'll be dead. Presumably, there will still be rocks for other people. Unless you're crazy, and everyone is playing along and agreeing with you that sure, rocks exist, so as to not disturb you.

Can you feedback to me what I've said multiple times about what you seem to be suggesting here, which once again seems to relate back to absolute certainty?
— S

Yep. First line of the OP.

There is a rock
— S — Mww

Ah, too bad. You failed my challenge! That was just part of a thought experiment. You brought up an irrelevancy implicitly relating to absolute certainty and possibility and the proper/improper way to interpret what I'm saying. I have tried to get you to see why it's an irrelevancy.

I don't need to prove anything with absolute certainty. I'm not suggesting that there are no other possibilities. This is your misunderstanding.

No, you have not. Solid, mineral, Earth. All terms that refer to observations. — Echarmion

I can deal with this with a copy-and-paste: you're just reading that into it. That's not the same as me failing to provide one without that. That's a very important difference.

You need to understand that you kicking the can a little further down the road is not real progress.

A rock is never not a rock. — Echarmion

Good, I'm glad you agree.

No, in that case you are under an illusion. Your observations no longer conform to the observations of the majority of other observers, and so other observers will, by and large, conclude you are wrong. — Echarmion

Can, road, kicking. Imagine the majority of observers are under an illusion.

There won't be any rocks for you, since you'll be dead. Presumably, there will still be rocks for other people. Unless you're crazy, and everyone is playing along and agreeing with you that sure, rocks exist, so as to not disturb you. — Echarmion

No, you don't seem have properly read what I said. I began "if a rock is what it looks like (etc.) to me..."

Either a rock is what it looks like to me or it isn't. If it is, then what a rock looks like to other people is beside the point.

You could say that a rock is what it looks like (etc.) to most people, or even to everyone, but that would still lead to absurdity through a thought experiment. If we were all under an illusion, or we all developed some sort of genetic mutation where we no longer saw rocks as rocks, then it follows that there would be no rocks. But a) that's strongly counterintuitive, and b) that's illogical if you go by a sensible definition of rocks, where rocks are rocks, not what they look like (etc.).

If I accept your internal definitions and logic, then I clash with common sense and common language use. — S

On common sense:

“......For the common understanding thus finds itself in a situation where not even the most learned can have the advantage of it. If it understands little or nothing about these transcendental conceptions, no one can boast of understanding any more; and although it may not express itself in so scholastically correct a manner as others, it can busy itself with reasoning and arguments without end, wandering among mere ideas, about which one can always be very eloquent, because we know nothing about them; while, in the observation and investigation of nature, it would be forced to remain dumb and to confess its utter ignorance. Thus indolence and vanity form of themselves strong recommendations of these principles. Besides, although it is a hard thing for a philosopher to assume a principle, of which he can give to himself no reasonable account, and still more to employ conceptions, the objective reality of which cannot be established, nothing is more usual with the common understanding. It wants something which will allow it to go to work with confidence. The difficulty of even comprehending a supposition does not disquiet it, because—not knowing what comprehending means—it never even thinks of the supposition it may be adopting as a principle; and regards as known that with which it has become familiar from constant use. And, at last, all speculative interests disappear before the practical interests which it holds dear; and it fancies that it understands and knows what its necessities and hopes incite it to assume or to believe. Thus the empiricism of transcendentally idealizing reason is robbed of all popularity; and, however prejudicial it may be to the highest practical principles, there is no fear that it will ever pass the limits of the schools, or acquire any favour or influence in society or with the multitude....”

Unfortunately for Kant, he wasn't around for the linguistic turn. Common sense relates to common language usage. Kant didn't realise the importance of common language usage. He wasn't around for the likes of Wittgenstein or G. E. Moore, who were more clued up in this regard.

You know, I never understood this fixation with language. I just figure those guys with PhD’s in philosophy had to do something different because Kant had already set the bar so high for epistemology and reason nobody could do any more with it. Maybe Schopenhauer, another transcendental idealist, and Russell, an empiricist with prominent a priori tendencies due to his math and logic distinction, who added stuff because of the major advances in the science of his day.

Common language is fine most of the time. Even technical language is fine as long the understanding remains consistent with the language being used. That is to say, a guy talking in the technical language of chemistry isn’t going to communicate too well with a guy using the technical language of astrophysics. Even so, where the terms overlap there shouldn’t be any language or understanding issues.

