Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[creation]

HOW and WHY is this judgement itself is false?

Because it contradicts the proposition, which is true. It is true because the state of affairs it asserts exists.

How many times do you need to be asked before you will answer the clarifying question: How do you KNOW, for sure, that 'it' exists?


Hopefully you answered that clarifying question, itself, and recognized the clarifying question within it, and will decide to answer that one as well.


Now, you wrote:
1. The relation exists by virtue of the conventional meanings of the words of the proposition, and the observable state of affairs it thereby asserts.
2. No one's judgments are involved or necessary.
3. Anyone may, of course, reach a judgment as to whether "Paris is the capital of France" is true, but if that judgment is that the proposition is false,
then the judgment itself is false.

1. This "observable state of affairs being asserted" can be clearly seen on a map. So, what makes this assertion thee Truth?

2. I thought the irony of my clarifying question; HOW and WHY is this judgment itself is false? would be recognized and noticed. You stated here that "No one's judgments are involved and necessary. Yet is was exactly YOUR OWN judgments that were 'involved' and 'necessary' for you to write what you did, and pass judgement just like you did.

3. What are you basing your OWN 'judgment' on that the 'judgment itself' is false?

Which takes us back to never answered question: How do you KNOW, for sure, that 'it' is true and that 'it' exists?

When, and if you ever, answer this question Openly and Honestly, then you will also reveal what 'it' IS that makes 'morality objective'.

[creation]

The very reason WHY words like 'morality' and topics related around 'morality' are discussed and disputed, with disagreements and refutations continually made, even after thousands upon thousands of years, without any resolution being unanimously agreed with, is because the very word is NOT like words that are used to describe things that can be pointed at, looked at, and seen with the physical human eye.

The issue in the exchange you quoted was not a moral one. It was how associations between words and things are formed. Please try to stay focused and respond to the issue at hand.

Are you JOKING?

I clearly pointed out that the association between words and the THING that you were talking about are formed through actual PICTURES.

Obviously, THINGS like 'trees', 'houses', 'motor vehicles', 'trains', 'planets', and EVERY other THING that is a physical object can be pointed to, looked at, and seen with the physical human eyes. And, just as OBVIOUS, is the fact that THINGS like 'morality' can NOT be pointed to, looked at, and seen with the physical human eyes.

So, for this very reason, this is WHY what you were "trying to" show has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the words and issues at hand here in this topic could be associated in the way you describe with a physical object.

If you MISSED this, from what i have said, then this MEANS that I am far more useless at communicating than I thought I was.

[GE Morton]

While that is true in the abstract, that fact has little or no explanatory value, and hence offers little or no guidance as to what we should do about anything. That is because most of those effects are insignificant, if not undetectable, are not understood, and are not predictable. Just knowing that there is a connection between two or more things tells us nothing useful; we need to know what sort of connection it is, and be able to predict the effects it will have on the two connected things. You have a connection to every star you see in the sky, since light from that star is now stimulating your optic nerve. But that fact has utterly no moral significance.

I see you need to have the guidance explained. Science does explain a lot of connections. Knowledge and reason are required so specific connections can be understood.
The sorts of connections are as follows:

1. Causal chains

2. Causal circumstances

3 Nomic connections

That is not telling us which of these connections, known or hypothetical, and how, lead to a "universalistic morality, and a left-wing political system," Belindi. I suspect you're assuming there is some way to get from "is" to "ought" ("because Nature is such-and-such, we ought to do so-and-so"). That can't work.

[creation]

How can an 'if' assume a condition which is false.

Egads. It is done all the time, in philosophy and in every-day speech. Those are called "contrary-to-fact conditionals."

No more replies from me, creation. You don't have the background to discuss these issues productively. Your questions are naive, uninformed, and often silly.

And you OBVIOUSLY do NOT have the intelligence to even look at and consider what has been pointed out to you many times by many people.

Obviously because you are completely and utterly incapable of explain how you KNOW what the truth IS, then to get out of this FACT is to make out the "other", that is me is just too stupid.

