Luke

A value is a number. Do you acknowledge that? Given your two claims above, it looks like you now accept that the “abstract feature” of a value/number ...

First you claim that there is no intermediary between symbols and objects, but now you claim that there are both numbers and sets between them? Make u...

Then you must concede that there exists an intermediary between a symbol (numeral) and an object: a value. A value is a number. Numerals represent num...

Different numerals can represent the same number (or value), such as "4" and "IV". Also, different expressions can represent the same number (or value...

Fair enough, perhaps you have found a way out of the paradox by lying about P. What if you don't lie about it?

So "1" is not a number? Or, is it specifically that "1" is not an object called "a number"? Who is claiming that "1" is an object?

Doesn't that make your belief false, then?

Then it is also false regarding your belief?

Well, you've only lied about it raining, not about your belief, so is it true or false?

Yes, I edited that comment to "The absurdity is in someone asserting ‘P is true but I don’t believe P’", but too late it seems. Right, well, at least ...

Let me see if I follow your thinking here. Let’s assume it’s not really raining, but I lie about it. I assert ‘It’s raining but I believe it’s not rai...

The absurdity is in someone asserting ‘P and I don’t believe that P’ (or ‘P and I believe that not-P’).

I don't see what difference lying makes. Even if I were to lie in asserting that it's raining, what sense does it make to also assert that I don't bel...

I did explain it above. You didn't respond to it (to both aspects of it). To repeat: Why would you assert it to be true if you don't believe it? And w...

As I said, the absurdity is in the dual assertion. You need to deal with both parts of the assertion, not just one. Otherwise, you're not really talki...

Asserting something to be true, while simultaneously asserting your belief that it's not true. Why would you assert it to be true if you don't believe...

You might have missed my edit. Again, from SEP: The common explanation of Moore’s absurdity is that the speaker has managed to contradict himself with...

As given in the Wikipedia article I posted above: It can be true at a particular time both that P, and that I do not believe that P. I can assert or b...

That's all true, but the absurdity is when one asserts both together. Even if I were to lie about it raining outside, it still is (and/or sounds) absu...

Because it sounds absurd. Doesn't it?

It matters when one asserts (e.g.): "It is raining outside, but I believe that it's not raining outside".

Maybe a better example of Moore's paradox is the one given in the SEP: Wikipedia provides the following explanation:

Does “1” refer to an object called “a number”?

So we can’t add 1+1 - is that your argument? Because “1” is identical to itself? All mathematicians are wrong? How is “1” an object anyway? I note thi...

How can "two distinct instances of the same object" amount to only one object? This is like arguing over the rules of chess with someone who doesn't k...

Did you even look at the Wikipedia page I linked to earlier on Value (mathematics)? It's quite short; here's most of it: A mathematical value can be a...

How is, e.g. the set of natural numbers, relative to your own personal decision? Also, how can it be relative if your decision "does not change the na...

This appears quite different to your previous comments, where the value was not relative to a mathematical system, but instead relative to you: You al...

You don't seem familiar with the mathematical use of the term "value", which can describe any number or any result of a calculation (such as "2+2"). I...

There is no "logical premise" involved; that's simply how we use mathematical equations: the equals sign means that the value on the left is equal to ...

You repeat the confusion. "Different expressions of the same value" are different wrt their expressions (or "representations"), but the same wrt their...

I see. You are emphasising the difference in representation. This is no different to what I mean when I say that they are different expressions of the...

Feel free to explain the difference between "representing the value one dollar" and "representing something equal to a dollar" to anyone who cares to ...

Fair enough. I was only trying to make clear that I wasn't disagreeing with you.

And (in agreement with you), as @"boethius" himself already quoted:

“2+2” is equal to a value of 4. I don’t see how this can be so difficult for you. You are no longer arguing about identity. You are now arguing agains...

2+2=4. You said that you don't deny this equation. How can "2+2" and "4" be equal if "2+2" does not express a value (i.e. a quantity, number, amount)?...

Yes, because our discussion was in the context of mathematics. Or do you think that mathematics is all about monetary value (i.e. desirability/worth)?...

I don’t see why it doesn’t make sense. If we assume mind-brain state identity, then using either mind state vocabulary or brain state vocabulary is ma...

Perhaps you are unaware that a word can have more than one meaning or use. You seemed to have little difficulty understanding what I was talking about...

I agree so far.

Nice argument. However, it seems to demonstrate (or assume?) only that brain state vocabulary is not identical to mental state vocabulary. How do you ...

Your point is simply that "2+2" and "4" are written differently or use different symbols. Or, as I said earlier, they are different expressions of the...

So you agree that the group resulting from this operation of addition is “4 apples”? That is, you agree that “2 apples + 2 apples” = “4 apples”? It is...

And why does "2 apples + 2 apples" "not represent the same thing" as "4 apples"?

If ““2+2”...does not represent the same thing as “4””, then in what sense are they equal?

https://twitter.com/thekjlynch/status/1287709584581259266?s=21

If you can't even follow the discussion, then never mind.

Do you understand what you mean by it (in your first sentence of the quote above)? Why do you think I mean anything different? You’re arguing against ...