f you were asleep, and didn't want to get disturbed by any visitors, then any knocking on the door will disturb you, — Corvus

Well it way the girl of my dreams knocking on my door it would not disturb me, although I might be hot and bothered.

I showed you one sense in which many people (biological organisms) use it, including myself. — NOS4A2

And thus contradict your claims about words. Words have meaning and the words used in the dictionary inform us of the meaning of the word in question. They are then not arbitrary.

They do what you say you cannot believe they do:

I cannot believe words transport meaning from A to B — NOS4A2

The words in the dictionary transport meaning from A to B.

It is determined by your biology. It was your biology that learned, understands, and speaks English and not Chinese. — NOS4A2

My biology did not determine whether I grew up learning English and not Chinese. If I was adopted and grew up in a Chinese family my biology would remain the same, but I would speak Chinese rather than English.

Yes, they’re just words, and it’s superstitious to pretend they have power to manipulate the actions of organisms… but law isn’t just words. — NOS4A2

You have just explained why it is wrong to regard words as meaningless marks and sounds, separate and distinct from a form of life. Legal language is not a combination of laws that have force and words that don't. Words are an integral part of a larger whole.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not "just words". The words establish what the law is. There are no laws without the words, and no words without meaning. Thus the words have force. The words matter. Without them there would be no question of whether Trump is disqualified. Without them there would be no way to settle the question.

Why are you using a dictionary definition? A dictionary is not a biological organism. It is, by your lights, a collection of meaningless marks.

As to your claim that each organism is identical to its biology. The unique experiences that play a role in shaping who we are as individuals is not a matter of our individual biology. Our biology plays a role in our ability to use language, but the fact that I speak English and not Chinese is not determined by my biology.

And each organism is identical to its biology. — NOS4A2

That is simply not true. If you understood the meaning of the term 'biology' you would see why it is not true. If you understood the meaning of the term "convention' you would see that what is by convention is not what is biologically.

But you wouldn't be knocking on your own door. — Corvus

This is more apt than you might have intended. That it was my door did not even occur to me.

One thing I have found, and I am sure others here have as well, is that no matter how clearly and accurately I state something there will be some who think I am saying something else.

I might think that if anyone else was knocking it would be a disturbance but surely not if I was.

Actually, I think that is what the sign said. Is 'this' door the one with the sign or the one the arrow was pointing to?

I told them that I stood there confused until someone came along and opened the door, that if they hadn't I might have missed the class.

Words says what they mean, and no more. — Corvus

The logician Charles Dodgson, better known as Lewis Carroll, would not agree. The March Hare tells Alice:

... you should say what you mean.

To which she responds:

I do — at least I mean what I say — that's the same thing you know.

The Hare corrects her:

... you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!

Here is one that my students found amusing. This actually happened. I was running a few minutes late to my class. One of the double doors to the classroom building was not working. It has a sign on it: "Not working. Use other door" and an arrow pointing to the other door. I explained that I was late because I could not figure out whether the arrow was pointing to door that was broken or if the sign was on the door that was broken.

something the biology does. — NOS4A2

Meaning is not something biology does. The location of meaning is found in the practices of certain social biological organisms.

As asked the question of whether words are more than their symbols is ill conceived. Symbols have meaning. 'water' and 'agua' is a symbols 'that have the same meaning. Each of those symbols is made up of other symbols. In each of these cases the meaning is a matter of convention.

Your misrepresentations are the direct reason white spremacists are emboldened and think Trump is their guy. This has been confirmed by a member here who told me his cousins ... — NOS4A2

So, some unnamed member told you that his cousin believed something. Well that settles it.

Funny how you go to such lengths to defend Trump. On the one hand pretending that words have no force, and on the other pretending he does not say what he says. Why? Because words do matter.

As usual, all I have to do is take a gander and look at the context you suspiciously leave out, every single time. He's speaking about more than one "they" and you've simply pretended he is speaking about one. — NOS4A2

It is the immigrants who are poison, not those who let them in. If the immigrants were not poison letting them in would not poison our blood.

On Truth Social he says "illegal immigrants". At the rally he says immigrants not illegal immigrants. This is exactly what I said he would do:

In this way he gets the support of white supremacists but can, and most likely will, deny he said what he said or mean what he said. — Fooloso4

The "they" he was speaking of were his political opponents, for instance "Biden and the lunatic left" and "the radical left democrats". — NOS4A2

Well, you may wish to "endow" his words with that meaning. Although given all that you have said about words, if you are not being hypocritical, it raises the question of why you would even bother to attempt damage control. After all what he says are just words.

