Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 12:04 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 8:52 am
GE Morton wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 8:33 pm Yes, you asked that before and I answered it before. You seem to be asking how learning (of a meaning, a fact, a skill, etc.) works --- how an association is formed between, e.g., a word and something else (a thing-in-the world, another word, a state-of-affairs, etc.). I answered that that is a question for neurophysiologists, not philosophers, though we know it happens in the brain. Is that what you're asking? If not, then I have no idea what you're asking.
And I explained in response to that that you can't possibly be appealing to neurophysiology in this because your claim is that it works mind-independently.

Er, no, TP. I claimed that the meanings of words and sentences is mind-independent. The denotational meanings of words and propositions are the things or states-of-affairs they denote. I made no claim that learning those meanings is mind-independent. That Paris is the capital of France is a state-of-affairs-in-the-world, and is independent of anything in anyone's mind. Learning that Paris is the capital of France does, of course, require a sentient creature with a mind. Similarly, a dog is an animal, a thing-in-the-world. That the word "dog" denotes, refers to, that animal must be learned by a sentient creature with a mind.

Above you say, " . . . your claim is that it works . . ." What "works'? That term is (in this case) a verb, denoting some activity. The only activity I can see relevant to this issue is forming the association between a word and the thing it denotes. I.e., learning what "dog" means. But I made no claims about how forming that association "works," deferring the physiologists.

You seem unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge the difference between knowing something and what is known.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 12:10 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 9:12 am
Hence why you're saying something as obviously ridiculous as "it would depend on neurophysiology" as a response to "How does this mind-independently work, exactly (with details)?"

"Mind-independent" does not refer to a process (something that "works"). It is an adjective applicable to various existents. Your question is confused and incoherent.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 12:15 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 9:04 am
But no state of affairs exists unless a human mind has in interest in certain pertaining conditions which are sensible to humans;
Why in the world would you believe such nonsense? There were countless states of affairs 2 billion years ago. There were no humans 2 billion years ago. Thus, states of affairs clearly do not depend on humans in any manner.

This is amusing. Two solipsists quibbling over the implications of two nonsensical ontologies.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 12:25 pm**

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 12:04 pm Er, no, TP. I claimed that the meanings of words and sentences is mind-independent.

Not only that, but you made the same claim about truth-value. But let's look at one at a time. Just make a choice re which one you want to try to support first.

The denotational meanings of words and propositions are the things or states-of-affairs they denote. I made no claim that learning those meanings is mind-independent. That Paris is the capital of France is a state-of-affairs-in-the-world, and is independent of anything in anyone's mind. Learning that Paris is the capital of France does, of course, require a sentient creature with a mind. Similarly, a dog is an animal, a thing-in-the-world. That the word "dog" denotes, refers to, that animal must be learned by a sentient creature with a mind.

And I haven't asked you anything about learning. That's your misunderstanding of what I'm asking you, because what I'm asking you goes off your script, and apparently you have trouble understanding things off your script.

If the meanings of words and sentences is mind-independent, then we can explain how meaning obtains--that is, just what it's a property of, just what it amounts to, etc., without appealing to minds, correct? Again, I mean in terms of DETAILS of how it obtains, re physical details, or nonphysical details (too), if you want to try to appeal to them.

This can't be difficult if meaning is really mind-independent.

So let's start with a word, like dog. For that word to occur mind-independently, we need to have it in writing (on a paper, on a computer screen, etc.) or have a sound recording of it.

NOW, the meaning of that stuff written on paper, or on a computer screen, or where we have a sound recording, somehow amounts to meaning . . . HOW, exactly? Detail how that amounts to meaning, in terms of what's physically (or nonphysically if you want to try) going on.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 12:26 pm**

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 12:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 9:04 am

Why in the world would you believe such nonsense? There were countless states of affairs 2 billion years ago. There were no humans 2 billion years ago. Thus, states of affairs clearly do not depend on humans in any manner.
This is amusing. Two solipsists quibbling over the implications of two nonsensical ontologies.

You can't possibly be so dense that you think I'm a solipsist.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 1:18 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 12:25 pm
So let's start with a word, like dog. For that word to occur mind-independently, we need to have it in writing (on a paper, on a computer screen, etc.) or have a sound recording of it.

NOW, the meaning of that stuff written on paper, or on a computer screen, or where we have a sound recording, somehow amounts to meaning . . .

The "meaning . . . amounts to meaning"? Is that supposed to be informative? And words don't "occur mind-independently." And, of course, I never said they did. The things denoted by words --- their meanings --- occur mind-independently.

HOW, exactly? Detail how that amounts to meaning, in terms of what's physically (or nonphysically if you want to try) going on.

A word has a meaning if it has a use in a language. The meaning is that use. The use of most common nouns is to denote things-in-the-world. The things they denote are their meanings. To say a word "has a meaning" is to say it denotes something, the meaning being that which it denotes.

HOW it denotes something is by a sentient creature forming an association between the word and the thing it denotes, a somewhat obscure neurophysical process. That process is launched when the subject observes which things are denoted by a word when used by other speakers of that language, and by observing their behaviors when presented with that word. That is called "learning."

