The question directly addresses the situation you put forth. Why don't you try to deal with issues that your position has? — creativesoul

It's a scenario which you yourself thought up, and it asks a different question which I'm not concerned with. You should be putting a conscious effort into pursuing my line of inquiry, not coming of with what you think are "better" lines of enquiry. You are very annoying when you do this. You're not engaging with anyone in particular, you're trying to redirect the audience to your line of inquiry. In short, you're trying to take over control of chairing the discussion. And you do it all the time. That's really rude and inappropriate. And I find it much more of a slight than swearing or name calling or giving me a bit of attitude or whatnot: that's superficial stuff which I can overlook. That's water off a duck's back. But this? This is an affront.

There is an ancient text found. No one speaks the language. Some jerkoff or another says that they've deciphered the text. How can anyone know if it is translated correctly? — creativesoul

Why don't you create a discussion of your own and ask that question? Can you please stop trying to be the chairperson in other people's discussions all the time?

I don't agree with Wittgenstein, though. (And in my opinion the "Wittgenstein cult" is one of the worst things to happen to philosophy in the last 100 years.) I was detailing that in the PI thread. I'm behind in that thread and need to catchy back up, but I started detailing disagreements with him. — Terrapin Station

Blasphemer.

Or, just another option, maybe you could refrain from clogging the forum with your cleverness? You know, there's an appropriate place for what you want to do. It's called Facebook. — Jake

No thanks. Here will do.

Holy shit, S. Calm your tits down... Don't pick on @Noah Te Stroete. He be cool. — Wallows

If he's cool, which he definitely isn't, it's only because he has a sharp tongue like me.

I'm asking you a direct question. Simple.

Do you have an answer? — creativesoul

My original answer was good enough.

The last speaker of a native tongue carries the meaning of use along with them at the moment of death. — creativesoul

That would be a conclusion, not an argument.

You didn't do as I asked, which was to give a proper answer, where that means giving a fully justified answer instead of just asserting a necessary dependence. You deliberately left that part out of what you quoted.

Are you disagreeing with me here?

Are you saying that my assertion is false? — creativesoul

Let me get this straight. You don't even understand that I was saying that you don't understand?

Do you think that the trophy should be made of bronze? Or should we give it its real value and used recycled plastic trash? — Sir2u

Bronze. That way it'll do more damage when I bash you over the head with it.

But you are not smart enough to come up with something to say yourself, you have to quote another of your ilk. — Sir2u

You say that I am not smart enough, but what would a chimpanzee know of the works of Shakespeare? It would be wasted on you.

Look, basically you think of things like definitions as being meaning, and the definitions still exist as words in a dictionary, say, even when no people exist, and that's about the extent you've bothered to think about this up to now--you've not bothered to think about just how words in a dictionary amount to meaning or anything like that. People commonly call definitions "meaning" and so that's good enough for you. You don't want to think about it any further than that, really, because you don't want to wind up thinking and saying something that's going to seem weird to people who just go with the unanalyzed flow. — Terrapin Station

Your analysis is flawed. I've told you before that I consider definitions to be expressions of meaning in language. Expressions of meaning in language are not the same as meaning. But don't be unreasonable and expect me to somehow present to you the meaning without expressing it in language, because that's the only way.

That yourself and others have failed to understand this says more about you lot than it does about me. You guys obviously need to scratch up on your Wittgenstein. This is a limit of language. He is relevant here. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".

I cannot say it, without expressing it in language. I can only try to show you what I mean. Dogs. You know them. That is what I mean. Go and take a long hard look at one if need be.

"The second thing in which the value of this work consists is that it shows how little is achieved when these problems are solved". How right you were, Wittgenstein. I have gained an insight, but look at this ongoing mess that is philosophy. I look back at this chaos, and I see philosophy-types gleefully cavorting about in it hither and thither as though there's no tomorrow. Drinking it up. The nectar of self-important fools. The aim is to find your way out of the forest, not wander deeper in.

Square one was me asking you what empirical evidence you're referring to re the unclear-to-me phrase "circumstances of the possible future event"? — Terrapin Station

What are you talking about? You're missing the point. My argument is all the evidence I need, and it doesn't have to be evidence of the kind that you have stuck in your mind. It doesn't have to be empirical. It doesn't have to be an experience or an observation or an experiment or anything of that sort. My argument employed a reduction to the absurd. I am not an extreme empiricist. I don't play by their rules.