Are you at all capable to understand "if" does NOT assume one condition at all. "If" is just saying IF "this condition, then ...".

But there is OBVIOUSLY NO assumption at all that that "if" is saying that that condition is "true".

"if" does NOT assume a condition which IS false. But obviously the condition with the "if" is in relation to COULD BE false.

See, what you did was write: Your argument is valid enough. But of course, the problem is all of those "ifs. AND, "They assume conditions which are false.

What can be clearly seen here, once again, is you think or believe you KNOW, for sure, what IS actually True.

Saying my "ifs" assume conditions which ARE false, is FALSE in and of itself.

IF the words I have used, and the words you have used, are looked into deep enough, then what thee actual Truth IS can be and will be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD.


Now, for this "No more replies from me" remark you made, IS BECAUSE you do NOT have the intelligence to answer my clarifying questions in order to back up and support you own very obviously WRONG claims that you have made here.

You have proven that you do not have the background to back up and support your claims, which unlike me, I can and will back up and support absolutely EVERY thing I have said here.

Calling my questions silly just proves how silly you ARE. If you are completely incapable of understanding my perfectly simple straight forward (so called "silly") clarifying questions, then how silly does that make you?

Remember it is YOU who is the one saying: Truth is not agent-relative or agent-dependent. But you are also completely incapable of explaining what 'it' is then that 'truth' is relative to and dependent upon exactly.

You are easy to say what some thing is not, but you have failed on each and every occasion to then explain what that some thing is actually.

[Belindi]

GEMorton wrote:

That is not telling us which of these connections, known or hypothetical, and how, lead to a "universalistic morality, and a left-wing political system," Belindi. I suspect you're assuming there is some way to get from "is" to "ought" ("because Nature is such-and-such, we ought to do so-and-so"). That can't work.

Yes, I am. But not only is morality universalistic, it also aims for human freedom. Since all events are interconnected it follows all events are necessary events. Therefore the only sort of freedom we have is to maximise choices in a world where nobody knows all the causal connections. The means of maximising choices is by use of reason and knowledge and spreading use of reason and knowledge to as many people as possible. To make as free as possible as many people as possible is morality.

The big dichotomy is between freedom and repression.

[GE Morton]

GEMorton wrote:

That is not telling us which of these connections, known or hypothetical, and how, lead to a "universalistic morality, and a left-wing political system," Belindi. I suspect you're assuming there is some way to get from "is" to "ought" ("because Nature is such-and-such, we ought to do so-and-so"). That can't work.

Yes, I am. But not only is morality universalistic . . .

I agree that a rationally defensible morality is will be universal.

. . . it also aims for human freedom.

Well, presuming that the ambiguities in "freedom" are clarified (Freedom" from what?), I'd agree there too.

Since all events are interconnected it follows all events are necessary events.

Only if you are a strict determinist. But strict determinism is indefensible. Since not all events are predictable, we have no evidence for that claim that they are all determined.

Therefore the only sort of freedom we have is to maximise choices in a world where nobody knows all the causal connections. The means of maximising choices is by use of reason and knowledge and spreading use of reason and knowledge to as many people as possible. To make as free as possible as many people as possible is morality.

I'd agree there too. But you certainly can't achieve that goal via a "left-wing political system," Belindi. They are not universal, and are repressive ("dictatorship of the proletariat").

[Belindi]

GEMorton wrote:

Only if you are a strict determinist. But strict determinism is indefensible. Since not all events are predictable, we have no evidence for that claim that they are all determined.

I am a strict determinist. Determinism does not imply predictable.

I'd agree there too. But you certainly can't achieve that goal via a "left-wing political system," Belindi. They are not universal, and are repressive ("dictatorship of the proletariat").

I forgot 'left wing' means communist too. I do not mean communist. I mean socialist.

