Perdidi CorpusJanuary 16, 2017 at 00:4412750 views56 comments
The question arises out of the idea that for something to exist, it must be somewhere. Am I wrong in thinking this? If so, than in what way does truth exist?
Reply to Perdidi Corpus Can you nail down precisely where your own thoughts are that made this post?
Perdidi CorpusJanuary 16, 2017 at 01:15#471520 likes
Reply to Heister Eggcart Can you nail down precisely where your own thought were, when you made this post?
No I can not. I can give you a speculation of the general region of space in which my thoughts were contained. Can you do the same for truth?
Is a concept derived from experience. This concept doesn't exist in physical space either.
Perdidi CorpusJanuary 16, 2017 at 01:55#471620 likes
Reply to Heister Eggcart Within the area occupied by the brain. I could be more specific but you might start arguing that in a way it is the hole brain that ends up having the idea. Reply to Heister EggcartReply to Noble Dust If it doesn´t have a place/set of places than how can you argue that it "is"? What would it mean to "be" in that way which truth "is" to you?
Reply to Perdidi Corpus I don't think it follows that because thoughts emanate from the mind, then thoughts, therefore, are "trapped" within the brain, that that's where the location is.
If it doesn´t have a place/set of places than how can you argue that it "is"? What would it mean to "be" in that way which truth "is" to you?
Well I dunno. Thoughts "are" because they interact within the world. It's like wave-particle duality, if you're familiar with that, or more complex quantum mechanics. Sense of place isn't always very clear.
They exist in consciousness, which is generated by both the spiritual and physical aspects of reality. Actually, in my view, spirituality, physicality and consciousness are all generative aspects of the same reality. Concepts exist in consciousness and they can act upon the physical aspect of reality; I can come up with an idea for a book, then write the book. The book could end up changing aspects of the world, if the ideas were widely accepted. The ideas themselves aren't aspects of physical reality, but they can change reality.
Why do you begin with the assumption that something must have a spatial location in order to "be"?
intrapersonaJanuary 16, 2017 at 04:14#471900 likes
Why do you begin with the assumption that something must have a spatial location in order to "be"?
Yes, OP you should look in to the distinction between subjective and objective as I think you are getting confused about this.
You're line of thought follows from the patterns of activity that result in sensory perception and therefore us perceiving an outside world. light hits the retina -> goes to brain -> brain constructs an outside world -> brain thinks an outside world actually exists in the outside world....... This is just an illusion and we have no way to actually garantuee the existence of objectivity whatsoever... This becomes so convincing it actually ends up causing people like you to think truth exists in the same way that tables do (as a product of sensory information rather than an abstract concept tied to concepts integrated from sensory information). All we can ever know is our minds and what is in our minds (including sensory perception). For sake of understanding this better just scrap all notions of objectivity and you will see that truth can only exist within the mind because there is no where else for it to exist in unless you want to argue that objectivity is the same as subjectivity.
Terrapin StationJanuary 16, 2017 at 06:25#472150 likes
There is only consciousness, reality is experienced constantly, reality is truth.
The act of seeing is truth, hearing is truth, thinking is truth, smelling is truth, tasting is truth, being is truth.
Reality is both truth, when the mind is awaken, and a lie, when the mind is asleep. Reality is everything because it is just a sensation.
Reply to Perdidi Corpus All you're saying there is that it must be spatially located. But that doesn't apply to numbers, laws, concepts, grammar, and the like.
Where is '7'?
And no, you can't 'nail down' where in the brain such things occur, because 'the brain' is able to generalise the activities involved in understanding these things. In other words, there's isn't a kind of 1:1 relationship between 'neural activities' and 'meaning', in the same way that there isn't a 1:1 relation between symbols and what they denote.
If you got brain damage (heaven forbid), then the mind will often work out ways to 're-purpose' other areas of the brain to compensate. This is one of the discoveries of neuro-plasticity.
Terrapin StationJanuary 18, 2017 at 12:27#477960 likes
And no, you can't 'nail down' where in the brain such things occur, because 'the brain' is able to generalise the activities involved in understanding these things. In other words, there's isn't a kind of 1:1 relationship between 'neural activities' and 'meaning', in the same way that there isn't a 1:1 relation between symbols and what they denote.
