bongo fury

0.76 "No respect..."

I'm trying to think how Goodman and Elgin might solve your dogs vs. coyotes problem... Btw though: Is the aforementioned problem (and other ordinary t...

So thanks, because what I needed was to think of searching "range of quantification", and it turns out that @"SophistiCat"'s drift, which I recognised...

Does it? Do you mean something involving x?R as alluded to previously? So the drift from to isn't a mere abbreviation, and ? a mere binary predicate? ...

What things, or what kinds of thing?

:party: But then it gets complicated... all and only chairs, or some more than others? We all call, or some more than others? Bongo's chair.

I.e., that you assigned the right predicate to the wrong things? Apparently so: In which case I get: ... As per @"jamalrob"'s comment and probably oth...

Oh dang. Thought it might misfire, it did and I'm sorry. Probably I don't even understand "disingenuous". I meant it in an admiring way, thinking you ...

Although of course it does commit you to there being non-unicorns :wink:

the wiki page for "ingenue" (from which "disingenuous")

:rofl: /uploads/resized/files/kj/obmzwj2ha5vroe6y.png

:ok: :up:

Obviously you're being sarcastic, but again I have to be grateful for being at least half understood. :smile: Which is a bit extreme :snicker:

Of course, all manner of things are implied.

Yes, me, exactly in the sense of, How is it weird? I think it's exactly like that, and we end up here on TPF discussing what it might mean.

@"TheMadFool" One thing at a time please. Not so. It doesn't. ~(?x(~(Ax & Bx))) Hence the square of opposition stuff.

The substance and conclusion of which appears to be pretty much "nothing to see here". As in, no answer to Quine.

Right... were you unsure whether these would turn out to be compatible or not?

No.

Matter of opinion :wink: Fiction generally isn't. Why?

Still, that settled by following Quine's clear preference... Yes, i.e. they specify how many (actual, existent) things in the domain of discourse the ...

Another possible source of disagreement and quandary is "value of a variable", which equivocates badly between word and object, as "numerical value" e...

Unless you're a biosemiotician? :chin:

Exactly my position on metaphysics.

Or two lines. If far enough apart they can be as blurred as you please, yet maintain an absolute distinction.

This one: ... or of combining them with mysterious forces. Sure, if it works, why not. My interruptions were just a shout out for the more down to ear...

Yep. Surely not. Why ever not? Couldn't it just be what a wrong conception of consciousness creates? Great, but have they seen the difference between ...

How exactly does the liar sentence require mucking about with any other kinds of sentence than the declarative, assertoric kind? The only kind, after ...

Ah, propositions not abstract enough... So, examples please of sentences (or if you must, propositions) that are truth-apt only when asserted? Is the ...

A concrete example, then?

False modesty. :wink: Nowt so abstract as "semantic content".

:100: :up: I don't want to be the Spanish Inquisition, but you did seem to think it absurd that true and false could apply to strings of words; and wh...

How could a word denote an object? How could a coin have a value? How could a hammer have a purpose? How could a note be a quarter-note? By convention...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma?wprov=sfla1 https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/342838

An inscriptionalist only wants to add to that that turning out to be false can just mean (for this particular claim) being rejected by the system of t...

:ok: (imv)

Ah, sorry, I get you. Yes, the token is about itself, in such a way as to cause an explosive mess of contradictory tokens in a deductive context.

The token is about the things it is about. The proposition is an unnecessary abstraction?

added a link. Also,

Maybe something analogous to "hammers are for hammering", "this coin is worth two cents", "this note is a middle-C", etc.

Only on certain conditions: if the replica were already a complete map or model, every detail already relevant in the sense of referring to some detai...

Only if you assume maps are meant to be replicas. "The map is not the territory" reminds us that this is far from being the case, and that they (maps)...

So am I. But I'm not confusing the object (whether actual or only fictional/possible) with a representation/description/map of it... which I think you...

Clearly not the case, since map is such a near synonym for description (which indeed was your starting point), or theory. Completeness of a descriptio...

Yes. No, I reckon not. Fine to gloss description as map or model, but not map as working model or replica or simulation. Neither description nor map t...

Is it just me, or oughtn't everyone here (and on similar threads) to clarify which of these two related but separable questions they are addressing? i...

If by "subject" you mean some thing the predicate is (maybe) true of, then fine. If you mean a phrase further along in the sentence, then you are mega...

Ok, and (is this right?) beauty is the suspicion or seeming of rightness? I would buy that, vague as it is. Leave beauty to roam free in meaning and, ...

So "right" isn't any clearer than "beautiful", or even vaguely distinct from it? You might as well have said, No?

So is it rightness of representation, or of things represented, or either or both? Or is it the pleasure in or anticipation of a representation or a t...