Correspondence isn't.
— creativesoul

How do you believe the relation obtains outside of a judgment? — Terrapin Station

Did you ever explain what possible role judgement has in correspondence, beyond a person thinking up a proposition?

The cat is on the mat. If that’s an objective fact, then the proposition is true even if someone judges it to be false. This shows judgement has nothing to do with whether the proposition is true/corresponds.

The cat is on the mat. If that’s an objective fact, then the proposition is true — AJJ

How is the proposition true? Well, by corresponding to the fact (assuming we're going with correspondence, of course, and not coherence, etc.) But how does it correspond to the fact, exactly? That is, just how does the correspondence relation obtain? The way it obtains is via a judgment about whether the meaning "matches" the fact.

The way it obtains is via a judgment about whether the meaning "matches" the fact. — Terrapin Station

Then how can a proposition still be true even if I judge it to be false?

Then how can a proposition still be true if I judge it to be false? — AJJ

On my view, propositions are true or false to someone. It makes no sense to talk of them being true or false where that's independent of anyone.

So the only way it can be true when you judge it to be false is that it's true to someone else (or to you at a later time). Otherwise, it's not true (to anyone) when you judge it to be false.

So the only way it can be true when you judge it to be false is that it's true to someone else (or to you at a later time). Otherwise, it's not true when you judge it to be false. — Terrapin Station

You’ve said you believe in objective facts. If it’s an objective fact the cat is on the mat, then that proposition matches that fact. That would be the case even if no one ever finds out whether the cat really is on the mat. If two people judge differently, then the one judging that proposition to be true must be correct, given that objective fact.

If it’s an objective fact the cat is on the mat, then that proposition matches that fact. — AJJ

HOW DOES IT MATCH THE FACT?

I'm shouting because you don't seem to be able to hear me asking you that.

We have a proposition (we can just leave that unanalyzed for a moment--what it is for there to be a proposition).

We have a fact.

Now, we need matching of the proposition and fact to occur or obtain somehow.

How does that work?

This is where we got to last time. I gave an explanation and you went quiet.

Descriptions obtain via a set of words with particular meanings representing a person, object or event by way of concept and mental imagery. I describe a cat on a mat. I’m referring to a particular cat and mat, and the concept of being on something. All it takes for my proposition to be true is for that cat to be on that mat.

(I'm writing an additional reply rather than editing the above posts just in case you've already read the above and wouldn't read them again)

A couple suggestions as an assist to you:

One way that we say that things match is if they're very similar. For example, two prints of the same picture. They're similar formally. Their sizes, the arrangement of shapes, colors, etc. will all be similar enough that casually we call them "the same." (As a nominalist, I wouldn't say that they're literally the same, but they're close enough call them "the same" in a loose/casual/colloquial manner of speaking.)

Re propositions and facts, the tactic that some people to take is to say that they have a "similar logical structure." However, on my view, "logical structure" isn't something that exists independent of persons, and it's difficult to say how we can make sense out of meaning or a statement having the same "logical structure" as a fact (like a cat on a mat) independent of thinking about such things.

So that's the sort of answer I'm looking for, even though neither of those would work in this case. If you're going to explain how correspondence/matching works, the answer needs to be something like the above.

This is where we got to last time. I gave an explanation and you went quiet.

Descriptions obtain via a set of words with particular meanings representing a person, object or event by way of concept and mental imagery. I describe a cat on a mat. I’m referring to a particular cat and mat, and the concept of being on something. All it takes for my proposition to be true is for that cat to be on that mat. — AJJ

So meanings, concepts, mental imagery can somehow exist or amount to something outside of a person's mind on your view? (Otherwise, how are such things matching something else independent of thinking about it and making a judgment about whether they match? (and if they're only mental, how is someone (or something?) seeing your mental content to check if it matches (and if something, how is it doing this?))

I understand your reference to "objective" and "subjective" should be taken in the absolute sense (If I am wrong, my apologies).

