Basically, the idea, very broadly--I'm not specifying my views, here, is (presumably) that were talking about things that exist or obtain somehow, and things work via some set of (ontological) relations, perhaps interacting with each other. I was assuming that you would have a view of what's going on in this regard when it comes to meaning. So I was trying to poke/prod that out of you. If it's not something you've thought about much, so you don't really have a view on it, that's fine. It might be something worth thinking about though. — Terrapin Station

I might be able to go into some more detail in some respects, although that might require some prodding from you, but you threw me off by seemingly confining things to the physical, and then you went to the other extreme and brought up the supernatural.

I've said before that I'm not much of a fan of this category game. It's not always the most helpful approach. But, like I've said, I don't doubt that some of the stuff involved is physical. And there's also a relation to stuff that's mental. And then there's the abstract, whatever that is, but that seems like a bit of a mystery. I'm not sure exactly what's what, ontologically, and I don't have a complete account in that regard, and I'm not sure how the whole thing neatly ties together, or of finer details like interaction.

But that almost seems like a different topic, or a different angle on the topic. I still know what I know about meaning and language and suchlike, and I standby what I've said.

For me, some of the highlights of this discussion have been:

a) Missing the point about missing the point.

b) "You understand the meaning of what I'm saying right now", "No I don't".

c) Rocks don't exist. They never did.

d) How can an hour pass if no one is there to tell if an hour has passed?

Ah, I see, I'm a bit slow in the mornings! Do you think we should we stop laughing and start caring, just to see what happens? — Janus

I'm not sure that it's possible for me to stop laughing at this stage. But it might help if they stopped producing hilariously bad logic.

I meant the scenario that has been playing out in this thread. Which scenario are you referring to? — Janus

The scenario here in this thread is one where we've all died... of laughter... at the bad logic on display.

The scenario I was referring to in last my reply to you, which was intended to mock the aforementioned bad logic, was a scenario where it was in fact tragic, instead of the hilarity of this scenario here, which precludes what would otherwise make for a tragedy.

Of course, unsurprisingly, no attempt was made by Mww to address or redress the logical error there! — Janus

Yes, but one of your remarks sounded like something that Rod Serling would say, so that's immaterial.

Likewise! It'd be tragic if it wasn't so funny. :rofl: — Janus

You can't possibly know that it would be tragic. You would have to travel to an alternate reality and directly experience the scenario in order to find out!

Let me re-state your mistake.
An enforceable law should be added to to the law books is basically what you said.

But if it is an enforceable law then it is already a law and therefore there is no need for it to be added to the law book again. — Sir2u

Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic, and your point was trivial, and you either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying.

I meant what would be a proposed enforceable law in the country for which I would want it added to the law books. It would already be an enforceable law elsewhere. That's where the evidence comes from.

What has this got to do with anything? If it is already a law that is enforceable why would there be any problems anywhere, or with anyone. — Sir2u

The problem was more than that. Enforceable is not the same as enforced. I want the two together.

Basically what I have been saying from the beginning, education first. — Sir2u

And who do you think is arguing against that, if anyone?

Can something be good in one world but not in another? — Banno

Yes. It certainly seems so to me. Why couldn't it?

Are the things that are good in all possible worlds the things on which we ought base our ethics? — Banno

First, can you give an example and demonstrate how it counts? If not, then I rightly dismiss your question.

So, if we are going to talk about necessary goods, we need first to affirm that goods are true, and then sus out which goods are true in all possible worlds... — Banno

When you catch that wild goose, would you be so kind as to let me know?

Religion, like philosophy, is a multi-function tool. — Pattern-chaser

Okay. Well, I've purchased and tested both. I would like a refund on the religion multi-tool, please.

Did you think about this before you wrote it? If there are enforceable laws that have been proven to be effective then there would be no need to put them into the law books because they are already there. sounds like gobble de goop to me. — Sir2u

Yes, I did. Did you think about that before you typed and submitted it? Surely you must know a thing or two about the obstacles against legislating and enforcing laws for which there is good evidence that they're effective? In the USA, there's the Republican Party, the NRA, lobbyists, the rampant gun culture...

