Reformulating the analytic/synthetic distinction to make it unequivocal

[PeteOlcott]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

The above analytic versus empirical distinction would seem to overcome any possible objection that this distinction cannot be made unequivocal.

Semantic Tautology
I am creating a brand new idea that I named {semantic tautology}. A semantic tautology occurs when a new combination of ideas is assigned to a word or phrase making a brand new term. To verify that a semantic tautology is true only requires verifying that this set of ideas has been assigned to this term. That cats are animals is an example of a semantic tautology.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

[RCSaunders]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

No knowledge is provided by direct perception. All higher animals have direct perception but it does not produce knowledge for them. Empirical knowledge is only possible by the rational identification of the existents direct perception makes available to identify and study. Only human beings are capable of intellectual knowledge.

Sorry, but your dichotomy is wrong on both counts. You have apparently been influenced by Kantian nonsense, as well as linguistic analysis and logical positivism. It's not a criticism, just and observation.

[Peter Holmes]

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

1 To my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of abstract things, such as concepts and propositions. Which lack of evidence may not mean they don't exist - only that to believe they do exist is irrational.

2 A so-called proposition, with a subject and predicate, and a (sometimes) a truth-value, is identical to a declarative sentence. The so-called logical form of a sentence is just another sentence.

3 The term propositional knowledge conflates and confuses two separate and different things: what we know and how we express it. Knowledge of features of reality is not knowledge of propositions. The JTB truth condition - S knows that p iff p is true - expresses and promotes the myth of propositions - an ancient metaphysical delusion. Reality and thought are not linguistic, so they can't be propositional. We just use sentences to express beliefs and knowledge-claims.

4 A feature of reality, such as a dog, is not the meaning of the word dog, and nor is it the meaning of the fictional concept 'dog'. A dog is just what we call a dog - that furry thing we can know and know about, through direct perception, and by other means.

Sorry, but your whole analysis is a conceptual mess.

[Skepdick]

1 To my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of abstract things, such as concepts and propositions. Which lack of evidence may not mean they don't exist - only that to believe they do exist is irrational.

Well, what evidence is there for the existence of your "knowledge", Peter?

If you can't offer any evidence then surely it's irrational to believe your knowledge exists.

Alas, these things clearly require explanation.

"Knowledge" is an abstract idea. A concept!
"Evidence" is an abstract idea. A concept!
"Existence" is an abstract idea. A concept!
"Thing" is an abstract idea. A concept!
"Belief" is an abstract idea. A concept!
"Rationality" is an abstract idea. A concept!
"Conception" is an abstract idea. A concept!

Language is recursive. It always leads to self-reference.

"Language" is an abstract idea. A concept!
The "self" is an abstract idea! A concept!

If you don't believe in concepts, then you are totally irrational for believing in yourself, language, rationality, belief, things, existence, evidence and knowledge!

[Skepdick]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

The above analytic versus empirical distinction would seem to overcome any possible objection that this distinction cannot be made unequivocal.

Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

You have simply worked your way up to Donald Knuth's world-view.

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do..

You need to go much, much higher into the abstraction tower.

Here's reading:

Geometry of interaction
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Geometry+of+Interaction
https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~drg/papers/icfp11.pdf

[RCSaunders]

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

1 To my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of abstract things, such as concepts and propositions. Which lack of evidence may not mean they don't exist - only that to believe they do exist is irrational.

2 A so-called proposition, with a subject and predicate, and a (sometimes) a truth-value, is identical to a declarative sentence. The so-called logical form of a sentence is just another sentence.

3 The term propositional knowledge conflates and confuses two separate and different things: what we know and how we express it. Knowledge of features of reality is not knowledge of propositions. The JTB truth condition - S knows that p iff p is true - expresses and promotes the myth of propositions - an ancient metaphysical delusion. Reality and thought are not linguistic, so they can't be propositional. We just use sentences to express beliefs and knowledge-claims.

4 A feature of reality, such as a dog, is not the meaning of the word dog, and nor is it the meaning of the fictional concept 'dog'. A dog is just what we call a dog - that furry thing we can know and know about, through direct perception, and by other means.

Sorry, but your whole analysis is a conceptual mess.

Don't be sorry. I thought the calculus was a mess until I understood it.

To my knowledge

What is that? since ...

there's no evidence for the existence of abstract things.

[Peter Holmes]

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

1 To my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of abstract things, such as concepts and propositions. Which lack of evidence may not mean they don't exist - only that to believe they do exist is irrational.

2 A so-called proposition, with a subject and predicate, and a (sometimes) a truth-value, is identical to a declarative sentence. The so-called logical form of a sentence is just another sentence.

3 The term propositional knowledge conflates and confuses two separate and different things: what we know and how we express it. Knowledge of features of reality is not knowledge of propositions. The JTB truth condition - S knows that p iff p is true - expresses and promotes the myth of propositions - an ancient metaphysical delusion. Reality and thought are not linguistic, so they can't be propositional. We just use sentences to express beliefs and knowledge-claims.

4 A feature of reality, such as a dog, is not the meaning of the word dog, and nor is it the meaning of the fictional concept 'dog'. A dog is just what we call a dog - that furry thing we can know and know about, through direct perception, and by other means.

Sorry, but your whole analysis is a conceptual mess.

Don't be sorry. I thought the calculus was a mess until I understood it.

To my knowledge

What is that? since ...

there's no evidence for the existence of abstract things.

