??? Potentials don't exist. — Terrapin Station

That's what reification means. You're saying we shouldn't consider abstract exist because abstracts don't exist. That doesn't sound like much of an argument. That's why I asked you about radioactivity. Would you describe Carbon-14 as 'radioactive'?

You're saying we shouldn't consider abstract exist because abstracts don't exist. — Isaac

Reification is taking something that is just an idea and projecting it into the external world as if it's not just an idea. The reason you shouldn't do that would be because you don't want to make logical mistakes, you don't want to say things that aren't true, etc. (And this isn't an argument per se. Just an explanation.)

Re the radioactivity question, you're proposing that radioactivity is just an idea? wtf?

Reification is taking something that is just an idea and projecting it into the external world as if it's not just an idea. — Terrapin Station

What does "... as if it's not just an idea" mean here? What do thunk we might actually do with potentiality if we talk about it as existing which would cause us a problem which could be avoided by not treating it that way?

The reason you shouldn't do that would be because you don't want to make logical mistakes, you don't want to say things that aren't true, etc — Terrapin Station

Firstly, I don't see any "logical" mistake here, you'll have to lay that out for me. And you're that sure you know what "true" is?

Re the radioactivity question, you're proposing that radioactivity is just an idea? wtf? — Terrapin Station

A carbon-14 atom only decays a proton/neutron every 5,700 years, so if its not currently releasing beta radiation, then it only has the potential to do so. So is it, by your definition, only radioactive once every 5,700 years, when it actually radiates, rather than just has the potential to?

That material difference is lost whenever the text is copied. The pixels on a computer screen displaying a work of Shakespeare have no material connection to the original document. — Echarmion

I'd say that is untrue: there is always a causal connection between the original work of Shakespeare and any copy of it. In any case I don't see the relevance to the present argument.

It does, because if you cannot tell me how the texts differ without begging the question, how can you argue your point? — Echarmion

We know there is a material difference between an intentionally produced object and one that is not intentionally produced; and that difference consists in the neural and perhaps physiological activity that gave rise to the one and not the other.

Just because your position cannot deal with the consequences of the thought experiment doesn't mean it's insignificant. — Echarmion

No, the thought experiment is not significant because such a thing has never happened and never will happen. In practice we can always tell the difference between human-made and naturally occurring objects. If you disagree perhaps you can provide a counterexample.

That's implied by your position. If my ideas and concepts have nothing to do with any thing in the external world, how can any of the states of the world be reflected in my ideas?

Take radioactivity. How can my idea of radioactivity be identifying an external state with impacts upon the human body? If we take a position that our ideas and concepts are just out ideas, this would be impossible. I could only ever think about my ideas. Describing external things, including my own body, could not occur. I would be unable to think about things which weren't my thoughts.

If we take ideas and concepts as reification, we are committed to a position in which radioactivity (one of our theories, our ideas, our concepts) is just an idea.

Part of what we consider to be cracking a code is that we've arrived at an interpretation that allows consistency, coherence, etc. among a number of different texts. That in no way implies that the meaning is in the texts in question. The meaning is in our heads. — Terrapin Station

How can there be "consistency, coherence, etc." between texts if they are inherently meaningless. If the meaning were merely in our heads, then we could make absolutely anything consistent with anything else. What constraint would there be if your view were correct? How could your view even be correct, as opposed to being merely your arbitrary opinion if there is no inherent or shared meaning?

What does "... as if it's not just an idea" mean here? What do thunk we might actually do with potentiality if we talk about it as existing which would cause us a problem which could be avoided by not treating it that way? — Isaac

You might claim things that aren't true. If you don't care about that, then <shrug>

That's implied by your position. If my ideas and concepts have nothing to do with any thing in the external world, how can any of the states of the world be reflected in my ideas? — TheWillowOfDarkness

What's implied by my position? I have no context re what you're responding to. Where did I say anything at all like "your ideas and concepts have nothing to do with anything in the external world?"

How can there be "consistency, coherence, etc." between texts if they are inherently meaningless — Janus

With respect to the interpretations.

For example:

I have one text: &@% that I interpret to read "Dogs are pets."

I discover a second text: !@(# that I interpret to read "The moon is not cheese."