If you got brain damage (heaven forbid), then the mind will often work out ways to 're-purpose' other areas of the brain to compensate. This is one of the discoveries of neuro-plasticity.
If you're thinking of it as something like a static "nugget" that's "7," say, then you're thinking of it incorrectly for a couple reasons. (1) "Nuggets" aren't really static. Nothing is. Everything is dynamic and obtains via a matter/structure/process "complex" ("complex" being in quotation marks because these things are not metaphysically separable) (2) So "7," in brains, isn't static either. It's a matter/structure/process "complex," and neural activities have a "1:1" relation to meaning in that we're talking about logical identity just as we are with "morning star" and "evening star." That doesn't imply a denial of neuroplasticity. "7" is identical to brain/structure/process "complex" A at time T1, and it's identical to brain/structure/process "complex" B at time T2.
Reply to Terrapin Station Without a functioning brain, a human can't form concepts, that is true. But the 'furniture of reason' - concepts, numbers, and the like - are no more 'in' the brain, than a television drama is 'in' a television.
Terrapin StationJanuary 18, 2017 at 20:23#478830 likes
no more 'in' the brain, than a television drama is 'in' a television.
It depends on what you're referring to with "a television drama" exactly--are you referring to something with meaning applied? Are you referring to the script? The filming of it? The medium it's stored on? The transmission? We can detail each part of that to make it clear just what we're talking about, and we can specify the location of all of those things.
So are you saying that when you talk about concepts, numbers, etc., you're talking about something other than the mental phenomena actually being concepts, etc. in some sense, where we can detail just what we're talking about in different cases and specify just where they're located?
The question arises out of the idea that for something to exist, it must be somewhere. Am I wrong in thinking this? If so, than in what way does truth exist?
A classic example of the wrong question leading one down the philosophical garden path.
the occurrence of this concept on your particular computer screen was the only, original, physical occurrence
This seems to imply that you think there can only be one occurrence of a given concept. But it would seem that the same concept occurs both here and there - otherwise each of us would be talking about something quite different.
Isn't it simpler to suppose that the concept can be in many places?
? All I am attempting to defend is the view point that for anything to exist, then it must exist in the same way as tables do. I am therefore arguing towards the non-existance of truth . You seem to be doing the same when you state that Quoting intrapersona
truth can only exist within the mind
. I would say that about true propositions, not about truth. There is a true proposition which tells you the number of stars in this Universe. But does the truth about the number of stars in the Universe exist? Where would lay bare such a truth?
It depends on what you're referring to with "a television drama" exactly--are you referring to something with meaning applied? Are you referring to the script? The filming of it? The medium it's stored on? The transmission? We can detail each part of that to make it clear just what we're talking about, and we can specify the location of all of those things.
So are you saying that when you talk about concepts, numbers, etc., you're talking about something other than the mental phenomena actually being concepts, etc. in some sense, where we can detail just what we're talking about in different cases and specify just where they're located?
A drama consists of the script, production, sets, actors, performance, transmission, and the rest - which is an analogy for the issue at hand.
If you say that 'experience equals brain states', this is analogous to saying that a TV drama is 'a state of the circuitry of the TV'. At every instant, all the pixels on the screen are the result of binary operations within the logic board of the television - so in one sense, that is true. But those binary operations are not themselves 'the drama', they are simply one aspect of it. Without the script, actors, story, etc, the logic board has nothing to display.
Likewise, 'the brain' is both embodied (situated within a matrix of the nervous system, the environment, etc ) and also en-cultured (drawing on memory, expectation, language, symbolism, etc) which are not meaningfully 'inside' the brain; in other words, you're not going to be able to understand them in terms of proteins or synapses or neuro-chemistry.
That is the sense in which it is fallacious to say that such things as ideas and concepts can be 'located' in the brain - which is the basic claim of 'neurological reductionism'. I'm saying that such an attempt is a 'category mistake' - it is treating abstract realities as if they're concrete.
Terrapin StationJanuary 19, 2017 at 23:28#482420 likes
(drawing on memory, expectation, language, symbolism, etc) which are not meaningfully 'inside' the brain;
Memory, expectations, meanings and the semantic aspect of symbolism are only in the brain. Just like the projection of a drama is only in the TV. You're trying to say that the projection is in the filming, etc. too. That's wrong.