And it was pointed out that what works well in one place will not always work in another. The same applies to baking cakes, it is different at sea level that when you are on top of a mountain. That you cannot see these difference or cannot understand how they apply to the different situations is your problem. And it is not right to discount other peoples' way of thinking just because they do not agree with your narrow minded, ignorant, inexperienced way of thinking. — Sir2u

Yeah, I remember your line of argument, and replies have been given to that, too. Recently, for instance, by Christopher. In short, act to make the conditions right, then act to change the law or the ways in which it is enforced or both.

Keep on look for the easter eggs, I left several here for you're enjoyment. — Sir2u

I don't spot them. Your a master at subtlety, you are.

I would normally agree that we all know what wisdom is, but your words confuse me. You seem to claim wisdom is easy, something we all know and understand. And yet, your description of wisdom is .. missing from your words.

What do you think wisdom is? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Consult Wittgenstein. That will reveal an insightful method for answering your own question, which I take as a question which can be generalised to a question about linguistic meaning.

So are you a skeptic that there's something going on ontologically? Or do you mean that you think there's something going on ontologically, but you have no idea what, exactly? — Terrapin Station

It depends what exactly you mean. Do you even know yourself? There's physical stuff involved. That's for sure. But I am sceptical that that provides a complete picture. If you think otherwise, you'd have to actually try to convince me - if you cared enough about my thoughts on the matter, that is.

Sure. — Terrapin Station

Good. So hopefully you'll also understand me when I say that I'm a sceptic beyond the kind of answers that I've already given you. And, with that in mind, hopefully you'll restrict yourself to asking me questions of a more sensible nature, given what I've just explained.

You should if you want to know the physical properties of, say, a particular piece of pottery relative to a particular culture. Those are physical properties (as indeed all properties are). — Terrapin Station

Fine, whatever. What was the point of this digression? Was it really worth it? I don't think that either an archeologist or a physicist would find what you are asking of me. What you're asking of me doesn't even seem to make sense, really. You certainly haven't even lifted a finger to convince me otherwise.

If you think what's going on ontologically is something nonphysical, or supernatural, or whatever, that's fine. Why can't we just plainly state your view about just what's going on ontologically, just how it works, etc.? It's difficult to address just what you think is going on ontologically, just how you think it works, if you won't tell us. — Terrapin Station

Let me simplify for you. We'll do it one thing at a time, which is a method of which you approve. First of all, do you understand what scepticism is?

I am just going to point out how funny it is that you criticise me for being "superficial" while your position is that anything beyond the superficial is nonsense. — Echarmion

How did you reply again? Ah yes, I remember now: "that's entirely your opinion".

And if idealism still doesn't make sense to you, then you do something about that. Wow, winning arguments is so easy! — Echarmion

I have. I explored it further, and the results were as predicted.

They aren't? How do you know I'm not a lawyer? — Echarmion

There's a simple test for that. I could ask, "If you were to give someone an orange, how would you go about it?".

If you were to answer, "Here's an orange", then you're not a lawyer.

If you were to answer, "I'd tell him, 'I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, claim, title, claim and advantages of and in, said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp, and seeds, and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut, freeze and otherwise eat, the same, or give the same away with and without the pulp, juice, rind and seeds, anything herein before or hereinafter or in any deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding...", then you're a lawyer.

That joke is actually very relevant here. If someone were really to answer in that lawyerly way, then we'd rightly judge them to be doing something wrong. It's much better to go with, "Here's an orange".

Which I think means that if you know something, but don't use the words that S approves of, you don't know something, because you "missed the language barrier". Or something. I am sure this means something, since meaning is objective. I just have to find the atlas of meaning somewhere... — Echarmion

The atlas of meaning! That's a funny name for a language rule. Or is that what you're calling a dictionary? I've simply been copy and pasting from an online dictionary for words I've used such as "rock" and "boat". You must already be familiar with the English language. Did you learn it from an atlas of meaning somewhere, or the usual way?