When he says:

They’ve poisoned mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world they’re pouring into our country

it is clear that he is not talking about Biden or Trump's political opponents. Neither Biden or Trump's political opponents are pouring into our country, coming from Africa or Asia.

He falls in love with, marries, and has children with immigrants, so the notion that Trump is implying immigrants qua immigrants are poisoning the blood of the nation is just plain stupid. — NOS4A2

No. What is stupid is your attempt to change what he said and argue that because he has a white trophy wife he is not saying what is saying. Note that Slovenia is not Africa or Asia or any of the "shithole countries" he refers to.

In typical fashion he oversteps and overstates. In this way he gets the support of white supremacists but can, and most likely will, deny he said what he said or mean what he said. He might even trot out Melania as evidence that he is not anti-immigration. She might even be coerced to make a public appearance and display her tortured smile before once again retreating from him.

I think you're misreading Frum's quote. — RogueAI

It is, rather, that you are misreading what I have said.

He's not saying border security is a fascist thing. — RogueAI

That is correct.

He's saying that given a choice between fascists who happen to police the border and liberals who won't, Americans will pick the fascists. — RogueAI

Not exactly. It is not as though if Americans were asked to choice between securing the borders or fascism they would choice fascism. He is warning the liberal readers of The Atlantic that immigration must be taken seriously, that if they dismiss such concerns as fascism we could end up with fascism.

In the article he says:

The question before the United States and other advanced countries is not: Immigration, yes or no? In a mobile world, there will inevitably be quite a lot of movement of people. Immigration is not all or nothing. The questions to ask are: How much? What kind?

As I said above:

The question is how to go about doing that. — Fooloso4

The rise of fascism, however, is not the result of immigration alone. According to the article:

The extremism and authoritarianism that have surged within the developed world since 2005 draw strength from many social and economic causes. Immigration is only one of them.

I understand the words because I’m capable of supplying meaning to the symbols you’ve typed out. — NOS4A2

Do you arbitrarily supply just any meaning?

The fact is, you follow the same conventions the rest of us do. In using language you do not get to have words mean whatever you want them to. That is not how language works.

My experience is limited to the US.

I don't think it's tautological. — RogueAI

If only X will do Y then Y is will be done by X.

Frum is saying that voters value border security so strongly that they'll pick fascists to do it over liberals who won't. That's not true by definition. — RogueAI

As I say in the next sentence, it is wrong to regard anyone who does Y as X. Many liberals recognize the need for border security. The question is how to go about doing that. The problem of thinking that anyone who advocates for border security is a fascist is that it blurs the meaning of the term and opens the door to actual fascists.

Some voters might put it in the hands of actual fascists. I would like to think that most voters would not choose fascism, but I am no longer confident that is the case.

I agree with Frum's tautological statement. I also agree that it is wrong to regard anyone who looks to secure the borders is a fascist. But what Trump is saying goes far beyond border enforcement. The borders could be closed today but based on what he is saying the immigration problem would remain. If immigrants are poisoning "our" blood then the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is dissolved. What is to be done with them? Sequestered? Deported? What about their children? Are they too poisonous? How many generations back should we go?

Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate attempt to get rid of Melania?!

Maybe those who will vote for Trump are not bothered by this because they assume they will be included as "ours". They should not be too certain.

Where are you located?

What meaning has it conveyed? — NOS4A2

If you read my words and are capable of understanding you will find the answer. If you are not capable, that is not the fault of the words. Unlike that word, my words are in English.

My advice is to consider what interests you. Whether that is particular philosophers, particular problems, or particular approaches. Check out the faculty and what areas they write on. Some departments are big enough that you might find a few members you want to work with. It might be a good idea not look to match your interests too closely and expand the way you think about things.

As to continental vs. analytic, the people you are talking to are just showing their biases. The division is not always hard and clear-cut.

The truth is, contrary to common assumptions, there are many professors who are ignorant and close-minded. Who just repeat whatever party-line they swallowed however long age.

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones ... — Athena

In some cases this is true. When I went to grad school I found out who was teaching at the schools I was considering and what their approach and interests were. More often than not, they favored American analytic philosophy. I did not find evidence of "moral training" but moral philosophy was often represented.

