You don't see people talking in full sentences in every-day life. At least, here, there's a demand for rigour and logicality, which is good and all. On the flipside, remarkably (rather), philosophers have been able to put into words existential issues that are deep moods, and feelings that go sometimes beyond the trivial and mundane of every-day life. Isn't that rather remarkable, given how much of communication is actually non-verbal? — Wallows

You're saying information is lost, but what I'm saying is that the information is probably irrelevant to what is being said. Information is everywhere but we only focus our attention on what is useful at that moment.

Then your either a closet pragmatist or simply lost your way into this forum, I believe.

Empiricism doesnt work for verifying the average philosophical assertion (such as that we ought get on with it).

Surely youre not a rationalist. So the force behind your words us mostly personal sentiment.

A Davidson thread is available for those who want to learn and play.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7043/davidson-on-the-very-idea-of-a-conceptual-scheme

Not too much to disagree with.
On my view, I have found that all views share the same basic set of common denominators at their core.
— creativesoul

Well, being embedded in a shared world, they would. — Banno

Indeed, although being born into a shareable world is a better starting point. Language makes it shared. The result, of course, is that the world is already meaningful, and hence all world-views involve being embedded in a shared world.

I make room for the rudimentary level thought and belief that are part of, prior to, and necessary for all common language use, and hence all worldviews.

There are, I'll contend, some who ought be excluded; the law of diminishing returns applies here. — Banno

I would agree. The trick is to acquire reasonable ground for establishing the criterion used to determine which ones ought be excluded.

Could you set out how the law of diminishing return applies to how we determine which folk ought be shunned?

Could you set out how the law of diminishing return applies to how we determine which folk ought be shunned? — creativesoul

LOL. I'm guessing that for Banjo it's really the law of diminishing interest. :wink:
In any case it is for me. :grin:

When I talk about my cat, Jack, I'm not talking about a model-of-Jack that sits in my head; I'm talking about that cat. When you talk about Jack, you are talking about the cat, not your model-of-Jack. So we both manage to be talking about the very same thing - Jack; and not two seperate things, our distinct models-of-Jack. — Banno

Do we? Suppose Jack (or Jacqueline for this example) were to have kittens. You're saying that it would simply be universally agreed at what point the fertilised egg ceased being Jacqueline and started being little Jack the kitten?

As I said, I can't see anything in the article you cited that renders models unintelligable and reproducing the author's opinion that he has doesn't really help in that regard. Perhaps you could , in preference to quoting, give a summary of the argument you think lead him to that conclusion, so that I've got something to go on rather than essentially an argument from authority ("Donaldson reckons it's the case so it must be the case")

Primarily, perhaps, if you're going through with this model-less view, which route do you take to deal with the multiplicity of existent objects, dualism or idealism, or do you reject the spatiotemporal model most of us seem intuitively to have?

For me it's a carry over from critique of indirect realism. When I talk about my cat, Jack, I'm not talking about a model-of-Jack that sits in my head; I'm talking about that cat. When you talk about Jack, you are talking about the cat, not your model-of-Jack. So we both manage to be talking about the very same thing - Jack; and not two seperate things, our distinct models-of-Jack. — Banno

If Jack relates to each of you differently - which is at least minimally likely - then what you talk about when you talk about Jack will be different. The ideas you have about Jack will be different - unless you are tracking carefully what the other is likely experiencing of Jack. If one of you was bitten by a cat when young and doesn't realize how this affects how you view cats or feel around them, this will affect your senses of cats and Jack. You are both trying your best to talk about one creature. I am not suggesting that there are two cats or some kind of immenent multiverse. It might make more sense to say you are each talking FROM your models (though I might prefer some other term like aggregate of assumptions/impressions and conclusions (pardon it's unweildiness.)

In any case, if you each spoke to others they might very well get very different ideas about Jack. And that's even if neither of you were quite careful to work from your experiences and both good observers. This would likely be even more true if Jack was a person.

Don't you have to have a head to be bald? I'd say it's false. I wouldn't say my dishwasher is bald. Even if a few hairs were stuck to its top.

