I dunno, you'll have to ask Chalmers.

I don't understand it, I merely behave as if I do. As for reading a book from a character's point of view, you may have guessed this by now, but it means nothing to me, but I behave as if it does, and can functionally operate within a conversation about it, and completely convincingly seem to understand, and for it to be meaningful, but this will be entirely behavioral, without any internal experience, apprehension, or subjectivity.

That sounds like an illusion. You are seeing through the Terminator's eyes, as it were, and in doing so project a conscious experience behind the visual field, as you're having one. This doesn't imply that the terminator is actually having one, and since it's a movie, we know that that's just a camera, with added printouts designed precisely to give that illusion.

Everyone that watched the movie, and designed the scene saw the illusion, it does not however work on me, as I do not have an experiential visual field, I merely behave as if I do.

As I argue, nothing has non-empirical constituents, in discourse, even the most abstract of notions. The funny thing about your example of referring to the apple in your fridge, is that you give a description of it, as if circumlocution is closer to the real than just telling me "apple", and the description doesn't further refer to the apple, but merely places it as the subject of a sentence. Only if I didn't already know what an apple was would a description help me in any sense, or if you were wishing to distinguish it from other apples in the fridge (but nothing, nothing particularly descriptive of the apple need be said, one could simply say "the one on the right", which would be no less helpful for allowing me to differentiate it than a thorough description of its characteristics), but if I do know what an apple is, then I would entirely ignore your description if it perfectly described some non-apple in your fridge for identifying it as an apple. At best I'd be likely to say "you mean this thing which clearly isn't an apple?"

See how I attempt to explain my reasoning above. Do that rather than just assert that we necessarily refer to a material object when we talk of material objects. Explain in what sense, and address my criticism of this position, and the senselessness of it.

I never said that we couldn't refer to apples. I argued that meaning isn't based in material referents.

So the word "apple" just is an apple? I'm not trying to be facetious here but it seems absurd to suggest that we can eat words. — aequilibrium

No, the word apple, and an apple are not the same thing, if they were the same thing, there wouldn't be two things at all, there would be one thing. Two different apples are not the same thing. They can, and usually do mean the same thing though.

The problem is, in my view, that people imagine that some sensible, or substantive distinction between the meaning, and the thing can be drawn or made, when it clearly cannot be. First note that no individual apple is ever necessarily referred to, or clarified by the word, and objects designated as such cannot be used to define the meaning or concept, not remotely exhaustively. This invariably leads to reference being about a universal property, or characteristic, or essence of things that is what is truly referred to. It is obviously wrong that "apple" refers to any particular apple, nor gets its exhaustive meaning from any single particular object, which automatically commits one to some form of essentialism in order to maintain a reference based view of discourse. I say that seeing objects, events, and particular things as participating in discourse, as meaningful depending on how they are used in discourse, doesn't require some one to one correspondence, or sign/signified relationship.

Yeah, my computer's time is 14 minutes slow, but I don't see how that could have anything at all to do with it...

I'm busy at work now, but later I'll clarify, and made you eat dem words.

Oh @Hanover, you miss the point. The subject is what distinguishes the real from the unreal. I wish to place the distinction with our orientation to them, and how they effect us. You presuppose a conception of them in order to suggest I'm wrong. You're skipping a step, and just taking for granted your idea of what they mean.

Looks like buddy's brain is buffering.

Wasn't he the one that wrote a book on "ignorant wisdom" or something like that? Some Socratic irony thing, then came excitedly promoting it for a bit, and then stopped coming. I assume that he's too busy signing books now.

Oh, the little dealies in the comment box, gotcha. I see the eye now. I was looking on my keyboard.

Special one next to the eye? I did want to do the link, it would be funnier if he actually sees what I said.

OOhhhh. I never would have guessed that, That sly devil.

Who's this @Saphsin guy? I don't recall him from the old PF.

I have Sunday off, I'll try to get to reading it then.

