I am locked inside a windowless room, can say "iff it is raining then John is right and Jane is wrong and iff it is not raining then Jane is right and John is wrong." — Michael
And sometimes we do have access to the facts; sometimes it rains and sometimes we experience that rain. What is that if not access to the facts? — Michael
John isn't made wet by you believing that he is; he's made wet by being actually covered in water. — Michael
It can be the case that one person believes that John is wet and one person believes that John is not wet, but the laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction entail that only one of them is right. — Michael
Either the person who believes that John is wet is right (and has knowledge)... — Michael
So we can't be wrong? If I say "it's raining", after having experienced the rain, I'm not referring to my belief, but rather really am referring to the direct fact that it's raining. If so then what happens when I find out I was just hallucinating? Does what really happened change post hoc? — Isaac
You can say that, yes. It would mean "iff I come to believe it is raining (after meeting my threshold of satisfactory justification) then John is right and Jane is wrong and iff it is not raining then Jane is right and John is wrong." It would mean that because that is the only context in which you could possibly use the term.
2. is a statement, not the wetness of John.
This just begs the question. The matter of discussion is whether this is the case, just restating that you believe that to be the case doesn't progress the discussion at all.
This is my takeaway from the above paragraph:
Reveal — InPitzotl
I disagree with the postulate that to talk about x, I must have "direct access" to x, whatever "direct access" means. — InPitzotl
It's of no consequence in normal conversation, but it's clearly what we actually do when we say "it's raining". — Isaac
I have no idea what the antecedent to the underlined "it" is supposed to be. — InPitzotl
In this case the end is obviously being able to eat my lunch. The attempt to induce false belief was a means. — InPitzotl
How do you even put one foot in front of another without a belief that doing so is an appropriate next step for you? — Isaac
Wrong question... the accusation here was that you were tunnel visioned, not blind. — InPitzotl
Most of the time, it's used to get the listener to believe it's raining (by which I mean have a tendency to act as if it's raining - put a coat on, carry an umbrella, write a poem about it...). — InPitzotl
Well then how do you talk about X? If I show you a box and tell you there's a flower in it, you say "the flower is green", but there's no flower in the box. How can you have been talking about the actual green flower? There is no actual green flower. There's no referent for your sentence. You were talking about your 'mental image' of a flower which I had tricked you into thinking existed. — Isaac
Apologies for butting in, but I'd like to comment on this.
That we can point at nothing isn't that we can't point at something. If there is a flower then I can point to it. If there isn't a flower then there's nothing to point to (other than the floor or empty air or whatever).
There's nothing in principle different between pointing to a green flower with my finger and using the phrase "the green flower." — Michael
You can't then go back in time and change what the event at T1 was. — Isaac
You accept this yourself in your scenario where you say that there isn’t actually a flower in the box (apparently contradicting your own arguments). — Michael
If the independent fact is that there isn’t actually a flower, as in your scenario, then InPitzotl isn’t pointing at/referring to anything, even though he believes and says he is. — Michael
I've always argued that (when said by me) that "there's no flower in the box" means 'I believe there's no flower in the box'. — Isaac
Well then how do you talk about X? If I show you a box and tell you there's a flower in it, you say "the flower is green", but I believe that there's no flower in the box. How can you have been talking about the actual green flower? I believe that there is no actual green flower.
If you say he is actually pointing to the actual rain at T1 you're required to change the past when you realise, at T2 that there's no rain. — Isaac
Neither are what you claimed. You gave us a list of behaviours which would lead to being a bachelor, that's not that same thing a a definition of what the word means. A series of biophysical changes are necessary for a seed to be a tree, they're not what the word 'tree' means. — Isaac
There was no argument in that cartoon... just as there was no argument in the thing it responded to. The cartoon was just a way to respond to the smoke you were blowing (you certainly weren't commenting on the actual contents of what you quoted).Yeah, the 'it's just obvious to any right thinking person' argument. — Isaac
Nope; not if there is no actual flower. But it is about the contents of that box. In this case, the truth value of "the flower is green" is undefined, as that statement has no referent, but the reason it has no referent is because that box doesn't have a flower in it.Your claim is that your sentence is about an actual flower, — Isaac
I don't disagree that you can go on all day, but none of your suggestions are related to how normal people use the terms "means" and "ends". None of this is relevant anyway, as having hunger and remaining alive aren't beliefs.No, the end is to become satiated, the means is by eating your lunch. Or the ends is to remain alive ..., the means is by satiating your hunger... we could go on all day. — Isaac
FTFY.You said
"Most of the time, it's used togetinform the listenerto believethat it's raining (by which I meanhave a tendency to act as if it's rainingto convey information necessary for the listener to adapt to the rain - put a coat on to avoid getting wet, carry an umbrella to avoid getting wet, write a historically accurate poem about it...)." — InPitzotl
...in response — Isaac
If you say so, but I'm not beholden to what you expect of me.You gave this father saying "it's raining" by way of example, so I'm expecting an example proving that we're not communicating beliefs. — Isaac
Then let’s phrase your scenario appropriately:
Well then how do you talk about X? If I show you a box and tell you there's a flower in it, you say "the flower is green", but I believe that there's no flower in the box. How can you have been talking about the actual green flower? I believe that there is no actual green flower.