[Terrapin Station]

Let's start with a newly-coined word (new words are added to every language every day). Suppose it is a newly-minted name for a recently discovered species of insect. The discoverers named it the "Lady Gaga bug." * They publish a journal article describing the insect, placing it in the genus kakaia (kakaia gaga), and include some photos. Thereafter journalists publicize the find, using the name given by the discoverer. In short order, the phrase "Lady Gaga bug" will be understood by all familiar with the field to denote that particular species of insect, and will eventually appear in dictionaries. An association between that name and that insect is now established in the language, and entomology students around the world will learn that association, that meaning of, "Lady Gaga bug."

Every word in the language, and its meaning, was established in the same way.

Does that answer your question?

Note that I'm not asking you because I'm wondering how it works and I'm wanting you to tell me. I'm rather trying to get you to realize something you're not realizing.

I'm asking you to think about it in detail that you're not thinking about, and in terms of the "mechanics" of how it works.

To take your example, so, you're reading the article. You see the text marks, you see the picture, etc.

How exactly, in terms of the details of what happens, do the text marks obtain a relation to the photo?

[GE Morton]

I am a strict determinist. Determinism does not imply predictable.

Yes it does, Belindi --- a fact few determinists realize. Determinism is a universal: "All events are determined." But the only way to confirm any universal is to confirm every single instance of it, i.e., to confirm it for every single event. And the only way to confirm that any event is determined is that it can always be correctly predicted. We can say that A is the cause of B only when we can predict B given A. If we can't identify a cause for B which allows us to predict future occurrences of it, then we have no grounds for claiming B has a cause (though we may continue to assume that it does and continue the search).

I forgot 'left wing' means communist too. I do not mean communist. I mean socialist.

Well, "socialist" means different things in different times and places. But all of them that I know are authoritarian, and none of them are universal.

[GE Morton]

Note that I'm not asking you because I'm wondering how it works and I'm wanting you to tell me. I'm rather trying to get you to realize something you're not realizing.

I'm asking you to think about it in detail that you're not thinking about, and in terms of the "mechanics" of how it works.

To take your example, so, you're reading the article. You see the text marks, you see the picture, etc.

How exactly, in terms of the details of what happens, do the text marks obtain a relation to the photo?

You've asked that question a dozen times, and I've answered it as many times. The words acquire a relationship to the insect when the coiner of the word declares that "Lady Gaga bug" shall denote this insect (points to the insect, photos, description, etc). That association is then and there established. Other speakers of the language learn/accept that meaning of that word and thereafter use it to denote that insect. As time goes on still others learn that meaning by observing how others use the term. None of them need know anything about what goes on in anyone else's head to learn the meaning of "Lady Gaga bug."

But perhaps by "mechanics" you're asking about the neurophysiology of learning. I'm not qualified to answer that, and it is beyond the scope of the question regarding how language "works" to communicate information.

[Terrapin Station]

I am a strict determinist. Determinism does not imply predictable.

Yes it does, Belindi --- a fact few determinists realize. Determinism is a universal: "All events are determined." But the only way to confirm any universal is to confirm every single instance of it, i.e., to confirm it for every single event. And the only way to confirm that any event is determined is that it can always be correctly predicted. We can say that A is the cause of B only when we can predict B given A. If we can't identify a cause for B which allows us to predict future occurrences of it, then we have no grounds for claiming B has a cause (though we may continue to assume that it does and continue the search).

I forgot 'left wing' means communist too. I do not mean communist. I mean socialist.

Well, "socialist" means different things in different times and places. But all of them that I know are authoritarian, and none of them are universal.

You're conflating epistemology and ontology.

Determinism is an ontological claim. Prediction is in the realm of epistemology.

You might want to say that you feel that the ontological claim can't be justified without a particular epistemological basis involving predictions, but that doesn't make the ontological claim imply anything epistemological. If determinism is the case ontologically, it would be the case whether any persons existed or not. Without any persons, we can have no epistemology.

[GE Morton]

You're conflating epistemology and ontology.

