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

All this means is that you choose to interpret truth-claims in a manner incongruent with how the opening post is supposed to be interpreted. And there's an easy solution to that.

Given these things, it is appropriate to say things like, "There would be rocks", and, "I know that there would be rocks". This can be tested by speaking to average people. Of course, it's inappropriate if you go by an unhelpful philosophy-language which average people rightly look upon as wrongheaded.

All you have to do to avoid the problems you're encountering is to suitably relax your criteria and talk like a normal person does.

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

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.

Yeah, well, more than 15 pages of debate are indicative of how uncontroversial your position is. — 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.

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

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. 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.

The guy on the street doesn't understand a great many things outside of their personal expertise. — Echarmion

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.

I am also a philosophy-type, but I'm the type who talks more sense. Even if I have more specialist knowledge than the guy on the street, me and him agree that you're doing something wrong.

I find your language wacky as well. — Echarmion

Then you must find dictionaries wacky. You must find the way we ordinarily talk wacky. Very weird.

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

But that Idealism is "bizarre" is entirely your opinion. 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?

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 sentence doesn't even begin to make sense to me.

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

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?

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

And that something is?

I am also a philosophy-type, but I'm the type who talks more sense. — S

Your humility is staggering.

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

No, that's a mental association. You need that for understanding. I'm talking about what the word "boat" means. You confuse the two. What the word means is already established in English.

Your subjectivism is getting in the way, causing problems.

What the word means is already established in English. — S

How does that happen physically?

Your subjectivism is getting in the way, causing problems. — S

The fact that you won't analyze just what's going on ontologically is the problem here.

What the word means is already established in English.
— S

How does that happen physically? — Terrapin Station

Weird question. People invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it. "Let's use the symbol 'dog' to mean those furry things with four legs that bark".

All pretty obvious, seems to me.

Again, the problem is that you're refraining from this "weird question." That's leading you to untenable ontological stances about it.

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)

Has nothing to do with when the truth statement was made. Has only to do with when the truth statement applies. “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.

“...All this means is that you choose to interpret truth-claims in a manner incongruent with how the opening post is supposed to be interpreted...”

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....

Yes, I could avoid the problems by relaxing my criteria. You, on the other hand, could avoid the irrationality by strengthening yours.

Apparently, average is good enough for you? I am truly disappointed.

Given your impression of what knowledge is, and how you characterize what blue is, I dare not ask what you think time is.

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.

I’ll have another, if you’d be so kind. In a glass this time.

But that Idealism is "bizarre" is entirely your opinion. — Echarmion

No, it's not just my personal opinion based on whim and fancy. It has a solid basis, and that's why it is shared by most other people. You're just trying to trivialise this. How very superficial.

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

It is, given where it leads. The known world started with the Big Bang, not at our birth. And direct idealism is far from agreeable, again, given where it leads.

But I grant that it has some degree of deceptive appeal.

That sentence doesn't even begin to make sense to me. — Echarmion

It makes sense in proper context with the further explanation I gave. If it still doesn't make sense to you, then do something about it. But if I have to needlessly repeat an explanation I've already given, then you'll face my wrath.

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

That's fine. Lawyers aren't philosophy enthusiasts. They don't have in common with philosophy enthusiasts the tendency to say absurd sounding things. So it's not the same. Lawyers qua lawyers don't say stuff like, "Rocks don't exist".

And that something is? — Echarmion

What I've explained. The language barrier.

Your humility is staggering. — Echarmion

Thank you for the compliment.

Again, the problem is that you're refraining from this "weird question." That's leading you to untenable ontological stances about it. — Terrapin Station

No, I'm not refraining from your weird question. I answered it in a way that might not be what you're looking for. Maybe it's wrong of you to be looking for a certain kind of answer to begin with. Maybe the question itself is the problem. Ever stop to consider that?

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. He could only find related stuff. So you're thinking about it wrong, and asking the wrong questions as a result.

But, let me guess: this is somehow my fault?

It's not something a physicist could find through science. — S

First, we're not talking about whether physicists, specifically, would work on this.

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?

Has nothing to do with when the truth statement was made. Has only to do with when the truth statement applies. — Mww

Then you worded it wrong before. So that was your fault, not mine. It would apply. You haven't provided a reasonable basis for a negation.

“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

The fallacy in your reply is a red herring. If you want to talk about a different question, namely the question of whether there is a rock, then do so elsewhere. I've clarified that the question here is whether there would be a rock. I clarified that many pages ago.

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

Welcome to the club. That's the history of the thread, in a nutshell.