Then I discover a third text: &@(% that my previous interpretations suggest would be "Dogs are not pets"

Especially if I have a reason to believe that the texts were written by the same person, that they were trying to describe generalities, etc., I might assume that my interpretations are inconsistent and that I haven't actually cracked the code. On the other hand, if my interpretations are consistent, coherent, etc., I might conclude that I cracked the code. My conclusions in both cases might not at all resemble what the author had in mind.

My conclusions in both cases might not at all resemble what the author had in mind. — Terrapin Station

So the meaning of the text, the correct interpretation, is "what the author had in mind"? Are you saying that texts cannot convey what their authors had in mind?

So the meaning of the text, the correct interpretation, is "what the author had in mind"? Are you saying that texts cannot convey what their authors had in mind? — Janus

I said already that in my view there is no such thing as a correct interpretation.

Texts themselves do not have meaning. We assign meanings to things. Meanings can't be made something nonmental.

Authors can give us explanatory utterances, but can't literally express meaning. The explanatory utterances are just further sets of sounds or marks that individuals have to assign meaning to. We figure that we understand something when we can do that in a consistent, coherent, way with respect to events (texts,behavior, etc,) in a particular context (for example, from that author).

I said already that in my view there is no such thing as a correct interpretation. — Terrapin Station

Of course there may not be any such thing as an absolutely correct interpretation; would you also say that there are no more or less correct interpretations?

You read: "I saw a dog pissing on a telegraph pole when I was on my way to work".

You interpret the author to be talking about a mammal of the Canine species urinating on a timber log that has been set in the ground to support electrical wires.

Someone else interprets the author to be talking about fish swimming around the piles that support a jetty.

Which is the more correct interpretation?

Of course there may not be any such thing as an absolutely correct interpretation; would you also say that there are no more or less correct interpretations? — Janus

Yes, I'd say that there are no "more or less correct" interpretations.

It's not "correct" to match what the author says. I agree with the viewpoint known as the "intentional fallacy":

https://www.britannica.com/art/intentional-fallacy

The "intentional fallacy" is the idea that a work perfectly mirrors the author's intentions; as thought the work was wholly conceived in every detail prior to its creation. That is not what's at issue here.

You didn't answer the question above about the two interpretations of the example sentence. Do you want to claim that both interpretations are equally valid?

The "intentional fallacy" is the idea that a work perfectly mirrors the author's intentions; — Janus

"Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argue in their essay 'The Intentional Fallacy' that 'the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art'."

You didn't answer the question above about the two interpretations of the example sentence. Do you want to claim that both interpretations are equally valid? — Janus

Validity is a logical concept that has nothing to do with this.

There are no more or less correct interpretations. There are just different interpretations.

The author's intent isn't more correct.

When you take a position that abstraction to an idea (i.e. you have an idea about something) amounts to reification. So when we talk about, for example, the radioactivity C-14 carbon atom, the potential for it to decay, them meaning we speak and involve isn't limited to our ideas. The C-14 carbon atom actually has that feature/meaning we are describing.

It is why we ought be aware of C-14 possibly decaying if we have encounter one, as opposed to working under the impression that atom will not decay.

So when you take a position that meaning is only in our heads, you place the things and functions you are describing there too. Decaying just becomes our fictional abstraction, rather than a feature of the object, which might happen whet we are there or not.

This issue is true of all description of the world we might give, since our descriptions use meanings to report what we are talking about. Descriptions of the world require meaning to not just be in our heads, but in the world too.

When you take a position that abstraction to an idea (i.e. you have an idea about something) amounts to reification. — TheWillowOfDarkness

C'mon, man. I didn't say anything at all resembling that.

You do it all the time when people describe certain things or features of things (ethics, mathematical relationships, meaning of idea/concept/language, etc.).

The notion meaning is "just a story"in our heads is something you have repeated in many arguments.

Description can never be just a story. When we describe or aim to describe something, whether it be what's in my fridge, the number of atoms in an object, a mathematical relationship or an ethical significance, our attention is directed towards something other than ourselves.
A question of na independent truth which is not just our story or made true by us thinking it.