Perdidi CorpusJanuary 19, 2017 at 23:47#482470 likes
Reply to Banno A few years back I was in love with philosophy. I was strict in my unwillingness to have any, and I mean ANY, uninteresting conversation. A combination of reasons forced me (deterministically speaking) to stop.
So no, I am not new to this.
I do not understand how this can be a wrong question. I admit the implicit assumption and am open to discussing it. Would you care to elaborate?
Memory, expectations, meanings and the semantic aspect of symbolism are only in the brain
'In the brain' is a cognitive model. You will never find anything of the kind you mention 'in the brain'. You're writing as it what you're asserting is known or proven, when it's really not. 'The brain' has a role to play, but it's not the ultimate source of meaning. Besides, humans can survive with apparently massive loss or damage to the brain.
"Where does truth exist?" looks like a question about truth. But is it? Try treating it as a question about how we use the words "truth" and "exist"; so that it morphs into something like "Does the word exist apply to truth?"
What looked like profound epistemology can be seen as just a question of grammar.
Now, tell me: are you talking about the Picasso painting tokens, or the types? The tokens each occupy a single region. The type doesn't occupy any region, because it's not a concrete object.
As to space having multiple locations, the point is that "Where is space?" is not a sensible question.
"Where does truth exist?" looks like a question about truth. But is it? Try treating it as a question about how we use the words "truth" and "exist"; so that it morphs into something like "Does the word exist apply to truth?"
Or, more directly, does the word "exist" necessarily implies having a location? How could you argue for that? (You haven't even tried, as far as I can see.) If pretty much everyone, as appears to be the case, already uses the word "exist" so that it applies to things that do not have a clear location, then what's the point of this exercise?
Terrapin StationJanuary 20, 2017 at 11:31#482980 likes
Besides, humans can survive with apparently massive loss or damage to the brain.
You can survive with parts of the brain being compromised, sure. That has no implication for whether meaning is something that the brain does. It's not as if meaning is only something that brains do just in case we're talking about a "complete" brain (as if brains don't continually change anyway).
Terrapin StationJanuary 20, 2017 at 11:34#482990 likes
I'm a nominalist. In my view there are no real (read "extramental") types. Types/universals are concrete ways that we think about things--namely, they're conceptual abstractions we make, and those are concrete events in our brains.
"Where is space"--it's the extension of all matter and the relational extension "between" all matter. We can point to that, and it doesn't exist aside from that.
If pretty much everyone, as appears to be the case, already uses the word "exist" so that it applies to things that do not have a clear location, then what's the point of this exercise?
I agree that such is the convention. But what do those who use and defend the convention mean when they say that something exists?
I'm a nominalist. In my view there are no real (read "extramental") types. Types/universals are concrete ways that we think about things--namely, they're conceptual abstractions we make, and those are concrete events in our brains.
In that case, a Picasso painting does not have many locations. Just one.
Anyway, nominalism of this kind doesn't work. A type is a "way" in which we think. OK, where's the "way"?
Terrapin StationJanuary 21, 2017 at 02:54#484540 likes
Reply to SophistiCat Hm. Of course I agree that truth has no location. But better to avoid the reification of truth altogether, rather than in just the circumstances of location.
"Truth exists" just means that there are true statements.
Terrapin StationJanuary 21, 2017 at 19:31#485480 likes
I agree that such is the convention. But what do those who use and defend the convention mean when they say that something exists?
Well, you appear to be a competent speaker of English, don't you already know what people mean when they say that something exists? I didn't have any exotic or specialist meanings in mind.
Okay. Which one of our brains? Because if it's in more than one brain, we're back to the abstract/concrete dichotomy and you haven't solved anything. That's why this form of nominalism never works; you end up appealing to event types rather than singular events.
Terrapin StationJanuary 22, 2017 at 00:25#486650 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station Okay, it's in multiple places. So far, so good. The same event doesn't occur in my brain and in your brain; they're two instances of an event type. Now, where's the type?
It's a regress issue.
Terrapin StationJanuary 22, 2017 at 00:27#486680 likes
If I may say so there are two worlds. One is outside - the physical world, the universe itself. The other is inside - our mind. I make this distinction because we have the power of imagination. This exceptional mental tool allows us to go beyond the limits of the physical world e.g. we can think of unicorns, santa claus, etc. I consider this unique ability of the mind sufficient to warrant the distinction inside and outside even though the mind is obviously part of the physical universe itself.
