Terrapin Station

Are you referring to "it's not the definition that's true or false per se"? (I make a distinction between meanings and definitions, by the way. Meanin...

Again, I noted above: So it's not the definition that's true or false per se, but the (implicit) claim that a definition is an accurate report of how ...

First, that's not the same sense of "meaning" as "What do you mean" when we don't understand what someone is getting at, or "What is the meaning, in m...

Just buy it used if you're interested in it. Yeah, it's an "encyclopedic dictionary." I just like the writing in it more than many other dictionaries....

Another objection is why we'd assume that the factoring is occurring in that situation in the first place.

Yeah, I have a bunch of them. My favorite is probably the Honderich-edited Oxford Companion. The Audi-edited Cambridge Dictionary is probably my secon...

So if it's not the case in his view that everything extant is a computing machine, then there's no definition of computational equivalence in the pape...

I think the distinction you're making between representation and resemblance makes some sense--it's clear that they're not coexhaustive, but I'd say t...

Right, and since I called them assertions, that's what I was saying, too. Which refers to which of the three bulleted points of mine in your view?

But the only assertions to be had when talking about this are limited to: * Reports of conventional definitions/usage of the term, * Reports of partic...

I see they're on quite a few different stations already, so that's good. The forum looks to be completely inactive to this point though. What I'd like...

An assertion is a(n endorsement of a) truth claim. Stipulations on the other hand simply forward associations--X will refer to y, or let x = y.

My point is that this way of thinking and talking about it is confused , and it easily leads to conceptual errors. Bodies rather are feeling/experienc...

I agree that they only seem to be a part of what some living subjects are. That doesn't have anything to do with my comments about lambda's logical co...

?? Definitions are stipulations, not assertions.

Say what? Part of what you are is experiences. You don't need to posit something with possession of those experiences. Experiences are simply a kind o...

What about something that IS experiences? Why are you seeing it necessary as something that isn't experiences "having" experiences? At any rate, what'...

I wouldn't say that you actually present an argument--well, or present one that at works--for why (part of) an entity can't be experiences though.

For one, if you see a photo of Hitler, you're inserting another step in the process. In the analogy, your perception is the photo. Your perceptual awa...

Thanks, so the definition is: "A computing machine M is capable of perfectly simulating a physical system S, under a given labelling of their inputs a...

The first problem in discussing this is that a lot of people, including the sources you listed that I checked out (I didn't examine all of them), simp...

You're not addressing the issue of just what a simulation is. What is the definition of it, at least per the CTD principle (that was supposedly proved...

So the first issue is with the use of the phrase "aware of" rather than "see"? (seriously? haha) Because otherwise, if you swap out "see" with "aware ...

I'm not sure what you're clarifying or taking issue with. I agree with your comment.

The received view is that propositions are the meanings, not expressions, of declarative sentences (statements), hence the same proposition being expr...

Why do I have to keep correcting the same misconceptions over and over here? Anyway, direct realists do not deny perception. Direct realism is rather ...

You can be a mathematical platonist, but that just means that you have an incorrect ontology of mathematics. Yes, mathematics is very useful to scienc...

Here's a huge problem for the CTD principle: the concept of simulation. Just what counts as a simulation is either vague/subjective or inadequate/irre...

A few thoughts on your comments: * On my view, needs always hinge on wants. They're conditional. You only need y if you want x, and y is logically req...

Okay, but first, that would just be about defining something, it wouldn't be about all reference (since, "Hey, there's a tree," for example, is a refe...

So you reference yourself when you say something like, "Ah, look at that tree." Where's the infinite regress in that?

Well, if you're using "convention" in a conventional way, that's why I brought up the objections I did earlier. Conventions are simply conventions. Th...

Maybe as ordinarily understood it doesn't represent what I said . . . I'm not sure what philosophical significance that contingent fact would have, th...

That doesn't help anyone else, though, unless you say that God's mind is everywhere at all times, so that nothing exists that isn't God's mind.

Yes. Any words/text strings/sounds/drawings/whatevers could be taken by an individual to represent anything. Hence me wondering why you'd say somethin...

Yeah, it probably has that connotation often. The quote I relayed wasn't meant that way, though. It's actually from Brian Eno--musician, composer, pro...

That's all the quote is saying, really. That's what you have at that moment, and it's what you have to work with.

The point, though, is that present reality can't be other than it is. At that moment, you have to recognize and adapt to what is and work with it--tha...

Sure. So that's consistent with this quote. But if at present, reality doesn't meet your preconceptions, should you figure that it is what is in error...

If you influence the world, so that in the future it meets your preconceptions, then you don't have to adjust your preconceptions, right?

Wait a minute--how do you figure that there are any limits on what a proposition is representing, so that we can say that a proposition isn't represen...

Oy vey. Are you guys learning philosophy off the back of cereal boxes or what?

Haha--okay, and what would you say the received view is on what propositions are?

Right. So propositions don't have anything to do with sentences in your view? Is the t-sentence about questions and commands and so on, would you say?

Wow. So "P" in the t sentence isn't a proposition in your opinion?

It's representing gravitational attraction in that case, which is actual. In other words, I wouldn't say that the conditional "maps" to a conditional ...

No on my view. Yes on my view, but it's not representing something (real) that's not actualized.

If that's not the t sentence to you, then how is what I wrote the t sentence, since the t sentence doesn't normally have "(is true)" in parentheses in...

Okay, we agree on that, although I'd clarify that it might be interpreted as representing whatever it's taken to represent because of resemblance (per...

Haha (and what was the habit thread? I don't recall seeing that one.)