You don't see people talking in full sentences in every-day life. At least, here, there's a demand for rigour and logicality, which is good and all. On the flipside, remarkably (rather), philosophers have been able to put into words existential issues that are deep moods, and feelings that go sometimes beyond the trivial and mundane of every-day life. Isn't that rather remarkable, given how much of communication is actually non-verbal? — Wallows

Then your either a closet pragmatist or simply lost your way into this forum, I believe. — Wallows

I don't see the reason to label people, especially from a standpoint of your limited interactions with me.

Like I said, information is everywhere - which is to say that there are things in the universe that can be talked about that would be irrelevant to the current discussion. That other information in the universe is relevant to other discussions, or would be useful in other contexts. So, what is useful is what is relevant to the current topic.

So I ask you, what percentage of information is lost when you write your posts and I read them? What information isn't getting to my brain that you would like to? And how is it that we can't get there simply by talking it out a bit more with relevant information?

We don't speak in full sentences when the context fills in those gaps for us. We use words to categorize our thoughts into bits for transmitting to other brains - kind of like how a analog-to-digital converter transforms analog signals (like the sound picked up by a microphone) into binary so the computer can use it. The context provides a template of what can be relevant to the current discussion. Those bits just fill in those fields of the template, so we don't need all of the information sent to us because we get that from the context (template).

Word-use is an action and all actions require energy, so it seems plausible that we would try to find shortcuts in using language to conserve energy.

More like a zoo in a box.

Or an X in a box. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, it's something that is in all of our boxes that is similar, or else we would never be able to get to a common understanding of what people mean when they behave a certain way - like when making sounds with their mouths and moving their hands in a particular way. As a matter of fact, our experiences and interpretations of each other's and everyone else's behavior when using language would have to be similar or else how could we all come to a similar understanding of how to use those words?

So I ask you, what percentage of information is lost when you write your posts and I read them? — Harry Hindu

A large degree. Though, we've had several interactions for me to determine that you're not a troll or insincere in your engagement on these topics. Yet, please use this as an example. Say, that I am some psychopath that is trying to get you confused because I get a kick out of making people feel bad. How do you know that I am or am not one? I suppose it would be harder for a psychopath to convince someone to die over the internet, despite the hot topic of bullying on places like Reddit or elsewhere.

The context provides a template of what can be relevant to the current discussion. — Harry Hindu

Yes; but, the context of what exactly, the map or the territory(?)

And they say the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis ain't true... bullshit!

A large degree. — Wallows

Yeah, but what percent? A majority of it? You're the one on that end that knows what they're typing on the screen and how much of it is missing. What exactly is missing? I'm trying to get specifics here, so I'd appreciate a more specific answer.

Yet, please use this as an example. Say, that I am some psychopath that is trying to get you confused because I get a kick out of making people feel bad. How do you know that I am or am not one? I suppose it would be harder for a psychopath to convince someone to die over the internet, despite the hot topic of bullying on places like Reddit or elsewhere. — Wallows

Then, as a psychopath, you're goal of trying to confuse me isn't relevant information to this specific topic that you and I are both discussing.

That's what lying is. In order to lie, we'd already have to have some inclination into what the other person is thinking, or how they will interpret our words, in order to manipulate them into thinking something other than what is relevant to the facts. You can't lie to someone who already knows the facts.

Yes; but, the context of what exactly, the map or the territory(?) — Wallows

Both, if the map is accurate. If it isn't, then the map is irrelevant information, no?

And they say the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis ain't true... bullshit! — Wallows

Doesn't the strong version of that support conceptual schema relativism?

What exactly is missing? I'm trying to get specifics here, so I'd appreciate a more specific answer. — Harry Hindu

Uhh, intentionality for starters???

That's what lying is. In order to lie, we'd already have to have some inclination into what the other person is thinking, or how they will interpret our words, in order to manipulate them into thinking something other than what is relevant to the facts. You can't lie to someone who already knows the facts. — Harry Hindu

No, that's just plain bullshitting. Lying requires one to know what the truth is and hide it from plain sight when engaging an interlocutor.