We can be worried about unreal threats, or not worried about real ones, but it takes us considering them real to be worried, and unreal to be unworried. Real things we take seriously, unreal things we do not take seriously, because of how they may effect us, or their significance.

When I post something, the time stamp says it's 14 min old right away, and then goes to 13,12,11 etc, although I haven't watched it past that point, and eventually says hours later and what not which probably are right. Just at first posting, and it doesn't seem to do that for others.

I think it is effect. A real threat is worrisome, an unreal threat, not so much. A difference between play, and meaning it. To call something unreal, is to attack it at its importance, significance, or consequence.

"Reference" is misguided, The word apple and the thing that is an apple are one and the same. They mean the same thing. They are not merely static neutral particles that form sentences or physical reality respectively. They have an active, synergistic role in the world, and discourse, which makes them meaningful. To talk of them as "mind independent" is nonsense, as it introduces a bifurcation of worlds as the foundation for its sensibility, but the mind hardly ends, or is encompassed by the skull. The word "apple" a drawing of an "apple" or a tasty apple can all be used to convey the same meaning, , as well as being used to convey different meanings, depending on how they're used. The most abstract of concepts are no less deprived of physical counter parts than apples are, in the way of words spoken, gestures made, or written forms. Things are not either in the mind, or external to the mind, it is always both and neither.

Lastly, a thing that is independent of the mind, in the sense of not participating in discourse, or life has no significance in any sense, and by this very stipulation cannot possibly exist.

Yeah, it still does it. Starts out at 14 min, then goes back in time.

It ought to be an armchair me thinks. A nice one though.

I Pm'd Loveofsophia, I like him. I know that TGW had been posting under a sock puppet on the old PF for awhile now, though if he's here, I haven't recognized him. I sent him a message to tease him, and threaten to tell, lol, but I'm not a mod, so not really my business, not my fault if others aren't as perceptive as the great me, but I'll send him a pm, and tell him his adoring audience is waiting.

Reading about Jew conspiracies eh? No surprise.

I think that Jamalrod actually created a "woo" category for a brief moment in time.

I thought they might be the same person too, just because he came out of left field. Notice that -will- admin too, that hasn't posted anything? Who dat? So confusing. This calls for General Disarray.

I thought you quit your job, that's why you were back -- all that hobo free time.

Didn't take all that long in my experience. I once co-founded a website that earned over forty thousand members, and over a million unique visits a month, in only a few months. Of course it it had a lot of quality content, I should know, I wrote most of it. Though, I also was strongly opposed to ads, paying for anything, and eventually doing any work, preferring to leave it all to my dozen unpaid staff members, and owner programmer of the site, and it eventually flopped in my absence.

Point being, I think that we could do a lot, if we just made a lot of serious topics, on all of the issues, grew the content, kept up to date on current events, and discussed them as well (probably most importantly), and well, then we would see plenty of results.

I don't know anything about programming, and how important that is for google to like us though.

I honestly wasn't worried at all, and was just tagging along for fun, and interested in what the members reactions, and feelings were, which was entertaining -- but I don't like this now. Firstly, where did this whole reason for buying the site philosophically literate Nik come from? Wouldn't it have helped a little for Paul to have mentioned him, rather than Eric? I don't get that at all... call me paranoid, but that makes no sense to me. I'll have to wait to see him actually express some ideas to know whether or not I find him reasonable. Still, I don't think I like 'em.

Buzzwords, topical discussions, lots of tags on topics, and lots of activity. Those are good ways to improve search engine rankings.

I doubt that PF gets as many hits from people searching the words "philosophy" or "forum" as it does from them searching phrases, or topics that are discussed there.

Don't worry about it, just imagine that the standard of measure of quality judgment, even quality human being is whether or not they liked you. When someone else has five hundred likes, and you have five, this means nothing more than that there are only five quality human beings among them.

Should have special coloured names. Doesn't have to be purple, could also be violet, or for something completely different, a fun mixture of red and blue.

As long as you realize that I suffer the most by this move.

My name ought to be purple.

Not him, I'm not sure who Human is.

You're welcome.