If meaning and acts of interpretation are physically inexplicable, it implies the existence of a nonphysical thing, oui? — Agent Smith

No, it implies you lack the capacity to accurately describe what you are attempting to, which would imply that you're talking about something. Nobody needs to interpret things that aren't real, that's why there's always another made up answer that works just fine for every claim of, no shit, real not-real things. You can't explain reality, but that means that my not being able to demonstrate non-reality, is stronger reason to believe in non-reality than reality, even though me simply talking to you demonstrates reality. It's nonsense.

Matter is the substance of which all physical objects are composed. The density of matter is the ratio of its mass to volume and is a measure of the composition of matter and the compactness of the constituent entities in it. — Garrett Travers

This is a philosophy forum, I don't come here for lessons in high-school physics.

If meaning and acts of interpretation are physically inexplicable, it implies the existence of a nonphysical thing, oui? — Agent Smith

Right. Hence, dualisms of various schools. That is not self-contradictory but it contradicts materialism.

This is a philosophy forum, I don't come here for lessons in high-school physics. — Wayfarer

This isn't an argument. This is a reduction fallacy, an ad hominem fallacy, and an appeal to stone fallacy all at once.... In response to basic facts....

This is how you signal to someone that you are not engaging anything in a philosophical manner.

I'm not interested in engaging with you, that is correct, nor anyone else who thinks Ayn Rand is a philosopher.

I'm not interested in engaging with you, that is correct, nor anyone else who thinks Ayn Rand is a philosopher. — Wayfarer

She's the world's premier philosopher. And you are disengaging because your position has been defeated. And for some reason, even though you were just called out for ad hominem, you decided to do so again in whatever petty way you thought would be successful. This is because you're angry that Ayn Rand is a superior philosopher to the Buddah, or Kant, or Plato, in every single way conceivable.

And you are disengaging because your position has been defeated. — Garrett Travers

If you thinking that is the price to pay for never talking to you again, I'm very happy for you to think it.

If you thinking that is the price to pay for never talking to you again, I'm very happy for you to think it. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I mean it's clear you cannot contend with empiricism and materialism. It's not that I think as much, I'm quite literally watching you run away from a discussion because of basic facts of physics.

Reminds me of the fairy tale the Emperor has no clothes. It's not that meaning and acts of interpretation are nonphysical, it's just that you're too stupid to see their physicality. :grin:

Right. Hence, dualisms of various schools. That is not self-contradictory but it contradicts materialism. — Wayfarer

I'm happy just knowing that the nonphysical is possible i.e. it doesn't entail a contradiction as such.

The next step would be to prove that if possible that p then necessary that p [◇p $\rightarrow$ □p] aka Modal Realism.

Reminds me of the fairy tale the Emperor has no clothes. It's not that meaning and acts of interpretation are nonphysical, it's just that you're too stupid to see their physicality. :grin: — Agent Smith

hehaha! :rofl:

I'm not kidding when I say that this is what my brain responds with in essence with people who deny reality in any way. It's confounding to me.

This is because you're angry that Ayn Rand is a superior philosopher to the Buddah...in every single way conceivable. — Garrett Travers

:broken: :broken: :broken:

I'm happy just knowing that the nonphysical is possible i.e. it doesn't entail a contradiction as such.

The next step would be to prove that if possible that p then necessary that p [◇p →→ □p] aka Modal Realism. — Agent Smith

I think what you're grappling with is how to even think about it. The way you originally phrased the question was 'are there non-physical things?' To which I think the answer is 'no'. And I think that this way of thinking about the problem goes back to Cartesian dualism, in particular. Why? Because of Descartes' 'res cogitans', which means literally 'thinking thing' which tends to make an object of the thinking subject, treating it as a 'that', as some mysterious 'stuff'. Unravelling all of that confusion is the key here in my opinion.

I think what you're grappling with is how to even think about it. The way you originally phrased the question was 'are there non-physical things?' To which I think the answer is 'no'. And I think that this way of thinking about the problem goes back to Cartesian dualism, in particular. Why? Because of Descartes' 'res cogitans', which means literally 'thinking thing'. Unravelling all of that is the key. — Wayfarer

Yep, you could say that. I'm basically interested in broad outlines, an overall skeletal framework that gives me something to work with. Thanks for the interesting convo.

hehaha! :rofl: — Garrett Travers

:up:

:broken: :broken: :broken: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Don't be such a baby, I was just trying to piss off what's his face. Nobody is the "premier" philosopher. But, this whole "she wasn't a philosopher" business is in fact bullshit. She was a fabulous empiricist and nobody has ever presented me with an argument strong enough to deny it other than "I hate her!" propositions. I'll have any that you have if you wanna tackle the subject. I've actually got it up on a thread with Marx, Fouccault, and Kant, if you wanna take a look.

Yeah, I mean it's clear you cannot contend with empiricism and materialism. It's not that I think as much, I'm quite literally watching you run away from a discussion because of basic facts of physics. — Garrett Travers

You sound like Jehova witnesses pointing people to them running away from the basic facts of God.