Even in the case where a proposed description is wrong, let's say we attempt to describe God is the underlying cause of everything or engage in evo psych reifications about how people behave, meaning is still independent because the world has a meaning: the proposed description is mistaken.

There are no more or less correct interpretations. There are just different interpretations. — Terrapin Station

So, neither of those example interpretations of the sentence I gave is more or less correct then? That would mean that neither of us can interpret (even more or less correctly) what the other is saying, from which it would follow that all philosophical argument consists in talking past one another. Is that your position?

Validity is a logical concept that has nothing to do with this. — Terrapin Station

'Validity' has an ordinary usage as well as its strict meaning in a logical context. And the incredible irony here is that you are now arguing that the term validity has a strictly correct meaning.

How many different ways do I have to answer that? — Terrapin Station

You haven't directly answered the question. I want you to say that both of the examples of interpretation of the sentience are equally valid or correct, if that is what you believe. But I suspect you don't want to commit to saying that because you know it would be an obviously stupid thing to say. So, you hide behind generalities.

The notion meaning is "just a story"in our heads is something you have repeated in many arguments. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And what does that have to do with "When you take a position that abstraction to an idea (i.e. you have an idea about something) amounts to reification"?

So, neither of those example interpretations of the sentence I gave is more or less correct then? — Janus

How many different ways do I have to answer that? It's not like I haven't been straightforward about my answer. For the third or fourth time now, no, there are no more or less correct interpretations.

That would mean that neither of us can interpret (even more or less correctly) what the other is saying, — Janus

What?? I didn't say that people can't or don't interpret. I said that different interpretations are not more or less correct.

Because it the same argument...

You understand the meaning of our descriptions to be nothing more than our fictions which have nothing to do with describing independently existing things-- i.e. a reification which only serves our one idea, rather than talking about a fact or feature of the independent world,

You understand the meaning of our descriptions to be nothing more than our fictions which have nothing to do with describing independently existing things-- i.e. a reification which only serves our one idea, rather than talking about a fact or feature of the independent world, — TheWillowOfDarkness

The phrase you used was "abstraction to an idea amounts to reification." Abstraction to an idea is an idea, right? It would be the process of abstraction (leading) to an idea.

What you just described above is not "abstraction to an idea amounts to reification"

What?? I didn't say that people can't or don't interpret. I said that different interpretations are not more or less correct. — Terrapin Station

Learn to read: I said not merely 'interpret' but 'interpret even more or less correctly'. If we are only interpreting what others say arbitrarily, that is if there is no more or less correct interpretation of anything anyone says, then conversation is just social noise, nothing is being conveyed form speaker to listener, and philosophical argument, as I said above, is a waste of time.

That would be a truly dumb position if that is indeed you position. But that shouldn't bother you, because you could interpret my saying it is a dumb position, as my saying that it is a genius position or that it means that you will be having your favorite food for dinner tonight, or whatever else your fucked-up imagination wants it to mean.

Why are so many posts on this board people not being able to get straight what someone else said? — Terrapin Station

You mean not being able to correctly interpret what someone said? Are you really that stupid or are you merely trolling?

How many different ways do I have to answer that? It's not like I haven't been straightforward about my answer. For the third or fourth time now, no, there are no more or less correct interpretations. — Terrapin Station

You haven't directly answered the question. I want you to say that both of the examples of interpretation of the sentience are equally valid or correct, if that is what you believe. But I suspect you don't want to commit to saying that because you know it would be an obviously stupid thing to say. So, you hide behind generalities.

You mean not being able to correctly interpret what someone said? — Janus

Nope. Humorously, you don't know what I'm saying. Maybe we could have 50 more posts about it.

Learn to read: I said not merely 'interpret' but 'interpret even more or less correctly' — Janus

You put ("even more or less correctly") in parantheses.

Yes, a typo: it was meant to be "(even more or less) correctly".

You haven't directly answered the question. I want you to say that both of the examples of interpretation of the sentience are equally valid or correct, if that is what you believe — Janus

But that's not my view. Validity is a very specific logical idea. Interpretations have nothing to do with that.

And if they're not more or less correct then they're not "equally correct." They NOT more or less correct. "Correct/incorrect" is a category error here.