So where is the fact that the hammer was used to hit nails? If humans capable of recollecting the fact ceased to exist would it cease to be the case that the hammer was used to hit nails? — Isaac
I'm trying to understand your position with regards to properties of objects which exist only in the mind of the observer. — Isaac
No properties of something like a hammer only exist in the mind of an observer. — Terrapin Station
Meaning isn't a property of objects like hammers. Meaning is a mental activity that we engage in. — Terrapin Station
Re a word like "dog," as a word, objectively, it's only a sound or a set of ink marks on paper, a set of pixels on a screen, etc. — Terrapin Station
A hammer waved in the air does affect both the hammer and the air. You can't do anything with no physical effects on the items involved, and everything "does something," — Terrapin Station
No properties of something like a hammer only exist in the mind of an observer. — Terrapin Station
So it's utility for driving nails is not a property of a hammer? — Isaac
Hence my question. Are you saying that the fact that the word 'dog' was used to refer to dogs, is present only in the mind of someone recollecting it, such that if humans ceased to exist it would cease to be the case that 'dog' was used to refer to dogs? — Isaac
You responded with "So it's utility for driving nails is not a property of the hammer."
How would that make sense as a response to what I said? — Terrapin Station
The disagreement with S isn't at all about "The word 'dog' WAS used to refer to dogs." It's not about something historical.
The disagreement with S is that in S's view, the word dog has a meaning--not past tense, but present tense--at time T2, even if no persons exist at time T2. He's not saying something about how the word was used there. — Terrapin Station
It's a question. If no properties of a hammer only exist in the mind of the person observing, then it's utility for driving nails (being a property of the hammer) must somehow reside in the hammer, yes? — Isaac
That's not sorting this out. Asking "So it's utility . . . " suggests that I'd say it's not a property of the hammer, right? — Terrapin Station
Do you think the fact that a hammer is used to drive nails is a property of the hammer? — Isaac
The ratios between successive pairs of numbers in the sequences;
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34
2, 2, 4, 6, 10, 16, 26, 42, 68
3, 3, 6, 9, 15, 24, 39, 63, 102
4, 4, 8,12, 20, 32, 52, 84, 136
are identical. Look at the vertical columns. the numbers in the sequences below the numbers in the first sequence are multiples of those numbers. You can start with any number and the ratios between the numbers in any vertical column and any other vertical column are the same throughout. This means that every number is part of a Fibonacci sequence, which is as it should be. — Janus
No, that wouldn't just be a property of the hammer. It would be a property of the hammer, the nails, the air between the hammer and the nails, the person or machine swinging the hammer, etc. — Terrapin Station
why you want to make such a clear removal of the use of the ink-mark pattern from the actual pattern itself — Isaac
But the counter point will be.....no sense can be made out of something exists but has no utility. Which may be true, but that doesn’t make it a property. Properties are necessary; utility is contingent on properties. — Mww
are we saying that x, some object, like a hammer, literally has properties that are identical to what we're calling utility? — Terrapin Station
Did you read the part where I said that meanings aren't the same as patterns? — Terrapin Station
Yes, I'm not sure what you want me to take from that. I'm saying, in the above, that the ink-mark pattern (a word) has a use (to pick out a dog in a sentence). That use is its meaning. It 'means' what it is successfully used for. — Isaac
So, for one, the ink marks do not have a use in the absence of people, do they? — Terrapin Station
No, but neither does the hammer. All use is contingent on a user. If you prefer we could refer to the hammer's potential use. It's still a property of the hammer (that it is potentially used to drive nails) and we still derive what that use is from its history (even if only a minute ago), not its current state. — Isaac
Re potentials, they only exist in my view in the sense of something not being impossible (and "potential" is usually used to denote a subset of not impossible things) . . .which means that potentials do not actually exist per se, and it's important to not reify potentials. — Terrapin Station
"potentials only exist...", and in the second "potentials do not actually exist..." — Isaac
It's important not to posit ontological nonsense. Hence why we shouldn't reify them. — Terrapin Station
But that's begging the question. It's only ontological nonsense if we don't reify it. You still haven't answered why you think we shouldn't. — Isaac
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.