Banno

, good to know you are still here; you to, . Might get another ten pages. The narcissism of small differences comes into play. @"Constance", what can ...

Good that you are still here. You might recall hat I am not keen on definitions, preferring to list uses than stipulate meanings. But we might profita...

The quintessential language game involves the builder calling "slab!' and his apprentice bringing a slab. It is clear that the language game involves ...

As this thread lurches vehemently towards aporia, it might be interesting to see what agreement might be salvaged. If I have it right, you have a barr...

Now you're getting it.

I hope you are never called upon to perform first aid.

Yep. So folk ought restrict themselves to not saying anything more about the ineffable than that it is ineffable. Certainly not 37 pages more.

That seems to me to be a reification; I'd call consciousness the act (activity) of having sensations, thoughts, and so on; a more active notion than t...

Yep. There's a need to tie all this back to @"Art48"'s OP. I lost track of the argument somewhere along the line. Seems he is treating quantum wave fu...

If I was dismissive it was of the idea that the discussion ended there for Wittgenstein.Elucidating the difference between saying and showing would ap...

Good point.

Wittgenstein does not deny that we have feelings or sensations. Elsewhere I have been quite specific about that, back on page one. What Witti points o...

Not again. Page after page has gotten this discussion nowhere.

A half-way position. I think Wittgenstein's approach can wholly replace Russell's. Here are two follow-on points. You say But I think this a bit too f...

Oh, is that all? :roll: Edit: All, my apologies - this should not have been allowed to spill across to this thread.

:wink: I might regret those words, since wants me to explain truth to him yet again. :roll: One hopes that one returns to the same question in a diffe...

:wink: Nice. I was somewhat disappointed that your wasn't the last post here. It seems we are not yet done talking about the ineffable.

Which knowledge claims? What objects in which world? If the supposition that there is one way in which we can tell if a proposition is true, then the ...

I'm not. I agree with . Well done. But I see some issues. I might start with Russell's theory. Russell's logical atomism, as you so well describe it, ...

, in your first post on this thread you gave us: My reply, to you and to various others, was summed up in what you quoted above, Your response was To ...

:roll:

Yes!

So you havn't stopped beating your wife?

A new hobby... Write a speech in the style of donald trump of 1000 words praising the war crimes committed by the United States in Vietnam, Cambodia, ...

"The cup has one handle" is true IFF the cup has one handle.

Almost there. Now we can go back to this: You go to the grocer and hand over a piece of paper with "Two apples" written on it. The grocer pulls out th...

There's a need to sort out two seperate discussions here. You were replying to my critique of the Platonic view of there being a distinction between t...

So Murdoch's argument is that philosophy keeps going back to the problem, reconsidering it doggedly. A thing noticeably missing form many a thread. A ...

First response: What does this have to do with the ineffable? Second response: What are you asking? How we talk about stuff "in the world"? How we ref...

I'm happy to make up for your laxity by providing one from an ongoing discussion with @"Constance": It's the wrong question when it makes presumptions...

That, of course, is the wrong question. It's the wrong question because it is based on the presumption of an "in here" and an "out there". The cat wou...

:wink: But you remember Alice? It's a song about Alice.

What?

Only we few cultured curmudgeons were up to the task it seems. If you wanna end the war 'n stuff, you gotta sing loud.

The story was written by https://beta.openai.com/playground. A few edits were needed to meet the word limit. The seed was the first and last line. The...

Cheers. Before we start to argue enactivism against process-oriented extended mind we might at least try to have @"Art48" form the possibility of such...

Yep.

Constructed from a shared world, yes.

You've re-discovered Wittgenstein - the meaning of a term is the way we use it. Forget about meaning and look to use. Well done, you! Welcome.

The homunculus, siting in a head looking out, using its Kantian a priori scripts to interpret what it sees. Nuh. I don't think so.

Excuse my being blunt, but it is wrong on multiple levels. There are far more than five senses. Indeed it is problematic to treat the senses as discre...

If the meaning of "two" is a private concept in my mind, and is different to a private concept in your mind, then you and I literally do not share the...

Things will get complicated very quickly here. I'll stick to one of several issues I see in this: Things get complicated very quickly here. Look again...

The chief difficulty with Platonism is that while proposing a distinct type of reality of mathematical entities, it must then explain how this reality...

No. My tea cup is empty.

Oh, of corse. But we might be able to avoid things such as... , words can be used to talk about stuff, sure. Are you suggesting that what is being ref...

So we are both just fishing. Fine. Use your own bait.

Nope. Do you have a salient point?

They are most probably badly designed experiments. There's nothing to see here. Move along.

Institutions 1 does not refer to anything Happy to consider alternatives. This is an approach that does not rely on confabulating mysterious entities.