That’s not what he said. — Noah Te Stroete

He said the concept refers to the concept.

"sensible" is irrelevant.

I thought he said the phrase referred to the concept which is mental and refers to something extra-mental, viz. what the physical world is from a particular reference point. But, a reference point is also a concept. You need that concept first. It is primary.

I thought he said the phrase referred to the concept which is mental and refers to something extra-mental, — Noah Te Stroete

No, he's disagreeing that the concept refers to something extramental. It's not clear that he even believes there is anything extramental.

No, he's disagreeing that the concept refers to something extramental. It's not clear that he even believes there is anything extramental. — Terrapin Station

We’ll see what he says.

No, it doesn't it doesn't refer to itself. Frames of reference are not concepts, though there is a concept of them., Why don't you look it up if you're not familiar with it? — Terrapin Station

I didn't say it refers to itself. I said the phrase refers to the concept. I am familiar enough with the concept to know that it always involves an observer (which I do understand is not necessarily conceived as a human observer).

He said the concept refers to the concept. — Terrapin Station

I never said that; that's your attempt to distort what I said so that you can address a straw-man, because you cannot address what I actually said. Typical of you, by the way.

"sensible" is irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

You're drowning and all you can do is wave a hand.

Likely he's misunderstanding the way that physics uses the terms "observer" and "observation." There's a tendency to interpret those terms in the colloquial senses where they're referring to people.

which I do understand is not necessarily conceived as a human observer — Janus

Okay, so you understand that it doesn't imply a percipient, right?

No, he's disagreeing that the concept refers to something extramental. It's not clear that he even believes there is anything extramental. — Terrapin Station

No, again I haven't denied that the concept is taken to refer to something extramental.

Okay, so you understand that it doesn't imply a percipient, right? — Terrapin Station

I believe I already said that it is understood to not necessarily involve a percipient. We can imagine states of affairs from perspectives in the abstract, so to speak, where the model obviously does not involve (although I would say it does "imply") a percipient, All that kind of imagining itself obviously does involve a percipient, in any case.

No, again I haven't denied that the concept is taken to refer to something extramental. — Janus

Okay. And you understand that physics doesn't use the terms "observer"/"observation" to (necessarily) refer to percipients, right?

And you understand that physics doesn't use the terms "observer"/"observation" to refer to percipients, right? — Terrapin Station

Still not getting it. I would need a detailed paper to understand what you are saying.

lol

Likely he's misunderstanding the way that physics uses the terms "observer" and "observation." There's a tendency to interpret those terms in the colloquial senses where they're referring to people. — Terrapin Station

Typical disingenuous ad hominem attempt to use a strawman to gain the upper hand. It's pathetic to see you wriggling on the line like this.

Calm down. How about answering this: " And you understand that physics doesn't use the terms "observer"/"observation" to (necessarily) refer to percipients, right? "

I am calm, and since I understand just how your mind works, I already answered the question before you even asked it, so why don't you read what I wrote before jumping the gun?

If you know that, then why would you write "Particular frames or points of reference exist only (predominately) for humans and perhaps (and if so, much more minimally as far as we know) other percipients, do they not?" And why would you disagree with comments that they do not?

Are you talking about frames of reference as used by Einstein in Special Relativity? Because Einstein said something like that what the universe is actually like without an observer is most likely stranger and maybe even unknowable.

If you know that, then why would you write "Particular frames or points of reference exist only (predominately) for humans and perhaps (and if so, much more minimally as far as we know) other percipients, do they not?" And why would you disagree with comments that they do not? — Terrapin Station

Because the fact that we can imagine or conceive frames of reference as existing independently of percipients does not entail that they actually do. What you still seem to fail to grasp is that physics is a model created by a percipient.

Is there reference absent percipients, according to you? Are there frames (in the sense of models) absent percipients?

Because the fact that we can imagine or conceive frames of reference as existing independently of percipients does not entail that they actually do. — Janus

So you were figuring that I was probably an agnostic about realism? You were just checking to confirm this?

What you still seem to fail to grasp is that physics is a model created by a percipient. — Janus

Still having problems with the use/mention distinction.

Is there reference absent percipients, according to you? — Janus

You're not thinking that "reference" in "frame of reference" is the semantic sense of "reference" a la "sense/reference" are you?''

By the way, since we have so much problem communicating with each other and agreeing on anything, how about if we try to see if we can keep things simple enough to (a) conjointly feel there's not a communication problem, and (b) agree on at least one thing? I wonder if we could do that.

Are you talking about frames of reference as used by Einstein in Special Relativity? — Noah Te Stroete

As it's used in physics in general. And again, I wrote, "This isn't to suggest that I'm using the term identically to physics usage, but you should be familiar with and able to understand that usage (because it's a pretty basic idea in contemporary physics), which doesn't imply talking about a percipient."

So you were figuring that I was probably an agnostic about realism? You were just checking to confirm this? — Terrapin Station

No, I didn't have that question in mind at all.

Still having problems with the use/mention distinction. — Terrapin Station

What a stupid thing to say, considering that I have shown that I understand the use/ mention distinction. That's the problem with trying to have a discussion with you; you make unargued assertions about the interlocutor that look as though they are intended to belittle, which makes it look like you are not capable of addressing the arguments on their own terms and in good faith.