Your two sentences quoted above reveal your confusions on this issue.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 1:55 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 11:41 am
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 10:16 am

No.
Relating takes an observer.
On your view there are no relations with no (human?) observers? (????)

It's a no brainer really.
Now consider the thread topic - morality.
How on earth could there be morality without humans?

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 1:57 pm**

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 12:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 9:04 am

Why in the world would you believe such nonsense? There were countless states of affairs 2 billion years ago. There were no humans 2 billion years ago. Thus, states of affairs clearly do not depend on humans in any manner.
This is amusing. Two solipsists quibbling over the implications of two nonsensical ontologies.

That's the best you can do to advance your delusion, continue!
LOL

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 3:19 pm**

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 1:18 pm The "meaning . . . amounts to meaning"? Is that supposed to be informative? And words don't "occur mind-independently." And, of course, I never said they did. The things denoted by words --- their meanings --- occur mind-independently.

You're not simply saying that every object in the universe is identical to meaning, are you?

Are you saying that any object in the universe is identical to meaning? Meaning is just (a) dog, for example? On your account, there doesn't have to be any relationship with anything for meaning to obtain? Isn't it words that have meanings, for example, and meaning isn't just any arbitrary object qua that object?
And are you going to claim that this (usage) happens non-mentally?
But only when those things are taken to be denoted by words, right? Otherwise you're saying that all that meaning amounts to is any arbitrary object qua that object. You'd be saying that meaning is simply identical to any arbitrary object, whether any word denotes it or not.
Sure. Now, the question is, let's DETAIL how this works. How does a word denote something? How exactly does that property obtain? You want to claim that it obtains extramentally. Well, how? We have a word, and then it extramentally denotes something via what exactly?
You can't possibly be this dumb. A sentient creature forming an association is a mental activity. This can't be part of your explanation for how meaning occurs extramentally. Mental activity isn't non-mental properties. You're supposed to be telling me about extramental meaning. I DIDN'T ASK YOU ANYTHING ABOUT LEARNING. But you're claiming that there is non-mental meaning. Support non-mental meaning.

So do you want to say that non-mental meaning is just any arbitrary object in the world per se, whether a a word is associated with it or not?

Or do you want to say that there's some non-mental way that words connect to objects?

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 3:21 pm**

Fixed the quotation mess below:

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 1:18 pm The "meaning . . . amounts to meaning"? Is that supposed to be informative? And words don't "occur mind-independently." And, of course, I never said they did. The things denoted by words --- their meanings --- occur mind-independently.

You're not simply saying that every object in the universe is identical to meaning, are you?

Are you saying that any object in the universe is identical to meaning? Meaning is just (a) dog, for example? On your account, there doesn't have to be any relationship with anything for meaning to obtain? Isn't it words that have meanings, for example, and meaning isn't just any arbitrary object qua that object?

A word has a meaning if it has a use in a language. The meaning is that use.

And are you going to claim that this (usage) happens non-mentally?

The use of most common nouns is to denote things-in-the-world. The things they denote are their meanings.

But only when those things are taken to be denoted by words, right? Otherwise you're saying that all that meaning amounts to is any arbitrary object qua that object. You'd be saying that meaning is simply identical to any arbitrary object, whether any word denotes it or not.

To say a word "has a meaning" is to say it denotes something, the meaning being that which it denotes.

Sure. Now, the question is, let's DETAIL how this works. How does a word denote something? How exactly does that property obtain? You want to claim that it obtains extramentally. Well, how? We have a word, and then it extramentally denotes something via what exactly?

HOW it denotes something is by a sentient creature forming an association between the word and the thing it denotes,

You can't possibly be this dumb. A sentient creature forming an association is a mental activity. This can't be part of your explanation for how meaning occurs extramentally. Mental activity isn't non-mental properties. You're supposed to be telling me about extramental meaning. I DIDN'T ASK YOU ANYTHING ABOUT LEARNING. But you're claiming that there is non-mental meaning. Support non-mental meaning.

So do you want to say that non-mental meaning is just any arbitrary object in the world per se, whether a a word is associated with it or not?

Or do you want to say that there's some non-mental way that words connect to objects?

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 3:26 pm**

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 1:55 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 11:41 am

On your view there are no relations with no (human?) observers? (????)
It's a no brainer really.

It sounds literally like a "no brainer" to me in that it sounds pretty insane. I have no idea why or how you'd think there are no relations if there are no (human) observers.

Now consider the thread topic - morality.
How on earth could there be morality without humans?

There is only morality when there are creatures with minds (not necessarily humans), where their minds are such that they have preferences about interpersonal behavior that they consider to be more significant than etiquette. That in no way suggests that relations don't exist if creatures with minds do not exist. Pick some arbitrary solar system that's 6-7 billion years old. And imagine that no other creatures with minds exist that long ago (which may very well be the case). No creature with a mind has to be around for that solar system, 5 billion years ago, to have planets that orbit their star at a particular distance, etc.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 4:16 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 3:26 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 1:55 pm

It's a no brainer really.
It sounds literally like a "no brainer" to me in that it sounds pretty insane. I have no idea why or how you'd think there are no relations if there are no (human) observers.

