??? Potentials don't exist. — Terrapin Station
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. — Terrapin Station
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
Re the radioactivity question, you're proposing that radioactivity is just an idea? wtf? — Terrapin Station
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
It does, because if you cannot tell me how the texts differ without begging the question, how can you argue your point? — Echarmion
Just because your position cannot deal with the consequences of the thought experiment doesn't mean it's insignificant. — Echarmion
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
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
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
How can there be "consistency, coherence, etc." between texts if they are inherently meaningless — Janus
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? — Janus
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? — Janus
The "intentional fallacy" is the idea that a work perfectly mirrors the author's intentions; — Janus
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
When you take a position that abstraction to an idea (i.e. you have an idea about something) amounts to reification. — TheWillowOfDarkness
There are no more or less correct interpretations. There are just different interpretations. — Terrapin Station
Validity is a logical concept that has nothing to do with this. — Terrapin Station
How many different ways do I have to answer that? — Terrapin Station
The notion meaning is "just a story"in our heads is something you have repeated in many arguments. — TheWillowOfDarkness
So, neither of those example interpretations of the sentence I gave is more or less correct then? — Janus
That would mean that neither of us can interpret (even more or less correctly) what the other is saying, — Janus
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
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
Why are so many posts on this board people not being able to get straight what someone else said? — Terrapin Station
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 mean not being able to correctly interpret what someone said? — Janus
Learn to read: I said not merely 'interpret' but 'interpret even more or less correctly' — Janus
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
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.