By way of comparison, I went on to teach courses on Chinese, Japanese, and Greek philosophy.

But waiting for college is too late! — Athena

Yes, I agree.

... a speaker should begin with knowing the audience and adjust the speech with knowledge of the listeners. — Athena

In the section "Reading and Writing" from Zarathustra he says:

He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader.

A couple of quotes from Wittgenstein sheds some light on this:

From the preface to Philosophical Investigations:

I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking.

And in Culture and Value:

No one can think a thought for me in the way that no one can don my hat for me.

Someone can put my hat on but it won't keep my head warm.

Abraham is a human ... — Athena

If you mean he was a real person, a historical figure you will not find much scholarly support. If you mean that these stories had their antecedents then yes, but as they have come to us they reflect other ideas as well.

Here is an interesting commentary on this from Genesis. God tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, but from God to Adam to Eve to the serpent what God said has already been altered. Eve embellishes the story, not only are they forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree, they are forbidden from even touching it. In addition, the tree "in the midst of the garden" is not the tree of knowledge but the tree of life. One might think that the move from an oral tradition to a written one has solved that problem but it has not. It is not a question of not hearing correctly or not remembering correctly but of interpretation. It is not simply a matter of the words of God but of their interpretation. The serpent understood this. He spoke the truth when he assured Eve that they would not die on the day they ate of the tree. But his reputation for subtlety is well deserved. It is because of what they did on that day that they would die. As a literal interpretation of God's warning the serpent was right, they did not die on that day, but that was not the whole of it, as he knew. He wittingly deceived her, but we, wittingly or unwittingly, deceive ourselves; interpreting things in such a way that they conform to some larger picture or structure of belief.

Socrates asked, "Are the gods good?" the answer is "yes". — Athena

According to Plato's Euthyphro the answer is no. Their less than exemplary behavior is the basis of Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro's misguided piety.

We might ask what is strength because the strongest may not be what is true. — Athena

Yup. This is the ambiguity the Sophists exploited, including their present day brethren, lawyers, and all too often philosophers who are skilled at making strong arguments.

What meaning have I conveyed with this word? — NOS4A2

What you have conveyed is your real or feigned lack of understanding how words work. Once again, you have confused words and the form they might take in a particular language.

If it is a word, and if I knew the language, I might know or figure out by context or look it up or ask someone who did know the language what it means.

But sometimes they don’t understand the words in the same way. — NOS4A2

This is quite different from your claim that:

I cannot believe words transport meaning from A to B because I have not been able to witness this occur. No one has. No one has looked at a symbol and seen anything called “meaning”. — NOS4A2

If sometimes there is misunderstanding then sometimes there is understanding.

The reasons our understanding of a word rarely aligns is because I meaning something is not the same as the words meaning something. — NOS4A2

As Alice was told:

Say what you mean or mean what you say.

Now you, like Alice, might think that they say or mean the same thing. They don't. If you fail to understand the difference that is not the fault of the words.

One has power, conveys meaning, thinks, speaks, writes, reads—the other is just the fleeting echoes of this being and His activity. — NOS4A2

Once again, one way in which one conveys meaning, and here on this forum the primary way, is with WORDS.

Your inconsistent wavering between the two beings as the conveyor of meaning may satisfy your own understanding, but I cannot get past it. — NOS4A2

There is no inconsistency or wavering. The one conveys meaning via the other. Without words one's power to convey meaning is greatly diminished.

You follow the sentences with your eyes, left to right, top to bottom, according to your understanding, and endow them with your own meaning and at your own leisure. — NOS4A2

This is simply wrong. First, when reading English is do not read left to right and top to bottom according to my understanding. I read them this way because that is the way English is written. It is a convention that I was taught. Second, I do not endow sentences with meaning. Although I am free to give sentences any meaning I wish, that is not the way language works.

And the idea that meaning exists between or external to the beings who mean is fatuous piffle. — NOS4A2

If we endow meaning, then I might endow 'fatuous piffle' with the meaning 'exactly right'.

I don't think living without something higher is equal to Plato's idea of the good. — Athena

For Plato the good is what is higher. In the Christian West the death of God is for Nietzsche the rejection of anything higher. That is so in part because God was held to be what is higher. Nietzsche makes the connection with the notion of a value free objective science. He asks what we will find to stand as something higher.

