But I'm not making the claim in the language as it is now. As I said before, "horse" means "equine" at T1, and means "rabbit" at T2, where the language at T1 is language as it is now and the language at T2 is a hypothetical future language. The conclusion that at T2 horses are rabbits applies the language at T2, not the language at T1. That's why I accused you of conflation; you interpreted the conclusion using the language at T1. — Michael

You are claiming now, using the English language that horses would be rabbits at T2. There is no question of which language you intend it to be 'about.' It is now, and you are making the claim now in this language. And according to the rules of the language as it is used now, the claim you just made, that rabbits would be horses at T2, is false. Of course rabbits wouldnt be horses -- that's ridiculous. If you want to make a claim specifically about the language as it exists at that time, you can do that truly, such as : "In the language at T2, 'rabbits are horses' would be true" (which is true), or "At T2, rabbits would be the reference of 'horse,'" which is also true but that is not what you are saying. You are instead saying that rabbits would be horses at T2, which is false. And as soon as this confusion is cleared away, the bite you want to have to your position deflates entirely.

I would have thought the implicitness of the "if" was obvious. — Michael

No, because your argument was meant to parallel mine as a reductio, and mine was obviously not counterfactual. So leave out the implicitness, and you will either have an unsound argument, or one that does not make the point you intended to make. Either way, it doesn't work.

I agree that the things we talk about using the word give the word its meaning. So if we use the word to talk about something else then something else gives the word its meaning.

You are claiming now, using the English language that horses would be rabbits at T2. — The Great Whatever

No, I'm using the T₂ language to claim that horses are rabbits at T₂.

No, I'm using the T2 language to claim that horses are rabbits at T2. — Michael

No, you are not, because it is not T2, that language doesn't exist, and you can't use a nonexistent language. You cannot just change the rules of the language as it exists now to make a claim in a future language. You can make a claim about a future language, using the present langaue, as in one of the formulations I list above: but this is not what you are doing. If you were using the language as it existed at T2, it would be T2, but it is not, it is now.

No, because your argument was meant to parallel mine as a reductio, and mine was obviously not counterfactual. So leave out the implicitness, and you will either have an unsound argument, or one that does not make the point you intended to make. Either way, it doesn't work. — The Great Whatever

It wasn't meant as a reductio. It was meant to bring to light your hypocrisy. You didn't have a problem with the claim "homosexuals are gay" given the change in how the word "gay" was used, but then found a problem with the claim "horses are rabbits" given the change in how the word "horse" was used. And your problem wasn't with the premise, as that was obviously intended as a counterfactual, but with the conclusion - despite the fact that the logic mirrors the gay/homosexual case.

So you agree that if I am Chinese speaker trained to output "horse" when I see "rabbit" in the appropriate situation (T2), that neither I nor the system understand the meaning of "horse" or "rabbit".

The meaning is horse, not the words "horse" or "rabbit".

Holy shit, no. There is no hypocrisy. The "gay" case works because "gay" actually does mean "homosexual," and "rabbit" actually does not mean horse. If you claim this is instead "counterfactual," whatever that means, despite your not presenting the argument that way, then it loses its force, because it does not parallel my argument and so shows no hypocrisy.

I'm telling you that the conclusion "at T₂ rabbits are horses" is using the language at T₂.

The hypocrisy is that you don't think that the conclusion follows from the premise. The truth of the premise is irrelevant to its validity. If your argument is valid then my argument is valid.

No, you do understand.

That makes no sense. You are using the language as it exists now because you are speaking now. You cannot use a non-existent language.

The validity isn't in question, the soundness is. The conclusion follows from the premises, but the first premise is obviously false, so it doesn't matter.

No, you do understand. — Michael

So when I output "horse" instead of "rabbit" at T2, not knowing a word of English, what do I mean? Do I somehow manage to mean rabbit? How?

My experience with Michael tells me you are wasting your time; he will never admit he is wrong (which he is).

That makes no sense. You are using the language as it exists now because you are speaking now. You cannot use a non-existent language. — The Great Whatever

It's not a non-existent language. It exists in my use of it in stating the conclusion.

The validity isn't in question, the soundness is. The conclusion follows from the premises, but the first premise is obviously false, so it doesn't matter.

