yes, but all changes are mental events — TheGreatArcanum

Why would you believe that?

there is an abstract aspect to reality as well, if there are abstract concepts — TheGreatArcanum

Abstracts/concepts are actually particular mental events. If you'd bother to learn something about nominalism, you'd see that conceptualism is one of the common nominalist stances.

You remember that I'm a nominalist, right? We're antirealists on abstract objects. Abstractions only exist as something we do mentally. Maybe you could try to formulate some sort of support for your alternate views, rather than just saying things like "rubbish"? How about telling me anything you take to be evidence of real (extramental) abstracts?

First off, abstractions are mental acts that individuals perform.

Abstractions are identical over time. — Janus

No they aren't.

So, now you say there is a "you" across time, — Janus

I'm not sure what you're referring to there re something I typed, but "you" across time, as a persistent entity, is an abstraction we perform. That abstraction is itself non-identical over time.

I can be same me across time without having to remain absolutely the same across time. — Janus

That's just another way of talking about the abstraction contra the fact that things aren't literally identical through time.

So, according to you there is nothing that distinguishes you from any other entity across the span of your life? In fact there is no you at all that has existed over that time? — Janus

I didn't say anything like that, and no, that's not my view. It would only make sense to figure that something like that is my view if one were to think that the only thing that makes anything distinct from anything else is that things can be identical through time. But I can't imagine anyone thinking that.

In fact there are no persistent entities at all — Janus

That part I'd agree with. But not because of this:

since everything is nothing but change? — Janus

It's not that there's nothing but change. It's just that nothing is identical as changes occur.

It's one reason: relation. — Shamshir

In other words, many different relations.

Think of a man walking. He changes, because his position changes; but his position is not determined in relation to himself, as he is always centered on himself. — Shamshir

Someone walking changes for many reasons, including both relations of bodily position--legs change distance relative to each other, knees bend, etc., and relative to things around the person. There's a lot more going on than that, but understandably, we need to grossly simplify this and leave a bunch of stuff out.

"Centered on himself" doesn't seem to make any sense. Neither does "the same to himself."

There's nothing abstract about particles like electrons and protons.

The idea that there has to be some nonchanging thing that changes, rather than there just being change, is either unanalyzed or it's due to sloppy analysis of possibilities.

The past is the past in relation to the present, but remains as the present in relation to itself. — Shamshir

I read that a few times, but I can't make any sense of it.

The past is changes that happened. I don't understand "but remains" or "as the present in relation to itself"??

If there is something that changes then there must also be something that remains the same. — Janus

Because?

It sounds nice as a bumper sticker, but what's the reason that one would believe that?

Say that only a single electron exists. It ceases to exist and only a single proton exists. That's a change. What remained the same?

Your argument depends on the reification of a serial or linear model of mathematically determinate time. — Janus

No, it doesn't. It simply depends on the fact that there is change.

At any rate, you were supposedly taking issue with a post about reference. At least that's what you quoted and seemed to be critiquing.

How about sensing the tape measure stretched between the two rocks?

Could we drop Bowman's usage into a formal English statement and have it mean the same thing as the old n-word? — frank

It just depends on the individual assigning meaning, of course.

I assumed more integrity on your part that you would not quote one premise from a logical syllogism and contextualize that as the whole of my position. — thedeadidea

I wasn't characterizing "the whole of your position." I was addressing something particular.

Saying that something is an "aphoristic exercise I am trying to undertake to sharpen my prose" isn't a conventional way to indicate "I don't actually agree with any of this." If you don't agree with what you typed, though, that's fine. All I really care about in this is that people don't keep repeating the same mistake over and over. I see statements like "Relativism cannot Condemn the Holocaust" all the time.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case though. I think the utterance itself has become a perfomative act to some, where it's inexcusable regardless of intent. I don't think in the examples cited in the OP that there's evidence of mal-intent. — Hanover

My list (meaning, connotations, intent) etc. wasn't meant as an "every one of these is a necessary property" list, so that if one of them isn't checked off, then it doesn't count. It was rather illustrative of the sorts of things that people have to think about in order for an utterance to be insulting, or to be anything in particular really, rather than just a sound. That should have been clear by my "etc." among other things. You don't stick an "etc." in a "Here's an exhaustive list of necessary properties that each need to be checked off."