You're not thinking that "reference" in "frame of reference" is the semantic sense of "reference" a la "sense/reference" are you?'' — Terrapin Station

Constantly trying to put inappropriate words in the mouth of the interlocutor, instead of addressing arguments. Why not just tell us what you think 'reference' means in this context?

By the way, since we have so much problem communicating with each other and agreeing on anything, how about if we try to see if we can keep things simple enough to (a) conjointly feel there's not a communication problem, and (b) agree on at least one thing? I wonder if we could do that. — Terrapin Station

The problem, as I see it, is not about agreement, but concerns your failure to argue in good faith, clarity and with a sense of charity. We don't have to agree, all we have to do is make one another aware of our presuppositions and what we think follows from them, and then ferret out any inconsistencies in one another's positions. That could have some value; what has been happening does not. Since you seem to have the same kinds of problems with all your interlocutors, bar one or two who seem to agree with your arguments (and who themselves seem to have somewhat similar problems as you do engaging others in discussion) I would have thought you would have come to see the problem with your chauvinistically dogmatic, opaque and slippery approach by now.

We don't have to agree — Janus

What we'd need to agree on is what the other person is even saying, for example. We don't do that as far as I can tell, unless you are of the opinion that I sometimes understand exactly what you're saying. Often I'm not of that opinion, however, and we'd both need to have the opinion that I understood what you're saying--otherwise, we'd not agree on this. Hence my question about how you're thinking about "reference" above for example. The question would make little sense to me if you're not thinking of it in its semantic sense, but that would be a confusion on my view, since "frame of reference" is not conventionally using "reference" in that semantic sense--hence the question. That you won't simply answer such questions and explain what you have in mind better is a big part of the problem.

Understanding what each other is saying doesn't include your belief that you understand exactly what I'm saying. In order for us to agree that we know what each other is saying, I'd have to be of the opinion that you understand what I'm saying. I'm almost never of that opinion.

In short, you basically think I'm an idiot who isn't posting in good faith, and you really don't care to understand anything I'm saying--you rather just want to argue with it. And I think that you're an idiot. I wouldn't necessarily say that you're not posting in good faith. I just think you're an idiot--as in thinking that literally you're not very intelligent, and you're incapable of understanding things that you don't already think, that haven't already been adopted by you as part of your script. And I don't have the motivation to sort through or bother with all of that when you apparently just want to argue--especially because I actually hate arguing. But you're also too arrogant to do anything other than what we've been doing, so let's continue, I guess.

If it's any solace, I think that the majority of people who regularly post here are idiots while being ridiculously arrogant. Most seem to have mental problems, too--as in, they seem as if they've received diagnoses, received treatment, etc. The arrogance comes from the fact that they're educated idiots--they know some things, in the sense of being familiar with them and being able to regurgitate them, but that's not at all the same thing as intelligence.

Yeah, pretty much everyone else except you is an idiot and an arrogant idiot to boot, I get it, I really do.

If it's any solace, I think that the majority of people who regularly post here are idiots while being ridiculously arrogant... The arrogance comes from the fact that they're educated idiots--they know some things, in the sense of being familiar with them and being able to regurgitate them, but that's not at all the same thing as intelligence. — Terrapin Station

“I’m looking at the man in the mirror! (Oh, yeah!)
I’m asking him to change his ways! (Oh, yeah!)
And no message could’ve been any clearer!
If you want to make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and make that change!”

Why don’t you tell us what “frame of reference” means?

“I’m looking at the man in the mirror! (Oh, yeah!)
I’m asking him to change his ways! (Oh, yeah!)
And no message could’ve been any clearer!
If you want to make the world a better place,
Take a look at yourself, and make that change!” — Noah Te Stroete

I already noted that he thinks I'm an idiot. You might, too.

I don't regurgitate much, partially because I can't. My memory doesn't work well in that manner to enable it. But it's also partially because even the philosophers I like the most I disagree with probably as much if not more than I agree with them. So I'm not about to simply forward stuff they said most of the time. I have a lot of idiosyncratic views.

Re frames/points of reference, I've already explained it a few times. They're spatiotemporal locations, where at all spatiotemporal locations, existents, including existents at that spatiotemporal location, have properties/relations where at least some are unique relative to what the "same" properties/relations are at other spatiotemporal locations, and there's no way for properties/relations to be sans particular spatiotemporal locations, because it's not possible for spatiotemporal locations to not obtain. Properties/relations are always what they are only at particular spatiotemporal locations.

I already noted that he thinks I'm an idiot. You might, too. — Terrapin Station

I don’t think you’re an idiot. On the contrary, I think you have a lot of original thought. I just disagree or don’t understand you a lot of the time.

:chin:

:grin:

Yes, mental properties are from the frame of reference of being (identical to) a particular brain. — Terrapin Station

I understand frame of reference in epistemic terms, but I don't really get how distinct things can have a phenomenal frame of reference. Brains are contiguous and electrons don't care what they are part of.

I understand frame of reference in epistemic terms, but I don't really get how distinct things can have a phenomenal frame of reference. Brains are contiguous and electrons don't care what they are part of. — Forgottenticket

I'm not sure I understand your question. Many properties only obtain via the interactions of many parts/relations.