"By your own admission": that part in particular, amongst the other problems with what you just said, stands out as either a lie or an error.

And to suggest that you're superior to me in that regard... Have you been drinking that gin you like?

Say what? Talking about missing the point, and here we have a good example. In every discussion you have said the same thing. Could you be specific in exactly what those laws would be? And how they would apply to all of the illegal weapons?
And I can probably guess your answer to this as well, "I am not a law maker". So what enforceable laws would you, as a thinking individual person, like to see put into the law books? — Sir2u

It makes sense to be specific when there's a need to be, and when there's a reasonable expectation for the specificity at the level you suggest. I doubt that you've fulfilled this criteria.

I would like to see those enforceable laws for which there is evidence of them working be put into the law books and enforced. Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. That you might discount the evidence is not that it hasn't been given, nor is it that it's right to discount it.

And exactly what do you think the elephant was, maybe I did miss it. But I replied to the part I quoted and nothing else in his post, so I don't think that I was either humoring him nor missing anything.
He said it would hat it would be alright to shoot anyone with a gun and I asked who would do the shooting.
End of topic, nothing missed. — Sir2u

I don't recall him saying anything about this hat which you mention. But I do recall him saying something about shooting armed criminals, which seems to be jumping ahead without justification. You addressed what he said on his own terms, taking into account the whole shooting armed criminals thing, whereas I challenged it.

How can a question be naive? — Sir2u

Oh man, that's priceless. :lol:

And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution. — Sir2u

You erroneously equate "a solution" with a complete solution in full detail, ready and waiting to be implemented. People here have outlined the solution for you. Your expectations, as I've explained multiple times here, are unreasonable. We aren't all going to go off to gain the required expertise and then spend all the required time and dedication to produce some sort of Treatise On The Problem Of Firearms.

Thanks. The credibility of all proper logic and all physical theory is required to be at least internally consistent, so looks like I’m ok. If that’s all I’ve got it’s only because I haven’t taken either the logic or the theory any further. — Mww

Internal consistency is vital, but also a piece of cake. You'd need to take it further to impress me.

You need to read more Wittgenstein. Your "translations" and similar assessments are ridiculously uncharitable. No one here should take them seriously.

Do you think that archaeology deals with physical stuff? Do physicists know archaeology better than archaeologists? Does biology/medicine deal with physical stuff? There aren't many physicists I'd hire to take care of a cyst, say. — Terrapin Station

Physicists know best about physical stuff as physical stuff, which is obviously what I meant. I wouldn't go to an archeologist to find out in detail about the physical properties of an object. You were asking about the physical in some other sense then, were you? Some sense where it would make more sense to ask an archeologist, or a biologist, or a physician? Or are you just trying to be a smart arse?

Do you think that there are some things that don't work some way in terms of what's going on ontologically? — Terrapin Station

I think that your question in terms of the physical seems inappropriate, because it contains a controversial assumption, and we should examine that controversial assumption, but your constant evasive manoeuvres - for which you've gained notoriety - make that difficult, if not impossible.

Your question in the quote above is too vague for me to answer, anyway. Look, I am sceptical beyond what I've said. If you think that what I've said requires an additional explanation in terms of the physical, then that's for you to justify. Is that understood? Unless I judge that supposed requirement to be justified, I am not obliged to humour you. Your burden isn't my burden.

OK, I think I've satisfactorily proven my case. Yours is a metaphysics of extreme selfishness. It's reducible to solipsism: "I am the only authority". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, Mr. Fox. Whatever you say, Mr. Fox. Who wants sour grapes anyway? Right, Mr. Fox?

Translation:

S. was unable to tell what he meant.

If you can't tell what you mean, maybe you don't know what you mean. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't remember hiring a translator, but in any case, you're fired.