If it's valid, which it is, and if the meaning of "horse" is determined by what sort of things we use it to talk about, which it is, then if we decided to the use the word "horse" to talk about rabbits then at that time "horse" would mean "rabbit" and so in that language, at that time, horses are rabbits.

What am I wrong about?

If I change my name to "Andrew" then I would be Andrew. If we change the name of rabbits to "horses" then rabbits would be horses.

It's so simple.

It's not a non-existent language. It exists in my use of it in stating the conclusion. — Michael

There is no language in which "rabbit" and "horse" are synonymous. You are just using English as it exists now, and making a false claim in it. You are not inventing another language and then using that one in the same sentence. That doesn't even make sense.

If it's valid, which it is, and if the meaning of "horse" is determined by what sort of things we use it to talk about, which it is, then if we decided to the use the word "horse" to talk about rabbits then at that time "horse" would mean "rabbit" and so in that language, at that time, horses are rabbits. — Michael

Fucking...no. Yes, "horse" would mean "rabbit." No, horses would not be rabbits. They would be horses.

There is no language in which "rabbit" and "horse" are synonymous. You are just using English as it exists now, and making a false claim in it. You are not inventing another language and then using that one in the same sentence. That doesn't even make sense. — The Great Whatever

Of course it makes sense. We do it all the time when using symbolic logic.

Let "P" mean "philosopher". The Great Whatever is a P. Am I calling you a philosopher or a letter? I'm calling you a philosopher.

Honestly, if this is so hard to understand then I'm wasting my time.

That you can coherently and consistently make a claim in the present language that is true now, because it would allegedly be true in some hypothetical future language.

I'm not making a claim in the present language that is true now. I'm making a claim in the hypothetical future language that would be true then.

If "horse" meant "rabbit" then horses would be rabbits. If Hillary Clinton won the election then she would be president.

What is so difficult about this?

Of course it makes sense. We do it all the time when using symbolic logic. — Michael

This is not symbolic logic. There is no language in which "rabbit" and "horse" are synonymous. A fortiori you are using no such language.

This is getting ridiculous.

You can't use present language and pretend you are using a hypothetical future language; if you could do that then everything would be up for grabs.

I'm not using present language and pretending I'm using a hypothetical future language. I'm just using the hypothetical future language. The fact that it uses the same symbols has clearly confused you.

If I were to say "If 'squilooples' meant 'rabbits' then rabbits would be squilooples", would you find something wrong with this?

So your claim is that, if we called rabbits "horses," they would become horses. Prima facie, this claim is absurd. My claim is that they still would be rabbits, but we would call them "horses."

You say your claim rests on the ability to simultaneously invent a nonexistent language and then somehow use it in the same sentence.

Why should I believe your absurd suggestion that rabbits would become horses if we changed what we called them, which in turn is bolstered by this absurd stipulation?

I'm not saying that if we called rabbits "horses" then rabbits would undergo a biological transformation into an equine animal. I'm saying that if we called rabbits "horses" then to be a horse would be to be a mammal in the family Leporidae.

There is no actual point in our present language that you are making then.

↪The Great Whatever I'm not saying that if we called rabbits "horses" then rabbits would undergo a biological transformation into an equine animal. I'm saying that if we called rabbits "horses" then to be a horse would be to be a mammal in the family Leporidae. — Michael

To be a horse is to be an equine animal. This is true regardless of what the word "horse" means. Horses were horses before the word "horse" existed.

My point is that what it means to be X is determined by how we use the word "X". If we change the way we use the word "X" then we change what it means to be X (as was the case with "gay" and being gay).

My point is that what it means to be X is determined by how we use the word "X". — Michael

It is not. Being a horse is not determined by how we use "horse;" it is determined by having certain physical characteristics.

It is not. Being a horse is not determined by how we use "horse;" it is determined by having certain physical characteristics. — The Great Whatever

To be a horse is to be an equine animal only because we use the word "horse" to refer to equine animals.

To be gay is to be homosexual only because we use the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals.

I am Michael only because I use the word "Michael" to refer to myself.

To be a horse is to be an equine animal only because we use the word "horse" to refer to equine animal. — Michael

No. Horses were horses, because they had certain characteristics, long before any such word existed.

I am Michael only because I use the word "Michael" to refer to myselt. — Michael

This is true (to an extent -- it has to do with the speech community, not just you), but names are different from common nouns.