Terrapin Station

Not on my view, but that's another can of worms to get into. The idea wasn't that you were necessarily saying this generally. In this case, the norm/c...

And I'm still not going to read/respond to a bunch of different points/issues at a time when one is in the mood to argue with me.

lol

I'm not a listener at all when it comes to long(er) posts. I've explained this many times. You can write posts as long as you want, of course. I'm not...

Definitions/descriptions are different than meanings on my view. ("that meaning" was a shorthand way of saying "that to be meaning") You just said tha...

First, it's not a digression. It's what I'm talking about.

There's a need because I don't consider that meaning. Okay, so then the convention is correct, no, and differing from the convention is incorrect?

I'd be interested if you were to address my last post to you.

pfft

What it "means" is that they're not using the word conventionally/a la common usage, right?

Because you keep claiming that you're simply using the term descriptively, so that it simply pegs the consensus usage as such. Why should someone adhe...

So "correct" has no normative or prescriptive weight in your usage here?

Again, "some phenomena involve freedom/randomness, which is sometimes biased so that it's not just a .50-.50 or .33-.33.-.33 etc. equal chance of all ...

Can't you successfully communicate with someone using the word "correct" to refer to "a puppy" once they tell you that? And they can successfully comm...

But then you're not just saying that the dictionary or conventional definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." Af...

:rofl:

And if you're not willing, you're incorrect?

So: (1) I'm not a realist on physical laws, and (2) I'm not a strong determinist in general, in other words, not just when we're talking about free wi...

You're not understanding something I've explained many times: It's correct that the definition of "correct" above is "free from error; in accordance w...

Again, the conventional definition of "correct" is NOT "conventional."

That's not required at all, and your notion there is anti-instrumentalist. Not that this is communication, but it's similar to, say, understanding pla...

Communication simply depends on being able to understand others, which is a matter of being able to assign meanings to their utterances (say) in a man...

That's the whole gist behind aesthetic objectivism, too. Some folks have a psychological need to be right/correct. Simply having the tastes they have ...

That's certainly not what I'd say. You seem unusually consumed with being right, correct, etc. I could suggest a therapist.

Instead of worrying about whether an interpretation is correct or not, why not worry about things like whether communication with someone is coherent,...

Or disagreement depending on the interpretation, right?

There aren't correct/incorrect interpretations.

Haha--that's the case for a lot of this stuff. I've had more or less the same views about a lot of philosophical issues for 30 to 40 years, and even l...

Sure, will causes physical phenomena. All physical phenomena cause other physical phenomena, unless they occur in a vacuum, but your brain isn't in a ...

And norms/conventions are correct because?

It should be pretty obvious that I don't think it makes communication impossible, right?

Then for once you're right.

That's a good test if your goal is conformism.

You might want to know consensus usage, but that doesn't make the consensus usage correct. It just makes it (correct that it's) the consensus usage. S...

There is not a "correct meaning of the word 'chair.'" We can say, "It's correct that most people use the term this way," but that's all that a consens...

Folks can explain that all they want. They're wrong. The only thing determined by consensus is consensus. Consensus makes nothing correct with respect...

Which simply refers to it being a fact that a consensus thinks about him that way. It's just like you could say, "A consensus thinks about this concep...

Again, you can say that it's a fact that a consensus thinks about him that way, but that's all that the consensus there accomplishes.

But you're specifying things that aren't relationships--combustion engines, etc. You could describe them in terms of relationships, but it can't be ju...

That's ridiculous. The only thing it "denies" is you calling them the term in question.

What are we talking about re "denying your 'right' to exist" though? What's an example of that?

That's obviously false, though. You must have something in mind other than what you're literally saying. What determines this, exactly, and why does i...

Actually I couldn't care less how you address me, what you call me. The only "requirement" if you want a response is that I have to be able to figure ...

It's only a problem for people who care about etiquette and want me to follow it. :yum:

I certainly don't care. It's just that I'm not going to be restricted to how other people want me to use language, unless I think there's a good reaso...

You're basically restating this. What does it amount to to have an existential stake in an argument? This is coming across to me like empty rhetoric w...

What in the world does that refer to, to "have the stake in the argument"? ??? I'm not saying anything even remotely in the vein of endorsing "the rul...

Again, relationships are such as "to the left of," "is the parent of," "is similar to" etc. So give an example of a relationship that is just to anoth...

Hopefully empirical evidence has some bearing on why you'd believe one over the other.

Their demands disregard mine. Who gets preference and why?