Irrelevant.

The OP shows no edit, and even if it did, the logical response would be the same. “Is there a rock? Yes” has the same declarative value as “Would there be a rock? Yes”, therefore would justify identical responses.

Wiggling is permitted in average philosophy, apparently. — Mww

I already know what your response is. I'm bored of it. I've been over it. You'd have to add something new for this to be interesting. You erroneously respond that we don't know. This is because of your criteria. You might be internally consistent, but that's all your position has going for it. In the bigger picture, it's fundamentally flawed.

First, we're not talking about whether physicists, specifically, would work on this. — Terrapin Station

Funny. Your question was put in terms of the physical. Who knows about that better than a physicist? That's why I specifically brought up a physicist.

But are you claiming that what's going on is somehow "beyond science"? Do you believe that somehow it's not the case that something is going on physically here? Are you saying that you believe there are nonphysical phenomena? Is something supernatural going on? — Terrapin Station

I go where good sense leads me. I don't put the cart before the horse by assuming physicalism and then end up grasping at straws when I hit a bump in the road. There's a problem here, but like I said, it may well be a problem with what you assume or a problem with the way you put your question. Until that's ruled out, I don't accept that it's a problem on my end rather than on yours.

Given your impression of what knowledge is, and how you characterize what blue is, I dare not ask what you think time is. — Mww

Like knowledge, and like existence, time doesn't seem to require a definition for the purpose of this discussion, so long as you understand how I'm using it and related terms. Meaning is use. You know, or you should know, how I use the relevant terminology. I have demonstrated my usage plenty of times in this discussion. You should already know what it means for an hour to pass. If not - if you get that wrong - I've explained multiple times where we differ, so just use that as a reference instead of turning to me with a dumfounded expression like you're helpless. Help yourself.

Also, given you must know how expensive that Rangpur gin is, why you’d even consider throwing it at me must have been derived from reasoning as irrational as is the reasoning behind this thought experiment. — Mww

I would do it for the lulz. The lulz are priceless.

I’ll have another, if you’d be so kind. In a glass this time. — Mww

No, I wouldn't be so kind. Kindness is not my forté. But, if you like, I can bring you a puppy, and then give it a real good kicking whilst you watch in horror.

How in the bloody hell is it possible to misinterpret “Will there be rocks? Yes.” This truth statement is the conclusion of the Part 1 argument. If the conclusion is deemed false, then it is required to find the fault in the premises that ground the conclusion, which means they MUST be deemed incongruent with the originals. If they weren’t, the conclusion would hold. But it doesn’t So.... — Mww

No, no, no. Not in terms of the content of truth-claims, I meant the way in which you go about interpreting them as truth-claims, as in how you are assessing the truth-claims in terms of the truth-values, or in terms of what we know about the truth-values, like how we'd get to the one value or the other, which involves your preheld notions of things like what's required for a truth-claim to be justified.

Yes, I could avoid the problems by relaxing my criteria. — Mww

Yes, and that would be sensible. You don't want to be sensible?

You, on the other hand, could avoid the irrationality by strengthening yours. — Mww

No, you seem to forget that it's only irrational if you go by a model that results in irrationality, which is what your model does for my claims. My model sensibly avoids that outcome.

Apparently, average is good enough for you? I am truly disappointed. — Mww

My way keeps me grounded. It is practical. It is sensible. It makes more sense. It reduces the occurrence of language barriers.

Your way doesn't have these benefits. It just tries to be clever and special, but fails in terms of the bigger picture. It has more cons than pros.

Yes, you reject all reasonable premises which could explain what you are talking about, as non-progressive, and assert "there is a rock an hour after all people die", as the only reasonable premise. OK. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I reject all premises you erroneously believe to be reasonable, and go by my own premises, which actually are reasonable.