That sounds a little egotistical, and it seems to be exactly why I dislike Nietzsche — Athena

I think it is intended to mimic the Bible, which I know you also dislike.

And you can bet your bippy — Athena

Alas, in my old age I lost my bippy.

Nietzsche may not have had such a following without that jealous, revengeful, punishing God. — Athena

Unlike some philosophers Nietzsche doe not speak about timeless truths. If things were different the issues he addresses would be different. What he would say and how interesting it would be I don't know.

The God of Abraham is absolute power and control ... — Athena

If there was an Abraham this is not a god he would have recognized. The idea of omnipotence was a later development. From what I have read the major influence was Greek philosophy and the idea of a perfect being.

who were compelled to do this or that because of logos — Athena

This is not an argument I am familiar with. My impression is that they were compelled by desire - lust and power.

We really underappreciate the importance of these gods, because Christianity has reduced our ability to think. — Athena

By the time of Plato, if not before, the gods had already been diminished in importance and influence.

Our thoughts stop with the one and only God, and this is terrible for democracy. — Athena

This is true for some but certainly not for others. Even with those who believe in God there is interest in what other religions, sects, and cultures have to say.

I cannot believe words transport meaning from A to B because I have not been able to witness this occur. — NOS4A2

You repeatedly witness what you deny you witness. When you profess not to believe that words transport meaning you mean something by that and hope to convey that meaning. When you are told you are wrong you get the message and respond with words. But not randomly with just any words. You cannot make arguments you hope will convince others if any mark or sound is just as effective or ineffective as any other.

You attempt to persuade others that:

not a single person can be affected by a word — NOS4A2

and by saying so you hope to do the very thing you deny can be done.

My problem is that if the word-forms conveyed meaning ... — NOS4A2

They don't. Words do.

... we’d know what they meant by reading them. — NOS4A2

We do not read word-forms. We read words, and not always all the words, and we can still understand what is said.

This has been demonstrated by the ability to reading words even when the form is jumbled: For example and typoglycemia

People convey the meaning — NOS4A2

Those who know a language can convey meaning through the words they use, but that meaning cannot be conveyed to someone who does not know the language.

... the symbols are completely innocent, and need not be feared nor revered. They need not be defaced or censored or glorified. — NOS4A2

The symbols may be innocent but the words are not. Words are not simply a combination of letters or sounds. They are a way of saying things. Some things that some people say should be feared. One reason is not simply because others may revere and glorify them, but because they believe them and may act on them. They can be inspired by words and lied to and deceived by words.

It just seems so odd that an argument that seems quite clearly to establish a conclusion should actually be intended to keep ideas in play. — Ludwig V

The problem is that Zeno's writings do not exist except for fragments. There are various conflicting claims about what is was doing. I agree with your conclusion:

But we'll never really know what Zeno intended. — Ludwig V

I do not know how much the plaintiffs will get after all the appeals and bankruptcy strategies, but it will still cost Rudy.

If the justification for punitive damages is to stop the injury from being repeated, the dollar amount was not enough. — Paine

Will it stop him? I don't think so. Following Trump, who learned this at the knee of Roy Cohn he will continue to double down. He might even believe his own lies.

.

I thought Socrates/Plato invented dialectic. What's the evidence that any pre-Socratics knew about dialectics? — Ludwig V

I cannot give you a definitive answer on this. The following from the SEP entry on Zeno gives some indication why such an answer is not available:

The portrait of Zeno and his tactics that emerges from Plato’s references makes it seem natural that Aristotle, in one of his lost dialogues, entitled Sophist, spoke of Zeno as the inventor of dialectic (D.L. 8.57; cf. 9.25; S.E. M. 7.7). Precisely what Aristotle meant by this remains a matter of speculation, given that Aristotle also attributes the invention of dialectic to Socrates (Arist. Metaph. M.4, 1078b25–30) and to Plato (Metaph. A.6, 987b31–3); he says he himself invented the theory of it (SE 34, 183b34–184b8). There is also the question of whether Aristotle viewed Zeno’s arguments as more eristic than properly dialectical. The difference, according to Aristotle, is that dialectical arguments proceed from endoxa or “views held by everyone or by most people or by the wise, that is, by all, most, or the especially famous and respected of the wise,” whereas eristic arguments proceed from what only seem to be, or what seems to follow from, endoxa (Top. 1.1, 100a29–30, b22–5). Aristotle clearly believes that some of Zeno’s assumptions have only a specious plausibility (see Top. 8.8, 160b7–9, SE 24, 279b17–21, Ph. 1.2, 233a21–31, Metaph. B.4.1001b13–16), so that they would by Aristotle’s own criteria be examples of eristic rather than properly dialectical arguments. For Aristotle, then, Zeno was a controversialist and paradox-monger, whose arguments were nevertheless both sophisticated enough to qualify him as the inventor of dialectic and were important for forcing clarification of concepts fundamental to natural science. Aristotle’s view of Zeno thus seems largely in accordance with Plato’s portrayal of him as a master of the art of contradiction.