And if you're talking about empirical evidence in the scenario, then how is that even relevant? I don't care whether there would be some kind of empirical evidence, and if so what kind, and what it consists of, or whether there's no empirical evidence at all in the scenario, because that's a completely different subject with no relevance to my argument that there would be rocks and that there would be meaning. Or, if you think that it's somehow relevant to that, then present a valid argument, and present one which I haven't already dealt with, unless you get a kick out of going around in circles.

Anything extant has empirical evidence available --it has properties, for example. The relevant context here is whether there's empirical evidence. — Terrapin Station

Lol, no. The relevant response to that is to ask why that supposedly matters. The question is not whether anything extant has empirical evidence available, nor whether there's empirical evidence, it's whether there's sufficient reason to conclude that there would be a rock or that there would be meaning, and there is. See my argument.

This appears to be a red herring from you. One of a number of red herrings, in fact.

What? I was saying whether we're aware of empirical evidence. What empirical evidence are you saying we're aware of here? Circumstances of the possible future event? It's not clear what that's saying, especially in terms of empirical evidence. — Terrapin Station

Jesus Christ. We're back at square one again! My argument is all the evidence I need. You might think that we'd need to perform an experiment or something. I think that that's so inappropriate as to be ridiculous.

Alright, I've vented my weekly spleen, and I'll concede that it is an interesting and worthwhile topic. I wouldn't know where to begin though. It seems irreducible to all of those categories. — csalisbury

Tricky, ain't it? This is what I managed earlier:

Okay, then we'd need to break down what I was talking about, and try to account for each "thing" and their relations. That's my wording we'd have to do that with, not yours.

So, going back, we have rules, language, following or not following, a person, what he wants, and changing the language.

What next? You want to name or categorise each thing? Seems to me that there are abstractions, actions, a person, a desire, relations. Fundamental laws of logic and facts also seem necessary to make sense of the situation, as does science to some extent. — S

This was supposed to be the main focus, but the discussion has gone a number different and interesting ways.

Hence, empirical evidence isn't inappropriate. — Terrapin Station

No, it's inappropriate in the relevant context.

I just said that whether we're aware of it is pertinent to whether there's any reason to believe it. — Terrapin Station

We're aware now about circumstances of the possible future event. There'd be rocks. There'd be meaning. We don't have to be aware at the time or afterwards. If you believe the contrary of the latter, then present your argument, and don't just assume the same old unjustified premise. For once, try to actually support it.

Ontologically, empirical evidence is appropriate if we're talking about things that have properties, that interact with other things. If they do--and everything does, then there will be empirical evidence available of those things whether we're aware of it or not. — Terrapin Station

So what's your problem? How is this not just a red herring from you? Get back on track.

There'd be empirical evidence. We wouldn't be aware of it, which we agree is beside the point.

Our awareness is about epistemology.

Our awareness is pertinent to whether we have reason to believe something or not. — Terrapin Station

We're aware now about circumstances of the possible future event. There'd be rocks. There'd be meaning. We don't have to be aware at the time or afterwards. If you believe the contrary of the latter, then present your argument, and don't just assume the same old unjustified premise. For once, try to actually support it.

First, the idea re whether empirical evidence is appropriate or not isn't saying anything dependent on our awareness. — Terrapin Station

Lolwut?

Look, my argument is my evidence. Its primary tools are logic and reason, not observation or experiment. This is metaphysics, not science. I'm not sure what you have in mind, but it seems inappropriate to me.

So we're saying that there would be empirical evidence, but we'd just be unaware of it because we wouldn't be there. What of it? There'd still be rocks. There'd still be meaning.

How is this not a red herring from you?

So something could exist, have properties, etc. but there could be no evidence of it? — Terrapin Station

Either the hypothetical event wouldn't necessitate empirical evidence, or it would, but we'd just be unaware of it because we wouldn't be there. — S

If one is false, then it must be the other. Basic logic.

Do you have a real challenge?

A phenomenon is any event, occurrence, etc. — Terrapin Station

Then it's the latter, it seems. Either the hypothetical event wouldn't necessitate empirical evidence, or it would, but we'd just be unaware of it because we wouldn't be there.

Big deal. Do you have a real challenge for me? This is child's play.

An existent non-phenomena? Are you just randomly combining words? — Terrapin Station

Define "phenomena".

If phenomena exist, there's going to be some empirical evidence of it. — Terrapin Station

Either what I'm talking about is not "phenomena" or it's not true that "phenomena" necessitate empirical evidence.

Right, we don't agree. What is elaboration going to do? — Terrapin Station

Look, you either want to explore this or you don't. If you don't, just say so. You just said that this is how conversations work. If you don't care, don't converse.

Elaborate --because you don't understand what I'm saying? — Terrapin Station

No, because you merely dismissed what I said as ridiculous. I in turn am dismissing your dismissal as ridiculous.

Why am I even having to explain this? You should know how this works by now.

So, why do you think that what I said is ridiculous?

That's how conversations work, dude. — Terrapin Station

Elaborate or we won't get anywhere. Go on then. What are you waiting for?

Wtf? I just said that it's ridiculous in my opinion to think that empirical evidence is ever inappropriate, especially when we're doing ontology. That has nothing to do with logical positivism. — Terrapin Station

Why should I care? I think it's ridiculous that you think it's ridiculous. Elaborate or we won't get anywhere.

Yes -- evidence, empirical evidence. Why do I have to spell that out completely every time? — Terrapin Station

Wow. If you only meant empirical evidence, then we're back to square one in three seconds flat. That was a very fast lap.

And going by empirical evidence where it's inappropriate is what I call extreme empiricism. I reject extreme empiricism because it's unreasonable. — S

Otherwise, consider my reasonable argument evidence.

What happened to what I just typed? There's zero evidence of meaning outside of thought. That has nothing to do with logical positivism. — Terrapin Station

You specified empirical evidence. Don't backtrack.

I made a reasonable argument. Consider that your evidence. And get your wording right: the argument is that it would obtain.

No one is saying anything about "verification" or anything like that. — Terrapin Station

If you're not suggesting something along the lines that we'd need to experience it in some way to verify whether or not there's meaning, then what are you suggesting? Just vaguely mentioning empirical evidence isn't very helpful, and you sure sound like a logical positivist from what you've said.

The idea that it would ever be inappropriate, especially when we're talking about ontology, is ridiculous. — Terrapin Station

No, it's ridiculous that people in our contemporary stage of philosophy still go by these outdated views with similarities with logical positivism which has long since been refuted.

What I'm going by is empirical evidence. There's no empirical evidence of meaning obtaining outside of people thinking in particular ways. There's no evidence of meaning obtaining in any closed environment devoid of people, and there's thus no reason to believe that meaning would obtain in a world absent people. — Terrapin Station

And going by empirical evidence where it's inappropriate is what I call extreme empiricism. I reject extreme empiricism because it's unreasonable.

Tell you what. Apply those principles of tolerance and less judgementalness to your interlocutors in future and karma may take a liking to you.
— Baden

Not going to happen. :rofl: — Sir2u

I'll just leave this here...

I am just a humble thinker with opinions based on what I see and what I know. [ :rofl: ] It would seem to be that you are the one covering up your inabilities with pompousness.
— Sir2u

You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others. The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward. You judge others all the time and you mock the knowledge they provide with inadequate reasoning and pure speculative opinions. The response you get probably reflects the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge. — Christoffer

:zip:

(At least I'm aware of my lack of humbleness, and openly acknowledge it with self-depreciating humour).

Like an individual cell can not think, perhaps the universe as a whole can exhibit properties like thinking. Spinoza has a whole dialectic on this with subtle definitions of substance etc. — Bill Hobba

Yeah, and perhaps pigs can fly. Maybe I should write an entire treatise on that.

How to restore the lost credibility of this institution which has been so central in Western culture? — Jake

There are only two ways, although really there's only one, as the other is an illusion.

1) In a nutshell, become everything it's not.

2) Trick enough people, like so many people were tricked in the past.

The first way is self-defeating, as it results in the effectual death of the Church (Hurrah!). The Church becomes empty and redundant. Or rather, even more so.