Determinism is an ontological claim. Prediction is in the realm of epistemology.

You might want to say that you feel that the ontological claim can't be justified without a particular epistemological basis involving predictions, but that doesn't make the ontological claim imply anything epistemological. If determinism is the case ontologically, it would be the case whether any persons existed or not. Without any persons, we can have no epistemology.

We've covered this also. Ontology presupposes epistemology. What we can claim exists depends upon what we know. If it does not it is nonsense.

[creation]

Note that I'm not asking you because I'm wondering how it works and I'm wanting you to tell me. I'm rather trying to get you to realize something you're not realizing.

I'm asking you to think about it in detail that you're not thinking about, and in terms of the "mechanics" of how it works.

To take your example, so, you're reading the article. You see the text marks, you see the picture, etc.

How exactly, in terms of the details of what happens, do the text marks obtain a relation to the photo?

You've asked that question a dozen times, and I've answered it as many times.

You have not answered the actual question asked. This is because you are not looking deep enough into this, purposely or unintentionally.

The words acquire a relationship to the insect when the coiner of the word declares that "Lady Gaga bug" shall denote this insect (points to the insect, photos, description, etc). That association is then and there established. Other speakers of the language learn/accept that meaning of that word and thereafter use it to denote that insect. As time goes on still others learn that meaning by observing how others use the term. None of them need know anything about what goes on in anyone else's head to learn the meaning of "Lady Gaga bug."

You have said this before. But this does not answer the actual question being asked.

Your inability to answer questions posed to you shows that you do NOT yet understand what you are talking about.

For example, you say " the association is then and there "established" ". But my question is by WHO is it "established"? And, what is 'it' EXACTLY that makes "it" "established"?

In relation to 'what' EXACTLY is "establishment" reached?

See, if you were to just answer these questions Openly and Honestly, then you will discover, learn, and understand HOW and WHY what you been claiming is NOT 'established' truth at all.

The very reasons WHY you will NOT answer my clarifying questions and will NOT converse with me any more would be very obvious now.

But perhaps by "mechanics" you're asking about the neurophysiology of learning. I'm not qualified to answer that, and it is beyond the scope of the question regarding how language "works" to communicate information.

[Belindi]

I am a strict determinist. Determinism does not imply predictable.

Yes it does, Belindi --- a fact few determinists realize. Determinism is a universal: "All events are determined." But the only way to confirm any universal is to confirm every single instance of it, i.e., to confirm it for every single event. And the only way to confirm that any event is determined is that it can always be correctly predicted. We can say that A is the cause of B only when we can predict B given A. If we can't identify a cause for B which allows us to predict future occurrences of it, then we have no grounds for claiming B has a cause (though we may continue to assume that it does and continue the search).

I forgot 'left wing' means communist too. I do not mean communist. I mean socialist.

Well, "socialist" means different things in different times and places. But all of them that I know are authoritarian, and none of them are universal.

For an omniscient being determinism would be predictable. For us, the future looks so chaotic we cannot be sure what to predict, even when we have tight control over variables. For us, determinism is a frame of reference, the end point of causes and effects. As for all frames of reference determinism is a faith position.

I guessed you and I use different lexicons. In the British Isles socialist is not the same as communist. Socialism is an attitude that biases political and economic decisions towards people's welfare and includes tough controls over profiteering. Communism is ownership by the state of every
industry.

[Terrapin Station]

You're conflating epistemology and ontology.

Determinism is an ontological claim. Prediction is in the realm of epistemology.

You might want to say that you feel that the ontological claim can't be justified without a particular epistemological basis involving predictions, but that doesn't make the ontological claim imply anything epistemological. If determinism is the case ontologically, it would be the case whether any persons existed or not. Without any persons, we can have no epistemology.

We've covered this also. Ontology presupposes epistemology. What we can claim exists depends upon what we know. If it does not it is nonsense.

In other words, determinism would be a property of the world, whether we exist or not. You're focusing on claims as claims.