My question is whether the N-word specifically has become a word that is per se insulting, regardless of context — Hanover

The idea of that makes no sense. What it is for an utterance to be insulting is for an individual to take it a particular way, to apply certain meanings and connotations to the utterance, to assume particular intentions, etc. So it depends on the individual considering it.

Sure, I see something which I call a tape measure, but even in calling it a tape measure, I am making a mental judgement. I think the point is that there is no sensing without mental activity. So I think it would be incorrect to say I see this, or I see that, as an act of sensation alone, without an accompanying act of mind. Mind is required for seeing, and I believe, any type of sensing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't saying anything about how mind is or isn't involved. I was simply asking whether you sense the tape measure, whatever is involved with that.

Do you sense the marking on the tape measure?

The point is that there is no definite limit on any span; — Janus

What would that have to do with what I was explaining re reference and whether two people/two instances can refer to literally the same thing?

I just dont have an opinion on it. Is there a name for this kind of position? — ernestm

It depends on why you don't have an opinion on it. If "agnostic" doesn't fit, and you're at least somewhat familiar with the notion (otherwise "unfamiliar" would be the term), probably "uninterested" or "apathetic" would do it.

"I wrote the above some time ago as a sort of aphoristic exercise I am trying to undertake to sharpen my prose.In all seriousness," — thedeadidea

An aphoristic exercise you're trying to undertake to sharpen your prose, via writing things you do not agree with?

Relativism cannot Condemn the Holocaust — thedeadidea

We've gone over this a number of times, but the mistake you're making here is this:

Relativists say that whether something is morally good or bad depends on some context; nothing is morally good or bad context-independently.

You're thinking that to condemn something morally is to condemn it context-independently.

As we just reviewed, however, relativists do not believe that anything is good or bad context-independently.

This does not imply that relativists would not say that nothing is good or bad context-dependently. In fact, they say that any moral utterance is necessarily context-dependent They say that it's a category error to think of moral utterances as somehow (potentially) being content-independent.

So while relativists cannot condemn the holocaust context-independently, they'd say that that hardly matters, since it's a category error anyway. It's not what anyone is doing when they make moral utterances.

Relativistscan and do condemn the holocaust context-dependently.

So we were talking about making guesses in the way of probability statements.

You said that we could have educated versus non-educated guesses.

So I was asking what we could be educated about that would enable the sort of probability statement being made. Because one of the big problems is that there is no frequency data.

So just what sort of education is behind the probability guesses being made, so that there's any distinction between an educated probability guess versus a non-educated probability guess.

Strong evidence leads to a robust conclusion. A justified conclusion. — Pattern-chaser

How are "robust" and "justified" any clearer re objective properties?

If I understand you correctly: guesswork. — Pattern-chaser

Guesswork is educated if it's based on guesswork, but not if it's just guesswork???

Ever heard of time dilation? — creativesoul

We're can't refer to something in its own frame of reference? Again, you seem to not be able to grok the difference between our pointing and what we're pointing to. Time dilation would be relevant to our pointing, no?

Yes, the idea of a real T1 is meaningless in view of the fact that the present is not a dimensionless point, but a moment containing both past and future (retention and protention) whose degree of "dilation" cannot be precisely specified since it is context-dependent. The point is that no purported T1 can be altogether without change. Terrapin Station mistakenly reifies the dimensionless present, which goes towards explaining the incoherence of his position. — Janus

You should probably learn the details of my view first.

At any rate, say that T1 is a span rather than a point. (If you would been honest enough to think that one should know another's view prior to critiquing it--know it at least well enough that you could paraphrase it successfully in the opinion of the person in question--you would have known that I don't buy any real points, period.)

The span in question would be identical to the span in question, no?

