Banno

Indeed.

Perhaps the Universe was sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure's nose.

That your OP stands on a misconstrual of meaning. Meanign is constructed by people; DNA has no meaning. You might be able to build a similar argument ...

Neither. Don't look to meaning, look to use.

Not only have you not solved the hard problem, you have not understood it.

Any meaning in DNA is there because of what we do with that DNA.

And yet you all but repeat it , here:

Proper names do not refer in virtue of a description of the thing to which they refer. Kripke, possible world semantics and all that stuff.

Ever noticed how much these arguments resemble the scholastic discussions of the existence of god?

You do not seem to be addressing the criticism found in the article,

I don't know where "You're saying that it would simply be universally agreed at what point the fertilised egg ceased being Jacqueline and started bein...

Depends on the content.

Since we are here to talk philosophy, one should be charitable to someone who presented a criticism of what one had said, and to try to understand the...

. Yes, indead. About Jack. No.

Are you sure...? What would applying the arguments here to moral discourse entail? There's a worthy thread.

Perhaps the OP is a bit dry. So let's cut to the good bit:This article kills relativism.

Not too much to disagree with. Well, being embedded in a shared world, they would. There are, I'll contend, some who ought be excluded; the law of dim...

The physical example, relativistic theory, is very clear. Given your predilection and understanding of physics, @"Terrapin Station", I'm puzzled at yo...

For me it's a carry over from critique of indirect realism. When I talk about my cat, Jack, I'm not talking about a model-of-Jack that sits in my head...

It seems we are talking about quite different things. I, about conceptual schema, you, about something to do with perception.

https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/jbell/conceptualscheme.pdf If folk are interested, it might be worth a seperate thread to work through...

No. I am under no obligation to you.

Exactly wrong. That's what he throws out.

If you have a choice, then go for it. I seem to keep getting dragged back to it.

I suspect that as a profession, the path they found themselves on was self-defeating. One will not attract many students to study philosophy if the up...

But what is worthy of note is the much greater role played by logic in analytic philosophy than in continental. Hence my bias that there is something ...

Others have called it an extension of Peirce. I'll leave such things as moot.

Nice.

What to do with you, Harry. You do not inspre me to put in the effort needed to reply to you. Take: They might be making the claim so it only applies ...

How?

I can see how that might be argued...:chin: I entirely agree that Moore is unappreciated - from what you say, even by yourself. I keep returning to Pr...

Masbe. I do like beef curry. But Moroccan lamb is brilliant, and its spicy. And Roganjosh is only for lamb or goat.

Yes, Shh.

After this conversation I bough a small rolled rump, roasted it with lemon and then sliced it onto flatbread, with humus, roast eggplant, tomatoes, ol...

I'm not suggesting that it's a categorical imperative. That's the point.

And I can't answer your questions because I can't see what you are asking. Hence, our conversations remain unproductive, and a bit frustrating. The th...

Yep. I'm going to plant some peas.

I'm told it is a Celtic characteristic.

This is the first real criticism of my approach that we've had here - so thanks. There's a point to the notion of the view from nowhere that doesn't g...

:up: But when I say it, they are "doing bad philosophy" and "talking nonsense".

You can do that, if you like.

...then this forum is in worse shape than I thought.

What about it?

Do you think that all words gain their meaning form the thing they refer to? Is that where we disagree?

Yep.

Can't fault his enthusiasm.

@"Baden": Look! You are having an impact outside of your thread!

I'm lost, Harry. What are you arguing for?

Were's @"Sam26"?

You know that is not what was said.