They think it is immoral, but their justification for that is shite. — Banno

You can't even justify believing 2+2=4. That doesn't diminish your civil rights.

What they think their invisible friend says is no justification for forcing their view on others. — Banno

They think it's immoral. The reason that matters is a little thing called democracy.

Tough. What folk think their invisible friend says is no basis for moral choice. — Banno

The honorable response to a person who claims crimes are happening is to listen to them, understand what they're saying, and respond with your own viewpoint. It's dishonorable and morally repugnant to suggest that they don't have a right to their feelings. Treat them the way you'd like to be treated if you had a grievance and you wanted to be heard.

You seem to be having trouble with the fact that the foetus develops over time. — Banno

I've studied fetal development to moderate depth. I'll never forget the mind-bender of realizing how closely the early development of an animal resembles plant reproduction. The womb is a seed pod.

Go over it again, if you will. "Murder" is a legal term. Folk who think abortion is murder, despite it not being so on the state legal code, perhaps might defend their view by appeal to the supposed laws of their invisible friends. They call it murder because their invisible friend says so. — Banno

This argument is actually offensive, and you're usually a fair-minded person, so I'll chalk it up to lost in translation.

And by the time a heart develops, we are no longer looking at a cyst. Yet we are still not looking at a person. — Banno

Ok, so stop calling it a cyst, because the fetuses that are aborted look like little humans.

Your terminology is muddled here, but it seems you are intent only on being a bit of a dick, so I'll leave you to it. — Banno

Not at all. I was just explaining what my fellow citizens see as a moral fault.

I don't. You raised "heart", not me. — Banno

Point was it's a cyst with a beating heart.

They" think it against god's law, perhaps. — Banno

They think it's murder.

It is safe, simple and low-risk when done under 12 weeks of pregnancy.

I guess things have changed, but the heart starts beating at 5 weeks, around the time a woman would notice she's pregnant, so most fetuses that are aborted have a beating heart.

Why do you care about the heart, though? Does that give you pause?

Abortion is not murder if it is legal. — Banno

That's a sketchy way to look at it. They think it's a wrongful killing. Does that help you understand?

To be fair, the thread didn't fully shift to the criterion of quality until frank posted.) — Leontiskos

Excuse me?

It has a beating heart when they do the abortion. They don't like to do them before 12 weeks.

Murder is unlawful killing. It's not murder if abortion is legal. — Banno

Slavery is ok if it's legal?

It's a cyst with a beating heart. They just think it's murder. It's no more complex than that.

Then why would he so triumphantly post about air conditioning sales going down? — unenlightened

I don't know. I think he was saying that increased air conditioning doesn't account for their population increase.

This is true of temperate zones, but near the equator heat itself is a big problem — unenlightened

Yes. It's hot at the equator.

You're my favorite troll. — BitconnectCarlos

That's what I was going for, thanks!

I think his point was that humans can and do adapt to desert conditions with extreme heat.

It's true. Some Spaniards wandered into El Malpais and died because they couldn't find water and their horse's hooves were damaged by the glass in the sand. Meanwhile, humans have been living there like Fremen for thousands of years.

I don't think this is really related to climate change, where volatility is the main problem, not heat.

In the US we saw a wave of violence across college campuses as pro-Palestine protestors took over university buildings and vandalized them — BitconnectCarlos

They were broken hearted about what's happening to Gaza. They aren't anti-Semitic.

The Middle East falls apart. Crude oil prices rise. Inflation rises. The Fed is stuck.

It occurs to me that if for you, understanding people doesn't involve looking for truth conditions for the statements they make, you're kind of talking to yourself. You're not interested in what they really mean, you're just figuring it out for yourself by analyzing the words. Your biases are there, but you don't care. Meaning is your own private universe.

I don't know if it's relevant, but back then, there were no academic credentials to add weight to an idea. It was common for people to pass their own ideas off as the ideas of famous people in order to gain credibility. An elaborate example of it is the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. From the text, we can tell that this book was written much later than it purports to be. They used the name of Daniel because he was a folk-figure. He was supposed to have been a wise man, but there's no record of his existence.

Plato might have been sensitive to this issue because he himself was using Socrates as a mouthpiece. So it's possible that the exchange is the sort of thing we do when we argue over sources, but the whole issue was much more wide open. There might have also been some clever subtext to it as well.

