Ok, well if that's the sense in which you're using it, then fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense to me, given your examples, although not so much with regards to references to the past, present and future. Something about that strikes me as intuitively wrong. The differences are harder to ignore. — Sapientia
This may need to be argued more fully, but I am veering off topic. I was hoping to come back to Martha's ability (or rather, lack thereof) to genuinely express thoughts. — Pierre-Normand
Let's say we give a test subject a rulebook and then feed them sets of symbols. For example, whenever they see:
å ß ∂
Then they write down:
ç
Now, do these symbols mean anything? Does the set of rules for computing the correct symbol (or symbols) result in some sort of understanding?
And I'll grant that there is an understanding (given a certain meaning of the word) in how to go from one set of symbols to another (based on the rules). But is that what we're doing when we speak? Searle's contention is that it is not, such that the Chinese room can't be said to understand Chinese. — Marchesk
But, going back to the topic, I doubt whether I'd have much to say that hasn't already been said, and probably said in a better way than I could. I found myself in agreement with yourself and Marchesk. This post earlier on made a good point, I think: — Sapientia
It should go without saying that it does not follow from the argument in the paragraph directly above that by making that statement, I would be implying that I am a small mammal in the family Leporidae. — Sapientia
Yes, I agree that that's a valid reductio ad absurdum, and it seems to me that @Michael must either revise his position or bite a bullet that makes his position implausible.
So if you want to reject X iff "X" is true then you must reject either If X then "X" is true or If not X then "X" is false. But such a rejection would allow for the situation where the cat is on the mat but "the cat is on the mat" is false or where the cat is not on the mat but "the cat is on the mat" is true. Isn't that a reductio? — Michael
Being forced to conclude that nothing existed before language is worse... — Sapientia
... than allowing the logical possibility that, e.g. the cat is on the matt, but "the cat is on the matt" isn't true.
Why is that the conclusion? All I've done is reversed the order of the T-schema. X iff "X" is true means the same as "X" is true iff X. — Michael
By using language. — Michael
Please explain to me in sufficient detail how you would explain the state of affairs before language without having to concede that at that time, it would be the case that X, but "X" would not be true. — Sapientia
The T-schema doesn't say X happened iff "X happened" was said at the time; it says X happened iff "X happened" is true. — Michael
Do you therefore accept that "X iff 'X' is true" was not true at that time? — Sapientia
This like asking "do you accept that the King of France is not bald?" — Michael
And it's irrelevant. If you want to reject "X" is true iff X then you must reject either "X" is true if X or "X" is false if not X.
So which one do you reject? — Michael
How so? There is no King of France, yet there was a time before language. I am simply asking whether or not you think that, at that time, it would have been the case that X, but "X" would not have been true. — Sapientia
What you've said doesn't make it irrelevant for reasons I've already explained. Are you trying to shift the burden?
Being forced to commit to the claim that nothing existed before language is a damning logical consequence
...the only way that I see to avoid it is to accept that "X iff 'X' is true" was not true at that time.
You're asking if a non-existent sentence was or wasn't true. But that's like asking if the non-existent King of France is or isn't bald. — Michael
I'm not shifting any burden. I'm telling you that if you reject "X" is true iff X then you must reject either "X" is true if X or "X" is false if not X. I want to know which. You're free not to answer, but I'd consider that quite telling. — Michael
I'm not agreeing with that conclusion. I don't think it follows. — Michael
Which is like accepting that the King of France is not bald in the present. — Michael
Therefore, it could not have been the case that there was a true sentence, despite there being a state of affairs which would correspond to such a sentence if such a sentence existed. — Sapientia
I am rejecting the claim that "X entails 'X' is true" has been the case since before language existed. Feel free to address that rejection and it's logical consequences, and I'll cooperate.
It follows from the premise that whenever X has been the case, "X" has been true, and the premise that there has been a time in which X was the case, but in which there was no "X" to be true.
I know. As I said before, the T-schema doesn't say "X is happening" was truthfully said at the time iff X happened. It says "X happened" is true iff X happened. — Michael
But nobody has said that. What I've said is that "X" is true iff X. — Michael
No it doesn't. — Michael
You can't derive "X is happening" was truthfully said at the time iff X happened from "X happened" is true iff X happened. — Michael
But, unless it is limited to a certain period of time, it does imply that if X happened, then "X" was true. — Sapientia
You yourself said that it works both ways.
It is one horn of a dilemma which follows from the premise that whenever X has been the case, "X" has been true
What I said is that the T-schema can be read in either direction, either as 1) "X happened" is true iff X happened or as 2) X happened iff "X happened" is true. This is an elementary fact about material equivalence. X ↔ Y can be read as Y ↔ X.
Notice that 2) isn't X happened iff "X" was true. — Michael
X iff "X" is true — Michael
But your T-schema wasn't that specific. It was general enough to imply the second version of 2). — Sapientia
Let X be that the pre-linguistic universe exists. It follows that if the pre-linguistic universe exists, then "the pre-linguistic universe exists" is true. You must maintain that this was the case at the time for sake of consistency
... or abandon the principle in bold, as formulated.
So I must maintain that it was the case that if the pre-linguistic universe exists then "the pre-linguistic universe exists" is true? The grammar of this is all wrong. You're mixing your tenses. — Michael
Rather I must maintain that if the pre-linguistic universe existed then "the pre-linguistic universe existed" is true. Which is the T-schema. — Michael
If I abandon X iff "X" is true then I must abandon "X" is true iff X, and if I abandon "X" is true iff X then I must abandon "X" is true if X or "X" is not true if not X. This leads to contradictions. — Michael
So I ask you, ought I do this? Do you do this? — Michael
No, in a suitably revised or qualified form, it need not lead down that path. — Sapientia
You must maintain that when it was the case that the pre-linguistic universe existed, at that time, it must also have been the case that there existed a true sentence: "the pre-linguistic universe exists".
There is no way to avoid it. I've provided you the argument:
"X" is true if X
"X" is false if not X
The conclusion "X" is true iff X necessarily follows and is equivalent to X iff "X" is true.
Do you agree with the premises? — Michael
No I don't. The T-schema doesn't imply this. The T-schema only says that if the pre-linguistic universe existed then "the pre-linguistic universe existed" is true. — Michael
You must maintain that when it was the case that the pre-linguistic universe existed, at that time, it must also have been the case that there existed a true sentence: "the pre-linguistic universe exists". — Sapientia
Assuming that the conclusion is true, does it follow that it has always been true? No. Which is my point. I am arguing in favour of the position that the conclusion is dependent on time and circumstance. — Sapientia
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.