Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:20 am
You are confused. You used 'QED' to indicate you'd supposedly shown something about my argument. Go back and check it. What had you shown? Don't evade the question.
Peter, I am going to evade the question for as long as you keep evading the challenge.
When you step up - so will I. Lead the way.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
If concepts are ideas, why have two words for the same thing?
Is this the first time you've heard of a synonym? People draw distinctions for all sorts of linguistic reasons.
It helps with elucidation.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Is a concept technically different in some way from an idea?
There's nothing "technical" about informal communication. It's adaptive in real-time.
I could CHOOSE to use the words "concept" and "idea" interchangeably; or I could CHOOSE to use them to mean different things.
Use is meaning.
Different use is different meaning.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
And in what way is an abstract idea different from a non-abstract or 'concrete' idea? And what is a concrete idea?
Broadly and generally - it's meaningless to even ask such questions. Meaning is holistic and contextual - you are trying to reduce it and generalise it.
Not going to work.
I am really trying to help you here but you keep ignoring the pertinent question: WHY do you draw the distinctions? What do you use distinctions for?
I told you why I do it - it's a linguistic instrument. It's a
divide-and-conquer approach to communication - it helps guide us to the point of the conversation.
You are still dodging the "why?" question.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Is it a real thing - something we'd find if we opened up someone's brain?
If your thoughts aren't real then why should we listen to you?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
And if so, where are those pesky abstract ideas? And if an idea is a thought or suggestion, why have the word 'thought'? And so on.
Because that's how language works. Somebody, somewhere found it
USEFUL to draw the distinction for some purpose or another. Probably so that they can communicate their idea better to another person. Distinctions and juxtaposition are instruments of language.
Do you even know how to use them for effective communication?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
You have no way to answer those questions - and no one does.
Broadly and generally - nobody can answer them. Particularly and in the context of a particular conversation - everybody can.
We can (re)define the meaning of any words which hinder communication ad-hoc. As and when necessary. Use metaphors, dictionaries, pictures, diagrams or videos - whatever works to get your message across.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
And your use of a dictionary is hilarious, given your contempt for conventional usage.
It was useful to get my message across - I used it.
Your appeal to conventional language is no less hilarious, while you reject conventional notions such as "minds", "thoughts" and "concepts.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Talk about minds and mental things and activities isn't even metaphorical - because there's no literal talk with which to contrast it. All we have is brains and electrochemical processes.
So I am speaking to a mindless person? It shows!
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
More casual bullshit, passed off as evident fact. What is the 'me' that can construct things 'in' 'my' 'mind'?
The question need not be answered for me to accept that SOMETHING produced the sentence above!
Unless, of course you are trying to convince me that the words you are using aren't caused by you. They just freely flow out of you?
For the record - I CHOOSE my words in such a way so as to trigger an image in your mind. My intent is to effectively transmit the ideas from my head into your head. Some times it works - some times it doesn't. So I may have to CHOOSE different words.
Either way - it's an interactive, dynamic and feedback-intensive process. Perhaps you don't do that?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
So we construct concepts in minds (abstract, non-linguistic things), using a generative grammar model theorised and written about in linguistics. Grammar; linguistics. Notice the problem?
No, I don't notice the problem. Are you sure you aren't just making up "problems"?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Hard, I know, when we're seduced and dazzled by impressive, technical-sounding academic bullshit. As you seem to be, permanently.
That's petty ironic, since I am the most anti-academic person on this forum.
I am an engineer first and foremost. I invent/build stuff. Languages included.
If it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
So fucking what? What's the big gotcha moment here? Are you giving up on your useless appeal to concepts now, and reverting to where we've always been all along - with language?
There is no "gotcha" moment you moron! You THINK that there is one - that's why you are constantly on the defence. It's your Philosophical bias shining through - philosophy is adversarial, communication is cooperative.
You are literally unable to communicate because you think the world is going to cheat you.
We always have been with language, but the argument you have been making is that there is a particular way we use language. "The way we use language" is the foundation of your argument.
There is no particular way in which we use language - language evolves literally as we use it. It's not a solid foundation.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Ooo. How thought-bubblingly exciting; there are different logics - so no logic is the correct logic.
Yet another silly strawman. It is precisely because there is CHOICE in the matter is why you need to tackle the issue of HOW to choose the "correct" (what does that mean?!?!?) logic from the bag of logics.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
And that means it's all a mess, everything we call true falls apart
18th or 19th strawman - I am actually losing count. Truth doesn't fall apart.
