Anti-realism about truth and facts

[Curious George]

What does "correspond " mean? That an abstraction corresponds (instantiates) to reality?
That involves an infinite regress(as Plato's rebuttal to his own theory of forms,third man shows.).
For example, lets take the correspondence theory of truth (from now on referred to as CTT). The CTT is common sense. Truth is what happens when a concept corresponds to reality. Is the CTT true? Well according to the CTT nothing is true unless it corresponds to reality. Is the CTT true? According to its own definition, if it is true it must correspond to a reality. What is that reality? Another CTT? Hence another infinite regress!
The paradoxs of the CTT were the downfall of logical positivism.

hmmmm, I do not think I was trying to say this. Could you please show me how what I said entails the CTT?

 

[Curious George]

Written patterns do not only correspond to the physical world, they are part and parcel of the physical world. They cannot partake of meaning. Why? Because meaning involves predicates (universals). To speak in predicates (to speak meaningfully ) =to use universals. And universals are not concrete particulars.
However, I agree. It requires consciousness to extract meaning. Knowledge, (meaning) its all in the mind!

No, I am going to disagree. But perhaps I am wrong. Please tell me how something "speaks in predicates"

 

[raw_thought]

Written patterns can correspond to the physical world. Therefore the meaning of one mind can transfer to another mind. That meaning is stored in the patterns it just takes another sentient mind to extract the meaning.

What do you mean by correspond? If reality corresponds to a meaning, that is the CTT!
We must speak in predicates.
http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/subjpred.html
Without predicates language becomes absurd!
At best a sentence could only be a list!

 

[Willamena]

Written patterns can correspond to the physical world.

Perhaps "signify" is a better term.

 

[Curious George]

What do you mean by correspond? If reality corresponds to a meaning, that is the CTT!
We must speak in predicates.
Subject and Predicate
Without predicates language becomes absurd!
At best a sentence could only be a list!

No. I did not say that truth only corresponds to the physical world.

And people are not the only things that can be described with predicates. You are losing me hear. Molecules can move. Inkblots can convey. I can assign verbs to lots of things. The fact that a molecule cannot speak in predicates does not prevent predicates from describing a relationship between the molecule and something else.

 

[Curious George]

Perhaps "signify" is a better term.

Nope, correspond works fine. If my inkblots correspond to a physical pattern which actually exists, another person can decipher that pattern, or another thing can decipher that pattern extract information and utilize that information.

 

[raw_thought]

No. I did not say that truth only corresponds to the physical world.

And people are not the only things that can be described with predicates. You are losing me hear. Molecules can move. Inkblots can convey. I can assign verbs to lots of things. The fact that a molecule cannot speak in predicates does not prevent predicates from describing a relationship between the molecule and something else.

Actually, without consciousness there is no meaning. For example, it can be inferred that an "on" light switch means that the light is on. However, the on light is not the meaning or definition of the light switch.
Similarly, the ink blots ( signifiers *) may be facilitators of Intersubjective - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. However, they do not explain meaning. I always find it humorous when some people talk about inter-subjectivity and yet do not believe in subjectivity (qualia Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))

* Semiotics for Beginners: Signs

 

[Willamena]

I agree. Wittgenstein would also agree. Witt had many words about identity. For example, he said that A=A is a tautology and gives no knowledge.

I hope that Witt also knew that "to give knowledge" isn't the purpose of identity.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, without consciousness there is no meaning. For example, it can be inferred that an "on" light switch means that the light is on. However, the on light is not the meaning or definition of the light switch.
Similarly, the ink blots ( signifiers *) may be facilitators of Intersubjective - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. However, they do not explain meaning. I always find it humorous when some people talk about inter-subjectivity and yet do not believe in subjectivity (qualia Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))

* Semiotics for Beginners: Signs

I am pretty sure that I could design two programs which could capture some form of data and relay that data to each other. The data that these two systems relayed could also alter the data that the other gathered. This operation can continue even when no conscious beings exist. Yet the information would still mean something to each of the systems. So, I guess I fail to see why consciousness is a requirement.

