Sure, I'd say it is. Remember that propositions are the meanings of statements. So it's the meaning of something like, "My keys are on the dresser." We certainly think in those terms often.

A proposition has no location in time or space. Does that figure in your view?

A proposition has no location in time or space. Does that figure in your view? — frank

I buy that there are propositions. I don't buy that there is anything with no location in time or space. On my view, meaning is mental, and mentality is a subset of brain function. So the location in time and space of propositions on my view is identical with the locations in time and space of particular brains.

So you're pondering proposition P.

P is your brain state.

I can't have your brain state because I don't have access to your brain.

Does that mean we can't ponder the same proposition?

I don't buy that there is anything with no location in time or space — Terrapin Station

The universe has no location in time or space. Is that object an exception? Or is there no universe?

Thought is the primary post-survival functionality of rational beings. It is the ground of all conscious activity, which, ironically enough, includes attempting to explain what it is to think. Such is the inevitable circularity intrinsic to the human cognitive system: thinking about thinking is just thinking with itself as its own object. Which goes very far indeed in explaining why nobody really knows what thinking actually is.

Accordingly, I don’t envision thought at all, but rather envision a logical procedure, theoretical at best, the constituency of which IS the act of thinking, the purpose of which is to justify the internal correlations between observation and experience in a sensible, meaningful way on the one hand, and to test the limits of purely speculative reason on the other.

Propositions are not used in internal construction of thoughts because language in and of itself is not used in the construction of cognitions generally; propositions, and by association, language, are used only in the communication of the objects of private thought, as a possible means to facilitate mutual understanding.

Time is an absolutely necessary condition for thought, whether private or projected; we never have more than one thought at a time, and we never have time empty of thought while conscious, aware and otherwise properly cognizant, which makes explicit thoughts are always a succession in time.

Awesome response, thanks. But does your position allow commentary on consciousness as it relates to time? Would that not require a transcendent vantage point?

I think of consciousness as the relative state of being conscious, just as redness is the relative state of being red, as fitness is the relative state of being fit. The state of being conscious, or all that of which one is conscious, is the manifold of representations necessarily all united in one faculty, which has the name consciousness. It follows that while the faculty itself has no need of time, the manifold of representations within the faculty, does, for all representations are derived from experience a posteriori or understanding a priori, both of which operate within the condition of time.

I understand transcendent to mean that which lies outside possible experience. But while we can think of possibilities outside experience, those thoughts would be merely ideas or notions, thus have no object from which a representation could be derived, hence no member in the manifold in consciousness.

So....no, no transcendent vantage point, at least within the context of the foregoing theoretical doctrine. When push comes to shove.......just another opinion.

So you're pondering proposition P.

P is your brain state.

I can't have your brain state because I don't have access to your brain.

Does that mean we can't ponder the same proposition? — frank

Correct, they're not going to be identical, but they can be as similar as, say, two copies of a music CD.

The universe has no location in time or space. — frank

Sure it does. It is all locations of time and space.

Correct, they're not going to be identical, but they can be as similar as, say, two copies of a music CD. — Terrapin Station

I think you'd need to argue for this. It's not a scientific conclusion.

I think you'd need to argue for this. It's not a scientific conclusion. — frank

It's a good practical one. I use that conclusion all the time in interactions with others and it leads to expectations being met. This is of course fallible and depends on many factors - like how well I know them, how much time we had to communicate, how often do we seem to take the same ideas in the same ways as far as expected behavior and further communication - but I can even tweak things given my knowledge of others and myself and the context. IOW I have a sense of how close our senses of something will be or not. And sometimes....

...they can be as similar as, say, two copies of a music CD. — Terrapin Station

in the ways I experience the results.

The universe has no location in time or space.
— frank

Sure it does. It is all locations of time and space. — Terrapin Station

Where are space and time located?

Space is location. It's the extension of matter/the extensional relations of matter.

Space isnt something that exists "on its own," independent of matter, and it's not a container of any sort. Same with time.

So in your view matter isn’t extended within space? Just extended?

I think you'd need to argue for this. It's not a scientific conclusion. — frank

It's ontology/metaphysics. Science doesn't really comment on it either way. I'm a nominalist on the nominalism vs realism (on universals/types) issue.

So in your view matter isn’t extended within space? Just extended? — AJJ

You can say "within space." It's a manner of speaking about extensional relations. That's what space is.

So where are “extensional relations” located?

They are locations, and locations are always defined in terms of relative extensional relations.

It would make no sense to say that locations have no location, right?

It would make no sense to say that locations have no location, right? — Terrapin Station

Sure, that was my point and objection to your view view that there isn’t anything with no location in time or space.

So if you had a universe of two locations, for example, it might be the case that each location is two meters to the right or alternately the left of whichever point we're using as the reference point.

Sure, that was my point and objection to your view view that there isn’t anything with no location in time or space. — AJJ

Your objection was that it would make no sense to say that locations have no location? Ohhhkay.

I misread your post. But maybe that’s a fair question: Where is my location located?

Where is my location located? — AJJ

"Located" adds nothing there. "Where is my location" is the same thing. It makes no sense to say that's not a location.

My location is a location, I understand that. But where is it?

I have no idea beyond "somewhere on Earth," but presumably you know your address.

It's ontology/metaphysics. Science doesn't really comment on it either way. I'm a nominalist on the nominalism vs realism (on universals/types) issue. — Terrapin Station

I don't think nominalism leads one to believe that if two people contemplate the same proposition that their brain states are similar.

Where is “somewhere on Earth” located? Somewhere in space. Space you say is “extensional relations”. Where are they located? You say they are themselves locations. But where are locations? They are things within space. What/where else are they?

Again, as I wrote, "They are locations, and locations are always defined in terms of relative extensional relations."

So, for example, the Earth is located between the orbits or Venus and Mars.

I don't think nominalism leads one to believe that if two people contemplate the same proposition that their brain states are similar. — frank

They can't be contemplating the same proposition. What I said is that they can be similar.

Again, as I wrote, "They are locations, and locations are always defined in terms of relative extensional relations."

So, for example, the Earth is located between the orbits or Venus and Mars. — Terrapin Station

It doesn’t matter how locations are defined. I’m asking, where are they? Where is “between the orbits of Venus and Mars” located? The answer, it seems to me, is “somewhere in space”. All locations are things within space.