Luke

Regardless of whether subjectivity is public or private, each of us has their own experiences. I cannot experience anybody else's pain and nobody else...

I think it was fairly clear from my post that I was talking about types and tokens of experience, rather than types and tokens of objects. My point wa...

Even if we allow that everyone has the same type of experience - which is very much in question here - by virtue of being human, it is still obviously...

I don’t deny that we can see the same thing or that we can discuss disagreements, but still I cannot perceive your perceptions or feel your pain. That...

You asked what is not shared. I’ve answered the question.

Like pain, one’s perceptions are not shared - you have yours and I have mine.

One’s subjective experience. My pain is not your pain.

I was responding to your question “why shouldn’t the sharing bring the aspect into being” which suggests a form of idealism, and in this case suggests...

When the doctor asks me what the pain feels like, and I answer "sharp and stabbing", the pain doesn't become sharp and stabbing only after I say it al...

There has to be some degree of consensus or communication would be impossible. Seriously though, I think it's possible there could be both private and...

As though a convention is something that exists only as an idea.

Only according to your own self-imposed stipulation for how the word "rule" should be used. If this is true, as you say, then the second premise of yo...

To be fair, maybe philosophy as therapy hasn't been given much of a chance. I'm not sure that pronouncements can be made about what philosophy or phil...

FFS what does premise #1 have to do with conventions?

Because you've begged the question and presupposed it?

Then:

Do you agree with (at least some interpretations of) Wittgenstein that the role of philosophy then becomes a form of therapy for resolving conceptual ...

From the preceding discussion, obviously. Or perhaps you'd like to try and answer this again:

Oh, I see. It is only a requirement of your argument that a convention is the same as a rule. Okay then.

This must be what you did in your argument, then? You know, since you ended up agreeing that a convention is the same thing as a rule. Breaking a conv...

Yes, but the real takeaway here is that conventions are no different to rules, so rules do not need to be explicitly stated. You could have saved me p...

And the converse is also true? If staying within the boundaries of a convention is the same thing as staying within the boundaries of a rule, then obv...

If what is true? I asked you how do we determine that going outside the boundaries of a convention does not fulfil the criteria of staying within the ...

Was it assumed in the argument that a convention is a rule? If so, this is the first I've heard about it. I asked you two posts ago whether this was t...

How does going outside the boundaries of a convention not fulfil the requirement of staying within the boundaries of a rule? What is the common factor...

Right, okay. Your argument demonstrates that a convention is not the act of following a rule. Or should that be: The act of following a convention is ...

In your argument, you are attempting to prove your conclusion that a convention (B) is not a rule (A). Your argument does not state what is required t...

Then how does the conclusion follow? Explain it to me like I'm a first-grader.

I can see that P1 concerns the act of rule-following. What I don't see from your argument is how P2 concerns the act of rule-following. The argument i...

The only possible connection between P1 and P2 that I can see are the words "act" and "outside of". The logic of your argument is no different to this...

This distinction was made very clear in my last post. Here it is again, simplified for you, ensuring to maintain a very clear distinction between expl...

What do you mean it "changes what the argument is about"? Let's remind ourselves of the original purpose of your argument: You produced your deductive...

How was it “not even similar”? It produces the same conclusion for conventions as it does for explicitly stated rules.

So do you agree with the conclusion that “Explicitly stated rules are not rules which are followed” or were you only humouring me? In your last post y...

You accused me of equivocation earlier because you thought your argument applied only to conventions and not to explicitly stated rules. It seems you'...

I don't refuse to accept the premises (depending on the definition of "often"); I refuse to accept the conclusion. The premises are no less true for t...

Fallacy of ambiguity, hasty generalisation. It has been shown. Read my previous post. A reminder of your original argument: P1. To follow a rule means...

As I said, your argument is invalid. This is what your argument should have been (with a valid conclusion): P1. To follow a rule means to act within t...

Okay, I’ll leave it to Antony to try and explain it to you then.

I would consider "(one) leg" (to pull), "(one) joke" and the pronoun "one" to be different in meaning to "a single unit". Surely "a single unit" is di...

Did you even read my post? Your argument is invalid. The valid conclusion of your argument is that rules are not always followed, not that no rules ar...

It's not my claim, it's yours, as your summary of the conclusion of your own deductive argument: Simply substitute the word "rules" for "conventions" ...

You'll have to do a lot more work than that. If your deductive argument was intended to demonstrate that your "true" rules are very distinct from conv...

It was a shih tzu. In case you missed it, the point of my three examples was to suggest meanings of "one" you may not have thought of, in order to try...

Did you hear the one about the zoo that only had a dog in it?

One could Google it: Pull the other one

Pull the other one.

Oh boy Meta, you are painfully dense. Try substituting "rules" for "conventions and unspoken rules" in your argument: P1. To follow a rule means to ac...

Not all rules are laws. If you believe that conventions are never followed - as the conclusion of your deductive argument implied - then you're a fool...