The second way is immoral. The good times were from The Enlightenment onwards. The Dark Ages are known as that for a reason.

Well look what the cat dragged in. Big surprise that you-know-who would show his ugly mug around these parts. If this is bullshit, then he is like a fly drawn towards it to feed on for sustenance.

You're right and in saying that the text is nothing but "some marks on some paper", Terrapin is emitting (figurative) turds from his (figurative) mouth; the dictionary preserved in the cave, say, when humans have all disappeared, could indeed be deciphered by a visiting alien race in the future. If there is something to be deciphered, then there is meaning there, QED. — Janus

Indeed. :up:

He seems to erroneously believe that simply calling it "a set of ink marks on some paper", and/or simply assuming his beliefs about physicalism in relation to meaning, is a reasonable way to go about making his case.

His argument here is basically:

"Given all of my controversial assumptions, you're wrong".

And that's what his other argument seems to have boiled down to also. Something along the lines of:

"Given that when I assess your argument, I run into contradiction in light of my own unjustified premise, your argument is unsound".

These are the very same problems that Metaphysician Undercover got stuck on in the other discussion, and they sent us around in circles for page after page after page.

The big problem for them is not realising that their problems are their problems, and not my problems. Ironically, my reasoning in my argument with Terrapin applies here as well. If the conditions for this being the case haven't changed, which they haven't, then it will continue to be the case; and, lo and behold, it is!

Another irony is that I actually agree with what they are effectively saying. Yes, given all of your controversial assumptions, I'm wrong. Yes, given that when you assess my argument, you run into contradiction in light of your own unjustified premise, you do indeed believe that my argument is consequently unsound.

But do I grant these controversial assumptions and unjustified hidden premises? No, certainly not.

Let's see if we agree on a couple things so we don't have to go back over them:

We agree that "If x is/means/etc. y, then x is/means/etc. y" is tautological.

And we agree that the tautology in question doesn't imply that any x is/means/etc. y for all time, right? We agree that there is more required for an x being/meaning/etc. y to obtain for all time than just that tautology. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and the problem is still nothing on my end, but rather your irrational belief that the change of circumstances results in a cessation of meaning.

Things don't magically change without reason. If there were no justified reason for us to believe that Herbert Hoover had ceased to be president, then it would be rational to believe that he is still president.

Your belief is irrational because it is founded on an unjustified premise.

All of your questions, and all of your criticisms, and all of your challenges, stem back to this.

If you disagree that it's irrational, which you probably do, then you need to try to justify this premise, which you probably won't. Hence I am considering whether I should just give up trying.

It remains the case that if something obtains beforehand, and the same conditions for it obtaining remain in place, then obviously it will obtain afterwards.

By my logic, and by my reasoning, the same conditions for it obtaining would remain in place. Therefore, it would obtain.

Your logic contains an unjustified premise that there's a necessary dependence relating to meaning and the circumstances. And because of this unjustified premise, you reach a different conclusion. You really don't want to focus on this, because you'll be exposed as irrational. So you constantly deflect attention away from this and back on to some aspect of my position.

Again, my analysis from before is apt: Beforehand, x means y. And, absent any contradiction, afterwards, x still means y. You create your own contradiction because of your additional premises. But I don't have that problem. You keep trying to make your problem my problem: this actually seems to be what a lot of problems in philosophy boil down to.

Likewise, there's nothing in "If Herbert Hoover is president, then Herbert Hoover is president" to imply that that will change, is there? — Terrapin Station

So you're agreeing with me?

The conditions for it obtaining are exactly the point, though. What are they? Simply stating the tautology doesn't tell us anything about that. Simply stating the tautology is just the same as stating "If Herbert Hoover is president, then Herbert Hoover is president." Yep--that's a tautology alright. But it doesn't imply that Herbert Hoover is president for all time, because there are certain things that need to be the case for Herbert Hoover to be president, and those things don't remain unchanged for all time, they wouldn't obtain if no people existed, etc. — Terrapin Station

Herbert Hoover is president if he's president. But he's obviously not. Someone else is.

The word "dog" in English means those furry things which bark, if that's what it means in English. And that is what it means in English.

You obviously agree with me on both of these points, so your criticism seems superficial. If you know the language, then you know what it means. You're just dancing around the real issue of your complete lack of justification for your supposed necessary dependence.

