Yes, but before Trump’s first term in office the Iranians were moving very slowly towards nuclear weapons. This stepped up as soon as Trump tore up the carefully constructed deal when he came into office in 2016. — Punshhh

How do you know that?

The International Atomic Energy Agency declared on Thursday that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, the first time the U.N. watchdog has passed a resolution against the country in 20 years — New York Times

. here

This wasn't caused by Trump. The fact that Iran has been spending billions of dollars to be the Mid East's biggest pain in the ass is not Trump's fault.

:up:

It's funny to think just 10 years ago we got a nuclear deal with Iran which Trump foolishly ripped up in his first term, and Biden foolishly didn't get back into during his term. — Mr Bee

Thinking of the US as foolishly causing the world's problems is a coping mechanism. Without it, you'd have to face the fact that it's all just meaningless violence.

These kinds of things have a way of spiraling out of control. 20% of the world's oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz. Suppose Iran chooses to shut that down to inflict economic pain on Israel and her backers. Well, now the U.S. president is looking at a catastrophic rise in oil prices, which will lead to more inflation and higher interest rates, which is usually the death knell for an administration. The president is under tremendous pressure to reopen the Strait, so he attacks Iran's navy, but unlike 1988, Iran doesn't back down. So now what? — RogueAI

Yes. Although smashing someone's nuclear capability and military leadership is the kind of thing you would do before you completely level the capital, plow over the rubble, and sow salt. We'll see.

The US has its own oil reserves now, thanks to fracking. We produce 60% of our oil usage. We could increase that. I think the door is closing on any way out of an inflationary recession though. I don't think the US will act unless somebody blows up an American ship.

I think this incident might be the watershed where we all get used to shit going down and the US is not involved at all, except to protect its interests. The US isn't going to faceplant in the Mid-East trying to fight the tide of chaos. The US isn't going to go another trillion dollars into debt. We can all just breakout the popcorn and watch like everybody else in the world. We're just like everybody else. This is nice.

Sure I'm up for a laugh — Mr Bee

I don't think this problem is coming from Washington. It's Netanyahu.

My guess is it'll probably be a war, but I'm open to hearing how this is all somehow a 4D chess negotiating tactic by Trump from his supporters. — Mr Bee

You're really open to that? :lol:

Ha! I looked over and saw the Asian markets plummeting, crude oil shooting up. Somebody said "war."

What I'm saying is that we only have something we call "reference", the thing that we do with referring expressions like names and descriptions, so that we can talk about things with other people. More than that, our individual cognitive capacities are shaped by our interactions with other people, so the sorts of things we want to talk about are already the objects or potential objects of shared cognition. — Srap Tasmaner

That's fairly persuasive as a theory of the origin of speech, but I don't think it necessarily indicates that we can't speak meaningfully while alone. The part of the motor cortex that orchestrates speech is separated from the portion that handles comprehension. It's not clear that the unity of consciousness we enjoy today is the way humans have always been. It may be that talking to ourselves has been around as long as talking to each other has.

It's important to remember that skills don't necessarily arise for a need, but having arisen, they find a need (can't remember who said that, Democritus?) It may be that speech just randomly emerged as a continuous stream accompanying experience. In time, it became valuable for group dynamics. We really don't know.

Why does any of this matter? Because words are a "just enough" technology that evolved for cooperative use; a word, even a name, is not something that carries its full meaning like a payload. Words are more like hints and nudges and suggestions. They are incomplete by nature.

And so it is with using them to refer. We should expect that to be a partial, incomplete business. — Srap Tasmaner

Absolutely.

I doubt that story, but about all I have in the way of argument is that our cognitive habits and capacities are shaped by just this sort of good enough exchange. My suspicion is that we largely think this way as well. And this makes a little more sense if you think of your cognition as overwhelmingly shared, not as the work of an isolated mind that occasionally ventures out to express itself. — Srap Tasmaner

Sure. I think there's convincing evidence that speech capability is innate, but interaction is necessary for development.

You the entire planet Earth and all living things. It’s basically what you said. — NOS4A2

:grin: Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that's how you felt.

