But I was, in the part you quoted... so you are not addressing that?
"The cat is on the mat" supposes cats and mats.
The relevance is that such stuff is already an interpretation. — Banno
Donald Hoffman has a lot to answer for. — Tom Storm
There are only two feelings, pain and pleasure, each with varying degree. — Mww
Whether or not all that is granted, it nonetheless authorizes us to say judgements are limited as constituents of our moral disposition, in that because we are this kind of moral agent we will judge good and bad in this way. — Mww
Now, again, best to keep in mind this kind of judgement is aesthetic, representing a feeling, as opposed to discursive, which represents a cognition. We often do good things that feel bad, as well as do bad things that feel good. From that it follows that the judgement of how it feels subjectively to do something, is very different than the judgement for what objectively is to be done. — Mww
Simple example of how we do this, instead of all this concept juggling:
(1) It is necessary that the book falls if and only if it is not possible that the book does not fall.
(2) It is possible that the book falls if and only if it is not necessary that the book does not fall.
"Not" seems to be used in two ways, but it really isn't; under this scheme it is always a proposition-level operator, just like "possibly" and "necessarily". You build necessary this way: — Srap Tasmaner
the opposite of necessary, necessarily not (impossible) — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, some species of primates use specific vocalizations as alarms for specific predators sighted in the immediate vicinity. It's also my understanding that not all communities of some species do this, or have the same vocalizations for the same predators.
That certainly seems like a case of naturally emerging language use to me.
— creativesoul
I can't see the relevance of what you are saying here. — Janus
There are many examples and kinds of animal signalling.
Only humans, as far as is known, are capable of symbolic language and linguistically mediated thought.
All you have here is the meaningless, circular definition, which I objected to earlier. "Necessary" is defined as "not possible", and "possible" is defined as "not necessary". But this is not truthful for the reasons I've given. "Necessary" is properly opposed to "impossible", as I've explained. And "impossible" cannot be opposed to "possible" because this would make "necessary" and "possible" the same. So we need to put "possible" in a place distinct from the category which contains those opposites, necessary and impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you denying that these are examples of language use? — creativesoul
Unhelpful nonsense. Speaking of anthropomorphism. — creativesoul
Whatever you are calling "linguistically mediated thought" is neither the only nor the simplest kind of thought humans have. Likely it is one of the most complex. — creativesoul
We don't really know what animal understandings are like, as to that we can only surmise in our human ways. — Janus
There is no point making bare assertions such as "unhelpful nonsense" without explaining why you think so. That is truly unhelpful.Same with the accusation of anthropomorphism; quote what I have said and explain why you think it is anthropomorphic if want an actual discussion. — Janus
Yes, what I am calling linguistically mediated thought is neither the only or the simplest kind of thought, on the contrary it is the most complex: in that it is rich in symbols which allow us the think counterfactually, reflexively and self-referentially... — Janus
Metaphysically speaking, I take these terms to mean:
1. Impossible = cannot occur
2. Possible = can occur
3. Necessary = must occur
This does not make "necessary" and "possible" the same. It opposes the concepts of 1 and 2 to each other, and the concepts of 2 and 3 to each other. This does not require "possible" to be in a distinct category. — Luke
You are making what I would consider a scope error. — Srap Tasmaner
(2) It is possible that the book falls if and only if it is not necessary that the book does not fall. — Srap Tasmaner
Metaphysically speaking, I take these terms to mean:
1. Impossible = cannot occur
2. Possible = can occur
3. Necessary = must occur
This does not make "necessary" and "possible" the same. It opposes the concepts of 1 and 2 to each other, and the concepts of 2 and 3 to each other. This does not require "possible" to be in a distinct category.
— Luke
Yes, that's exactly the problem. If (1) is defined as opposed to (2), and (3) is defined as opposed to (2), then (1) and (3) must have the very same meaning, by definition. — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore we need a fix for this problem. — Metaphysician Undercover
Metaphysically speaking, I take these terms to mean:
1. Impossible = cannot occur
2. Possible = can occur
3. Necessary = must occur
This does not make "necessary" and "possible" the same. It opposes the concepts of 1 and 2 to each other, and the concepts of 2 and 3 to each other. This does not require "possible" to be in a distinct category. — Luke
Yes, that's exactly the problem. If (1) is defined as opposed to (2), and (3) is defined as opposed to (2), then (1) and (3) must have the very same meaning, by definition. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is not a happy use of "opposes"; see below. — Srap Tasmaner
Possible is opposed to Not Possible. Isn't Possible also opposed to Not Possibly Not? — Luke
So, no, Possible (◇) is the opposite of Not Possible (~◇), and nothing else.