That said let us attempt to answer the question "Where is the truth?"
First the mind. In this particular world resides some truths that are arrived at through the sole us of or most powerful thinking tool - logic. A good example of truths that exist only in the mind is pure mathematics. In such cases we could, without erring, answer the OP's question by saying truth is in the mind.
Secondly, the physical world. This is not so easy for the simple reason that our minds cannot be factored out - we are doomed to think, so to speak. However we can still make a distinction here that should allow us to consider the truths of mind and the truths of our physical world as separate. How I make this distinction is that truths of the physical world require a correspondence between the physical world and the mind. For example...if a tree falls you should also be thinking a tree is falling. This additional requirement is absent in truths of the mind alone. Since, in this case, truth is a relation between the mind and the physical world I don't know how to describe a locus for such truths. It's at the boundary between the mind and the physical world - that's the best I can do.
Another issue here is that mind-truths like mathematics are absolute (as far as I know). They're unchanging...2+2 is always 4. Static.
However truths of the physical world are in a state of flux in the 4th dimension - time. As observers of nature we're always in the shadow of the problem of induction, as is all of science, and that may warrant the additional question ''when is the truth?''
don't you already know what people mean when they say that something exists?
Kind of... But that is one of the key ideas which make this question pointy... That is - questioning what you seem to think you have a grasp of. There is certainly a feeling that I do. I want to understand this feeling better. Would you consider joining in on my other discussion regarding this feeling? http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/957/what-is-the-rawest-form-of-an-idea-how-should-one-go-about-translating-it-into-language#Item_5
Cabbage FarmerFebruary 03, 2017 at 11:00#524640 likes
The question arises out of the idea that for something to exist, it must be somewhere. Am I wrong in thinking this? If so, than in what way does truth exist?
Where is the left and where is the right? Not "existing" in any one place, but consisting in relations among various things existing in various places.
I think of truth as something like the value of a relation between statements and facts. Given two truth-values, true and false, we may in principle divide (well-formed, meaningful) statements into "the true" and "the false", depending on how they line up with relevant facts.
Where are statements? Paradigmatically, in the heads of rational sentient speakers.
Comments (56)
No I can not. I can give you a speculation of the general region of space in which my thoughts were contained. Can you do the same for truth?
Oh? Where?
Quoting Perdidi Corpus
I would argue that truth is not of material quality, therefore it need not have a specified "place."
Quoting Perdidi Corpus
Is a concept derived from experience. This concept doesn't exist in physical space either.
If it doesn´t have a place/set of places than how can you argue that it "is"? What would it mean to "be" in that way which truth "is" to you?
Quoting Perdidi Corpus
Well I dunno. Thoughts "are" because they interact within the world. It's like wave-particle duality, if you're familiar with that, or more complex quantum mechanics. Sense of place isn't always very clear.
Because concepts aren't objects in the physical world.
Why do you begin with the assumption that something must have a spatial location in order to "be"?
Yes, OP you should look in to the distinction between subjective and objective as I think you are getting confused about this.
You're line of thought follows from the patterns of activity that result in sensory perception and therefore us perceiving an outside world. light hits the retina -> goes to brain -> brain constructs an outside world -> brain thinks an outside world actually exists in the outside world....... This is just an illusion and we have no way to actually garantuee the existence of objectivity whatsoever... This becomes so convincing it actually ends up causing people like you to think truth exists in the same way that tables do (as a product of sensory information rather than an abstract concept tied to concepts integrated from sensory information). All we can ever know is our minds and what is in our minds (including sensory perception). For sake of understanding this better just scrap all notions of objectivity and you will see that truth can only exist within the mind because there is no where else for it to exist in unless you want to argue that objectivity is the same as subjectivity.
In my view, truths are judgments we make about propositions. This, the location in question is our brains.
Reality is both truth, when the mind is awaken, and a lie, when the mind is asleep. Reality is everything because it is just a sensation.
Where is '7'?
And no, you can't 'nail down' where in the brain such things occur, because 'the brain' is able to generalise the activities involved in understanding these things. In other words, there's isn't a kind of 1:1 relationship between 'neural activities' and 'meaning', in the same way that there isn't a 1:1 relation between symbols and what they denote.
