That's how conversations work, dude. — Terrapin Station

Elaborate or we won't get anywhere. Go on then. What are you waiting for?

Elaborate or where won't get anywhere. — S

Elaborate --because you don't understand what I'm saying?

Elaborate --because you don't understand what I'm saying? — Terrapin Station

No, because you merely dismissed what I said as ridiculous. I in turn am dismissing your dismissal as ridiculous.

Why am I even having to explain this? You should know how this works by now.

So, why do you think that what I said is ridiculous?

Right, we don't agree. What is elaboration going to do?

Right, we don't agree. What is elaboration going to do? — Terrapin Station

Look, you either want to explore this or you don't. If you don't, just say so. You just said that this is how conversations work. If you don't care, don't converse.

If phenomena exist, there's going to be some empirical evidence of it.

If phenomena exist, there's going to be some empirical evidence of it. — Terrapin Station

Either what I'm talking about is not "phenomena" or it's not true that "phenomena" necessitate empirical evidence.

An existent non-phenomenon? Are you just randomly combining words?

An existent non-phenomena? Are you just randomly combining words? — Terrapin Station

Define "phenomena".

A phenomenon is any event, occurrence, etc.

A phenomenon is any event, occurrence, etc. — Terrapin Station

Then it's the latter, it seems. Either the hypothetical event wouldn't necessitate empirical evidence, or it would, but we'd just be unaware of it because we wouldn't be there.

Big deal. Do you have a real challenge for me? This is child's play.

So something could exist, have properties, etc. but there could be no evidence of it?

So something could exist, have properties, etc. but there could be no evidence of it? — Terrapin Station

Either the hypothetical event wouldn't necessitate empirical evidence, or it would, but we'd just be unaware of it because we wouldn't be there. — S

If one is false, then it must be the other. Basic logic.

Do you have a real challenge?

First, the idea re whether empirical evidence is appropriate or not isn't saying anything dependent on our awareness.

First, the idea re whether empirical evidence is appropriate or not isn't saying anything dependent on our awareness. — Terrapin Station

Lolwut?

Look, my argument is my evidence. Its primary tools are logic and reason, not observation or experiment. This is metaphysics, not science. I'm not sure what you have in mind, but it seems inappropriate to me.

So we're saying that there would be empirical evidence, but we'd just be unaware of it because we wouldn't be there. What of it? There'd still be rocks. There'd still be meaning.

How is this not a red herring from you?

Our awareness is about epistemology.

Ontologically, empirical evidence is appropriate if we're talking about things that have properties, that interact with other things. If they do--and everything does, then there will be empirical evidence available of those things whether we're aware of it or not.

For example, empirical evidence was available of Saturn's rings in 10,000 BCE. That we weren't aware of it at that time is irrelevant to whether empirical evidence was appropriate to whether Saturn has/had rings.

Our awareness is pertinent to whether we have reason to believe something or not.

Ontologically, empirical evidence is appropriate if we're talking about things that have properties, that interact with other things. If they do--and everything does, then there will be empirical evidence available of those things whether we're aware of it or not. — Terrapin Station

So what's your problem? How is this not just a red herring from you? Get back on track.

There'd be empirical evidence. We wouldn't be aware of it, which we agree is beside the point.

Our awareness is about epistemology.

Our awareness is pertinent to whether we have reason to believe something or not. — Terrapin Station

We're aware now about circumstances of the possible future event. There'd be rocks. There'd be meaning. We don't have to be aware at the time or afterwards. If you believe the contrary of the latter, then present your argument, and don't just assume the same old unjustified premise. For once, try to actually support it.

I'm asking what kind of thing a set of rules is, fundamentally. What kind of thing is a set, fundamentally? What kind of a thing is a rule, fundamentally? What kind of thing is language? What kind of thing is meaning? What do they consist of, on a fundamental level? Physical? Mental? Abstract? Concrete? Objective? Subjective? Location? No location? Is location a category error? How does interaction work? How does it all tie together to result in language use? — S

Alright, I've vented my weekly spleen, and I'll admit that it is an interesting and worthwhile topic. I wouldn't know where to begin though. It seems irreducible to all of those categories.

There'd be empirical evidence. — S

Hence, empirical evidence isn't inappropriate.

We wouldn't be aware of it, which we agree is beside the point.

I just said that whether we're aware of it is pertinent to whether there's any reason to believe it.

Hence, empirical evidence isn't inappropriate. — Terrapin Station

No, it's inappropriate in the relevant context.

I just said that whether we're aware of it is pertinent to whether there's any reason to believe it. — Terrapin Station

We're aware now about circumstances of the possible future event. There'd be rocks. There'd be meaning. We don't have to be aware at the time or afterwards. If you believe the contrary of the latter, then present your argument, and don't just assume the same old unjustified premise. For once, try to actually support it.

No, it's inappropriate in the relevant context. — S

Anything extant has empirical evidence available --it has properties, for example. The relevant context here is whether there's empirical evidence.

We're aware now about circumstances of the possible future event. There'd be rocks. There'd be meaning — S

What? I was saying whether we're aware of empirical evidence. What empirical evidence are you saying we're aware of here? Circumstances of the possible future event? It's not clear what that's saying, especially in terms of empirical evidence.

