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

[GE Morton]

Nothing has "non-local properties" period.

My, how dogmatic. Those terms were just defined in the previous post. A non-local property is one which can't be confirmed for a subject by examining the subject; it requires confirmation of facts external to the subject. You're baldy asserting there are no such properties?

[Terrapin Station]

Of course I can. If I ask you to point out the dog in a photo

Do you think you don't have to interpret what I'm pointing to?

(And aren't you familiar with Quine's Word and Object, by the way?)

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Yes, the way you will know whether Alfie's meanings are consistent with yours are by observing his behavior, including his uses of words. You need know nothing about what is in his head.

Right, because I can not know what's in his head. What I do is assign meanings in my head. If the observables start to not make sense with the meanings I assign in my head, then I either revise the meanings I'm assigning, or depending on just what I'm observing, I figure that the other person is inscrutable for some reason--as has already happened at least once on this board since I've been posting here, and has happened many times on other boards I've posted on.

Then you need to explain how such consistency can happen,

Via our interpretive abilities and the fact that the world, including others' behavior, doesn't seem to be random.

how meanings can be so readily shared,

I've said nothing at all about meanings being shared. They're not.

if meanings are things in people's heads. After all, the number of possible meanings people could attach to any given word is infinite.

It's a very large number at least, sure.

Absent some common source for your understanding of the meaning of "dog" and Alfie's, consistency between you would be miraculous.

Not at all. Again, it's about how we interpret things. We don't assign meanings randomly, and what we observe isn't random. You're commenting as if any aspect of this would be random. "Either meaning are public and we can observe them or meaning ascription is random" is a false dichotomy.

[Terrapin Station]

Nothing has "non-local properties" period.

My, how dogmatic. Those terms were just defined in the previous post. A non-local property is one which can't be confirmed for a subject by examining the subject; it requires confirmation of facts external to the subject. You're baldy asserting there are no such properties?

The notion of "non-local properties" is incoherent ontologically. If you're not literally saying that they're "non-local" that's another issue, but then this is another horrible term you're introducing.

[Terrapin Station]

One thing you're ignoring, by the way, is that meaning is the associative act, not the "objects" of the association. The "objects" of an association can't in any manner work as an association without the associative act. Only minds are able to perform associative acts.

[GE Morton]

Which makes it clear that you require something mental for truth value.

No. You do need "something mental" for determining the truth value of a proposition. Namely, a sentient creature fluent in the language in which the proposition is asserted. Again, you confuse knowing whether a proposition is true with the fact that it is true (or false).

The propositions in your hypothetical book are either true or false. But there may be no one alive who can determine that, since no one alive understands the language in which they are written.

[Terrapin Station]

No. You do need "something mental" for determining the truth value of a proposition. Namely, a sentient creature fluent in the language in which the proposition is asserted. Again, you confuse knowing whether a proposition is true with the fact that it is true (or false).

The propositions in your hypothetical book are either true or false. But there may be no one alive who can determine that, since no one alive understands the language in which they are written.

I'm not asking you about individuals "determining the truth value of a proposition."

You're claiming that propositions ARE true or false independent of anyone's mind. Now, what you need to do to support that claim is to present an example explaining how a proposition can be true of false independent of anyone's mind. You failed on your first attempt, because you brought in a human observer.

Let's try again. Pick any proposition you like. Then explain how it's true or false independent of anyone's mind. If you bring in people observing things, making determinations, etc. you're going to get a buzzer, because that's introducing minds into the equation. You need to explain how a proposition is true or false INDEPENDENT of anyone's mind.

[GE Morton]

Of course I can. If I ask you to point out the dog in a photo

Do you think you don't have to interpret what I'm pointing to?

Nope. I can see what you're pointing at. No interpretation is required (perceiving is not "interpreting" and usually doesn't require any interpreting).

(And aren't you familiar with Quine's Word and Object, by the way?)

Yes indeed --- a work you seem to have misunderstood.

Right, because I can not know what's in his head. What I do is assign meanings in my head.

Indeed you do. And you can assign the right one or a wrong one. If you assign a wrong one you won't be understood in your speech community.

If the observables start to not make sense with the meanings I assign in my head, then I either revise the meanings I'm assigning, or depending on just what I'm observing . . .

Great. So now what is the real meaning --- that thing in your head, or the one you confirm by observing how everyone else in your speech community uses the term? You learn the meaning --- which means it had to exist somewhere before it was "in your head."

I've said nothing at all about meanings being shared. They're not.

Oh, you have, and just did again: "They're not." But if they're not, then verbal communication is impossible. A manifest reductio ad absurdum.

[GE Morton]

You need to explain how a proposition is true or false INDEPENDENT of anyone's mind.

