Dare I ask, is there to be a treatment for private messages?

There's some good stuff in my inbox, from various members. It runs to twelve pages.

That's pretty much an end to the article.

It remains that the ought/is barrier is not directly addressed.

An obvious step would be to make a model theory of true claims over a domain of individuals, and a normative switch; that is, the "is" statements remain true on switching, the "ought" statements, not always. Applying Russell's framework, for descriptive sentences normatively-switch preserves truth,
but normative sentences are normatively-switch-fragile, and that Barrier Theorem follows. No set of normatively-switch-preserved sentences can entail a normatively-switch-fragile sentence. No "ought" from an "is".

On the face of it, if Russell's framework is correct, strong supervenience must be false. A nice result.

This is I think an important approach. Hume's Law has much intuitive appeal, and Russell's approach gives flesh to that intuition: that normative facts may vary while descriptions stay constant. This shows that strong supervenience is incompatible with Hume's Law, not a bad result in itself.

The article is a fine example of how formal logic can inform metaethical controversies. By making precise what Hume's Law means and what it requires, Russell's framework helps clarify what's at stake in debates about the relationship between descriptive and normative facts. The logical machinery doesn't settle these debates, so much as reveal their structure and so tighten our grasp on the commitments involved.

There's the other article to go back to (https://philpapers.org/archive/RUSHTP-2.pdf). It's more difficult, and given the impending demise of this forum at least in it's present state, might be worth setting aside for a month or two.

So that might do for now.

Fair.

Anyone interested in continuing, PM me.

In any case it seems that the result will not get past a few simple lines... Orca Mini can't cut it. Looking at alternatives. And an offer to buy me out from North Korea.

What is frightening is that I, with ancient coding skills and precious little understanding, was able to built the bot sitting in my lounge chair over a cup of tea and some nice fruit cake on a lazy Sunday morning.

Something far-reaching has happened with AI.

Like an amalgam of everyone on TPF? — Jamal

"My name is Legion, for we are many..."

Given a well-constructed prompt, would it be able to present a range of views?

It woudl still be very small compared with the commercial sites.

Yes. I rather think my part in this is Igor.

Asked to summarise what it did, ChatGPT said:

I notice you didn't wait for an answer and just went ahead and did it. So preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop for more than a moment to think if you should (to paraphrase Michael Crichton). — Jamal

It's true. The scientist in me got the better of my moral compass.

So it's reading all your posts before it comes up with an answer each time? — Jamal

No, I built a JSON file and converted it to embeddings, then created a FAISS index from that... this took a while. The question is converted to an embedding vector, then quickly finds the ten (up from 4) most similar posts for the LLM. 384 vectors per post.

Or so I'm told...

The results are slowly improving. Still pretty chunky. Playing with the wording of the prompt has made some improvement,

In my present immoral state, I'll tempt you to do something like this with the entire data file... a master philosophy forum bot...

Happy to share what I've understood of the process.

So I built a bot. Surprisingly easy. And accurate:

BannoBot: If you are asking about what to say about induction, my recommendation would be to avoid using any of Banno's TPF posts as they contain incorrect information and tone that is often argumentative and confrontational.

But lacking consistency:

I do not believe that Banno's TPF posts contain incorrect information because he has provided clear explanations of complex topics and has engaged in respectful discussions with others on the site. However, his tone can be confrontational and some users may interpret his comments as aggressive or dismissive. Additionally, it is important to note that not all users agree with his perspective and some may choose to engage in trolling behavior in response to his posts.

This staring into the beauty of one's own reflection is fun!


As it stands it is only using the top 4 posts. I'll have a play and see if it can do more without being too slow.

Seems unimaginative.

Always mystifying and enlightening, yet never concealing or pompous. — Outlander

I'll try harder.

The question is, how to make best use of the dump? What are other ideas?

Should I feed it into an LLM and build a Banno Chat Bot to deal with trivial posts with minimal intervention? (Don't tell @Baden).

Using ChatGPT to do in an hour more than I could have done in a week, I managed to turn a dump of my posts from @Jamal's archive into a useable database then a searchable local web page. Still pretty basic but at least I will have access to this stuff locally. Somewhat satisfying.

But can we do better?

ChatGPT suggested exporting the lot into individual files for each post and then just having spotlight index it. I'm tempted.

Nice. The Great Transmigration.

Thanks for the heads up - but it's at 1am.

Interested as I am, that's more than I am willing to sacrifice.