Alright, I've vented my weekly spleen, and I'll concede that it is an interesting and worthwhile topic. I wouldn't know where to begin though. It seems irreducible to all of those categories. — csalisbury

Tricky, ain't it? This is what I managed earlier:

Okay, then we'd need to break down what I was talking about, and try to account for each "thing" and their relations. That's my wording we'd have to do that with, not yours.

So, going back, we have rules, language, following or not following, a person, what he wants, and changing the language.

What next? You want to name or categorise each thing? Seems to me that there are abstractions, actions, a person, a desire, relations. Fundamental laws of logic and facts also seem necessary to make sense of the situation, as does science to some extent. — S

This was supposed to be the main focus, but the discussion has gone a number different and interesting ways.

Look, basically you think of things like definitions as being meaning, and the definitions still exist as words in a dictionary, say, even when no people exist, and that's about the extent you've bothered to think about this up to now--you've not bothered to think about just how words in a dictionary amount to meaning or anything like that. People commonly call definitions "meaning" and so that's good enough for you. You don't want to think about it any further than that, really, because you don't want to wind up thinking and saying something that's going to seem weird to people who just go with the unanalyzed flow.

Anything extant has empirical evidence available --it has properties, for example. The relevant context here is whether there's empirical evidence. — Terrapin Station

Lol, no. The relevant response to that is to ask why that supposedly matters. The question is not whether anything extant has empirical evidence available, nor whether there's empirical evidence, it's whether there's sufficient reason to conclude that there would be a rock or that there would be meaning, and there is. See my argument.

This appears to be a red herring from you. One of a number of red herrings, in fact.

What? I was saying whether we're aware of empirical evidence. What empirical evidence are you saying we're aware of here? Circumstances of the possible future event? It's not clear what that's saying, especially in terms of empirical evidence. — Terrapin Station

Jesus Christ. We're back at square one again! My argument is all the evidence I need. You might think that we'd need to perform an experiment or something. I think that that's so inappropriate as to be ridiculous.

Jesus Christ. We're back at square one again! My argument is all the evidence I need. — S

Square one was me asking you what empirical evidence you're referring to re the unclear-to-me phrase "circumstances of the possible future event"?

Square one was me asking you what empirical evidence you're referring to re the unclear-to-me phrase "circumstances of the possible future event"? — Terrapin Station

What are you talking about? You're missing the point. My argument is all the evidence I need, and it doesn't have to be evidence of the kind that you have stuck in your mind. It doesn't have to be empirical. It doesn't have to be an experience or an observation or an experiment or anything of that sort. My argument employed a reduction to the absurd. I am not an extreme empiricist. I don't play by their rules.

And if you're talking about empirical evidence in the scenario, then how is that even relevant? I don't care whether there would be some kind of empirical evidence, and if so what kind, and what it consists of, or whether there's no empirical evidence at all in the scenario, because that's a completely different subject with no relevance to my argument that there would be rocks and that there would be meaning. Or, if you think that it's somehow relevant to that, then present a valid argument, and present one which I haven't already dealt with, unless you get a kick out of going around in circles.

Look, basically you think of things like definitions as being meaning, and the definitions still exist as words in a dictionary, say, even when no people exist, and that's about the extent you've bothered to think about this up to now--you've not bothered to think about just how words in a dictionary amount to meaning or anything like that. People commonly call definitions "meaning" and so that's good enough for you. You don't want to think about it any further than that, really, because you don't want to wind up thinking and saying something that's going to seem weird to people who just go with the unanalyzed flow. — Terrapin Station

Your analysis is flawed. I've told you before that I consider definitions to be expressions of meaning in language. Expressions of meaning in language are not the same as meaning. But don't be unreasonable and expect me to somehow present to you the meaning without expressing it in language, because that's the only way.

That yourself and others have failed to understand this says more about you lot than it does about me. You guys obviously need to scratch up on your Wittgenstein. This is a limit of language. He is relevant here. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

I cannot say it, without expressing it in language. I can only try to show you what I mean. Dogs. You know them. That is what I mean. Go and take a long hard look at one if need be.

"The second thing in which the value of this work consists is that it shows how little is achieved when these problems are solved". How right you were, Wittgenstein. I have gained an insight, but look at this ongoing mess that is philosophy. I look back at this chaos, and I see philosophy-types gleefully cavorting about in it hither and thither as though there's no tomorrow. Drinking it up. The nectar of self-important fools. The aim is to find your way out of the forest, not wander deeper in.

"Set" is a name used to pick out a group of different particular things.
— creativesoul

No, that talks about a word. My question was about a thing. De re, not de dicto. — S

Are you disagreeing with me here?

Are you saying that my assertion is false?

Are you disagreeing with me here?

Are you saying that my assertion is false? — creativesoul

Let me get this straight. You don't even understand that I was saying that you don't understand?

Are you disagreeing with me here?

Are you saying that my assertion is false?
— creativesoul

Let me get this straight. You don't even understand that I was saying that you don't understand? — S

I'm asking you a direct question. Simple.

Do you have an answer?