bongo fury

https://youtu.be/HAwhC_btAUU?t=54 Why won't it start at 54? Why does the devil have all the best tunes?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye5BuYf8q4o...

So your admirable (for me) nominalism, as embraced in paragraphs one thru five (of eight), depends on grammar? Isn't that a tenuous criterion? Couldn'...

But the context here was as specific as any of those, so I'm not sure why you say "any", here, but not with those. The question about isn't any cleare...

I don't quite understand the choice of example, here. Are we talking about tokens of a numeral (or numeral string)? Or are we talking about some abstr...

The wise ones. Only in the same way that a page of text is identical from one print or manuscript to the next. With or without a coding and subsequent...

:clap: :strong: :fire: Yikes Only because we

Or, to put it some other ways, Although it isn't. (See liquidity.)

Reductionism good. https://youtu.be/PlsW2hd06R0

Define it or use it. Just... Don't hypostatise it.

Yes, just as redness only occurs. As red things. Indeed not. Not being, "itself", a thing.

Why the meta?

That's fine, as poetry.

In what respect higher?

I'm familiar with the first, and happy to grant their existence. "Information generators" and "information experiencers" I've not heard of, but am int...

Matter is what there is. Things. Information is patterns. Facts. The relation is that of choosing. Pointing out. Mind is myth. Non-actual. The relatio...

You lookin' for trouble? Came to the right place... https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Intersubjectivity&expand=&child=&forums=&or=Relevance...

Agree, e.g. we ought to exclude outliers from a distribution of readings from an instrument calibrated to detect signal in a particular range. Thereby...

Except by any other name...

It's moot.

Sure. And these particles, waves and fields, what they are, in sum, is tables, chairs and river, about which you have the powerful intuition of non-su...

... we must be mistaken... so, how?

Sure. Just not deductively (formally, syntactically, mechanically, automatically). So it depends on whether your circle is a tight loop, and has to ha...

On the other hand... And yet, it's a certainty :grimace:

Haha. Ok, more specifically:

D'oh. But "spuriously deductive" is the only gloss of "fallacious" that you could use to plausibly incriminate all of induction. Sure. But https://en....

Except where the words coextend.

Ok. Then I can offer: referring (as a semantically competent speaker) to its thoughts as pictures. To be honest, a proper (contra Chinese Room) semant...

If you say so. (An app can't make mistakes?)

... mistaking its thoughts for pictures.

Spoken like a rooster :strong:

"might" for a counterfactual. In a style guide I once read. And hell, I did.

Ironically, I've noticed this Wayne-ism all the time just lately.

Cool comparison. Actually, the scenario depends on a and b having perfect pitch, in the sense of absolute or non-relational pitch sensitivity or recog...

Fave quote, Casual plagiarism.

Not so often, no. But expecting a parallel situation in the different modalities is common enough in theoretical talk. By "lack of nuance" I meant no ...

Yep, yep. Ok... or: it's a class of illumination events (stimuli) that cause that kind of excitation. Here's where I'm guessing your lack of nuance on...

Why then innately, though? Especially if you are likening colour classification to furniture classification? :cool:

And of course they aren't able to confuse their thoughts with pictures. Yes, Chomsky still talks very fondly. (In at least one interview, googleable. ...

In front of you, or inside you? The other things it is (colour-wise) like? Because we can't see inside each other's head? But we can infer that what g...

Yes, but with the nuance, you get to talk about the extension of the word as a (very) fuzzy set of externals (stimuli), in our case controlled largely...

Your views have been found acceptable, and you are free to go.

Fair enough. I think innatism, which is usually assumed, and not even nuanced as indicated on the wiki page (allowing for a number of different sized ...

Ok. So it's not that I can't show you? It's that you can't compare things you are shown? Not getting it.

... and is that one colour, or one each?