Whenever someone gets you to the point where your op might begin to appear unreasonable to you, you say, I'm going to ignore you because this does not progress the debate. Nice work. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nice rationalisation. You're a master at it! You remind me of the fox in Aesop's fable:

Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.'

Has nothing to do with when the truth statement was made. Has only to do with when the truth statement applies. — Mww

Then you worded it wrong before. So that was your fault, not mine. It would apply. You haven't provided a reasonable basis for a negation.

“Is there a rock? Yes.” makes explicit the truth statement applies to the present of rocks but is premised on the future of humans. In effect humans making a truth statement about a present of which they are not a member and of which, accordingly, they could in fact know nothing about.

Even an average philosopher should see the fallacy in that reasoning. — Mww

The fallacy in your reply is a red herring. If you want to talk about a different question, namely the question of whether there is a rock, then do so elsewhere. I've clarified that the question here is whether there would be a rock. I clarified that many pages ago.

Again, the problem is that you're refraining from this "weird question." That's leading you to untenable ontological stances about it. — Terrapin Station

No, I'm not refraining from your weird question. I answered it in a way that might not be what you're looking for. Maybe it's wrong of you to be looking for a certain kind of answer to begin with. Maybe the question itself is the problem. Ever stop to consider that?

Alright, so when you say, "let's use x to mean y," how, exactly, in terms of what's going on physically, does that create x meaning y? (If you think you need to start somewhere else in the process, feel free to start wherever you need to) — Terrapin Station

It's not something a physicist could find through science. He could only find related stuff. So you're thinking about it wrong, and asking the wrong questions as a result.

But, let me guess: this is somehow my fault?

But that Idealism is "bizarre" is entirely your opinion. — Echarmion

No, it's not just my personal opinion based on whim and fancy. It has a solid basis, and that's why it is shared by most other people. You're just trying to trivialise this. How very superficial.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out the reason a lot of philosophy starting from the Renaissance has idealist tendencies? What we experience most directly is our thoughts. These are, in a sense, the most "real" thing to us. Hence, Descartes started with cogito. That our world starts with our thoughts is hardly bizarre, or unintuitive, is it? — Echarmion

It is, given where it leads. The known world started with the Big Bang, not at our birth. And direct idealism is far from agreeable, again, given where it leads.

But I grant that it has some degree of deceptive appeal.

That sentence doesn't even begin to make sense to me. — Echarmion

It makes sense in proper context with the further explanation I gave. If it still doesn't make sense to you, then do something about it. But if I have to needlessly repeat an explanation I've already given, then you'll face my wrath.

Technical language is required to talk about complex topics. Do you think lawyers are "doing something wrong" because they use words in a very peculiar and sometime highly unintuitive way? — Echarmion

That's fine. Lawyers aren't philosophy enthusiasts. They don't have in common with philosophy enthusiasts the tendency to say absurd sounding things. So it's not the same. Lawyers qua lawyers don't say stuff like, "Rocks don't exist".

And that something is? — Echarmion

What I've explained. The language barrier.

Your humility is staggering. — Echarmion

Thank you for the compliment.

What the word means is already established in English.
— S

How does that happen physically? — Terrapin Station

Weird question. People invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it. "Let's use the symbol 'dog' to mean those furry things with four legs that bark".

All pretty obvious, seems to me.

The error you're making is that the only way to connect "boat" to the referent is to engage in the mental activity of associating the sound or text mark with the referent. — Terrapin Station

No, that's a mental association. You need that for understanding. I'm talking about what the word "boat" means. You confuse the two. What the word means is already established in English.

Your subjectivism is getting in the way, causing problems.

Yeah, well, more than 15 pages of debate are indicative of how uncontroversial your position is. — Echarmion

The key phrase I used was, "on the face of it". And that matters because it has to do with intuitiveness, common sense, our common language, what makes sense to us without assuming something bizarre like idealism, without having to come up with a convoluted explanation or an explanation which causes more problems than it solves.

