Banno

Not bracts.

The flowers are Potentilla erecta, which have four true petals.

I must be missing your point; nothing in that is about "cross-disciplinary studies such as biophysics".

That was Fool, not I. Forum Tips and Tricks - How to Quote

Then perhaps he is on about something else.

Thank you, . As the engram shows, Ryle was well thought of in the Sixties and Seventies, but has scarcely dimmed since then. He occupies a singular pl...

Is "The player with the white pieces commences the game" true, false, or not truth apt? Or are you going to claim that "The player with the white piec...

you’re welcome.

Just saw this... https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/AnarchistChess.png

Have you seen this? An old favourite. https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/candyland1.jpg https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/candyland...

Well, it was good enough for Tarski, Davidson and one or two others. Nothing - any more than something stops someone from starting with g as 10m/s/s. ...

Yes, something along those lines. Any theory that requires differing senses of truth is to my eye dubious. I'd apply Searle's analysis, using status f...

Well, "one ought not kick puppies for fun" will be true if and only if one ought not kick puppies for fun. That's about all one can say, but I suspect...

Yes, I saw that. I can't see how one could play chess if he were right.

:rofl: Oh, I see - taking the turn of phrase literally. So you think "One ought not kick puppies for fun" is neither true nor false? Or do you think i...

...and what I said above applies here too. If the rules of chess are neither true nor false, then they cannot be used in deductions such as: One wins ...

I've no idea what that might mean.

I'm going to repeat the two objections to the idea that value statements do not have truth value. First, it seems that they do have truth value. So "o...

I think we talked about this before. Error depends on things mostly being right. Arriving at the truth is adopting a belief. Belief and truth are diff...

There's a need for precision in the language used in situations such as this. So one reply is that your eyes don't see - you see, using your eyes. You...

A better answer is the obvious point that there are different ways of using an expression such as "I see the flower". I supose we might feel sympathy ...

Ok, so let's set it out clearly. Suppose two "perspectives" - first person and third. Posit that we cannot know what causes our sensations. Supose fir...

So the issue becomes how to consolidate the two... The answer is in the difference between belief and truth. What you believe, in your terms, is down ...

There is a rather slight argument supposing that because we sometimes see illusions, we therefore never see reality. And yet, the one proposing this a...

~~ Your posts would improve if you were to use "preference" in preference to "taste".

You can see that the argument is invalid. It says "A, therefore B". But it also contradicts itself, if it claims to be true; since if it is true, then...

Yeah, all that guff and misrepresentation. How many petals does the flower have? I say four. Your answer? I don't agree. The flower has four petals re...

Ok, so if that's not your conclusion, what is?

What is the argument? Consider, if you can, that you are aware of the situation. You understand that the two squares that look to be different shades ...

Is the argument here that one cannot think without using one's mind, therefore one cannot think?

Yes, the trouble with 's posts is that he hasn't said what his point is. It is set as a reply to my 'So because our calling it a "flower" is a social ...

I'm doing no such thing. Odd, that you repeatedly misattribute stuff to me. Risible.

Hence the quote in the next post. Not I. I'm supporting Austin's rejection of that distinction. But we do sometimes see things directly, sometimes ind...

The quoted text continues... The point Austin makes quite early seems to me to cover this: You didn't see it directly, you saw it through a telescope,...

A list. Bless. It's not that simple. Well, yes, its not. It's a Beetles song, heard many times before, that I can play bits of and that many will be a...

No. And that repeated mischaracterisation of those who reject indirect realism is at the heart of why these threads are interminable. Sometimes you se...

So because our calling it a "flower" is a social construct, we never see the flower?

What is it that you think this shows? So: The flower is one object; the fish, one object. There's a view that we only see things indirectly, and that ...

Fucksake. Yea, people may not mean what they say nor say what they mean, so we might as well just give away the whole thing hey?

Are we now playing posts-last-wins?

So it seems. :wink:

:wink: I simply repeated what you had already said, adding an observation about forum etiquette.

That just takes us back to the first few pages, about whether facts are just true statements or if the term is to be restricted to only physical state...

It is clear you have not followed the argument. You are under no obligation to participate.

I don't understand any of that. What's a "stance-independent act"?

I agree. But I baulk whenever someone says "It's subjective". It's a distinction I don't think is of as much use as some folk supose.

"stance-independent fact"? There are "non-stance-independent facts"? And these are not true? I don't see any meat in your posts. I'm not at all sure o...

T-sentences are about true, not belief. Was that your argument? If the tree is a Eucalypt, then it is true that "The tree is a Eucalypt" If you believ...

I think you said that we need agreement in order to proceed. Well, that's what I said. And I'm happy to add respect, where appropriate.