In my case the true meaning is a dual observation: giving one piece of information when viewing from one perspective, and another when viewing from the other perspective. Take a Necker cube for example. It can be seen two ways, each a valid cube. What is "the meaning intended by the author"? — jgill

According to Wikipedia, the Necker cube is an ambiguous drawing, "it can be interpreted to have either the lower-left or the upper-right square as its front side". My argument is that neither of the two possible interpretations is the correct one. and that is what is intended by the artist.

The reason why I say that they cannot both be correct, is because the two interpretations contradict each other. If we say that both are correct, then we say that the drawing depicts an object which has both, the lower left, and also the upper right, as the front side. Clearly this is contradictory. And, the fact that this is wrong, is evident from the way we see it. At any time, we must see the drawing as one or the other, and we cannot see it as both, at the same time. This is also evident in the case of drawings like Wittgenstein's proposed duck-rabbit.

To avoid this contradiction, which results from the claim that both are the correct interpretation, we have to say that neither is the correct interpretation. And, this interpretation, that neither is correct, is consistent with the intent of the artist. when such ambiguity is the intent. The artist intends that both interpretations are equally possible, therefore the intention is that neither one is the correct one. Clearly, since the the artist intends that each of the two is an acceptable interpretation, then the artist intends that neither is the correct one. If we were to say that the artist actually intends that we interpret both as correct, at the same time, then the artist intends contradiction, and that would be necessarily an act of deception by the artist. So to avoid the conclusion that the artist is engaged in deception, we can say that the artist intends that neither is the correct one.

According to Wikipedia, the Necker cube is an ambiguous drawing, "it can be interpreted to have either the lower-left or the upper-right square as its front side". My argument is that neither of the two possible interpretations is the correct one. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do you keep bringing up the word correct? The only thing correct is one gets two pieces of information from one image, like my mathematical example (a bit too complicated to relate here) - one expression yields two pieces of math information depending on how it is interpreted (seen).

This topic has run its course for me. You can have the last word. :roll:

NON-PHYSICAL REALITY

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? Can such ideas be discussed without eye-rolling, name-calling, mud-slinging, ideological labeling, and anathematizing? Is philosophical dialog even doable in the current climate of polarized Us vs Them & Orthodox vs Heretical posturing? Has modern Philosophy become "politics by other means"? — Gnomon

Well. It looks like my question has been answered . . . . in the negative. Empirical Science versus Theoretical Philosophy is non-negotiable . . . for the emotional extremists among us. It's just as polarized & politicized as Western society in general.

Fortunately though, warfare in non-physical cyber-space doesn't have physical fatalities, just metaphysical casualties. So, our bloody-but-unbowed souls will survive this thread to fight again on another controversial topic. Can I at least have the last word? :joke:

Good, thank you
1. What is true, what is truth, and how do we discover or determine them?
2. What is considered to be "natural"?

Why do you keep bringing up the word correct? The only thing correct is one gets two pieces of information from one image, like my mathematical example (a bit too complicated to relate here) - one expression yields two pieces of math information depending on how it is interpreted (seen). — jgill

"Correct" was your word.

And I recently posted a short note concerning a math expression that implies two distinct conclusions depending on how one interprets it. Both interpretations are correct simultaneously. — jgill

So I tried to explain to you that the proper interpretation of intentional ambiguity would be that neither interpretation is correct, rather than your claim that contradictory interpretations could be simultaneously correct, in violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Sure. Even setting aside ontological disputes, physicalism vs idealism vs dualism, you have the whole question of modality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not up to speed on modal theories. Are Realism & Idealism merely different modes of thinking, or modes of being? Aristotle seemed to view Potential & Actual as different modes of being. But hard-core Materialists might dismiss "Potential" & "Possible" as meaning "un-Real" and "non-Existent", hence not worth thinking about, even by feckless Philosophers. Can you expand on the application of modality to the question of Non-Physical Reality? :smile:

PS__For example, a button-pushing comeback above says :
"No, it implies you lack the capacity to accurately describe what you are attempting to, which would imply that you're talking about something."
This seems to be asserting that scientific communication should be limited to proper nouns referring to real things. That might eliminate a lot of mis-understanding caused by the casual use of metaphors, analogies, and allusions in vernacular language. But it would also forestall any discussion of Invisible or Non-Physical aspects of perceived & conceived Reality. For example, Einstein's paradigm-challenging theories were presented in two forms : Mathematics and Metaphors. How does Modal theory account for poetic Metaphors in place of prosaic Facts? :smile:

On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication :
The language of science is largely metaphorical. Scientists rely on metaphor and analogy to make sense of scientific phenomena and communicate their findings to each other and to the public. Yet, despite their utility, metaphors can also constrain scientific reasoning, contribute to public misunderstandings, and, at times, inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and messages that undermine the goals of inclusive science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969428/

What does modality mean in research?
Modality means that there is reference to actualization of a situation in a world that is not represented as being the factual world.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276273181_The_definition_of_modality

rather than your claim that contradictory interpretations could be simultaneously correct — Metaphysician Undercover

Complementary, not contradictory.

