So where is the fact that the hammer was used to hit nails? If humans capable of recollecting the fact ceased to exist would it cease to be the case that the hammer was used to hit nails? — Isaac

Again, this has nothing to do with meaning. You're changing the topic from post to post. Just pointing that out if we want to stay on topic.

Anyway, the fact that the hammer was used to hit nails would be in the evidence such a the microscopic fractures (or whatever exactly the physical effects would be--I don't know the actual details for that).

That has nothing to do with us/our existence, and it also has nothing to do with meaning.

I'm trying to understand your position with regards to properties of objects which exist only in the mind of the observer. This seems crucial to the topic because the question is whether the meaning of the word 'dog' is a property of the word or of the word-user's mind. Now I understand where you put things like patterns, the only piece in the jigsaw that I'm still missing is where you locate history. What if the hammer suffered no impact at all, what if its history were simply to have been waived in the air? Would it no longer have such a history if there were no marks left from it?

I'm trying to understand your position with regards to properties of objects which exist only in the mind of the observer. — Isaac

No properties of something like a hammer only exist in the mind of an observer.

Meaning isn't a property of objects like hammers. Meaning is a mental activity that we engage in.

Re a word like "dog," as a word, objectively, it's only a sound or a set of ink marks on paper, a set of pixels on a screen, etc. Meaning is not a property of sounds or ink marks, etc.

Patterns occur both mentally and extramentally. Nothing is really a homogeneous soup. And history, as in past events, doesn't actually exist. It existed. It no longer exists.

Anything that exists is physical. Everything has properties. Everything has physical interactions with other things and has physical effects. A hammer waved in the air does affect both the hammer and the air. You can't do anything with no physical effects on the items involved, and everything "does something," everything extant is dynamic.

No properties of something like a hammer only exist in the mind of an observer. — Terrapin Station

So it's utility for driving nails is not a property of a hammer?

Meaning isn't a property of objects like hammers. Meaning is a mental activity that we engage in. — Terrapin Station

Unless I've missed something, I thought that was the topic of this thread, merely asserting it does nothing to progress the discussion.

Re a word like "dog," as a word, objectively, it's only a sound or a set of ink marks on paper, a set of pixels on a screen, etc. — Terrapin Station

Hence my question. Are you saying that the fact that the word 'dog' was used to refer to dogs, is present only in the mind of someone recollecting it, such that if humans ceased to exist it would cease to be the case that 'dog' was used to refer to dogs?

A hammer waved in the air does affect both the hammer and the air. You can't do anything with no physical effects on the items involved, and everything "does something," — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure on the physics of this. It seems possible to me for an entity to exist in the vacuum of space and suffer no effect from any other entity, for at least some period of time. Did the ink marks not have an effect on the reader of them?

No properties of something like a hammer only exist in the mind of an observer. — Terrapin Station


So it's utility for driving nails is not a property of a hammer? — Isaac

Let's slow down for a minute, because I don't want posts to keep getting longer, especially if I'm having to repeat stuff I already said, explain things I already explained, etc.

I wrote, "No properties of something like a hammer only exist in the mind of an observer." There's no comma there. Another way to write that would be, "There aren't any properties of something like a hammer that exist only in the mind of an observer."

You responded with "So it's utility for driving nails is not a property of the hammer."

How would that make sense as a response to what I said?

Well get to the rest after we settle this part up.

The reason I wrote it that way, by the way, was because you said this:

" your position with regards to properties of objects which exist only in the mind of the observer. "

That's not my position. I didn't say anything like that.

So I said, "No properties of something like a hammer only exist in the mind of an observer."

It wouldn't make sense to read my "No" as a disagreement followed by an implied comma or period in the context of what I had quoted from you.

I don't know if you're going to respond, and I shouldn't move on yet, but this is important:

Hence my question. Are you saying that the fact that the word 'dog' was used to refer to dogs, is present only in the mind of someone recollecting it, such that if humans ceased to exist it would cease to be the case that 'dog' was used to refer to dogs? — Isaac

The disagreement with S isn't at all about "The word 'dog' WAS used to refer to dogs." It's not about something historical.

The disagreement with S is that in S's view, the word dog has a meaning--not past tense, but present tense--at time T2, even if no persons exist at time T2. He's not saying something about how the word was used there. He's saying that the word has a meaning at T2, which is a correct meaning at T2 (not a correct meaning about or in the context of T1, where we're simply reporting usage at a past time).

You responded with "So it's utility for driving nails is not a property of the hammer."

How would that make sense as a response to what I said? — Terrapin Station

It's a question. If no properties of a hammer only exist in the mind of the person observing, then it's utility for driving nails (being a property of the hammer) must somehow reside in the hammer, yes?