What flavour of Nominalism do you find attractive? I am assuming that you don’t regard it as a doctrine to live by merely a useful perspective you have inclinations toward. — I like sushi

It's not that I find it attractive, or a useful perspective or anything.

It's what the world happens to be like. My like or dislike of that is irrelevant. It's factually what the world is like, even if I wish it weren't like that, even if I think it would be better or more useful, etc. for it to be some other way.

Re the variety of positions under nominalism and what I think is the case with respect to them:
* There are no real (that is, extramental) abstracts
* Types/universals are concepts (that is, ways of thinking about particulars) (this is basically the conceptualist version of nominalism)
* Things are not identical through time (we think of them that way as an abstraction)
* Properties are real but they're unique particulars
* My view has some similarities to resemblance and trope nominalism, as I think that things are objectively more or less similar to each other while never being identical to each other as long as they're numerically distinct.

Am I alone here in thinking that evidence can be strong or weak, — Pattern-chaser

How would you define the distinction between strong and weak evidence (preferably in a way that doesn't make it purely a subjective judgment)?

Because there's such a thing as educated guesswork. — Pattern-chaser

And our education fueling probability guesses for which there is no frequency data would be?

That's right, the tape measure doesn't read, I read the tape measure, and reading is a mental activity. I read the tape with my mind, not with my eyes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you sense the tape measure?

I’m only guessing, be unlikely. — AJJ

How is a probability "guess" not just arbitrary?

Yes. Coincidence seems ludicrous given the probabilities involved. — AJJ

What would you be basing probabilities on?

"We can be both referring to A (or P or whatever) at time T1"

As I explained above, "what we're pointing to isn't the same thing as our pointing."

We can both point at A (or P) at time T1. That's what we're pointing to. A at T1 is identical to A at T1, right? It's the same thing, at the same time.

That's not the same thing as our pointing. My comment (made at T2, say) about A at T1 isn't identical to your comment (whether made at T2 or some other time) about A at T1.

Here's a very simple way to look at it:

You and I are both standing in a room. At the same time, we both point to a chair in the corner of the room. We're both pointing at the same chair. The chair I'm pointing to at that moment is identical to the chair you're pointing to at that same moment. That is, the chair at the moment is identical to that chair at that moment. "It is itself."

But my hand isn't identical to your hand, is it? Otherwise you'd better be worried when I go to wipe my ass.

What we're pointing to--the chair (at time T1) isn't the same thing as our pointing (our extended arms and fingers).

Less literally, we could both refer, propositionally, say, to the chair at T1. We're linguistically "pointing at" that chair at time T1. The chair at time T1 is still identical to the chair at time T1.

But our pointing--the prositions we're uttering, aren't identical. Just like my arm isn't the same as your arm.

Would there be possibilities that aren't equally valid explanations in your view?

No. I’m not talking about excluding possibilities. — AJJ

But you were saying that the evidence wasn't evidence for something because there's another possibility, right?

Incoherence anyone? — creativesoul

We can be both referring to A (or P or whatever) at time T1.

Ah. You're learning... almost. — creativesoul

It's the same view I've had for decades. If it seems like I'm "learning" your view must be evolving.

I wasn’t appealing to proof. — AJJ

Yes, you are. You're talking about possibilities not being excluded. That's another way of describing the notion of proof.

That could still be interpreted as experiences being based on brain phenomena. — AJJ

Because that's a possibility and empirical claims are not provable.

Right?

Didn't we go over that already?

Hence the whole point of this being a problem because what you're doing--appealing to proof (apparently without being able to realize this), could be done with any empirical claim whatsoever. So per this tactic, we can have no empirical evidence of any particular claim, period.

Re "so says me" sure, and no one says anything different, because absolutely no one even makes the slightest attempt to make the notion of nonphysical existents coherent.

No subject changes. — AJJ

The subject is how empirical evidence supports claims.

What was the justification you gave for choosing that former interpretation over the latter? — AJJ

That a change in one is a change in the other and there's no evidence whatsoever of the two being different.

Also, the idea of nonphysical existents is incoherent.