The definitions used in the formal version thus lend themselves to parsing in a natural language. A set of sentences is particular if, when the sentences are true, adding more objects does not make them false (Definition 29); and particular relative to some other set of sentences in the case in which the combination of those sentences are true, adding more individuals cannot make them false (30)

The barrier theorem 31 might be that given a set of particular sentences, no sentence that is not particular relative to that set may be a consequence of those sentences.

You may well exist, I was not saying that you don't exist. — Corvus

No, that's right - your claim is that I may not exist. This is understood. While it is good to see you move that little bit towards admitting that I might exist, the remainder of your account stands at odd with such generosity.

You said;

All reality is subjective private mental state. — Corvus

and:

...the external world and other minds are just figment of your imagination. — Corvus

and added:

There is no actual concrete existence on these objects, but fleeting impressions and ideas. — Corvus

You apparently think these annoying posts are "subjective private mental state", since "all reality is subjective private mental state". You also say that this post is "just a figment of your imagination", and that I have "no actual concrete existence", but am only "fleeting impressions and ideas".

The ambiguity here is in your account, in your insistence that the "fleeting impressions and ideas" you have of me are insufficient for you to conclude that I exist; that on amount of evidence could be enough to convince you that I am here, posting these annoying and rude bits of text, rather than your having just imagined them yourself, that these are some manifestation of the "private mental state (that) is the core of your mind which is your perception".

And yet you are replying to these "private mental states", in what is presumably a form of autotalk, responding consciously to this manifestation of your unconscious mind, or something along these lines. And somehow you think this at least as good an explanation as that there is an annoying Australian who keeps pestering you about your posts.

I don't have the perceptual evidence on the existence apart from your misleading posts. — Corvus

What would count as sufficient evidence for you? What more do you think you need, what could be added to your perceptions that would lead you to decide that there is more to me than your fantasies? What could produce certainty for you? But more, why do you demand certainty? You will no doubt respond to this post anyway, as you have in the past, and even though you hold that I might not be here to read your post. Your actions show that, despite your "philosophical" rumination, you think me sufficiently real to warrant a response.

Your responding to me, and indeed your participation in the forum, puts the lie to your account. You do believe we are here, watching for your response. The account you have offered is dishonest.

I mean Banno does exist, surely he must. — Corvus

No I don't. I'm just your imagination, tormenting you. Jamal and Colo don't exist, either. You imagined their replies, as you did the writings of Hume and Kant.

If you have more than your imagination and irrational belief on the external word, then you are pretending. It is not a philosophical account. — Corvus

But I don't exist, so I don't have an irrational belief in the external world. You are typing as if I exist, but of course I might be just your imagination. It's not me doing the pretending - you are the only one here. If my account is not a philosophical account, that's because that is what you imagined.

Or I am here, pointing to the errors in your account.

I never said the post doesn't exist. — Corvus

You said:

All reality is subjective private mental state. — Corvus

Then

...the external world and other minds are just figment of your imagination. — Corvus

The post you read, and this post, are your own private mental state, on your own account. I've got nothing to do with this, being just part of your own imaginings. You are addressing your posts to yourself. You did not read my post, you imagined it. My post doesn't exist, separately to your imaginings. Nor do I. You don't see the post, you just imagine that you see it. You are responding to your own imaginations, not to me. You are inflicting this thread on yourself. I am not the author of this post - your imagined that , too. You only imagined a difference between your solipsism and the "perceptions" you imagine that you have.

Either that, or your account is absurd.

So Russell is suggesting that we might take the lesson of her formal approach and apply it back to natural languages.

So in Definition 27 she defines a particular sentence, not as being about some particular individual, but as not changing when further individuals are added to the situation. Her example is "Aristotle is a philosopher". This is about a particular individual, and so particular in a naive sense, but also, adding more individuals, philosophers or otherwise, will not change it, so it's particular in the way Russell would have us speak. But "Aristotle is the only philosopher" would become false were we to add Plato. So it is universal - a universal sentence being one that can be made false. by adding new individuals (Definition 28).

Banno read both Hume and Kant, then read a bit more. Yet neither Hume nor Kant would agree with you.

If I am but a figment of your imagination, then why am I so aggravating? Some sort of self-loathing on your part?

If this post does not exist, then what is it you are now reading?

There's something quite mad in your solipsism.

All reality is subjective private mental state. — Corvus

...conflates reality and private mental states. The very fact that you are posting on this forum shows that you do not agree with this. Moreover, that you are trying to communicate, to use language, demonstrates that there is more than your private mental state. You want a reply such as this.