The disagreement with S isn't at all about "The word 'dog' WAS used to refer to dogs." It's not about something historical.

The disagreement with S is that in S's view, the word dog has a meaning--not past tense, but present tense--at time T2, even if no persons exist at time T2. He's not saying something about how the word was used there. — Terrapin Station

I understand that. This is the whole reason I'm asking you about where the fact of an object's history resides, because it seems to me nonsensical to say that an object does not currently (T2 as you put it) possess a history. If we accept this, then the word 'dog' also possesses a history. If that history reveals its use for picking out dogs, then such use is a property of the word. I assert that meaning is use and thus the word has a meaning (its use, or history of use) independent of humans currently using it.

It's a question. If no properties of a hammer only exist in the mind of the person observing, then it's utility for driving nails (being a property of the hammer) must somehow reside in the hammer, yes? — Isaac

That's not sorting this out. Asking "So it's utility . . . " suggests that I'd say it's not a property of the hammer, right?

That's not sorting this out. Asking "So it's utility . . . " suggests that I'd say it's not a property of the hammer, right? — Terrapin Station

That's what I'm asking (or rather confirming, as I thought). I'll make it clearer as a direct question. Do you think the fact that a hammer is used to drive nails is a property of the hammer?

Do you think the fact that a hammer is used to drive nails is a property of the hammer? — Isaac

No, that wouldn't just be a property of the hammer. It would be a property of the hammer, the nails, the air between the hammer and the nails, the person or machine swinging the hammer, etc.

The ratios between successive pairs of numbers in the sequences;
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34
2, 2, 4, 6, 10, 16, 26, 42, 68
3, 3, 6, 9, 15, 24, 39, 63, 102
4, 4, 8,12, 20, 32, 52, 84, 136
are identical. Look at the vertical columns. the numbers in the sequences below the numbers in the first sequence are multiples of those numbers. You can start with any number and the ratios between the numbers in any vertical column and any other vertical column are the same throughout. This means that every number is part of a Fibonacci sequence, which is as it should be. — Janus

OK, now you have the same ratio, but you've changed things. You have a repeating digit in each case now, as the fundamental unit. It doesn't matter if the fundamental unit is represented as 1, 2, 3, 4, or whatever, what is required is the fundamental unit. In so-called natural occurrences, the fundamental unit might be 2mm, 4 mm 1cm, whatever, the actual measured size is unimportant, what is important is that there is a fundamental unit. The point is that there is a fundamental unit of a particular size in each case, which is the starting point. The fundamental unit is a size which may or may not be arbitrary, but it is necessary to assume a fundamental unit, as a starting point. And so, that unit is the essential foundation of the mathematical operation which follows.

So the question was, when this occurs in "nature", is nature assuming this fundamental unit, and performing the mathematical operation which follows, or is there intention involved. If it is nature, then why wouldn't it be nature when human beings assume this fundamental unit and proceed with the mathematical operation?

No, that wouldn't just be a property of the hammer. It would be a property of the hammer, the nails, the air between the hammer and the nails, the person or machine swinging the hammer, etc. — Terrapin Station

But it would, at least in part, be a property of the hammer. What I'm not quite understanding about your position is why you want to make such a clear removal of the use of the ink-mark pattern from the actual pattern itself. It seem unnecessarily convoluted and I don't see the gain in thinking that way.

It seems both normal and entirely uncomplicated use to talk about the hammer as having the property of being used to hit nails. And by this, we don't mean that the hammer is currently being used for that. We mean it was used for that and could still be used for that in the future (in a world of arms and nails). It does not rely on its being currently used that way.

So I'm struggling to see why you define utility this way. Or if you don't, then why hammers can have a mind-independent property of being used to drive nails (past and future), whereas words (ink marks, say) cannot have the mind-independent property of being used (past and future) to refer to certain objects.

why you want to make such a clear removal of the use of the ink-mark pattern from the actual pattern itself — Isaac

Did you read the part where I said that meanings aren't the same as patterns?

I can’t see where utility is any more a property than meaning is a pattern.

Anything extant is (or "has") properties.

I'd not be able to make sense out of saying that something exists (in whatever regard) but has no properties.

But the counter point will be.....no sense can be made out of something exists but has no utility. Which may be true, but that doesn’t make it a property. Properties are necessary; utility is contingent on properties.