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

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.

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

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.

But post-human rocks are not simple and easily understandable if you actually think about it. — Echarmion

The problem is that S refuses to think about.

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

Yes, I reject all premises you erroneously believe to be reasonable, and go by my own premises, which actually are reasonable.

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

Nice rationalisation. You're a master at it! You remind me of the fox in Aesop's fable:

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

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.

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

No, no, no. Not in terms of the content of truth-claims, I meant the way in which you go about interpreting them as truth-claims, as in how you are assessing the truth-claims in terms of the truth-values, or in terms of what we know about the truth-values, like how we'd get to the one value or the other, which involves your preheld notions of things like what's required for a truth-claim to be justified.

Yes, I could avoid the problems by relaxing my criteria. — Mww

Yes, and that would be sensible. You don't want to be sensible?

You, on the other hand, could avoid the irrationality by strengthening yours. — Mww

No, you seem to forget that it's only irrational if you go by a model that results in irrationality, which is what your model does for my claims. My model sensibly avoids that outcome.

Apparently, average is good enough for you? I am truly disappointed. — Mww

My way keeps me grounded. It is practical. It is sensible. It makes more sense. It reduces the occurrence of language barriers.

Your way doesn't have these benefits. It just tries to be clever and special, but fails in terms of the bigger picture. It has more cons than pros.

Given your impression of what knowledge is, and how you characterize what blue is, I dare not ask what you think time is. — Mww

Like knowledge, and like existence, time doesn't seem to require a definition for the purpose of this discussion, so long as you understand how I'm using it and related terms. Meaning is use. You know, or you should know, how I use the relevant terminology. I have demonstrated my usage plenty of times in this discussion. You should already know what it means for an hour to pass. If not - if you get that wrong - I've explained multiple times where we differ, so just use that as a reference instead of turning to me with a dumfounded expression like you're helpless. Help yourself.

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 would do it for the lulz. The lulz are priceless.

I’ll have another, if you’d be so kind. In a glass this time. — Mww

No, I wouldn't be so kind. Kindness is not my forté. But, if you like, I can bring you a puppy, and then give it a real good kicking whilst you watch in horror.

Yes, I reject all premises you erroneously believe to be reasonable, and go by my own premises, which actually are reasonable. — S

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".

First, we're not talking about whether physicists, specifically, would work on this. — 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Do you think that there are some things that don't work some way in terms of what's going on ontologically?

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

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

9 Su

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

I already know what your response is. I'm bored of it. I've been over it. You'd have to add something new for this to be interesting. You erroneously respond that we don't know. This is because of your criteria. You might be internally consistent, but that's all your position has going for it. In the bigger picture, it's fundamentally flawed.

You don't want to be sensible? — S

You’ve got the chutzpah to ask me that after killing off all my kind? For your own personal aggrandizement, no less? Kill us off cuz we’re destroying the world, cutting down 3 football fields worth of trees every minute, dumping 8 billion tons of plastic in waterways every year.. ....sure, we don’t deserve any better. But just to see if rocks would be here if we weren’t?

THAT is nonsense if you ask me.

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

I don't remember hiring a translator, but in any case, you're fired.

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

Yes, Mr. Fox. Whatever you say, Mr. Fox. Who wants sour grapes anyway? Right, Mr. Fox?

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

Physicists know best about physical stuff as physical stuff, which is obviously what I meant. I wouldn't go to an archeologist to find out in detail about the physical properties of an object. You were asking about the physical in some other sense then, were you? Some sense where it would make more sense to ask an archeologist, or a biologist, or a physician? Or are you just trying to be a smart arse?

Do you think that there are some things that don't work some way in terms of what's going on ontologically? — Terrapin Station

I think that your question in terms of the physical seems inappropriate, because it contains a controversial assumption, and we should examine that controversial assumption, but your constant evasive manoeuvres - for which you've gained notoriety - make that difficult, if not impossible.

Your question in the quote above is too vague for me to answer, anyway. Look, I am sceptical beyond what I've said. If you think that what I've said requires an additional explanation in terms of the physical, then that's for you to justify. Is that understood? Unless I judge that supposed requirement to be justified, I am not obliged to humour you. Your burden isn't my burden.

That reply of yours doesn't progress the debate or engage productively. It merely reasserts premises I rejected ages ago.

Yes, the premise that what we say doesn't mean much if we can't tell what we mean.

How does S. expect anyone to "engage productively" with someone who can't say, and doesn't know, what he means?

Michael Ossipoff

9 Su