If the Eleatic philosophers held the opinion that all is one then Zeno's argument could justifiably be regarded as endoxa rather than eristic. I added bolding to the quote above to help explain this distinction.

If you do a search you will find several articles that credit Zeno. But all this may be tangential to Ryle.

But if he was misled, — Ludwig V

If I am right in claiming that their methodological approach is dialectical then he was not misled. He was treating the claim that all is one as a hypothesis to be examined and if it was supported by reason. Pointing to experience in order to reject the claim begs the question of the unity of thinking and being. If they are the same then perhaps what should be rejected is what experience seems to show. Dialectical movement does not resolve things, it keeps them in play.

But perhaps, as Plato seems to suggest, he lacked the subtlety of Parmenides. Perhaps he did not treat this dialectically but either as a truth to be defended or as where reason leads us necessarily. In which case it seems plausible that he was misled by a priori reasoning. By what Kant would call the pure reason of metaphysics.

We have the benefit of an established distinction between theory and practice, which didn't exist in Zeno's time. — Ludwig V

You seriously underestimate Zeno and others, especially his teacher, Parmenides. Zeno knew full well that when he walked he was able to go from one place to another. The larger problem is the relationship between thinking and being. Rather than attempt to resolve the interpretive problems I will frame the problem in the form of a question and in light of this turn to Zeno's a priori puzzle.

Is thinking the way to being or an impediment? (See Parmenides poem and the way of truth - alethia)
The Eleatic philosophers were said to hold that all things are one. Parmenides does not simply accept this, he inquires dialectically, treating it as a hypothesis. If all things are one then what follows?

If all things are one then it follows that there can be no motion. Can we reasonably argue that there is no motion? Zeno provides the arguments. We might say that he was misled by treating this a priori, but if all is one and thereby thinking and being are one, then this should make no difference.

We are in need of our monkey trainers. — Fooloso4

I came back to edit this. It should be we monkeys ..

Aquinas is a representative of the philosophia perennis. — Wayfarer

That is one way of looking at it, but not the way I look at it. As I see it, unlike Aquinas, Aristotle offers far more questions that answers.

something fundamental to the human condition — Wayfarer

I suspect we have very different ideas about what that might be. Rather than obscure it, I think it shows it.

'the union of knower and known'. — Wayfarer

Yes, the unity of two as one. But there is no unity without there being two and not just one.

It is interpreted very differently in different cultures — Wayfarer

Indeed. This is what Aristotle calls Plato's "indeterminate dyad, which includes the dyad 'same and other'.

Each side stands both together with and apart from the other. There is not one without the other.
Ultimately, there is neither ‘this or that’ but ‘this and that’.
The Whole is not reducible to One. The whole is indeterminate.

As quoted above Zhuangzi says:

But exhausting the spirit trying to illuminate the unity of things without knowing that they are all the same is called “three in the morning.” What do I mean by “three in the morning”? When the monkey trainer was passing out nuts he said, “You get three in the morning and four at night.” The monkeys were all angry. “All right,” he said, “you get four in the morning and three at night.” The monkeys were all pleased. With no loss in name or substance, he made use of their joy and anger because he went along with them. So the sage harmonizes people with right and wrong and rests them on Heaven’s wheel. This is called walking two roads.

If we’re already one, can I say it? But since I’ve just said we’re one, can I not say it? The unity and my saying it make two. The two and their unity make three. — Fooloso4

In scholastic philosophy, the union of knower and known is seen as the process of assimilation which is foundational for the Thomist view of truth, where knowledge is seen as the conformity between the intellect (the knower) and the reality (the known). — Wayfarer

He gets this from Aristotle.