But post-human rocks are not simple and easily understandable if you actually think about it. This is a bit like saying quantum physics "fails" because it goes to great lengths to explain away such simple and easily understandable concepts as discrete objects, or measurements that don't affect that which is measured.

Expain to me how this is not just an argument from ignorance? — Echarmion

Because it's not just simply about the truth of the matter, it's also - as it almost always is - about the language we use. That's part of what I meant earlier when I said something along the lines that I accept the science, but reject your related philosophical conclusions about it. You lack conformity with how a normal person normally talks. In that language, it sounds insane to say something like, "There are no rocks". Again, to me, that just indicates that you're doing something wrong.

The guy on the street doesn't understand a great many things outside of their personal expertise. — Echarmion

Yes, and the philosophy-type can be oblivious to the problems that come with not properly considering and appreciating how the guy on the street talks. They have a tendency to think that it's all simply a matter of sophistication or knowledge, thereby missing something important.

I am also a philosophy-type, but I'm the type who talks more sense. Even if I have more specialist knowledge than the guy on the street, me and him agree that you're doing something wrong.

I find your language wacky as well. — Echarmion

Then you must find dictionaries wacky. You must find the way we ordinarily talk wacky. Very weird.

Ok, no prob. It is true there are apt to be rocks in the future. No different in principle than believing there will be rocks in the future. No different in principle than having no reason to think there wouldn’t be rocks in the future, all else being equal. None of those are congruent with the truth statement in the OP. And, truth-apt statements can be false, which means the statement there are no rocks when all the humans are gone is truth-apt. — Mww

All this means is that you choose to interpret truth-claims in a manner incongruent with how the opening post is supposed to be interpreted. And there's an easy solution to that.

Given these things, it is appropriate to say things like, "There would be rocks", and, "I know that there would be rocks". This can be tested by speaking to average people. Of course, it's inappropriate if you go by an unhelpful philosophy-language which average people rightly look upon as wrongheaded.

All you have to do to avoid the problems you're encountering is to suitably relax your criteria and talk like a normal person does.

That is the predication of my whole argument: if there can be no truth statements if humans are gone, then the truth statement “there are rocks when humans are gone” cannot be made. No truth value can be assigned to a truth statement impossible to make. There very well may be rocks, but no true statement can be made about that existential condition, which includes “there will be rocks”.

Maybe there will be rocks is not a consideration a truth statement admits. — Mww

Why do you assume that it would have to be made at the time, after we're all dead, when there obviously wouldn't be anyone alive to make statements? Why couldn't it have been made beforehand? If you're having trouble picturing this, then imagine a statement written in my journal. I write the statement, then five minutes later, we all die. Then through some illogical magic you have up your sleeve, you conclude that the statement wouldn't be true or false according to what's the case. :brow:

I'm guessing that this illogical magic consists in a hidden idealist premise which is completely unwarranted. And this is the predication of your whole argument? :rofl:

But is that tacit entitlement for an affirmative truth claim with respect to the physical reality of future objects? Is the logic that it wouldn’t disappear serve as truth that it would still exist? — Mww

If you let go off your needlessly strict criteria for justification, or your needlessly incongruous way of interpreting things like this, then yes! Drop the black-and-white thinking and the problem dissipates.

Maybe it suggests evidence of "something that occurs independently of us"? That was my point. Clearly, we all know that facts are not determined by democracy. — ZhouBoTong

Terrapin has trouble with that one. He tends to see the one as the other. I had that problem with him earlier, and I had to give him an explanation of the difference which might well have been too lengthy for him to handle without shutting off part way through.

I seem to recall (oh oh....memory trust again) you agree with S, there is a rock, in the future without observers. If so, what is the ground of your reason? — Mww

Correction: there would be a rock.

Like me, he goes by logic, as opposed to your irrational empiricism. Unlike you, he doesn't assume your unwarranted premise and then reason on full steam ahead until he reaches his predictable destination: a false conclusion. (Unless he is deliberately doing so as a reduction to the absurd). Soundness matters in logic.