Two people with two different conceptions of "truth" are talking across paradigms - until we find common ground there's no moving forward.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
there are no facts, only opinions, blah, blah. When do you plan to get over this first-grade frisson of subversive naughtiness?
When you tackle the problem of choice.
For every assertion you deem "correct" - I will raise the question: Who decides and how?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
And I think you're intellectually challenged - and blissfully unaware of it.
But you just rejected "minds" as nonsensical delusions. How are you using the word "think" if you don't have a mind?
think
intransitive verb To have or formulate
in the mind.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Back to the pseudo-technical bollocks.
I am not sure what you mean by "back to". There's not an ounce of technicality in Philosophy.
It's a synonym for "concept" and "idea". If you are so fucking baffled by synonyms - I imagine your brain will explode when we get to metaphors!
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
More nonsensical blather. How does analysing the component parts of a sentence have anything to do with the meaning of expressions such as 'my' and 'your'? Do their meanings change according to the 'framework'? And what the hell is a framework in this context?
It is obvious to me that you don't know the first thing about linguistics. I doubt I can teach you in a forum post.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Why don't you fuck off and learn how to think critically and skeptically?
Peter, my name is a portmanteau of "skeptic" and "dick". Skepticism and critical thought is literally what I am trying to teach you.
You can't call yourself a skeptic or a critical thinker until you've deconstructed every single idea you've been programmed with while you were still gullible.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:30 pm
Look where all your good-boy homework got you? Mired in metaphysical delusion.
Are you at all comfortable with the idea that science is the best metaphysic available to humans circa 2019?
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
No. Try again. Think it through. Language is language - the use of signs, which are real things.
"Language is language" is circular and vacuous. That is the premise you need us to accept so that you can get your argument off the ground, and so that's precisely the premise I am going to grill you on.
Language is a complex system. The "realness" of signs is entirely moot - humans care about the meaning of signs, not their "realness".
Different people use signs differently!
The sign P in English means something entirely different to the sign Р in Russian.
Hieroglyphs from ancient civilisations are real - we have no fucking idea what they mean.
I speak the language that I speak - you speak the language that you speak. There is clearly an overlap because we are still speaking to each other, but it's also clear distinction in the way you use language and the way I use language - which is the very reason why we can't find common ground.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophical bullshit that mistakes some signs - abstract nouns - for things about which to speculate.
Strawman 22? Fuck it. Why am I still counting?
Logic is metaphysics.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
And the 'meaning' is some kind of abstract thing that somehow existed inside the symbols? It's pathetic that you've swallowed this pseudo-scientific crap and fondly believe it.
Strawman 23.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
Exact metaphysical concepts? Blather and nonsense.
Yes, Peter. Humans can explain their meaning to computers. Using language.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
Metaphysical bullshit, like all '[abstract noun] is ... ' proclamations.
There is nothing "mystical" about the computer you are using right now.
It functions because of the way its hardware and software interact. Software is that which humans explained to the computer using LANGUAGE.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
Ah, so here is where you're going wrong: 'all assertions are made by subjects (people), and are therefore inherently subjective.' That's just a misunderstanding of the way we standardly use these words with reference to the nature of assertions.
Who is this "we" you keep talking about and what is "the way " they use the word "subjective"?
Because I think you scored an own goal. By rejecting the concept of a mind the dictionary definition just became off-limits for you.
subjective adj. Dependent on or taking place in a person's
mind rather than the external world.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
Subjective assertions express judgements, beliefs or opinions; objective assertions avoid judgements
ALL assertions are performed by SUBJECTS and are therefore SUBJECTIVE.
If there was no subject there would be no assertions of any kind.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:01 am
beliefs or opinions when describing facts (states-of-affairs). Since there are states-of-affairs, and since they can be described correctly - given the conventional way we use signs in a context - there can be objective assertions, given the way we use the word 'objective' in this context.
The fact that an assertion must come from a person doesn't mean it must be subjective. Amazing that your whole argument boils down to this mistake. What a fucking waste of time and effort.
RIGHT THERE!!!
Within the context of our conversation you are conceptualising the notion of "facts" and "opinions" using language - you are literally INVENTING the meaning of those words!!!
WHY are you inventing it?
WHO decides the "correctness" of any particular description and HOW?