I believe absolutely objective truth and absolutely subjective truth are not possible, therefore it is not something I desire, though one could argue in favor of desiring the impossible (that will be a later discussion, perhaps).

Let me offer my definition of "objective" and "subjective" such that both are defining limits of a particular topic: truth. I keep agreement with the general notion that what is objective (truth) is realized when it conforms to a set of standards or crietia that are in common within a particular community. Subjective (truth) is that which does not share the qualities of conforming to any external standard. Of course, this could be a great place to disagree with me, but I offer this definition in the hopes that what follows will justify my thinking.

Objective truth and subjective truth being defining limits are never realized in total. For example, nothing can ever be absolutely objective because it is an infinite regression of references to external standards to qualify. Because a propisition is true by a set of particualr standards, it might make it objectively true in that binary relationship, but it does not ensure the standards, themselves, are true in a similar fashion, etc... Godel's Proof and Carl Hemple's Confirmation Theory are good references here. Suffice it to say that any declaration that something is objectively true will reference an external standard that is held true a priori and itself not subject to proof. Therefore, there is no ultimate truth that transcends reference to external critera which themselves, eventually, must rest on unproven criteria. So, it would be best to talk aboutrelative objective truth rather thanabsolute objective truth. Something may be said to be more or less objective, but it would not be accurate to say that something is absolutely objective; such an absolute, I have argued, is elusive.

So it is with subjective truth. It suffers a similar problem than absolute objective truth. In order for something to be absolutely subjectiveit must be absent in conformity to any external standard. Typically, we arrive at a particular belief, at least initially, though a process of inductive thought. Such thought, of course, is governed by a set of assumptions as to what constitue truth and are set, consciously or not, as standards. Ultimately, the drive to justify those standards as being worthy so justify such an inductive "logic" present more infinite regressions in the search for an absolutely true standard by which to guide one's inductive thought process. Inductive reasoning like deductive reasoning reference a system of thought, itself, left as a series of axioms. Therefore, we can say something is relatively subjective, but never absolutely subjective.

So meanings, concepts, mental imagery can somehow exist or amount to something outside of a person's mind on your view? — Terrapin Station

No.

(Otherwise, how are such things matching something else independent of thinking about it and making a judgment about whether they match? (and if they're only mental, how is someone (or something?) seeing your mental content to check if it matches (and if something, how is it doing this?)) — Terrapin Station

Because the thing they’re matching is not in a person’s mind. I’ve been asking the whole time: What role does a person play in correspondence, beyond thinking up the proposition?

Checking whether a proposition matches is beside the point. What I’m saying is they can match whether anyone checks or not. There’s an independent reality in play; if a proposition conforms to it then it’s true regardless. A proposition conforming to reality would mean it described a specific event, such as a particular cat being on a particular mat, with that event being a reality.

f a proposition conforms to it then it’s true regardless. — AJJ

This is the issue. If a proposition conforms to independent reality how? Is it structurally similar?

This is the issue. If a proposition conforms to independent reality how? Is it structurally similar? — Terrapin Station

It describes it, and I’ve already given my explanation of what a description is. The cat is on the mat. That proposition describes/represents a particular cat being on a particular mat by using words with those particular meanings/referents. All of that comes from me. However, the reality of that particular cat being on that particular mat has nothing to do with me, and that reality is what allows my proposition to correspond to it.

It describes it, — AJJ

What does a description amount to outside of thinking about the description?

What words do you want him to use? Could you just skip to that part for a sec so I can stop following the micro point/counterpoint thing you guys have going on? I promise I won’t follow it up with anything, im just curious.

What does a description amount to outside of thinking about the description? — Terrapin Station

Nothing. That you’re asking that only shows you’re not understanding my point. A proposition/description is a thing within a person’s mind. However, it will only correspond with an independent reality if that reality is as the proposition describes. If it is, the proposition is true; if it isn’t, it isn’t. The question you have never actually answered: What role does a mind play there, beyond thinking up the proposition?