If you got brain damage (heaven forbid), then the mind will often work out ways to 're-purpose' other areas of the brain to compensate. This is one of the discoveries of neuro-plasticity.
It does apply to numbers, laws, concepts, grammar and the like. "7" is located in our brains just as truth is.
Quoting Wayfarer
If you're thinking of it as something like a static "nugget" that's "7," say, then you're thinking of it incorrectly for a couple reasons. (1) "Nuggets" aren't really static. Nothing is. Everything is dynamic and obtains via a matter/structure/process "complex" ("complex" being in quotation marks because these things are not metaphysically separable) (2) So "7," in brains, isn't static either. It's a matter/structure/process "complex," and neural activities have a "1:1" relation to meaning in that we're talking about logical identity just as we are with "morning star" and "evening star." That doesn't imply a denial of neuroplasticity. "7" is identical to brain/structure/process "complex" A at time T1, and it's identical to brain/structure/process "complex" B at time T2.
It depends on what you're referring to with "a television drama" exactly--are you referring to something with meaning applied? Are you referring to the script? The filming of it? The medium it's stored on? The transmission? We can detail each part of that to make it clear just what we're talking about, and we can specify the location of all of those things.
So are you saying that when you talk about concepts, numbers, etc., you're talking about something other than the mental phenomena actually being concepts, etc. in some sense, where we can detail just what we're talking about in different cases and specify just where they're located?
And yet there it is, on the screen.
Odd.
The brain? There is only one?
A classic example of the wrong question leading one down the philosophical garden path.
Ah yes, the occurrence of this concept on your particular computer screen was the only, original, physical occurrence! How silly of me
This seems to imply that you think there can only be one occurrence of a given concept. But it would seem that the same concept occurs both here and there - otherwise each of us would be talking about something quite different.
Isn't it simpler to suppose that the concept can be in many places?
There it is - out there.
Definitely not. My post was sarcastic, perhaps you misread?
Space and time have locations, it's just that it's not only one location.
But that shouldn't be confusing.
You don't think that, say, Picasso paintings don't have a location just because there are thousands of them, do you?
A drama consists of the script, production, sets, actors, performance, transmission, and the rest - which is an analogy for the issue at hand.
If you say that 'experience equals brain states', this is analogous to saying that a TV drama is 'a state of the circuitry of the TV'. At every instant, all the pixels on the screen are the result of binary operations within the logic board of the television - so in one sense, that is true. But those binary operations are not themselves 'the drama', they are simply one aspect of it. Without the script, actors, story, etc, the logic board has nothing to display.
Likewise, 'the brain' is both embodied (situated within a matrix of the nervous system, the environment, etc ) and also en-cultured (drawing on memory, expectation, language, symbolism, etc) which are not meaningfully 'inside' the brain; in other words, you're not going to be able to understand them in terms of proteins or synapses or neuro-chemistry.
That is the sense in which it is fallacious to say that such things as ideas and concepts can be 'located' in the brain - which is the basic claim of 'neurological reductionism'. I'm saying that such an attempt is a 'category mistake' - it is treating abstract realities as if they're concrete.
Memory, expectations, meanings and the semantic aspect of symbolism are only in the brain. Just like the projection of a drama is only in the TV. You're trying to say that the projection is in the filming, etc. too. That's wrong.
So no, I am not new to this.
I do not understand how this can be a wrong question. I admit the implicit assumption and am open to discussing it. Would you care to elaborate?
'In the brain' is a cognitive model. You will never find anything of the kind you mention 'in the brain'. You're writing as it what you're asserting is known or proven, when it's really not. 'The brain' has a role to play, but it's not the ultimate source of meaning. Besides, humans can survive with apparently massive loss or damage to the brain.
OK.
"Where does truth exist?" looks like a question about truth. But is it? Try treating it as a question about how we use the words "truth" and "exist"; so that it morphs into something like "Does the word exist apply to truth?"
What looked like profound epistemology can be seen as just a question of grammar.
What do you think?
Now, tell me: are you talking about the Picasso painting tokens, or the types? The tokens each occupy a single region. The type doesn't occupy any region, because it's not a concrete object.
As to space having multiple locations, the point is that "Where is space?" is not a sensible question.