Bet you didn’t know Bohr answered Einstein’s “I can’t believe the moon doesn’t exist if no one is looking at it” with “try as you may you cannot prove it does.” Look it up.

Hand me my Nike, wodja?

@Terrapin Station, hold up a minute, isn't this very much like my reasoning in Part 2 here in my discussion on idealist logic? :brow:

Why isn't it a language if you don't understand it on the later occasion? Where is the requirement coming from that in order to be a language, you have to understand it in perpetuity?

Imagine that some virus strikes Earth that rapidly spreads and gives everyone a cognitive fog. A symptom of it is that there are many words in all natural languages that no one understands any longer.

Did we not have languages in that case? — Terrapin Station

Languages that are not understood, whether due to a cognitive fog or because everyone is dead... :chin:

Wouldn't they still be meaningful in the sense that these languages would consist in rules about meaning? In a language, it would be the case that this word means such-and-such, even if it wasn't understood. What even is a language if not basically a set of language rules about symbols or sounds or whatever?

Many words in natural language that no one understands any longer... :chin:

And words would be things that mean something, right? At least in the strictly linguistic sense.

Remind me, why wouldn't the meaning be objective?

You know, I never understood this fixation with language. I just figure those guys with PhD’s in philosophy had to do something different because Kant had already set the bar so high for epistemology and reason nobody could do any more with it. Maybe Schopenhauer, another transcendental idealist, and Russell, an empiricist with prominent a priori tendencies due to his math and logic distinction, who added stuff because of the major advances in the science of his day.

Common language is fine most of the time. Even technical language is fine as long the understanding remains consistent with the language being used. That is to say, a guy talking in the technical language of chemistry isn’t going to communicate too well with a guy using the technical language of astrophysics. Even so, where the terms overlap there shouldn’t be any language or understanding issues.

Bet you didn’t know Bohr answered Einstein’s “I can’t believe the moon doesn’t exist if no one is looking at it” with “try as you may you cannot prove it does.” Look it up.

Hand me my Nike, wodja? — Mww

Actually, I did know that. It would depend on what exactly is meant by "proof" there. And there you have an example of the importance of language use in relation to philosophy straight away. If we don't first clear that up, then we risk talking past each other. Proof generally seems to be about sufficiency, but here again what exactly that means to me might differ from what exactly it means to you. Or we might agree on the standard and the results, but I might call that "knowledge", whereas you might not.

And you don't have to go very far from the importance of language use before you run into the importance of common language use. Common language use, after all, is our main way of communicating with each other. It is, or should be, in many cases, our intuitive guide for what works and what doesn't. What use would it be to come up with your own language for philosophy which fundamentally clashed with ordinary language use? How would that be a net benefit? It's like your sense of "knowledge": what good is it? It just seems to cause problems in communication. Guess what language most people speak: the common language! So you'd first have to explain your language, and then they'd just be left with a sort of, "Oh, okay then. Well, good for you, but that doesn't really seem right in terms of the bigger picture, and you can keep your special language, since it lacks a wide utility and seems to cause more problems than it solves".

I can deal with this with a copy-and-paste: you're just reading that into it. That's not the same as me failing to provide one without that. That's a very important difference. — S

You're just wrong, full stop.

Can, road, kicking. Imagine the majority of observers are under an illusion. — S

Then, by definition, the majority of observers are mistaken about rocks, because that's what the word "illusion" means.

No, you don't seem have properly read what I said. I began "if a rock is what it looks like (etc.) to me..."

Either a rock is what it looks like to me or it isn't. If it is, then what a rock looks like to other people is beside the point. — S

If a rock is what it looks like to you, and you die, a rock is still what it looked like to you. This is just running in circles with words.

You could say that a rock is what it looks like (etc.) to most people, or even to everyone, but that would still lead to absurdity through a thought experiment. — S

Saying a rock is what it looks like to X is not an idealist position, it's a realist position. To an idealist, the rock is nothing in and of itself.

If we were all under an illusion, or we all developed some sort of genetic mutation where we no longer saw rocks as rocks, then it follows that there would be no rocks. — S

If we no longer see rocks as rock, there must still be rocks, because by the terms of that very sentence, rocks both are a thing in and of themselves and something that people see.

You're entangling yourself in your own word salad.

But a) that's strongly counterintuitive, and b) that's illogical if you go by a sensible definition of rocks, where rocks are rocks, not what they look like (etc.). — S

Of course it's counterintuitive if you say things that are contradictory. Your definition is not a definition, but a tautology.