That is, just how does the correspondence relation obtain? The way it obtains is via a judgment about whether the meaning "matches" the fact. — Terrapin Station

Another thought that seems to contradict the above:

The cat is on the mat. You make that proposition and on seeing the cat judge that it corresponds with a fact. But if the cat was on the mat prior to your judgment, what relationship did the fact and proposition have then? If they don’t correspond until you judge them to, on what basis are you making that judgment in the first place?

A proposition/description is a thing within a person’s mind. However, it will only correspond with an independent reality if that reality is as the proposition describes. — AJJ

If the proposition/description amounts to nothing outside of thinking about it, then how does it mind-independently correspond with anything? Mind-independently, it's nothing. Nothing can't correspond with anything, can it?

What words do you want him to use? — DingoJones

The words that indicate that he understands that correspondence can't occur outside of making a judgment about it. ;-)

He's not understanding that correspondence needs to occur or obtain somehow, and I'm focusing on just how it occurs or obtains. He's not addressing that. He just keeps taking for granted that it works without wanting to analyze how it works.

If the proposition/description amounts to nothing outside of thinking about it, then how does it mind-independently correspond with anything? Mind-independently, it's nothing. Nothing can't correspond with anything, can it? — Terrapin Station

...

...Because its correspondence depends on something independent of the mind...

...

The words that indicate that he understands that correspondence can't occur outside of making a judgment about it. ;-) — Terrapin Station

I’ve addressed that over and over again.

He's not understanding that correspondence needs to occur or obtain somehow, and I'm focusing on just how it occurs or obtains. He's not addressing that. He just keeps taking for granted that it works without wanting to analyze how it works. — Terrapin Station

I am understanding that, and have given explanations in answer to your requests. I have addressed it over and over again. You ignore what I say, you ignore my questions, or you go quiet when presumably you have nothing to say.

Because its correspondence depends on something independent of the mind... — AJJ

You're saying that literally NOTHING corresponds with something. You understand that, right?

I am understanding that, — AJJ

Let's try this to check if you understand the issue I'm getting at: paraphrase the dilemma in a way that I'd agree that it's what I'm saying.

Buddy, I don’t think you have any idea what I’ve been saying, or in fact what you’ve been saying. I’m happy to leave this alone now.

Buddy, I don’t think you have any idea what I’ve been saying, or in fact what you’ve been saying. I’m happy to leave this alone now. — AJJ

In other words, no, you can't paraphrase the dilemma in a way that I'd agree that it's what I'm saying.

Yet, you understand it. Suuuure.

You edited your post. I’m responding to that now.

Let's try this to check if you understand the issue I'm getting at: paraphrase the dilemma in a way that I'd agree that it's what I'm saying. — Terrapin Station

Correspondence obtains via a judgement made that a meaning matches a fact; judgements are mind-dependent, so therefore correspondence/truth is mind dependent.

I’ve had a look back over the posts on this page and that seems to be your argument. But the first part is just something you assert. You’ve ignored or bizarrely misunderstood every response I’ve made to that idea.

Correspondence obtains via a judgement made that a meaning matches a fact; judgements are mind-dependent, so therefore correspondence/truth is mind dependent.

I’ve had a look back over the posts on this page and that seems to be your argument. But the first part is just something you assert. You’ve ignored or bizarrely misunderstood every response I’ve made to that idea. — AJJ

No. Not my argument. What the dilemma is. If you don't understand what the dilemma is, then no wonder you're not addressing it.

Does it matter that it obtains mentally, if thats what you are getting at? Its based on something non-mental is the point, not that the connecting tissue (or lack of I guess) or process. I think this AJJ would concede thats all mental.

Well, AJJ asked this: "If a proposition is true when it matches a fact - and the fact is objective - then why in your view would that truth not be objective?"

I'm trying to explain the issue to him in a way that he can understand it. But it seems to be a Sisyphean task . . . which is unfortunately par for the course with him.