But the counter point will be.....no sense can be made out of something exists but has no utility. Which may be true, but that doesn’t make it a property. Properties are necessary; utility is contingent on properties. — Mww

Hence why we need to analyze what we're really claiming/what's really going on ontologically. "X has utility"--are we saying that x, some object, like a hammer, literally has properties that are identical to what we're calling utility? If not, then what exactly is utility ontologically? I can give you my analysis of it, but it's worth thinking about this.

are we saying that x, some object, like a hammer, literally has properties that are identical to what we're calling utility? — Terrapin Station

Exactly. Otherwise, we’re left with a wet noodle with the same utility as a hammer with respect to striking nails. While both can be used for it, the ends will be quite different because of their respective properties.

Analyze away. I just won’t be able to read or reply for awhile.

So when you analyze it, you realize that hammers and wet noodles and nails and so on have different tensile/rigidity properties, different extensions/shapes, and so on, and that what we're doing when we say something about utility is making an assessment of those properties (a) relative to each other and (b) relative to our desires/preferences with respect to accomplishing certain things.

So utility is a property, but what it's primarily a property of is our minds (our brains functioning in particular ways) making an assessment.

Did you read the part where I said that meanings aren't the same as patterns? — Terrapin Station

Yes, I'm not sure what you want me to take from that. I'm saying, in the above, that the ink-mark pattern (a word) has a use (to pick out a dog in a sentence). That use is its meaning. It 'means' what it is successfully used for.

When we say a hammer 'is used for' driving nails, we include two important premises. Firstly, we treat this utility as a property of the hammer. Secondly, we derive this utility not from is actual concurrent usage, but from what is was used for (maybe yesterday) and what is still could be used for given the world continues to contain arms and nails etc.

So what is preventing us from from saying, of the ink-marks whose pattern we currently recognise as 'dog'....

1. They are used in language games to pick out dogs in a sentence, they therefore have a utility.
2. As with the hammer, it is pragmatic to treat that utility as a property of the object.
3. We can derive said utility from what it was used to do (maybe yesterday) and what it still could be used for given a world with more than one person for whom it is a part of their language.

Yes, I'm not sure what you want me to take from that. I'm saying, in the above, that the ink-mark pattern (a word) has a use (to pick out a dog in a sentence). That use is its meaning. It 'means' what it is successfully used for. — Isaac

So, for one, the ink marks do not have a use in the absence of people, do they?

So, for one, the ink marks do not have a use in the absence of people, do they? — Terrapin Station

No, but neither does the hammer. All use is contingent on a user. If you prefer we could refer to the hammer's potential use. It's still a property of the hammer (that it is potentially used to drive nails) and we still derive what that use is from its history (even if only a minute ago), not its current state.

No, but neither does the hammer. All use is contingent on a user. If you prefer we could refer to the hammer's potential use. It's still a property of the hammer (that it is potentially used to drive nails) and we still derive what that use is from its history (even if only a minute ago), not its current state. — Isaac

If use doesn't obtain absent people, then use is NOT a property of the hammer, at least not alone. (Remember that above, when you asked me about this, I said: "No, that wouldn't just be a property of the hammer. It would be a property of the hammer, the nails, the air between the hammer and the nails, the person or machine swinging the hammer, etc.")

Re potentials, they only exist in my view in the sense of something not being impossible (and "potential" is usually used to denote a subset of not impossible things) . . .which means that potentials do not actually exist per se, and it's important to not reify potentials.

Re potentials, they only exist in my view in the sense of something not being impossible (and "potential" is usually used to denote a subset of not impossible things) . . .which means that potentials do not actually exist per se, and it's important to not reify potentials. — Terrapin Station

I don't get what you mean by this. In the first part you say "potentials only exist...", and in the second "potentials do not actually exist..." and I'm not seeing how you got from one to the other, and most importantly why you feel the need to. Why is it "... important not to reify potentials"?

How would you describe what other people call the radioactive isotope Carbon-14. Would you refrain from describing one of its properties as being that it is radioactive?

Ok. I can go along with utility as an assessment of properties.

The minor eye-brow raising I might exhibit would be over any kind of properties of mind, but that’s beside the point.

"potentials only exist...", and in the second "potentials do not actually exist..." — Isaac

The first part says "in the sense of . . ." --hence, they don't actually exist. We can't reify them. It's another way of saying that something isn't impossible (and we're usually referring to a limited subset of the not impossibles).

It's important not to posit ontological nonsense. Hence why we shouldn't reify them.

It's important not to posit ontological nonsense. Hence why we shouldn't reify them. — Terrapin Station

But that's begging the question. It's only ontological nonsense if we don't reify it. You still haven't answered why you think we shouldn't.

But that's begging the question. It's only ontological nonsense if we don't reify it. You still haven't answered why you think we shouldn't. — Isaac

??? Potentials don't exist. The idea of them amounts to what I explained about possibilities. If that doesn't count as an explanation to you, you need to give your criteria for explanations in general.