What do your beliefs have to do with what InPitzotl talks about and what his words refer to? — Michael
If you say he is actually pointing to the actual rain at T1 you're required to change the past when you realise, at T2 that there's no rain. — Isaac
I said that if it’s raining then he’s referring to the actual rain. — Michael
a man who has not been wed is a man who has not participated in the series of events involved in being wed — Janus
There was no argument in that cartoon — InPitzotl
the smoke you were blowing — InPitzotl
Nope; not if there is no actual flower. But it is about the contents of that box. In this case, the truth value of "the flower is green" is undefined, as that statement has no referent, but the reason it has no referent is because that box doesn't have a flower in it. — InPitzotl
You said
"Most of the time, it's used to getinform the listener to believethat it's raining (by which I mean have a tendency to act as if it's rainingto convey information necessary for the listener to adapt to the rain - put a coat on to avoid getting wet, carry an umbrella to avoid getting wet, write a historically accurate poem about it...)." — InPitzotl
...in response — Isaac
FTFY. — InPitzotl
Yep. a description of the steps necessary to achieve a state is not the same as an investigation into the meaning of the word. If it were philology and science would be the same topic. — Isaac
there are actual events that distinguish a bachelor from a non-bachelor; meaning it's not merely that a bachelor is someone who the linguistic community refers to as such. — Janus
Doesn't 'John is a bachelor' mean, by implication 'John is a man who has not participated in the kind of series of events that are generically referred to as "getting wed"'? — Janus
If a person is hallucinating a cat and points to where they see a cat then they’re not pointing to a real cat; they’re pointing to empty air or to the ground or to nothing or whatever. — Michael
there’s still this post where I address the issue of hallucinations and veridical experiences. — Michael
Also, in the second scenario, what was "the cat is black" about? It sounds like in the second scenario we find out that "the cat is black" turns out after all to have been about our belief, not an actual cat. — Isaac
The discussion about the temporal mess of deciding post hoc what a statement was about was supposed to be an answer to that. Sorry.
Right. So in the first scenario "the cat is black" is not about the cat (there isn't one).
So it's incorrect to say that the statement "the cat is black" is about the cat. At best, it might be about the cat, or it might not be. We won't know until we determine whether the cat was a hallucination or not.
My issue with this way of looking at things is that it sets up a situation where we don't know what we're talking about at the time of saying it. Which seems silly.
Also, in the second scenario, what was "the cat is black" about? It sounds like in the second scenario we find out that "the cat is black" turns out after all to have been about our belief, not an actual cat. So why didn't we know that at the time. We can't be wrong about our beliefs so I'd know at the time if I was referring to a belief. — Isaac
No, it was about an actual cat. — Michael
But what do you mean by "an actual cat" when you say "'the cat is black' isn't about an actual cat"? — Michael
The post I linked to was a response to your post about "deciding post hoc"? — Michael
What you seem to be saying is that either 1) we never have veridical experiences, or 2) if hallucinations are possible then a veridical experience isn't access to the facts.
Whether or not the first is true seems a topic for another discussion, but the second is an invalid inference. — Michael
Are you saying that in the second scenario the person isn't pointing to a real cat with their finger? — Michael
So in the scenario where it turns out there's no cat, the statement was about a cat? — Isaac
In that context I simply mean a cat which everyone in the language game agrees is there. — Isaac
I'm saying that because we don't know at the time whether an experience is veridical or not, it doesn't make sense to say that our expressions refer to the external objects of that experience.