The opposite of Necessary (~◇~) is Not Necessary (◇~). — Srap Tasmaner
There are only two feelings, pain and pleasure, each with varying degree.
— Mww
You start off with a false premise. "Feelings" are sensations and there is many different sorts of them, often involving neither pleasure nor pain. — Metaphysician Undercover
How does objectivity enter morality in your mind? — Metaphysician Undercover
what do you mean by "the judgement for what objectively is to be done"? — Metaphysician Undercover
Not Necessary (◇~) is equivalent to Possibly Not (◇~). — Luke
It is unclear to me why Not Necessary (◇~) is not also equivalent to Possible (◇). — Luke
I had thought that creativesoul was claiming that there were other species who were capable of symbolic langauge, though, which would be something else altogether. — Janus
It is unclear to me why Not Necessary (◇~) is not also equivalent to Possible (◇).
— Luke
The problem is necessity.
Saying something is true might seem to entail that it could be false, but it doesn't, because what you're saying might be necessarily true. 3 + 4 is 7 doesn't entail that 3 + 4 might not be 7.
So it is with possibility: to say that P is possible might seem to entail that ~P is also possible, but we can't do that because it may be that P is necessary, and that's why it's possible. Same as above: it is possible that 3 + 4 is 7, because it is, and it is necessarily.
Does that make sense? — Srap Tasmaner
I asked about non-necessity - why it's not equivalent to possible/possibly - and you've responded that we need to beware of necessity...? But I'm assuming non-necessity. — Luke
and you want to know why it's not equivalent to Possibly P
~▢~P — Srap Tasmaner
I've got my usual urn of marbles, and I tell you that the marbles in the urn are not necessarily red. You can conclude, given that the urn is not empty, that there is at least one marble in the urn that is not red. Good so far? — Srap Tasmaner
Isn't Possibly P also ~▢P? — Luke
I wouldn't think it follows from "the marbles in the urn are not necessarily red" that there must be at least one marble that's not red. I would think it follows from "the marbles in the urn are not necessarily red" that all the marbles in the urn are (possibly) red. — Luke
Isn't Possibly P also ~▢P? — Luke
So, any and all attribution of such thought to non humans is anthropomorphism at work. I agree there. Not all language use involves using meaningful marks. — creativesoul
The alarm screech symbolizes danger. — creativesoul
The sounding of the alarm is a 'linguistically mediated thought' because it is a thought consisting of correlations drawn between the vocalization and danger. — creativesoul
We cannot draw and maintain the distinction between the sorts of thoughts that we have and the sorts of thought that other language using animals have with the notion of 'linguistically mediated thought'. — creativesoul
Did you mean something different than this?
“Evidence that an animal is capable of some degree of symbolic, human language processing supports the argument that the animal's consciousness is to some degree human-like.”
One can , of course, distinguish between ‘capacity for’ and natural use of symbolic language. Bonobos have been shown to have this capacity, but only demonstrate it in artificially induced situations prompted by humans. — Joshs
It is unclear to me why Not Necessary (◇~) is not also equivalent to Possible (◇). — Luke
Not Necessarily is Possibly Not, so that's our existential quantifier. It says you can pick a non-red marble from the set because there is at least one non-red marble to be picked. If you can't pick a non-red marble, that's because all the marbles are red; that's the situation we say we are not in.
And it should be clear that there being at least one non-red marble in the set is consistent with there being only non-red marbles in the set. That is, Possibly Not Red is consistent with Necessarily Not Red. — Srap Tasmaner
I do declare, this counts as a cat, that counts as a mat. — Banno
Recall that declaratives are curious in having two directions of fit: a declaration sets out how things are, yet how things are changes to match the declaration. — Banno
This doesn't seem right to me: I would have said that declarations set out how things shall be; things which may or may not already be as declared. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.