I've already given the conditions for it obtaining. And they're obvious anyway. Is there such a thing as the English language? Yes. Is there such a word in the English language as "dog"? Yes. Is it such that this word has a meaning? Yes. How do you know this? Because I know the language. What is the meaning of the word? It means those furry things which bark.

Quit acting like you're an extraterrestrial who has just landed on planet Earth.

None of this is at issue. The only thing at issue here is your unjustified premise, so stop deflecting and start attempting to support it.

And how does the language rule obtain? If it does via something written, for example, then we're right back to asking how something written amounts to anything other than, say, ink marks on paper. Hence why I asked that question. Just repeating some tautology doesn't help. It doesn't tell us anything. No more than repeating the Herbert Hoover tautology.

There's also a rule that Herbert Hoover is president when he is, by the way.

And there was a rule (per your analysis) that "flirt" meant what I noted above. It no longer does. But there was a rule about that. — Terrapin Station

Why does it matter how it obtains when we can know that it does and would? I know this. I don't need to explain how it is that I can ride a bike. The fact is that I can ride one, and I know it.

You need to show that your doubt is reasonable, and you haven't done that. What are you waiting for?

And old rules don't do anything to my argument. There's either a particular meaning relative to a corresponding rule or there isn't. It doesn't matter if you pick an old one that's barely used or a current one that's frequently used. You can even make up your own rules and language. It doesn't make a difference.

Why not?. Monozygotic twins are genetically identical, at least during the early development (which doesn't necessarily have to do with the two twins be physically identical). As I said, phenotypic differences between twins can occur due epigenetical events, or even due environmental stimuli. — Nicholas Ferreira

Okay, allow me to qualify. Taken at face value, your claim that monozygotic twins are genetically identical is a falsehood. But, given your above reply, it turns out that it's just very misleading, like the claims in the opening post. You should make clear that you're only talking about monozygotic twins at a very early stage, not monozygotic twins generally.

Isn't accepting an objective context for meaning already the conclusion you want to draw? Your conclusion that meaning is objective is inherent in your premise that there is an objective context in which to discuss meaning. — Echarmion

I didn't mean to suggest that the context necessarily is objective. But it at least makes sense to call it that, because it makes sense as an objective context, even if you disagree and decide to read subjectivity into it. If you read subjectivity into it, then of course it won't make sense to you as anything other than that, but that'd be a result of what you yourself are doing. It would be a problem of your own creation.

That's different from what I called a subjective context, where we both agree that a subject is necessarily implied. If you ask, "What do you mean?", then obviously that assumes a subject there who is being asked a question.

If you were to ask, "What does it mean?", then that removes the subject from the equation. I can give an answer to that in objective terms.

The former is about me and what I mean, whereas the latter is about it and what it means. That's an important difference.

If you don't assume a subjective interpretation of what I'm calling an objective context, then how else would you interpret this context? If you say that it's either subjectivism or it's not possible, then you'd be demonstrably wrong, because myself and others can make sense of it in objective terms. It would just be an argument from incredulity on your part. Likewise with the post-human rock scenario. And it would be disingenuous, too. We all know that you can imagine the hypothetical scenario. You're just as capable as the rest of us in that regard.

How very “Xenophan-ic” of you!!

Can you spell “categorical error”?

The mashed potato thing is nothing but a form of “I know you are but what am I”

Try harder. — Mww

I will try harder to ignore you when you reply like that.

So what about the other very common way of speaking that I pointed out? Is that not relevant? And if it isn't, why not? — Echarmion

It's only relevant in a particular context, and it isn't relevant in the context I have set up. The subjective interpretation is useful in a subjective context, such as "What do you mean?", but it is obviously inappropriate in the context I'm talking about. I'm obviously talking about the objective angle, which you might well reject, but your rejection doesn't effect me. The objective context is as I set out, for example "What does it mean?". Again, it would be very silly to apply the subjective angle in a necessarily objective context, such as the post-subject scenario, but that doesn't stop idealists from frequently doing so. Metaphysician Undercover is a perfect example of that: "But who would be there to understand it?", "But how would it sound?", etc. These are frankly stupid questions to ask an objectivist, or anyone really, given that there's explicitly no subjects there.