Banno

I'd suppose it was sunset. I'm saying the range does not give the definition of red; nor is the range fixed; nor is it delimited.

That no one thing, or group of things, need be common to all cases of the use of "red". No A, B, or C such that X is "red" IFF X is (A & B & C) No A, ...

You keep atributing this to me and attacking it. It's not what I said. And I've explained that several times. EDIT - Oh. fuck Maybe I did say that. Eh...

It's aRse hole. Unless you are asinine.

You're ignoring what I've said. You look at the thing, and choose a word that might work. What do you think is the problem with that? Spell it out.

Philosophers are the last people you should let tell you what to do.

No. See this bit: At best you might call it a family resemblance.

They learn the same way they do for you - by asking for the red cup and getting the one they want. Yours is a non-issue. Or did you learn to pass the ...

What's that, then? Pass me the red cup. So long as you pass me the cup I want, so long as it works, there is no correct meaning for "red". "No, Banno ...

:brow: As if the linguistic turn never happened.

No. The only thing common to our use of the word red might be our use of the word red. ...and the structure is...? if it is the use of the word, then ...

The sky will not have changed colour, if that is what you mean. So what. Wrong. If it were just unnecessary it might not have such consequences as fol...

Not so. They would still fail the Ishihara Test. @"unenlightened"'s friend went for over twenty years without it being noticed that he was colour blin...

That they keep using the word for the wrong thing would be a big clue. Austin - are there a priori concepts?, from the bottom of page 84.

That's the assumption Austin pointed to. I think it is wrong. I say no. Why should there be?

I'm not going to play half-questions today, Frank. To much other stuff to do. I don't have to show that pain is shared, only that there's nothing stop...

Well, part of the reason my eyes glazed over was that the premise appeared misguided. Suppose you look at an apple. The claim is that you have experie...

Yeah, I admit I dozed through that. Any chance of a synopsis? Looked to me that @"Isaac" had the better hand.

That's not what I've argued. I've argued that there is nothing in pain such that it cannot be shared.

"...this..."?

Ok, we might accept that you have constructed a grammar such that it is not possible to feel someone else's pain; that any example of such would be a ...

...indeed. In your case you can carry on believing something despite the facts. :up:

As can you. Cheers.

You're kidding yourself here. Sure, measuring pain is not exact. But you said: There is. Mirror cells and mirror-touch synesthesia show this to be que...

Are types universals? Again, I can't see how bringing in a another controversy will be of any help here.

...which is to entirely miss the topic. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/503394

Because words are a philosopher's tools, and one ought understand one's tools.

...so you wish to clarify the fraught notion of pain by bringing in a fraught analogy with the fraught notion of tokens. I'll just point out that ther...

What are you talking abut, Bert? Tokens or pains? If tokens, where is the token in stubbing your toe? And if I see you stub your toe, I might indeed s...

That's just not so. "The pain has moved to my back" makes sense. And yet: Pain assessment and measurement ...because it's not obvious. Don't you find ...

Here's the SEP example: Three tokens of the type "a". Which one is private?

Tokens were mentioned earlier, sending me off to the SEP to look again at the type-token distinction. Nothing there seems to indicate that tokens are ...

We should take the time to relate this back to the OP. There, I questioned what it was to share a common understanding of supposed intersubjective phe...

You apparently argued that the pain in one person could not be the same as the pain in another person because "It's not even in precisely the same loc...

Pains move around and change in intensity, contrary to your: See my comments on the same nose, here

I'm not sure. DO we agree that money has value only because of a shared belief in that value?

Unjustifiable? Because it's a usage that don't fit your narrative. It has a clear use; the pains are the same - as the descriptions you yourself provi...

Yep. What I said.

Yep. What I said.

No, Frank.

I just put on some slippers. The claim you made, that theneeds rethinking.

A small comment here. There's a complexity to the ownership of the transplanted nose that I think worth paying some small attention to; and that is, w...

A good post. The difference is between truth and belief. If one were to look for the thing that most folk around here get wrong more than any other, i...

Moreover, you did not comment on this: which was in reply to your: which in turn was a reply to Notice how poor @"frank", above, now thinks he knows n...

Anyone else find this problematic? My feet are cold. There's a truth. I know my coffee cup is empty - expect for the dregs. How could Frank have it so...

Truth is a property of statements. Beauty isn't. They are different things.

...so some guy Baker knows says Camus "solved" nihilism, not "many people". "...solved...".

Yep. Hence the next part of what I wrote.

Anyone?

So... to teach someone to draw in perspective, we write "Pick a vanishing point, draw lines from the foreground to the vanishing point. Lay your stuff...