Afaik, same shit.

Both, if the map is accurate. If it isn't, then the map is irrelevant information, no? — Harry Hindu

If it gets you to the top of the mountain I'd say it's a good map.

they might very well get very different ideas about Jack. — Coben

. Yes, indead. About Jack.

You're saying that it would simply be universally agreed at what point the fertilised egg ceased being Jacqueline and started being little Jack the kitten? — Isaac

No.

The trick is to acquire reasonable ground for establishing the criterion used to determine which ones ought be excluded. — creativesoul

Since we are here to talk philosophy, one should be charitable to someone who presented a criticism of what one had said, and to try to understand the critique. But if the critique remains unclear after a few posts, and if one's antagonist has a history of similar incoherence, and if others have agreed as to the opacity of their posts, then one might reasonably not reply.

Incoherence is a mark of incapacity or lack of effort.

No — Banno

If you're not interested, you can just say so. I'm not handing in an question paper to be marked, I'm contributing to a discussion. If you can't even be bothered to write a proper reply then just don't reply. Replying just to get some condescending dismissal in is just rude.

Nothing much worth objecting to...

I don't know where "You're saying that it would simply be universally agreed at what point the fertilised egg ceased being Jacqueline and started being little Jack the kitten?" came from, nor what it has to do with what we were discussing, nor what to do with it.

So, what more could I say?

what more could I say? — Banno

...

Perhaps you could , in preference to quoting, give a summary of the argument you think lead him to that conclusion, so that I've got something to go on — Isaac

But, as I said, if you're not interested, that's fine, just have to say so.

they might very well get very different ideas about Jack.
— Coben
. Yes, indead. About Jack. — Banno

Was someone suggesting that there are actually two objects of discussion? Or was it more like each of you is discussing your model and not Jack? If it is the latter case, this certainly happens? I would guess you encounter people who are referring to a person or a thing, but in their description you are convinced they are not really experiencing that thing. For example their ideas about what the thing is like are so strongly affecting their descriptions they are not describing that thing. As opposed to somewhat accurately describing their experience of the thing or person their itneractions have eilcited. So it seems possible that people can be talking about their models, at least to me. Then to me it is a question of how much they are doing this.

What exactly is missing? I'm trying to get specifics here, so I'd appreciate a more specific answer.
— Harry Hindu

Uhh, intentionality for starters??? — Wallows

If you didn't intend to type that and submit it, then how did it get on the screen for me to read?

Are we talking about your intentions, or the topic of this thread? Again, I'm making the distinction of relevancy. What your intentions are, other than typing and submitting posts of your ideas on this topic, are irrelevant to the topic.

What else is missing? You're the one that gave dropped the measurement of percentages into this, so what is the percentage? How high would it have to be for you to consider language-use a waste of time?

That's what lying is. In order to lie, we'd already have to have some inclination into what the other person is thinking, or how they will interpret our words, in order to manipulate them into thinking something other than what is relevant to the facts. You can't lie to someone who already knows the facts.
— Harry Hindu

No, that's just plain bullshitting. Lying requires one to know what the truth is and hide it from plain sight when engaging an interlocutor. — Wallows

I don't understand what you mean by bullshitting. You simply said what I said after that. Part of knowing the truth, and is relevant information when you're going to lie to someone, is whether an interlocutor knows the truth or not. Your map has to include their map as well as the territory.

If it gets you to the top of the mountain I'd say it's a good map. — Wallows

Sure, if your goal is to get to the top of the mountain. The territory has rest-stops, and hopefully your map has the location of these when your need to use the restroom.

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+communication+is+nonverbal

What is it about your tone and body language that is relevant to the point you're trying to make in any post, that doesn't get picked up by the reader?

The only reason you'd need to use tone or body language is when you are more vague with your word-use.

What is it about your tone and body language that is relevant to the point you're trying to make in any post, that doesn't get picked up by the reader? — Harry Hindu

That communication is more effective in person. I suppose that is the obvious conclusion here?

You do not seem to be addressing the criticism found in the article,