Banno

OK, so what reason is there to think that red is more than a word we use for certain purposes? Or is the meaning of "red" pretty much what we do with ...

Bang. What reason is there to think that red is more than a word we use for certain purposes? Even if this is so, "red" can't mean "Light with a frequ...

cheers. But if red refers to the experience, then when you say “red” it refers to your experience, but when I say it it refers to my experience. If we...

ok. So we agree that red and the experience of red differ. And that there are red things in the world around us. So red does not seem to be something ...

does that help? We can hardly call red an experience if you have a completely different experience to me.

But what are the implications for the nature of red? We can hardly claim it is a “perception” if seeing something completely different doesn’t matter.

Some folk say red is a particular wavelength of light as if that answered your question. Folk managed to make use of the word well before we understoo...

I’d have you go a step further by considering how you use “red”.. it’s more than “the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red...

If I can gaslight it, it's not all that good. But actually what it is referring to was it's first go at the question, in which it did not even attempt...

The Gemini that produced this? In an axiomatic propositional logic, prove RAA ChatGPT just went ahead and did it: But not all that well.

These supposed AI's are just stringing words together based on probability. What those words do is not part of the calculation. They sometimes string ...

An aspect of form of life that is important here is that it is not just language. Some folk mistakenly understand "language game" as referring to game...

And you proposed isPhilosophical(#S) IFF S is about another statement. And I gave examples of statements that were about other statements, but not phi...

So you agree it is philosophical, but it is not a statement about another statement, and so doesn't meet your definition. Your definition of "philosop...

So are you claiming that these sentences, each famously part of important philosophical discussions, are actually not philosophical? You sure you want...

You didn't respond to this, so I'll fill in the argument a bit. If you ask for a red pen and are indeed usually handed a red pen, then red is not just...

You missed the point of my post. Any definition will be contradicted by some philosophy. "Know thyself". "Here is a hand". "I think, therefore I am". ...

No sooner would that be done than philosophy will then be about undermining that very definition. Anyway, the definition you offer is trivially too br...

Yep. Good point. This is for classical logic. I am puzzling, as a sideline, with how conjunction plays out in paraconsistent logics - Non-Adjunctive s...

Part of this is the difference between RAA in a consistent formal system and in other areas. In a consistent formal system if we reach a contradiction...

...back to the original, from Anscombe, in Intentionality, and as used by Searle and many others. Cheers.

That's your problem, not mine. If you can't even address the simple concerns of an aged retiree, then all that is irrelevant. An appeal to your own au...

More spit. You might try acting on your claim to be rational, and actually address the argument I presented above. Your refusal to address that or the...

Presumptuous. That account depends on the just-so stories provided by dialectic. It contrasts cooperation and competition, for instance, without any i...

Sure, disparate views. We can answer each, in different ways. So we say tot he utilitarian that while the fishermen will gain short-term satisfaction,...

If what this says is that people have experiences, then we agree, and I don't think it's me doing the obfuscating.

One does not have to look far to find ethical stances quite divergent from those suggested in the OP. Indigenous ethics for example might involve circ...

@"schopenhauer1", I haven't yet answered your fishing example. If the bridge is private, then the ownership comes it to play. If the owner is fishing,...

Yep.

Yes, there is a difference between a physical account and an intentional one. I'd explain this in terms of direction of fit - a physical account is pr...

Oh, go ahead and speculate. Just don't mistake speculation for fact.

I avoid those words if possible because of their ambiguity and the philosophical baggage they drag along behind them. Usually it is better to use the ...

Yes. We have the capacity to make things other than they are. So we must ask how things ought be. That question is not answered by physics.

So what do you think now?

Anscombe points out that the terms swapped roles some time around the 1950's

Well, what is one supposed to do with The subject of my present experience is the laptop screen and text... Language on holidays.

It was indeed facetious, since the quote had so little to do with the issues at hand. And so we go back to where we were half a thread ago, the challe...

No, but you can always start a new thread on the speculative physics. Trouble is, folk here seem adamant that the physics is somehow apposite to fairn...

You can't have a physics that "describes" logic, because you can't have a physics unless you first have a logic in which to set it out. All you might ...

Cheers. What's odd is that this is a thread about justice and fairness, yet it contains page after page of speculative quantum physics. If we needed Q...

Hmm. "physics describes logic" is ill-formed. Nothing good will come of it.

Again, there is the bit where you give and the bit where you take back. You want consciousness to be the special thing that collapse wave functions, b...

At issue is what counts as a measurement. You presume it must involve a conscious being, because you want consciousness to be a substance within the u...

Then once again, what could a "cause" be in logic?

Yeah, that bit. The principles of physics are to be formulated so that the frame of reference being used does not change those principles. Any frame w...

Yep. Not when marking papers. Another lost skill.

There is the myth of the given; that mere observation, uninterpreted, is a given foundation for knowledge.

Yep.

Dialectical algorithms. And these supposedly tell you what you ought to do. But no detail.

What are they? How is deciding what we ought do algorithmic?