bongo fury

pdf, anyone?

Perhaps yes it is, and no we don't fail. We, the people disputing the reality of private experience, understand that seeing colours is using (hence re...

Searle's requirement, to the contrary, that the room should convince even Chinese speakers, always seemed somewhat audacious. Until now? Did Searle co...

Does the camera, producing the photo, directly perceive the tree? Also. Is it different for words? When you see the name "Fido", do you indirectly per...

I'm not sure. I recall @"Terrapin Station" arguing for that kind of direct realism, and likening the alleged directness of his alleged mental represen...

That they aren't in the head.

Exactly like a non-Chinese speaker using a manual of character combination to hold a conversation with Chinese speakers outside the room, without unde...

:100:

Depends on whether can be prevented from arising, at least within discourse referring to the story. You might say that a feature of fantasy as a speci...

Obviously, I meant that I'm familiar with his ouvre.

So am I. So experience has to mean a ghostly extra layer, in the first place? Seems presumptuous. Really? Dennett's Cartesian picture show? I imagine ...

Pretty much. Do I slander them? Like those, but delivered from outside. How would you paraphrase ?

We prepare to point appropriate symbols at the stimulus: pictures of just the right shade, words selecting the right pictures. And we prepare to point...

Yes, and I don't see any deeper issue. Well, why is it that when you look back at photos of your ship from 5 years ago, you feel like it's the same sh...

But confusion might. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/433444

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality?wprov=sfla1

Yes, your parsing seemed right.

No, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism?wprov=sfla1 has a list

A, B, C ---> P, M, S /uploads/resized/files/fv/dhszi21wichcy8vk.png

Touche! :lol:

Why do people conflate existing in a realm with existing in a realm-diagram or a realm-description?

Yes. So what (if not a Cartesian film show) is intermediate between what (if not a homunculous) and the world?

By a Cartesian film show?

More plausible how? More subdued how? Different how?

A Cartesian theatre, then?

Yes. Apart from real beardy old men, and the real north pole. And real charity workers, as @"unenlightened" rightly points out.

If I may help you to grasp the point here... People can and do use the same kinds of words (e.g. names) for the purpose of referring to people or obje...

Does 'actual' always mean 'actually actual'? Perhaps Santa is the first but not the second?

So, false?

Can we talk veridically about fiction?

Well we were talking about words failing to refer to things in reality. I'm interested to hear about other kinds of things failing likewise. Just wond...

The thought. The neurological activity.

Do you mean the brain shiver?

Ok, but now you've done it again, with 'real' and 'existent'.

Ok, what does? What form of words is satisfactorily not an oxymoron?

Typo, I presume. @"Shawn" might agree that this is the question. I expect it's only the question if you are a foundationalist, and assume that some ab...

... such as, some indication of which quantity (e.g. none, some or all) of the world's objects are to be denoted by each denoting phrase. Whereas, you...

/uploads/resized/files/69/ynbnc1kgtrzzueuq.png

How is this different from saying that we merely entertain the fiction? You might as well say, a fictitious fictitious entity.

Do you mean, can the name "Santa" be its own referent, since it doesn't denote anything in the real world?

Page number? I can't find the passage, and "besides from" sounds like a typo. Anyway, I don't know much about Kant, but I won't let that stop me... He...

Sure. As fiction. Fictionally true. It's a fiction that "Santa wears a red hat" is true. So, it's false. Logic with oxymorons. Great fun!

Do you mean, depict him freely? We can, but not in the sense of pointing his likenesses at him. Only in the sense of making Santa-pictures. See https:...

I was attempting a pun (hence the apology). Con artist. But I see now it doesn't work on the word pronounced properly.

But Pegasus flies. Your set of words doesn't.

The indirect reference to Santa stories and pictures and actual beardy old men is fairly free, isn't it? Do you mean there is no actual person answeri...

Fair enough. Do they say that non-actual is not necessarily contradictory to actual?

What distinction? That between a thought and what it's a thought about? You've lost me. My thought about Hitler isn't substantively different from Hit...

I'm with Quine. And Goodman. Words often refer to (or are pretended to refer to, in acts of referring, which are only a game) actual things. Sometimes...

So Santa is the thought? Or the person thought about? Or both, or neither?