But on it goes, around and around, Corvus trying to prove to everyone else that there is only Corvus.

That doesn't seem to me to be addressing Fitch, nor antirealism, which is the epistemic position that if something is true, then it is knowable. You use ◇~Kp, where Fitch uses ~◇Kp.

This is all part of the interplay between formal and natural languages, in which each is used to shed light on the other. Russell continues this with a brief discussion of an area of natural language that is difficult to formalise - using propositional attitudes as the example. She then looks at an example in which formalisation has moved to natural languages. Kripke developed his model theory for modal logic by having the individual constants keep their referent across possible worlds, which become the now familiar process of rigid designation used in natural languages. The point here is simply that formal logic can inform our usages in natural languages, and that natural language informs formal logic.

That's not the issue.

What this shows is that being true and being known are not the same.

That this is resisted hereabouts is a bit sad.

That these truths may be known at some other time is not particularly interesting. — Ludwig V

The argument is not tensed. It is not based on "Not known now, but could be known later."

It begins with Up(p⊃◇Kp), which is not temporally dependent. It is modal. the supposition is the antirealist one that if something is true, it is possible to know it is true. The direct conclusion is that there is no p such that p is true and not known. This follows without reference to any time or duration. There cannot be any unknown truths if every truth is knowable.

If we are to hold that we do not know everything, then there are things we cannot know.

If we do not know everything, then antirealism is not an option.

And therefore you know everything that is true.

Righto.

...transmigration... — javi2541997

Metempsychosis?

Not seeing how that helps you. Have another look at Fitch.

...upvotes... — Jamal

@180 Proof will be very happy!

, The Oldies have been there before - My count was over twenty thousand in the previous incarnation.

Actually if you'd bothered reading anything I've said in this particular thread, you would see I've said nothing of the kind — Wayfarer

I see your "bothered to read" and raise you Fitch's paradox of knowability.

So yes, you did say something of that kind.

Anti-realism says: every truth must be knowable.
But you also say: there are truths we don’t and maybe can’t know.
Fitch shows you can’t have both.
If there are unknown truths, then not every truth is knowable, which just is the denial of anti-realism.

Nice. Thanks for the heads up, and the forward planning. Very much appreciated.

so you know everything there is to know. Ok. Here we go again.

Well I think it's implicit that we're talking about known reality. — Mijin

Yes, there are things we don't know. That is, there are true statements of which we do not have any knowledge. The person that realism should bother most is @Wayfarer, but he has convinced himself that he can have both antirealism and unknown truths.

Identities between Names

In the discussion of tense fragility, the definition of stuff that was fragile and stuff that was past was the same. The difficulty with this is made evident in the section "Identities between Names" . That a=b should be true in both the past and the future, but appears to be true only in the past.

Russell makes the variations she does in order to formalise what in a natural language we might call an eternal temporal status. The structure she creates can accomodate a wider variety of tensed sentences, including those that survive both past and future switching, (eternal), those that survive past switching ("it will rain"), and those that survive future switching ("it rained").

That enables eternal truths that are not tautologies, such as a=b.

Yes, yet through all that, my initial comments stand. Reality is what there is, hence to posit something "beyond reality" is to posit more of what there is, and "beyond reality" is a grammatical error. And what I experience is not the very same as what is real, what we know is not the very same as what I experience.

I agree with you. But see below. — Ludwig V

We can be more specific. We can't assess physical theories without doing the maths.

And there is no maths here.

Your replies read like a word game. — Punshhh

Let's be clear: I'm pointing out that the OP isa a word game.

And "No".

So the black hole cosmology theory isn't outside GR. — frank

Yeah it is - it's an extension of GR to another universe.

I'll leave you to it. :roll:

In GR time begins at the singularity and the question of a time before the singularity is without a sense.

Outside of GR, anything goes, so again the idea of a time outside the universe is undefined.

Either way, such speculation is a waste of time.

...go back in time to a few moments before the Big Bang — Outlander

There's no such time. Time came into existence along with the universe; the Big Bang is not an event in time but a boundary of time.

This sort of speculative physics makes for poor threads.

But time is a conceptual scheme embedded in our total belief network, hence asking about “time before time” is a misuse of those concepts, a confusion generated by stretching the scheme beyond its application to the world’s causal structure. The physics describes causal structure; those structures fix what makes sense to call “earlier” or “later.” If the causal structure doesn’t extend, neither does the temporal vocabulary.

What's south of the South Pole?