such that it goes from satisfying what we currently mean by "lead" to satisfying what we currently mean by "gold". — Michael
That number of protons — Banno
And presumably what counts as a proton - the criteria by which we decide - can be seen under the same electron microscope that sees the protons? — StreetlightX
but the protons could not care less. That's the point. — Banno
And presumably what counts as a proton - the criteria by which we decide - can be seen under the same electron microscope that sees the protons?
Look, that's the trick. 'Non-institutional facts' look or seem non-institutional to the degree that we can continually put the 'institution' at one remove from the fact. But at some point you will always hit the bedrock of things-counting-as-things, whose only guarantee will be nothing other than human institutions. At some point, you will hit the bedrock of obligation, beyond which the spade can only be turned and say - "this doesn't satisfy what I meant"! — StreetlightX
We can't just decide to use a non-magnetic material as a magnetic material. — Michael
changing the meaning of the word "magnetic" isn't going to get a piece of wood to stick to my fridge door. — Michael
But this has no bearing - none - on the fact that what counts as magnetic or not ultimately bears on human institutions. — StreetlightX
Physical constraints apply to bishops too. We cannot, no matter our assignation, claim an object larger than the square on our chessboard is a bishop. It could not function as one, no matter how much we define it as such. If we say "bishops move diagonally on a chess board" then something which, by it's physical properties, cannot so move cannot be a bishop. — Isaac
We don't need the piece to be on the board. We could just have a piece of paper attached to the piece and write the position on it. — Michael
it's not a bishop by virtue of its innate characteristics. — Michael
but given the meaning of these words we can just decide that a stone is a bishop but can't just decide that lead is gold, or alchemists could have just re-written the dictionary to create the philosophers' stone. — Michael
Exactly. Neither is gold 'gold' by virtue of its innate properties. It's 'gold' by virtue of some of its innate properties matching the criteria we decided for what constitutes 'gold'.
We decided all matter with 79 protons shall be 'gold'.
As it is with the bishop we decided all objects moved only diagonally on a chess board in the game of chess shall be 'bishops' — Isaac
And that this is so, is entirely in our power to decide. — StreetlightX
It's not (always) in our power to decide. A starving family can't just make food out of dirt by changing the meaning of the words "food" or "dirt" or thinking about the world differently or whatever. — Michael
That you think this constitutes an objection speaks to some kind of miscommnication here. Nothing about this contradicts the fact that how things count as things is entirely up to us. That you think it does leaves me puzzled. — StreetlightX
Yes, but I can disagree that that is rat poison, or that this constitues a killing.
Not that I would, but I can. — StreetlightX
Given what we currently mean — Michael
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.