But the key point is the falling away of the sense of separateness or otherness which characterises the egological attitude. — Wayfarer

Well, that is one way of interpreting it. As you said, it is interpreted very differently in different cultures. In this way one becomes many.

Named, it is the mother of the myriad creatures.

(Daodejing, Book One, Chapter One)

I [take] Zhuangzi's advice, which I should add, is not as simple and straight forward as it may appear to be. We [monkeys] are in need of our monkey trainers.

The brackets [ ] are edits.

Here is a clear reminder that autocrats do not act alone. They need their minions. From Axios:

Stefanik Urges Ethics Investigation into Judge Linked to Trump Jan. 6 Cases:
Stefanik urges ethics investigation into judge linked to Trump, Jan. 6 cases

Stefanik requested an ethics investigation into U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell for a speech she gave in November, in which she said the country was at risk of falling into authoritarianism.

"Judge Howell's partisan speech is obviously highly inappropriate election interference by a federal judge that undermines the public's trust in our courts," Stefanik wrote.

Apparently the limits of free speech stop at the doorstep of Dear Leader.

But rest assured, Trump promises he will only be a dictator on day one. That is enough time to root out the vermin across government agencies and replace them with his henchmen like Stefanik, who cannot wait to begin the purge. The investigations he has threatened have already begun.

Sleep well. Sweet dreams. All praise Caesar Trump.

Rather than a duality, what is implied here is a reciprocal dependence. — Joshs

A dependence of one thing on another. I suppose it comes down to what counts as a duality, but as I count it one and one I don't get one.

The second part is missing the bracket that closes the quote and thus your claim is misattributed to me.

What we call logical, rational reasoning ... — Fooloso4

There is not one well defined practice that we are united in calling logical, rational reasoning.

... one which prevents us from seeing all the relevant connections between the aspects of the world that the dualistic thinking of formal logical reasoning conceals from us. — Fooloso4

I do not think that this is an accurate description of what actually happens in our "ordinary activities" in and thinking about the world. In addition it is often the case that science reveals rather than conceals connections between things.

The CNN report reads like a dark comedy. The bungling ineptitude with which the documents were handled. The restraints put on Trump's reckless disregard. The redactions made before it was to be released together with what is claimed it would show but could not be shown because it unaccountably went missing.

Pirsig argues that Western metaphysics too often focuses on the duality of mind and matter — Wayfarer

a process of "Quality" inquiry, which involves a deep examination of and insight into the relationships between things and the recognition of patterns and value inherent in those relationships. — Wayfarer

Isn't there a duality here of mind and things that matter? Doesn't a deep examination into relationships involve an examiner and what is examined? Doesn't that examination require mind? What is the inherent value of the relationship between humans and blood sucking disease carrying ticks?

Instead, the practice of mindfulness and being fully present in each moment can elevate even the most routine tasks to a level of artistry and spiritual significance. — Wayfarer

Do you find artistry and spiritual significance in clearing a clogged toilet?

Isn't there inherent value in a quality inquiry that discriminates between positive and negative value? A farmer's ordinary activity of spreading pesticides and petroleum based fertilizers certainly is significant, but by doing so while being present in the moment may sidesteps or short-circuit the ability to see the harm being done. One must be mindful that the ordinary activity of burning fossil fuels, say, to keep that beautifully maintained motorcycle running should not be raised to the level of artistry and spiritual significance.

Value is experiential, but in no way empirical — javra

I am not sure what your claim that value is experiential means. We might not value the negative effects of certain medical treatments but those treatments might have value. We might not value to experience of exercise but value its benefits. Those benefits are evidential.

what value is ... "what is value" — javra

Are you making a distinction between what value is and what is value?

What empirically falsifiable hypothesis can be produced to determine if “value” is a fallacious reification of a process? — javra

If I understand the question, consider snake oil remedies. The experience of drinking the original Coca Cola or Dr Pepper may have made you feel better for a while but the claims of their medical value was fallacious and determined empirically through medical science.

Whether value is a process cannot be determined by the empirical sciences, this in principle, because - be it in fact process or not - it is not something that can be directly perceived via the physiological senses, — javra

The value of what? I don't think the question of value can be addressed without considering what it is that is valued and what it is valued for.