Now consider the thread topic - morality.
How on earth could there be morality without humans?
There is only morality when there are creatures with minds (not necessarily humans), where their minds are such that they have preferences about interpersonal behavior that they consider to be more significant than etiquette. That in no way suggests that relations don't exist if creatures with minds do not exist. Pick some arbitrary solar system that's 6-7 billion years old. And imagine that no other creatures with minds exist that long ago (which may very well be the case). No creature with a mind has to be around for that solar system, 5 billion years ago, to have planets that orbit their star at a particular distance, etc.

You are kidding yourself.
If there is no one to observe how can any distance be "particular".
A "year" is completely arbitrary.
Everything you say has a human metric, none of which is relevant in a universe with no humans.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 5:51 pm**

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 4:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 3:26 pm

It sounds literally like a "no brainer" to me in that it sounds pretty insane. I have no idea why or how you'd think there are no relations if there are no (human) observers.

There is only morality when there are creatures with minds (not necessarily humans), where their minds are such that they have preferences about interpersonal behavior that they consider to be more significant than etiquette. That in no way suggests that relations don't exist if creatures with minds do not exist. Pick some arbitrary solar system that's 6-7 billion years old. And imagine that no other creatures with minds exist that long ago (which may very well be the case). No creature with a mind has to be around for that solar system, 5 billion years ago, to have planets that orbit their star at a particular distance, etc.
You are kidding yourself.
If there is no one to observe how can any distance be "particular".
A "year" is completely arbitrary.
Everything you say has a human metric, none of which is relevant in a universe with no humans.

"Particular" in the sense of "not a universal." There are no real (in the sense of extramental) universals.

If you think that nothing existed until humans did, how do you figure that humans came into existence in the first place?

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 5:53 pm**

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 4:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 3:26 pm

It sounds literally like a "no brainer" to me in that it sounds pretty insane. I have no idea why or how you'd think there are no relations if there are no (human) observers.

There is only morality when there are creatures with minds (not necessarily humans), where their minds are such that they have preferences about interpersonal behavior that they consider to be more significant than etiquette. That in no way suggests that relations don't exist if creatures with minds do not exist. Pick some arbitrary solar system that's 6-7 billion years old. And imagine that no other creatures with minds exist that long ago (which may very well be the case). No creature with a mind has to be around for that solar system, 5 billion years ago, to have planets that orbit their star at a particular distance, etc.
You are kidding yourself.
If there is no one to observe how can any distance be "particular".
A "year" is completely arbitrary.
Everything you say has a human metric, none of which is relevant in a universe with no humans.

Also "particular" as opposed to "(ontologically) indeterminate" by the way.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2020, 9:13 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 3:21 pm
GE Morton wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 1:18 pm The "meaning . . . amounts to meaning"? Is that supposed to be informative? And words don't "occur mind-independently." And, of course, I never said they did. The things denoted by words --- their meanings --- occur mind-independently.
You're not simply saying that every object in the universe is identical to meaning, are you?

Of course not, as I'm sure you know. Any object in the universe can become a meaning, however, if someone coins a word for it. In that case a particular group of animals, dogs (say), and the meaning of the word "dog" are one and the same. "Dogs are members of the class mammalia, family canidae, genus canis," and, "Dogs are the meaning of the word 'dog'" are two different descriptive contexts for the same entities.

Are you saying that any object in the universe is identical to meaning? Meaning is just (a) dog, for example? On your account, there doesn't have to be any relationship with anything for meaning to obtain? Isn't it words that have meanings, for example, and meaning isn't just any arbitrary object qua that object?

Why ask questions that have already been answered? Of course "meaning" denotes a relationship, between a word and a thing. And, yes, words have meanings. The things denoted by them are the meanings. I have a coin in my pocket." The thing in my pocket is the coin.

And are you going to claim that this (usage) happens non-mentally?

Oh, my. You're still having difficulty distinguishing knowing something (a mental state) from what is known (a non-mental fact).

To say a word "has a meaning" is to say it denotes something, the meaning being that which it denotes.
Sure. . . .

Huh? You're now agreeing with me?

Now, the question is, let's DETAIL how this works. How does a word denote something?

Already answered, and quoted by you:

HOW it denotes something is by a sentient creature forming an association between the word and the thing it denotes,
You can't possibly be this dumb. A sentient creature forming an association is a mental activity. This can't be part of your explanation for how meaning occurs extramentally.

Meaning doesn't "occur," extramentally or otherwise. Meaning is not an event or process. It is any thing, "mental" or "extramental," to which a word has been assigned by speakers in a speech community. Assigning a meaning to a word (i.e., coining a word or learning the meaning of one) are mental activities. The thing-in-the-world assigned to the word is its meaning, most of which are non-mental. (We also assign words to mental processes and events, of course. The nocturnal visual phenomena I experienced last night while asleep is the meaning of "dream").

TP, please don''t keep repeating questions already answered, and equating the process for relating two things, say a dog and the word "dog," with one of the relatants.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?