bongo fury

Interesting theory. Plausible if the "is" and "is not" are those of similarity not full identity: What are you getting at?

So, two things?

The ghosts are what's real?

Machines are confined to ghosts?

Are ghosts confined to machines? Isn't that question-begging? Do you have to assume that either of you sees an image? Couldn't it be that you are remi...

That's all they were, for Goodman at least. Classes of stimuli. Sound events and illumination events. But classified through human aesthetic judgement...

Recently I heard a philosopher speaking about a certain term Heidegger used as being a "description" or "predication"...yet, is not a description or p...

There was a lot of interesting analysis of art and music based on qualia as colour scales and pitch and tone and time scales etc. Prall, Goodman, Bore...

Said the murderer, before Columbo's gotcha. Was my poorly signposted allusion. Anyway... as usual, I'll be happy to clarify. Fair enough. Except you m...

Ok, fair enough, Mr Banno, sorry to have taken up your time. Oh, one more question...

I'm mystified how "qualia" is any more lazy or obfuscating than "consciousness" or "subjective experience"; and why Dennett and Banno continually want...

So, an image isn't an image of anything by being a physical trace of it. It's an image of the thing by being interpreted as being (an image) of the th...

A photographic image of a tree is obviously a physical trace of a seed, but just as obviously not a photographic image of the seed. A retinal image of...

The 'representation' wedge.

A camera?

Yes. I suppose for most optometrists the concept of a retinal image must be an everyday one.

Well said. But would you allow "at an image in the retina"? Isn't that the thin end of the wedge?

The concept of 'qualia' isn't all that useful for feeding a witting or unwitting dualism. More than twice as many philosophers use the concept of 'rep...

In "Paris", "London" and "porridge" were used, in order to mention*, in this case, nothing. The relevance is There's only one nothing, if any. * Edit ...

In {eggs, bacon} Paris = London = porridge

But then, this isn't very first-order, is it? More as though, You're using predicates to refer to predicates (and other formulae including individual ...

Because fiction isn't meant to be read as fact.

You don't agree that in an extensional, referentially transparent context, all fiction is false?

Hurrah. Russell and Quine. What the thread needs, I do agree. :100: Like this, though? Pretending to talk about? Agreeing to pretend there is somethin...

Anyway, you haven't helped yourself by appearing to want 'toity' to correspond to contingent as well as possible, and to worlds as well as truths. Bec...

But one wouldn't be doing the first by doing the second, quite the opposite. One would be defining necessary and contingent truths both, as mutually e...

I don't think anyone did? ... As a species of possible truth, sure. You see the difference? Contingent is defined as possible but non-necessary.

I was asking about the alleged restriction of "everything that we can directly observe". What is (or what did Russell mean by) direct observation? Is ...

The "we" an inner homunculus? If not, why the restriction?

Ok, cool, I think you were just unaware that "token of a noun" would tend to be understood as referring to a syntactic, linguistic item, such as an ut...

Beauty is the red herring of aesthetics. Metaphorical use of a word for high socio-sexual status would lend power to any propaganda of recommendation:...

That would be grossly unfair. Both are fine. It doesn't mean, though, that the phrases "common noun" and "proper noun" refer to any non-linguistic ite...

Do you mean, the name refers to the named? Sure. No, only to the name.

Now I feel bad. But if you're a Wittgenstein exegisist that dares answer to the name 'nominalist', then hooray, but I want to be sure I understand you...

There you go then :wink: (Your required other uses.)

I had assumed MU was being at least offered a correct rendition of general usage of the type/token distinction, but I have to admit to being startled,...

If a machine with no ghost thinks it has a ghost, it is wrong. Tick. If a machine with a ghost thinks it is not a machine with no ghost, it is correct...

How does this work? Acquaintance of the head with an immaterial picture inside it?

Are we to exclude deliberate deception? If so, how about innocent confusion?

But not only to behave oneself in the manner of the rule. Also it is to discourage and exclude incorrect behaviours from the game. I don't claim Witty...

Obviously no one was talking about syntax.

Nobody talks much about the "incorrect" use of words. We like to think language is democratic.

I love this question. Especially if we substitute "usage" for "meaning". Which we might as well. Or vice versa: "people mean things by words incorrect...

Well, the relating is as real as the things. The pointing a relation word at them. There just aren't any relations being pointed at, like there are th...

This might be true if we never reasoned hypothetically. If we held premises only absolutely, and awaited conclusions as fresh intelligence. As it is, ...

Scary quotes :scream: