Only if both A and B agree on what defines . — Isaac

That's were the un-detached rabbit liver comes in. We have no word for such a thing, but it is not out of the reach of our language.

Apparently foreigners can see ABC shows now, so take a look at this article about untranslatable emotions. Notice that the emotions are translated?

SO I'm going to invoke Davidson's article on conceptual schema again and say that there cannot be cases of things that are accessible in one language and not in anther.

And as I've pointed out a number of times, you can only access what the world is like at a particular spatiotemporal location, where there is no reality for anything "at no particular spatiotemporal location(s)." (Or as it's sometimes more commonly put, there is no "view from nowhere.") — Terrapin Station

It's such a common way of thinking, and I think it wrong. Or at least muddled. We do see the same things from different perspectives, and because we are embedded in language, we can understand how they look from the perspective of other folk.

And we can interpolate these other views into our own.

It's no use denying this; you rely on maps made by other folk when you move into new territory; you believe that China invaded Tibet, or at least that it was annexed; you are happy to have a doctor remove your painful appendix. All of these require that you accept, not just the views of others, but their collective understanding.

This is not the view from nowhere. It's more like the view from everywhere.

That's the point I've addressed to you, Terrapin, a few times.

You seem to think that you are alone in the world, and can't decide if the camera is telling you what is real and what isn't.

But even having the notion that some things are real and some are not requires that you are embedded in a conversation with other folk. — Banno

Same point. You don' have to make it all up for yourself from first principles.

Sure, they can, but those facts won't be the same at the same spatiotemporal location, and their agreement is still something nonidentical, at different spatiotemporal locations. — Terrapin Station

Yeah - one sees a "9", the other a "6". But is they swap places...

We're talking here (using models which we all share) about reasons to think that our model of the world itself is some way or other. — Isaac

Yeah, not so much. The idea of models is fraught, and ultimately fails, for reasons outlined by Davidson in On the very idea of a conceptual schema.

Given that, I suspect we will find that the models used by amoebas are not quite like the models you propose that we use.

It's such a common way of thinking, — Banno

It is? Usually no one quite understands what I'm saying.

We do see the same things from different perspectives — Banno

I don't know if you're saying that

"غ sees @ from perspective y (and it's like α) and ظ sees @ from perspective x (and it's like β)--so @ is the same thing," which I'd agree with,

OR

"غ and ظ both experience @ in β way, just from different perspectives (a la different spatiotemporal locations, say)," which I'd not agree with.

because we are embedded in language — Banno

There must be a better way to say that (that maybe I'd agree with)?

we can understand how they look from the perspective of other folk. — Banno

We can do this on my account of what understanding is, sure. But my account of what understanding is is probably very different from how you'd describe it.

This is not the view from nowhere. It's more like the view from everywhere. — Banno

That's not available either.

What we'd agree on is that you can have spatiotemporal perspectives that are combinations of various other spatiotemporal perspectives. No two are going to be identical, though.

You seem to think that you are alone in the world, and can't decide if the camera is telling you what is real and what isn't. — Banno

But I'm not saying anything at all like that.

It's not such a bad thing to see you here, Harry. Much of what you have said plays out well. But not:

Bannos explanation doesn't seem to allow us to do that. If you heard someone say, "I have an upset stomach. I feel like I need to vomit." for the first time in your life, how will you understand how those words are being used, and then use them yourself correctly, if you can't see what the words are pointing to - their feelings. All you can see is their behavior of them holding their stomach and then that is how you use the words by emulating their behavior without associating it with a feeling. You would be misusing the words or be lying. — Harry Hindu

You'll see the vomit soon enough. No need for the feeling yet; but you will recognise that, too, when given the opportunity.

What we'd agree on is that you can have spatiotemporal perspectives that are combinations of various other spatiotemporal perspectives. No two are going to be identical, though. — Terrapin Station

OK - some agreement.

That last bit - "no two are going to be identical"...

Your "6" will be my "9"; but if that's all you mean, then there is no substantive difference in our opinions, is there?