Where do you come up with this stuff? — NOS4A2

I thought that's basically what you said. You hate the USA.

I don't think anyone has made the claim that reference is ever done using a private language. The claim you made is that someone has to comprehend the speaker's reference in order to for there to be any reference. As @J pointed out, that's an odd usage of the term "reference." I don't think it's what Kripke is talking about.

Hierarchical position is a factor along side content. — BC

Very true. This shows up dramatically in Korean and Japanese TV shows because expressing social rank and respect for elders is built into the language. Seniors are at ease and seem a little self absorbed. Juniors are humble and attentive, or they get bitched at for not listening.

They’re your friends, why don’t you ask them. — T Clark

These are my friends:

here

I was noting that such inferences cannot result in certainty.

But it's important to note that this doesn't matter.

We don't need to fix the referent of "gavagai" with absolute certainty in order to get the stew, or go hunting rabbits.

So much of the conversation about fixing referents is unnecessary — Banno

That was kind of my point to Srap. As @Pierre-Normand was saying, the speaker's intentions are authoritative, but fallible.

By answering both and seeing to which Srap Tasmaner responds? Answering one, and seeing if the response fits that answer?

Generally, by moving the conversation on, and seeing what the result is, and then making an inference about Srap's intent. — Banno

I thought you objected to making inferences about intent?

The very content of this intent is something that ought to be negotiated within a broader embodied life/social context, including with oneself, and, because of that, it isn't a private act in Wittgenstein's sense. It can, and often must, be brought out in the public sphere. That doesn't make the speaker's intentions unauthoritative. But it makes them fallible. The stipulated "rules" for using a term, and hence securing its reference, aim at effective triangulation, as Srap suggested. — Pierre-Normand

I agree that speech is pervasively conditioned by the wider context of human life, but I don't see how we could maintain, as Srap and Banno have been doing, that a speaker has to have the buy-in of the audience in order to "successfully" refer. The triangulation they're talking about, as far as I understand them, is not about the social context, it's about the comprehension of the audience. I think you can triangulate with what you've learned about language use. Why do you need the audience's acceptance?

a singular sense rather than descriptive. When there is an unintended mismatch between the reference of this singular sense and the descriptive sense that the speaker expresses, then the presupposition of identity is mistaken. What it is that the speaker truly intended to have priority (i.e. the demonstrative singular sense or the descriptive one) for the purpose of fixing the true referent of their speech act (or of the thought that this speech act is meant to express) can be a matter of negotiation or further inquiry. — Pierre-Normand

So you're saying the champaign issue is an example of a failed reference? Is that how you take Kripke's meaning?

BTW, I know you're busy, but if you have a second and would want to tell me what you think about Kripke's Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, I would so appreciate it.

I don't know how a behaviorist handles deceit. I'm guessing it would have to be written off as illusion?

One avenue for answering this is the behaviorist approach. Here, we'll put on our eliminative materialist hats, and look at the whole scene objectively. People are making sounds and gestures in a way they've learned. Social dominance may come into play in tonality and facial expressions. There is no meeting of minds because there aren't really any minds involved. I think the answer that arises from this line of thought is that no one ever "understands" what you're saying. You aren't actually saying anything, per se.

I would look for already-known signs that someone is expressing their understanding to me. — AmadeusD

I agree with this. It comes down to the assumptions you have about the audience. The better you know them, the more confidence you'll have in your ability to read them.

The question is “why”? Why do Americans have to suffer yet again the destruction of their cities, the people in their roadways, the curfews, the violence and looting, the waving of foreign flags on American streets? — NOS4A2

I thought you wanted social breakdown in the US. Didn't you?

So you did get it? Fair enough.

But wait... did you get it privately? Do you allow such a thing?

Eh, I guess it doesn't matter.

That strikes me as more important than sorting out the Gavagai. — Banno

Some people like wrestling with the Gavagai. :razz:

Quine said that Kripke's approach would require bringing back the distinction between essential and accidental properties, and Kripke agreed, but didn't consider that the fatal flaw Quine did. — Srap Tasmaner

Srap referred me to a sentence I had uttered and I told him I wasn't sure if he meant the whole thing or the parts. You got the reference to Quine, but Srap didn't. Does that mean the reference was successful and unsuccessful at the same time?