Or, more directly, does the word "exist" necessarily implies having a location? How could you argue for that? (You haven't even tried, as far as I can see.) If pretty much everyone, as appears to be the case, already uses the word "exist" so that it applies to things that do not have a clear location, then what's the point of this exercise?
"Not in the brain" isn't any sort of model. It's just nonsense.
Quoting Wayfarer
Empirical claims are not provable.
Quoting Wayfarer
You can survive with parts of the brain being compromised, sure. That has no implication for whether meaning is something that the brain does. It's not as if meaning is only something that brains do just in case we're talking about a "complete" brain (as if brains don't continually change anyway).
I'm a nominalist. In my view there are no real (read "extramental") types. Types/universals are concrete ways that we think about things--namely, they're conceptual abstractions we make, and those are concrete events in our brains.
"Where is space"--it's the extension of all matter and the relational extension "between" all matter. We can point to that, and it doesn't exist aside from that.
"Where is the truth"
In history.
Quoting SophistiCat I agree that such is the convention. But what do those who use and defend the convention mean when they say that something exists?
In that case, a Picasso painting does not have many locations. Just one.
Anyway, nominalism of this kind doesn't work. A type is a "way" in which we think. OK, where's the "way"?
Note that when I asked you the question initially, I said, "Picasso paintings."
Quoting Pneumenon
Geez. I didn't realize that you had that view. Quick, let me change my own view because of that.
Re "where's the way"--didn't you read the "namely" part after the em dash?
"Truth exists" just means that there are true statements.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Well, you appear to be a competent speaker of English, don't you already know what people mean when they say that something exists? I didn't have any exotic or specialist meanings in mind.
Okay. Which one of our brains? Because if it's in more than one brain, we're back to the abstract/concrete dichotomy and you haven't solved anything. That's why this form of nominalism never works; you end up appealing to event types rather than singular events.
In each brain that has the conceptual abstraction in question.
It's a regress issue.
Types are the conceptual abstractions in question. That's all there is to what a "type" is.
In other words, types/universals are concrete particulars. "Instances" are all there is.
If I may say so there are two worlds. One is outside - the physical world, the universe itself. The other is inside - our mind. I make this distinction because we have the power of imagination. This exceptional mental tool allows us to go beyond the limits of the physical world e.g. we can think of unicorns, santa claus, etc. I consider this unique ability of the mind sufficient to warrant the distinction inside and outside even though the mind is obviously part of the physical universe itself.
That said let us attempt to answer the question "Where is the truth?"
First the mind. In this particular world resides some truths that are arrived at through the sole us of or most powerful thinking tool - logic. A good example of truths that exist only in the mind is pure mathematics. In such cases we could, without erring, answer the OP's question by saying truth is in the mind.
Secondly, the physical world. This is not so easy for the simple reason that our minds cannot be factored out - we are doomed to think, so to speak. However we can still make a distinction here that should allow us to consider the truths of mind and the truths of our physical world as separate. How I make this distinction is that truths of the physical world require a correspondence between the physical world and the mind. For example...if a tree falls you should also be thinking a tree is falling. This additional requirement is absent in truths of the mind alone. Since, in this case, truth is a relation between the mind and the physical world I don't know how to describe a locus for such truths. It's at the boundary between the mind and the physical world - that's the best I can do.
Another issue here is that mind-truths like mathematics are absolute (as far as I know). They're unchanging...2+2 is always 4. Static.
However truths of the physical world are in a state of flux in the 4th dimension - time. As observers of nature we're always in the shadow of the problem of induction, as is all of science, and that may warrant the additional question ''when is the truth?''
It's all bullshit.
Kind of... But that is one of the key ideas which make this question pointy... That is - questioning what you seem to think you have a grasp of. There is certainly a feeling that I do. I want to understand this feeling better. Would you consider joining in on my other discussion regarding this feeling? http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/957/what-is-the-rawest-form-of-an-idea-how-should-one-go-about-translating-it-into-language#Item_5
Where is the left and where is the right? Not "existing" in any one place, but consisting in relations among various things existing in various places.
I think of truth as something like the value of a relation between statements and facts. Given two truth-values, true and false, we may in principle divide (well-formed, meaningful) statements into "the true" and "the false", depending on how they line up with relevant facts.
Where are statements? Paradigmatically, in the heads of rational sentient speakers.