Maybe form and formlessness are dependent on one another for meaning. It's one concept.
4 days ago
Wayfarer
22k
↪frank Yes. That’s a rather Taoist way of looking at it. — frank

Also western.

Quick question, do you find that different languages shape the way you feel?

But how does it differ? — Banno

We've talked at length about what a proposition is.

If "assertoric force" is proposed to be understood as not an illocutionary force ranging over the subsequent expression, then it is up to the proposer to set out what it is that the force does that is different to the illocutionary force of asserting. — Banno

Maybe it's the same as long as we narrow our focus to propositions in the Fregean sense.

Al LLMs make naught but verbal cardboard. — Baden

The next time you're homeless you're going to wish you had some verbal cardboard.

:up:

Consider "Frank posts on PF". Here is a list of folk who post on PF. "Frank posts on PF" will be satisfied if and only if Frank is in that list. — Banno

I think this is trivially true.

I just need to know truth conditions for p. Then I understand p.

I see what you're saying. The way I've been thinking of it is that to understand p, I have to know what it would mean for it to be true. The way I do that is to imagine someone saying that p is true. I look at that setting. I suppose you don't need to do that. I don't really understand how you're doing it.

:lol:

They have to make p true. I see.

I don't see how commands have anything to do with truth.

It will make things up entirely — Hanover

I was thinking of the AI that google uses. I think I only used ChatGPT once.

I get that. In terms of propositions, we could say it works this way:

p is the proposition that the grass is green. The part that follows the word that is the proposition. It is not a sentence nor an utterance. It's a truthbearer. It's an abstract object. This proposition can be expressed by the utterance of a sentence. An utterance is usually marks or sounds. A sentence is a grammatically correct string of words.

The questioner has asked if it is true that the grass is green. She asked if it is true that p.

The answer that came to the questioner was that p is true.

The command doesn't contain a proposition.

We have the propositional content and we have the propositional attitude. Folk here say Kimhi thinks there is a "force" not captured by either of these. I'm asking what that force is. — Banno

I develop propositional attitude by analyzing the context of utterance, specifically in the case of an assertion. It occurred to me all of the sudden that we may not all be the same in this. It may be that habits that I have to use to understand propositions aren't necessary for you. I've been assuming you're doing the same thing I am, but you're just not as conscious of it. Maybe that's bullshit. Ha! :grin:

But you do know what "the sun rises in the east" is about, as much as "the sun rises in the north" or "the sun does not rise". These are not disconnected from the world, isolated from time and space. — Banno

You're providing the sentences involved with that connection, though. You do this by providing context, although in this case I'm guessing it's fictional.

Oh, I didn't realize that.

Michael's recent project of denying that promises exist by denying that one can bind themselves to a future course. — Leontiskos

That's not what he was saying.

I've seen Wikipedia provide misinformation. I've never seen ChatGPT do that, although I guess it could.

:smile:

J explains it pretty well in the OP.

p is the proposition that the sun rises in the east
q is the proposition that I will see the sun above my barn

If p, then q.

Frege was saying that the above propositions haven't ever been asserted. His focus is on how one thought follows another, and thoughts which have never been asserted abound in the processing of the mind.

Kimhe says this way of thinking about propositions disconnects thought from the world as if there's some inner sanctum where they dance around isolated from the world of time and space.

He says that the act of assertion, which pins the meaning of a proposition down to the actual world, is secretly there: "smuggled in.".

To me, this is kind of blatantly obvious. This is part and parcel of what a proposition is.

That's cool, except China is in the process of building about 50 coal burning power plants. :sad:

The SEP says this about Frege's view of assertion:

" It is in the force of an utterance that the step is taken from the content to the actual point of evaluation. This view has been stated by Recanati with respect to the actual world:

"[…] a content is not enough; we need to connect that content with the actual world, via the assertive force of the utterance, in virtue of which the content is presented as characterizing that world. (Recanati 2007:". here

The act of assertion pins down the meaning of a thought so it becomes truth-apt. How do we know which cat is supposed to be in the mat? We need context. The context is revealed in the time and place of the assertion. It's about indexing. That's what I've been assuming anyway.