To repeat: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist'.

'Ah, but how can you believe in justice, if you think abstract things don't exist?'

Dammit. Got me there. Game over. (Ffs.)

[Skepdick]

To repeat: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist'.

What and where is an "answer"?
What and where is "equivocation" ?

What do you mean by "exist" if existence is not an abstract idea? What and where is it?

[PeteOlcott]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

No knowledge is provided by direct perception. All higher animals have direct perception but it does not produce knowledge for them. Empirical knowledge is only possible by the rational identification of the existents direct perception makes available to identify and study. Only human beings are capable of intellectual knowledge.

Sorry, but your dichotomy is wrong on both counts. You have apparently been influenced by Kantian nonsense, as well as linguistic analysis and logical positivism. It's not a criticism, just and observation.

Your entire rebuttal was self-contradictory in that it was knowledge encoded as strings of characters.

[RCSaunders]

The way that I divide analytic from synthetic may be unconventional. Every aspect of knowledge that can be represented in language and encoded as strings of characters is {analytic knowledge}. Every aspect of knowledge that can only be perceived as sensations through the sense organs is {empirical knowledge}. I discard the use of the term synthetic.

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

No knowledge is provided by direct perception. All higher animals have direct perception but it does not produce knowledge for them. Empirical knowledge is only possible by the rational identification of the existents direct perception makes available to identify and study. Only human beings are capable of intellectual knowledge.

Sorry, but your dichotomy is wrong on both counts. You have apparently been influenced by Kantian nonsense, as well as linguistic analysis and logical positivism. It's not a criticism, just and observation.

Your entire rebuttal was self-contradictory in that it was knowledge encoded as strings of characters.

זה ההסבר. סמלים אינם ידע.
Also:
Tidak masalah karakter apa yang digunakan.
as well as:
2ud34kekdw80023uip.
Since, "strings of characters," are knowledge, you should have no problem understanding that explanation.

You are confusing, "information," as in, "information theory," with, "information," meaning knowledge, which is an equivocation.

[PeteOlcott]

Your entire rebuttal was self-contradictory in that it was knowledge encoded as strings of characters.

זה ההסבר. סמלים אינם ידע.
Also:
Tidak masalah karakter apa yang digunakan.
as well as:
2ud34kekdw80023uip.
Since, "strings of characters," are knowledge, you should have no problem understanding that explanation.

You are confusing, "information," as in, "information theory," with, "information," meaning knowledge, which is an equivocation.

If knowledge cannot be encoded as strings of characters then everything that you just said must be gibberish.

[PeteOlcott]

To repeat: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist'.

'Ah, but how can you believe in justice, if you think abstract things don't exist?'

Dammit. Got me there. Game over. (Ffs.)

All ideas are abstract things including the idea of the question that you just asked.

[RCSaunders]

No knowledge can be, "encoded," as strings of characters. All knowledge consists of propositions which are constructed of concepts. "Strings of characters," are only symbols which represent concepts and have no meaning in themselves. Only concepts have meaning and what they mean are those existents they identify, that is, refer to. The meaning of a concept is the actual existents, not the concept's definition.

No knowledge is provided by direct perception. All higher animals have direct perception but it does not produce knowledge for them. Empirical knowledge is only possible by the rational identification of the existents direct perception makes available to identify and study. Only human beings are capable of intellectual knowledge.

Sorry, but your dichotomy is wrong on both counts. You have apparently been influenced by Kantian nonsense, as well as linguistic analysis and logical positivism. It's not a criticism, just and observation.

Your entire rebuttal was self-contradictory in that it was knowledge encoded as strings of characters.

זה ההסבר. סמלים אינם ידע.
Also:
Tidak masalah karakter apa yang digunakan.
as well as:
2ud34kekdw80023uip.
Since, "strings of characters," are knowledge, you should have no problem understanding that explanation.

You are confusing, "information," as in, "information theory," with, "information," meaning knowledge, which is an equivocation.

Yes, exactly. Strings of characters have no meaning in themselves. They can be used to represent concepts, which do have meaning, but symbols, by themselves, mean nothing. Symbols do not, "encode," knowledge, they only stand as representatives of concepts, that's why different symbols can represent more than one concept (e.g. light for the concept, "illumination", or light for the concept, "not heavy"), and more than one symbol can represent the same concept (e.g. home, abode, domicile, residence). It's not the symbols that have meaning, it's the concepts they represent.

[Impenitent]

o... letter, number, circle, donut, tube, round

of course it is the anti x in tic tac toe

unequivocally

-Imp

[Peter Holmes]

To repeat: what and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist'.

'Ah, but how can you believe in justice, if you think abstract things don't exist?'

Dammit. Got me there. Game over. (Ffs.)

All ideas are abstract things including the idea of the question that you just asked.

Okay. But what and where are abstract things, such as ideas, and in what way do they exist? Answers, please, without equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist'.

Of course, like statements, commands and exclamations - the other clause functions - questions are real things: sequences of sounds, marks on paper or screen, signing gestures, and so on. None of these is abstract.

(To save time: abstract things aren't things that exist anywhere, which is why no one can ever answer my question without equivocation and further mystification. But the metaphysical delusion runs deep and strong.

'Outrageous! How can you say meaning and truth don't exist? If they don't, how can what you say be true or mean anything?!'

The point is not to come up with a new answer. It's to change the question.)