:up:

In this case, even to the degree that I am engaging with another person, I am speechless. — Srap Tasmaner

You'll probably need an MRI at some point. :grin: :up:

Like you, I'm holding out for reference as a potentially private game. Talking, so often, is talking to ourselves, and we need all the apparatus of talking-with-others to do it. Now it may be that a criterion for successful private reference would be that, if challenged, the person could introduce others to the game. — J

I wonder if people assess the situation according to their own experience of thinking and speaking. I think Srap Tasmaner is basically saying he doesn't think at all when he's not engaging another person. I think he's saying he's not even conscious of the world around him until he discusses it, at which point a sort of negotiated narrative comes into being. I can't connect with that at all. I have no idea how a person would even become conscious that this was happening.

My experience is more that speech has a metaphoric connection with things my nervous system is doing automatically.

On the other hand, if we do not have some such agreement, we might not be able to continue. — Banno

True. But I still referred to the tree. I don't need your buy-in for that.

Have you guys discussed the unique way Hegel used the word concept? I think Adorno is referring to Hegel's use.

I think the ability to pick out a part of the world is there in potential in an infant. That potential is realized through interaction with others. As Kripke points out, none of us has access to the baptisms of common words. Humans have probably been speaking for at least 100,000 years. That's a long causal chain.

I don't think what happens between people in a moment of communication is about a new ceremonious confirmation of that chain, as in "Yes, you successfully referred to the tree because I agree that that is called a tree." None of that is necessary because a whole section of the brain has been configured to handle a particular language by the time a child is 2 years old. A child can literally talk to herself at that age. She doesn't need anyone else, and the Private Language argument isn't suggesting otherwise. Do you agree with that?

I think I know what you're saying, but I can't be certain. It would be better to just stop trying to communicate.

Ok. I don't see any of that, but I don't pay close attention.

I can't tell if you mean the whole thing, or the individual parts. How can I know?

Tell us what you mean by that, — Srap Tasmaner

What I mean by what?

Right, could it be any more obvious? Trump's bromance with Musk has blown up in his face and here's a useful distraction and a way to make him look like a tough guy — RogueAI

He likes the idea of killing rioters. I don't think he cares about Musk.

Well, yes. — Banno

I disagree. The act of referencing does not succeed or fail. It's just done by fiat. Communication can succeed or fail.

No. You use what is said or shown. We do not have access to intent. We might infer it, but... — Banno

You do have access to intent by observation. If you have any questions about it you can ask.

This raises the question, Could there be a private language of reference? — J

If you're using "private" the way Wittgenstein did, the answer depends on the extent to which meaning arises from rule following. If it's mostly rule following, then you couldn't establish rules by yourself.

If you're just asking if you can keep some information to yourself, yes.

@Pierre-Normand Do you agree with that?

Pretty obviously, the reference is a success if the hearer and the speaker are in agreement as to who is being talked about. — Banno

So if no one understands what's being referenced, the reference failed? That doesn't make much sense to me. Referring is something done by fiat.

So we can't use your intent to fix the referent. — Banno

We do it all the time.

But reference is a matter of triangulation, not just what pertains to the speaker or pertains to what she speaks of. — Srap Tasmaner

Reference is set by the speaker.

All posts will eventually fall into a massive bit bucket that will collapse in on itself and become a wormhole.

In that quote I think he's saying that when we turn the dialectic on itself we find that the synthesis (unity) is dependent on its negation: the disunity of thesis and antithesis. I think Adorno's materialism is based on this insight. He points out that this fact doesn't appear to us until discrepancies show up, such as between the great hope of communism crashed by the Holocaust.

Hegel clearly knew this because he highlighted the way any concept has its history (and its negation) wrapped up within it, again, like the yin-yang symbol. You could say the absolute Spirit is supposed to be the whole yin-yang symbol. But that wholeness is made up of oppositions. We never escape them (until philosophy is finished?)