bongo fury

Who don't? I think they do. I think they're wrong. But not obviously wrong. And they obviously do. See, @"Pie" and @"Banno"? It's not hard not to equi...

Such as (p ? ¬?p) ? ?¬p To be fair. Or even 1. p 2. ¬?(p) Or 1. p 2. ¬?(1)

So K becomes a modal operator? (Or might as well.) E.g. Kp (or ?p) meaning not even secretly not p (or ¬?¬p). By analogy with necessarily p meaning no...

What about Isn't that unintuitive enough? I mean, do you want it to be true, even if you're not wrong that p? /uploads/resized/files/un/8hodxqlxv8xx3u...

Yep. Is that fact. I wouldn't know! But this is you not Searle?

Which is clearer: "word and object" or "sentence and situation"? You might say the second is more suggestive of 'fit'. Fair enough. That hardly makes ...

Sure. With or without. So no "transition".

You and your brain interpreting the symbols is the independent fact, not the maths itself. I think. From memory. Quote specifically if I'm wrong on th...

No. And interpret the marks as symbols with meaning, yes.

Picture 1 is meant to explain ordinary usage of "truth-maker/truth-bearer". Hence picture 2. Nonetheless, picture 1 is (or so I thought) the usual sha...

Also, ask her to describe a route, say out of the house to the nearest post box? And what happens if she were to draw (the post box, say) from memory?

/uploads/resized/files/1q/jtw0yisbz7oy24qy.jpg /uploads/resized/files/eg/sjaqga11ueozk0rw.jpg Went with describes, but denotes may less jarring for th...

Of course. And variables to their values (which are things out there, not more language). And so on. Yes, or even nominalist ("hyper-extensionalist" i...

I'm offering denotation (of sentence-parts) as a better way (to examine how language relates or corresponds with bits of reality) than truth of whole ...

Bug.

Yes, which is deflationary, and what could possibly be wrong with that! Well, it's a bit smug, if there's stuff to say about how a sentence refers to ...

Same difference. In Quine (see above), Goodman, Elgin. Denotes, describes, applies to, refers to, points to, ...

Me neither, but I gather he invented sense vs reference, with the latter pointing to true or false as you describe. So?

Not that I recall. I'm not sure it's unobjectionable. I remember thinking something like it when trying to grasp Tarski's expositions. So if it's not ...

But P talks about truth, as well. Or denotation. It says, e.g., "white" denotes snow, i.e. "white" is true of snow, or snow satisfies "white". Plausib...

So, no?

Ok. Will you be getting back to waxing analytical any time soon?

Is this my fault? Have I lowered the tone? It doesn't seem to make any sense. Are you joking?

Ah, thanks for the indulgence but no, it was just, why should I answer yours if you won't answer mine. I've only been arguing for avoiding the perenni...

Ah, solving that question Brings the priest and the doctor In their long coats Running over the fields.

Is this what you meant?

:ok: haha I get it now

Might be the day before you came here that everyone was quoting at each other.

Still? You're still saying the disquoted part of a sentence is a disquoted part of the world, whatever that means?

I seem to recall, someone had a theory about that.

What would? What you're calling "the disquoted part"? Some state of the world is a disquoted part? Part of what? Part of the world? So "part" didn't m...

Er, Now then, in that context, your context, did refer to the sentence constituting the second part of the biconditional or to some corresponding even...

Let's see... Ok so you were talking mainly about the first half of the biconditional. Even so, did refer to the sentence constituting the second part ...

I definitely need that explained. I just meant that we can still drop "proposition".

I was asking how you were trying to use it. Whether referred to the sentence constituting the second part of the biconditional or to some correspondin...

Glad to hear it. Then why say "both"?

You said

Sure. But a sentence is already a class: of tokens, or copies. So you don't need another name for the more inclusive class. Allowing translations into...

Not so fast. The sentence in the second part is a truth maker? Or it picks out a truth maker? How is it clear? Is such an individual: truth-bearing se...

Yes. No corresponding relations or properties.

Yes if N is a totality of corresponding facts. No if it's a totality of things that I ought to tidy. But they correspond merely to sentence-parts.

Ambiguously. Not that you said "states". Events? Less ambiguous.

States, then? States of affairs? "Just"???

Try to correspond with real things or events. Cats, mats and cat-on-mat events. Celebrate your confidence in the correspondence by positing actual ent...

Yes please! So, whenever there is a T-schema expression, at least? Problem?

:up: Controversial!

Or is it a property of a state of affairs, whether conceived as a concrete event (region of space-time) or something more abstract? Which latter might...

There are clear enough reasons to prefer a logic with precisely two truth-values. But you'd be right that this oughtn't to influence our choice of sca...

Where do you stand on Neurath's boat? Not too near the edge :lol: But seriously... And scientists no longer expect any ultimate foundation or certaint...

Only if you admit you are admitting defeat. Haha, this comment is about ten days old. Posted accidentally now. Wrong thread, too. Forgive me. Been enj...