Andrew M

If there is some state of affairs, then there can potentially be a statement that picks out that state of affairs. Symbolically, x and "x" pick out th...

No, that's a distinction between the world (which we can potentially talk about) and our talk about the world. What else do you have in mind? Yes.

:up: I would add that as I use the terms, events are states of affairs, as are relations such as Earth being the third planet from the Sun (and whatev...

For me, the debate hinged on how you and @"Banno" regard states of affairs (which I raised here). It seems to me that you were not really rejecting st...

I think I see how you're reading my sentences now. I used the qualifier to distinguish between an existing and non-existing subject (e.g., the present...

Yes that seems right, since one logically follows from the other. That is: (1) Alice is kicking the ball (2) Alice kicking the ball is equivalent to t...

Yaneer Bar-Yam provides a great summary of the COVID strategies that countries employed during 2020. Hopefully the lessons can be learnt for 2021.

Fair enough. I should have used the word "existing" instead of "referring" (or, even better, omitted the qualifier altogether). Depending on the conte...

If you're referring to Tarski's undefinability theorem, then that's true for the object language, but not for metalanguages. And for that reason it do...

I don't. Feel free to say why you think so. It's ordinary English. From Lexico: subject: 1. A person or thing that is being discussed, described, or d...

Tarski's definition is, admittedly, abstract. However Aristotle's definition was: I could explain that if need be. Nothing. I mean we develop other (p...

How about: "The point here though is that we normally use a sentence to assert something about a subject (where the subject exists)." It's a rule (or ...

Quite right. There's no view from nowhere.

It seems to me that you're describing a state of affairs. So in this case, the state of affairs (or the ways things are) is that the mouse ran behind ...

Yes, that's a nice example where the language creators have designed it that way. Whereas other programming languages don't permit null references at ...

:up: Snow. If I assert that the snow outside is white, then I am (purportedly) referring to snow outside and saying something about it. If there is no...

The point here though is that we normally use a sentence to assert something about a (referring) subject. If there is no subject, then we can't be ass...

The underlying issue is that the subject term has no referent. Your comment is one proposal for handling such sentences. That is, on Russell's view (a...

Yes, that seems fine. I'd add that knowledge (whether everyday or scientific) builds on what we ordinarily perceive. One aspect where philosophical cl...

The question is, by what standard? By normal standards, we are not color-blind. By tetrachromat standards we are. Similarly consider a six-foot basket...

Exactly. Yes. And as you suggest above, you're talking about those things from a human point-of-view (yours). You're not asserting a Platonic (or idea...

There is. But we can only describe it from a human point-of-view. That is, we start from what we observe. Our theories of the universe (along with the...

:up:

:100: I notice that not everyone saw your comment as it really was...

Yes, that's been my conclusion from observing humanity too...

:up: OK. The way I would put it is that we are capable of being mistaken about what we perceive.

No, that's a naturally arising distinction. For example, we learn to distinguish a straight stick from a bent stick. But then a scenario arises, such ...

That is as things are. It takes into account what grounds the language being used, namely, the prominent features of the environment. Hence the refere...

According to a Platonic (idealized) standard, sure. But not according to a standard that arises from what is observed in the world.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Let's look at that passage again: It's not the agreement that is the standard. It is the focal point - the aspect of t...

Science can include the qualitative. Not in the mind as qualia, but in the world as the qualitative characteristics of the things we encounter. Aristo...

I was actually referring to ideas, not objectivity (in the brackets above). Anyway, I appreciate that you're taking an embedded approach rather than v...

That depends on what one's standard is for seeing things as they are.

Indeed that can and does happen. But we are still capable of seeing things as they are, no?

No, I was aware of being touched on the shoulder. That was my experience. It's not that a person touched me on the shoulder (an external occurrence) a...

:100: Stove's Gem. We can't see the world as it really is because we have eyes.

Yes, they are great examples and I agree it looks like much the same debate. The following passage encapsulates what I see as the whole issue with bot...

Agreed, though I would say that it is grounded in human experience, rather than human subjectivity, which I think captures the empirical nature of the...

For Aristotle, what matter is depends on what you're specifically investigating. An example he uses is of a house - it can be analyzed into form and m...

Yes agreed, and well put. Kicking is concrete when those relational dependencies are met (i.e., when someone is kicking something).

OK. I think of dualism as an ontological separation thesis, where each dual has its own nature and principles for understanding them.

You mean like Descartes taking Plato's Forms (the domain of the Intellect) and adding sentience to posit the Cartesian mind? That debate has been goin...

Yes, that seems to be the case.

No. I'm just saying that phrases can have different senses depending on how they are used. Practical contact is going to be different in some sense fo...

Actually Aristotle's form/matter distinction was a counter to dualism (in this case, Plato's). Instead of Forms being separate from the material world...

Rigid designators? For Aristotle, things have essential and accidental characteristics.

Yes, those are all concrete. Whereas Kicked as an uninstantiated relation (i.e., without items) would be abstract.

:up: Also fine. We give names to individuals. I think you're using the term "concrete" in the sense of "definite" (or maybe "real"). That's OK, but it...

It's a useful distinction. We understand how hardware and software are related, and there is no cause for disagreement. However with regards to dualis...

In this context (i.e., regarding human experience), "practical contact" and "physical contact" can have different senses, which is why I gave the robo...