Easily done. Whether a proposition is true or false depends only upon whether the state of affairs asserted by it exists or does not. What is in anyone's mind is irrelevant. Are you again confusing knowing or determining whether a proposition is true with the fact that is is true (or false)?

[Peter Holmes]

GEM and TS

Just a suggestion. Since what we call 'meaning' isn't a thing of any kind whatsoever, it isn't a thing that exists inside or outside minds or brains. What an extraordinary metaphysical delusion it is to think abstract nouns are the names of things of some kind that somehow exist somewhere, and that we can describe. Your argument is a brilliant - and absorbing - demonstration of the mistake. (I think GEM is right on this. Nothing exists or is going on 'in' our heads apart from brains, organic matter and electrochemical processes.)

[Terrapin Station]

We're getting to too many issues at once, so I'm going to do one at a time (and hopefully we actually follow through so we can get back to the rest)

Do you think you don't have to interpret what I'm pointing to?

Nope. I can see what you're pointing at. No interpretation is required (perceiving is not "interpreting" and usually doesn't require any interpreting).

Sure. So first, how do you without interpretation arrive at the view that someone is even pointing at something and doesn't simply have their arm extended from their body?

[Terrapin Station]

Since what we call 'meaning' isn't a thing of any kind whatsoever, it isn't a thing that exists inside or outside minds or brains.

This isn't a view that I at all agree with. I'm a physicalist. I believe that everything extant is matter in the "chunks of stuff" sense, where matter is in dynamic spatio-temporal relations to other matter. There is nothing else on my view. Properties are inseparable from ((dynamic) relations of) matter. Properties are simply what ((dynamic) relations of) matter are "like," the characteristics they have.

I'm also a nominalist in the senses that I think there are only unique particulars, and there are no real (extramental) abstracts. Abstraction is a mental phenomenon, and as such, it's a mental particular that like everything else, amounts to ((dynamic) relations of) matter.

As I explained to you earlier but you never really responded to (well, or at least I didn't see it--I've missed plenty of responses on this board because of the notification system and the way that I check posts), I don't agree with any sort of eliminativist position. "Mind" is what certain brain states are like from the spatio-temporal reference point of being the brain in question. Every single extant has different properties from different spatio-temporal reference points, because properties are identical to ((dynamic) relations of) matter, and every spatio-temporal reference point has unique relations by virtue of being a unique spatio-temporal reference point.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops typo: "Every single existent" that should have been in the third paragraph above.

[Sculptor1]

All meaning is mental. Facts are mental. That an apple is red is only meaningful; it is only a fact because we are interested in the colour of apples.
Objectively. I mean properly objectively "red" and "apple" are not meaningful or factual, they just exist.

"Properly" objectively? Please spell out what that means.

If "all meanings are mental," "things in people's heads," then I can't possibly know what you mean by the words you just wrote, since I cannot read your mind. Hence we cannot possibly communicate productively.

Rubbish. This is a complete non sequitur.
ALL meaning is mental. Meaning are not "out there".
SHow me a meaning, without appealing to a mental process!

You've gotten yourself impaled on the same reductio ad absurdum that haunts TP's similar claims.

Nothing of the kind.
You just do not understand the world in which you find yourself. You have confused the contents of your mind with reality.
This is damning evidence, and explains so many of your obvious delusions.
If it were not so serious it would be laughable.
Strike that it is in fact laughable.
You condition is megalomania.

[Terrapin Station]

You need to explain how a proposition is true or false INDEPENDENT of anyone's mind.

Easily done. Whether a proposition is true or false depends only upon whether the state of affairs asserted by it exists or does not. What is in anyone's mind is irrelevant. Are you again confusing knowing or determining whether a proposition is true with the fact that is is true (or false)?

I'm hesitant to do two issues at once, but I'll try and hopefully we won't drop either one.

The way this explanation needs to go is as follows:

Okay, so let's say we have ink marks on paper or pixel marks on a screen that look like this: "Paris is the capital of France" (using that one since you liked it earlier--if you want to change it that's fine).

Is the next step that you want to claim that those ink marks assert something independent of anyone's mind? How do they do that? Describe exactly how that works--and again, it has to be an explanation that's independent of anyone's mind.

Otherwise you can start with the marks and suggest a different next step re what happens exactly.

[Sculptor1]

I don't agree that (all) facts are mental. I'm using "fact" as "state of affairs" (with an understanding that states of affairs are actually dynamic, by the way). Or in other words, I'm using "fact" as a term for "just existing." I'm NOT using "fact" as a term for something like "true proposition."

And all propositions are mental.
A fact is a statement. It is NOT the thing in itself. It might be about a thing, or a state of affairs but the facts are not out there. They are mental states- literal statements ABOUT the world.