There's nothing special about perceiving thing in a different way as long as you can compare the same object in question to other features in the world.

As far as I know what goes on inside a black hole might not be in any way sharable other than some noumenal aspect of the mind, which may or may not have private content. And even if there is such a thing as a private language of sorts, then what else can we do about it? Nothing much really.

You'll see the vomit soon enough. No need for the feeling yet; but you will recognise that, too, when given the opportunity. — Banno

So there's no distinction between "I feel like I need to vomit" and "I'm vomitting"? One is pointing to a feeling and the other to a behaviour. Are you a p-zombie? How is what you're claiming different from what a p-zombie would claim about word use?

So there's no distinction between "I feel like I need to vomit" and "I'm vomitting"? — Harry Hindu

You know that is not what was said.

That's not available either. — Terrapin Station

The "view from everywhere" is available if we accept that you and I and the humans are "embedded in language" - that is, if you accept that we (not 'you' or 'I' in isolation, but we) are making determinations regarding the nature of the real via "a conversation with other folk." A shared language (including shared notions and behaviors, e.g., trusting a map made by a stranger; performing and receiving appendectomies) provides the "view from everywhere."

That's my guess.

You know that is not what was said. — Banno

It was a question asking for clarification of what you meant not an assumption of what you said. If it was already assumed what you said, I wouldnt need to ask for clarification of what you meant.

It was said before they vomitted, so what are they pointing to when they use the word, "feeling" before they vomit?

And the more formal your argumentative context, the more likely the inference from general principle to specific instance in your warrant is likely to be challenged and solid evidence is more likely to be sought after (with the balance of hard evidence and reasoning required also dependent on the field in which the claim is made and the type of claim made).

Do not dismiss objections on the basis of what may seem obvious to you. Instead, work on the supposition that your reader will demand as much clarity as possible as to what your claim is and how you are supporting it and as much quantity and quality of support as you could reasonably be expected to give. — Baden

I'm lost, Harry. What are you arguing for?

@Baden: Look! You are having an impact outside of your thread!

Meh. I'm not so wild about Harry.

Can't fault his enthusiasm.

the view from everywhere. — Banno

...consists of parts common to every view.

An ideal worth pursuing...

Yep.

You're confused? You're the premier analytical philosopher around here and I was asking a question about what you said. I'm confused about the argument you are making, so don't worry about what I'm arguing for the moment and let's focus on what you're arguing. You can start by answering the question I posed.

This is simply how Banno works.

What about logical space, @Banno?

Do you think that all words gain their meaning form the thing they refer to? Is that where we disagree?

What about it?

You're the premier analytical philosopher around here... — Harry Hindu

...then this forum is in worse shape than I thought.

Well, mention it to Terrapin Station that facts are mind-independent in logical space. His idealism fails for superfluous facts that only he perceives.

It's more like the view from everywhere. — Banno

An ideal worth pursuing... — creativesoul

Worthwhile insofar as we can ascertain and crystallize and circumscribe a set of persons in cahoots. A precarious agreement contingent on some notion of "a reasonable person" and possibly a surreptitious notion of the sane. Watch for: 1) Exclusivity of outliers deemed not reasonable (those "doing bad philosophy"; those "talking nonsense"). 2) In-group and out-group exclusivity to ensure the world-as-understood-by-us retains primacy in experimental-to-farflung discourse.

The "view from everywhere" underscores an essential realism at the core of (reasonable or sane (as understood by the in-group)) human interaction. It's an antidote to armchair fables. But armchair fables are fun and fascinating and have a deeper purpose than the (generally fruitless and divisive) quest for Truth: obliteration of psychic boundaries and a suspension of dogmatic endstops.

Beyond the somber quest for Truth lies the prospect of philosophy as play.

You can do that, if you like.

You're the premier analytical philosopher around here...
— Harry Hindu

...then this forum is in worse shape than I thought. — Banno

:razz:

Gotta admire the modest self deprecation...

I think he's busy trying to figure out the best angle of approach.