I'm saying they might not be. Although you've introduced 'real' now, a whole different kettle of fish. I think Frodo is 'real' in some senses of the word, we'd need to be clearer about what you mean by 'real' before I can properly answer that. — Isaac
I'm saying that because we don't know at the time whether an experience is veridical or not, it doesn't make sense to say that our expressions refer to the external objects of that experience. — Isaac
I think you have the wrong room. This is philosophy. The argument clinic is down the hall....is an argument. — Isaac
...to which I replied that (1) goes on in my skull, (2) and "it's raining" four feet in front, and (3) is just a model we use to explain (2).It coveys (1)a belief about a weather condition, not (2)the actual weather condition (3)(which is composed of atmospheric molecules). — Isaac
You're very confused and I have no idea how to fix it. There's no green flower in my right shoe either, but a discovery of that fact at T2 wouldn't mean anything relevant. By contrast, the discovery that the box is empty does have relevance, as you implicitly acknowledge. The reason the latter is relevant whereas the former is irrelevant is because "The flower is green" is about the contents of the box, as opposed to having nothing to do with the contents of my right shoe. This isn't a new point; it's exactly the same point I was making with "it's raining" being about weather. But it has nothing to do with this confusion of what you imagined my claim was in your quote here.The point is that you only know that at T2 when you see the empty box. so at T1 you are making a statement whose proper referent you don't know. But your claim is that you do know the referent of "it's raining" - the rain, even at T1. — Isaac
No, that's the first scenario. When there isn't a cat he isn't talking about an actual cat.
But in the second scenario where there is a cat he is talking about an actual cat. — Michael
The person is alone. Nobody else is around to either see or not see a cat. The person can see a cat, and talks about the cat he sees. — Michael
We were talking about access to facts. If my experience is veridical then ipso fact I have access to a fact. — Michael
Are you saying that because I don't know if the money is real then I don't have access to real money? That doesn't follow. If the money is real then I have access to real money, even if I cannot distinguish real money from fake money. — Michael
If my experience is veridical then my finger is pointing to a cat. If my experience is an hallucination then my finger isn't pointing to a cat. — Michael
What do you mean by not knowing at the time whether an experience is veridical or not? Your entire argument is that to know is to believe. Iff I believe that my experience at the time is veridical then I know that my experience at the time is veridical. — Michael
Here in the philosophy forum, you made an argument tracing back to this:
It coveys (1)a belief about a weather condition, not (2)the actual weather condition (3)(which is composed of atmospheric molecules). — Isaac
...to which I replied that (1) goes on in my skull, (2) and "it's raining" four feet in front, and (3) is just a model we use to explain (2).
I've seen two replies to this, but no responses. I don't know why you keep quoting me; you don't seem very interested in actually talking about this. — InPitzotl
"The flower is green" is about the contents of the box, as opposed to having nothing to do with the contents of my right shoe. — InPitzotl
That doesn't explain this:You've just said that you believe the actual weather you're referring to goes on outside of your skull. I don't. — Isaac
If "it's raining" describes what's inside my skull, and (2) is inside my skull, and atmospheric molecules are inside my skull, then (1), (2), (3), and "it's raining" are all inside my skull. But what does "my skull" refer to? Per the logic, it only refers to my belief in my skull, which is in my skull. So if (1), (2), (3), and "it's raining" are in my skull, and my skull is in my skull, we must have an infinitely regressing series of skulls, and the actual weather can't be outside any of them.It coveys (1) a belief about a weather condition, not (2) the actual weather condition (3) (which is composed of atmospheric molecules). — Isaac
It doesn't make any sense at all to me.I've gibven the argument that if it were the actual weather we were referring to we'd have to retrospectively change what we referred to if we found out we were being deceived so it makes more sense to say it's our belief about the weather that we refer to. — Isaac
What flower?So you're claiming that the expression "the flower is green" is not about the flower? — Isaac
OK. So how do you personally resolve the issue I've outlined in my argument above.
At T1 you say "John is a bachelor" - you want to say that this statement is not about your beliefs but rather that it's about John, the man.
At T2 you disover that there's no such person, you were deceived (a hallucination, or a trick). — Isaac
If "it's raining" describes what's inside my skull, and (2) is inside my skull — InPitzotl
At an absolute minimum, I expect some sort of explanation from you that achieves the goal of building a fence such that "it's raining" and "a belief about a weather condition" are on one side of the fence, and "the actual weather condition" is on the other (possibly because "atmospheric molecules" make "the actual weather condition"), such that you can say "it's raining" is on the side of the former and not the side of the latter. Because something like that is what you actually claimed. — InPitzotl
So you're claiming that the expression "the flower is green" is not about the flower? — Isaac
What flower? — InPitzotl
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.