Complementary, not contradictory. — jgill

Your example was the Necker cube. As I quoted from Wikipedia the two possible interpretations exclude each other by way of contradiction. They do not complement each other. This is generally the case with intentional ambiguity. If one interpretation is correct, it would exclude the possibility that another is correct. I don't know how an author could attach two distinct meanings to the exact same symbol without contradiction. I'll listen if you'll explain how you think it is possible.

No, it isn't. Measurement is the essence of accurately assessed perception. Reality doesn't care about measurements in an active way, only in a chemically balanced way; regression toward the mean. — Garrett Travers

Hey. Could you explain what you mean by "regression towards the mean"?

Hey. Could you explain what you mean by "regression towards the mean"? — Daniel

Yeah, the natural inclination for systems in the universe to, by the properties of universal forces and materials, approach an equilibrated state, or absolute zero in a closed state.

Your example was the Necker cube. As I quoted from Wikipedia the two possible interpretations exclude each other by way of contradiction — Metaphysician Undercover

If one expects two pieces of information simultaneously, yes. But with a slight passage of time one perceives cube#1, then a moment later cube#2. Two different objects arising from one symbol.

If one expects two pieces of information simultaneously, yes. But with a slight passage of time one perceives cube#1, then a moment later cube#2. Two different objects arising from one symbol. — jgill

I know that the same person can perceive one, then the other, but this will only incline the perceiver to wonder which is the correct interpretation. And, a number of perceivers might interpret ambiguity differently, and be inclined to discuss which is correct. So in an attempt to find out which is correct, we try to determine what was meant by the author. However, as implied by "intentional ambiguity", the author meant to be ambiguous, therefore ambiguity is what was meant, and this implies no correct interpretation.

The issue is to absolve the author from the charge of deception. That is what I've been describing. We can say that the author intended contradictory interpretations, but that constitutes deception. I also believe that if the author intended the symbol to mean one thing at one moment, and another thing at another moment, this would also constitute deception because the author provides no indication as to when we're supposed to interpret which. So I do not believe the author can be absolved from blame in this way. The only way which I've been able to find, to justify the intentional use of ambiguity, is to recognize that the author's intention is something completely different from cube#1 or cube #2. Therefore, what is symbolized by the drawing (the meaning of it) cannot be interpreted as cube#1 nor cube#2, nor can we say that it is both, as the author is showing to us, something completely different from cube#1 and cube #2. What the author is showing to us is ambiguity, hence the intent is to be ambiguous, and what is meant, or the meaning itself, is ambiguous. And "ambiguous" implies something completely different from cube#1, or cube#2, or both, it is none of the above.

The subject is not insignificant, because intentional ambiguity is much more common than many people would expect, and to identify it takes experience. We find an abundance of it in Wittgenstein for example, and the trend is for interpreters to argue 'my interpretation is the correct interpretation'. And the problem is that we can argue endlessly 'the correct interpretation', and diligently apply principles in an attempt to determine 'the correct interpretation', without recognizing that this is a fruitless process because there is no correct interpretation. And to say that there is a multitude of correct interpretations does not solve the problem, it just creates another problem, because they contradict each other, and it's impossible for the author to intend contradictory things.

Furthermore, 'a multitude of correct interpretations' doesn't accurately describe what the author is doing with intentional ambiguity, and that's why 'no correct interpretation" is a much better description. Understanding intentional interpretation as 'no correct interpretation' gives us a far better approach to the true nature of meaning, by revealing the open ended aspect of "meaning". What I mean by "open ended aspect", is the way that the perceiver creates meaning for an encountered symbol which was not intended by the author. From this perspective we see that experience, training, education, and convention, act to put boundaries to this creative aspect of the mind. So when a person encounters a bunch of symbols, one's mind will create a meaning, an interpretation of the pattern of symbols, which is conditioned by one's experience. Your past experience has created boundaries as to where your mind can go with your interpretation. When there is words which you are not too familiar with, your boundaries may be too narrow, or too broad, and the result is misunderstanding what was meant. From this perspective meaning is inherently imprecise.

Your comments give me pause to consider the use of the expression "intentional ambiguity" may be inappropriate for what I had in mind. The statements (assuming no division by 0)
$F=\frac{tK}{a-\left( a-\frac{tK}{r} \right)}$, $b=a-\frac{tK}{r}$ provide information about b - something called a bifurcation - but when reduced to lowest terms using very simple algebra all that is left is $F=r$, which is also relevant information about F. A kind of double entendre I suppose, or maybe something much more elementary. Your suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks, jgill. As you may know, I am not into interpretations of mathematical symbols and formulations, having rejected such dogmatism in high school (smoked too much weed). I've had enough difficulty interpreting English as it is.

From my simple mind, I would say that in the one interpretation, you treat "b" as an undefined symbol, an unknown, and you resolve to determine the unknown, so it gives you "information about b". In the other interpretation you treat "b" as a known, a defined operation (or some such thing) called a bifurcation, and so you apply that rule, the bifurcation, resulting in "F=r". The issue then is whether the meaning of "b" is truly defined in the applied algebra, or does the algebra just use a method to dissolve the issue.