But maybe I am misunderstanding you. Why do you feel that I do not believe in subjectivity. I certainly do. But I also recognize that we can store meaning. When meaning is stored in a sign, saying that the sign has no meaning is misleading.

 

[raw_thought]

“I am pretty sure that I could design two programs which could capture some form of data and relay that data to each other.”
Curious George
I am sure you could but it would have no bearing on what we are talking about. Suppose, I want to transfer the information “1+1=2”. I send it via Morse code and the receiver spits out “1+1=2”. “1+1=2” is just a sound pattern ( of dots and dashes) , it has no meaning, until it enters consciousness. Computers only (and can only) manipulate signifiers. There are no signifieds in a computer. Without signifieds ( concepts) there can be no meaning.

 

[Curious George]

“I am pretty sure that I could design two programs which could capture some form of data and relay that data to each other.”
Curious George
I am sure you could but it would have no bearing on what we are talking about. Suppose, I want to transfer the information “1+1=2”. I send it via Morse code and the receiver spits out “1+1=2”. “1+1=2” is just a sound pattern ( of dots and dashes) , it has no meaning, until it enters consciousness. Computers only (and can only) manipulate signifiers. There are no signifieds in a computer. Without signifieds ( concepts) there can be no meaning.

I am not talking about how the data is sent with the computer programs, I am talking about what the system does with the information that is sent. a program can act on information. Though we must necessarily limit the actions to preprogrammed responses, the program still acts. That is you could not describe what the program does without a predicate. Thus, consciousness is hardly necessary for predicates. So either consciousness is not a necessary component of a meaning maker or meaning does not exclusively rest with meaning makers.

 

[raw_thought]

I suppose if I was willing to stretch the definition of “meaning” to be almost all encompassing, I would agree with you. Let’s take an example, there is a pile of rocks and they are in their positions because of nature (weather, etc.). Those rocks transfer their “data” to me by light (the light from the sun reflects off of them and I can then see them). Is meaning being transferred to me? In an exaggerated sense yes! One can even say that those rocks are transferring geological meaning to me. For example, let’s say, from their pattern I can calculate that there was a river bed there a million years ago. However, as I said previously, to say that meaning was transferred from the rocks to me, to me at least seems an exaggeration.
Only consciousness can create meaning.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
““Thus, consciousness is hardly necessary for predicates.”
Curious George
The word “blue” is just an ink pattern ( not a predicate) if there is no consciousness .
Suppose the ink pattern “blue” causes the ink pattern “this particular part of the spectrum”. Without consciousness there are no signifieds.
Now of course, I agree, one can write letters etc. However, without qualia they are meaningless. I always find it humorous when some people talk about inter-subjectivity and yet do not believe in subjectivity (qualia). It is impossible to have intersubjectivity without subjectivity ( qualia).

 

[Curious George]

I suppose if I was willing to stretch the definition of “meaning” to be almost all encompassing, I would agree with you. Let’s take an example, there is a pile of rocks and they are in their positions because of nature (weather, etc.). Those rocks transfer their “data” to me by light (the light from the sun reflects off of them and I can then see them). Is meaning being transferred to me? In an exaggerated sense yes! One can even say that those rocks are transferring geological meaning to me. For example, let’s say, from their pattern I can calculate that there was a river bed there a million years ago. However, as I said previously, to say that meaning was transferred from the rocks to me, to me at least seems an exaggeration.
Only consciousness can create meaning.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
““Thus, consciousness is hardly necessary for predicates.”
Curious George
The word “blue” is just an ink pattern ( not a predicate) if there is no consciousness .
Suppose the ink pattern “blue” causes the ink pattern “this particular part of the spectrum”. Without consciousness there are no signifieds.
Now of course, I agree, one can write letters etc. However, without qualia they are meaningless. I always find it humorous when some people talk about inter-subjectivity and yet do not believe in subjectivity (qualia). It is impossible to have intersubjectivity without subjectivity ( qualia).

I am pretty confused why you keep thinking anyone is failing to talk about subjectivity.

 

[Curious George]

I suppose if I was willing to stretch the definition of “meaning” to be almost all encompassing, I would agree with you. Let’s take an example, there is a pile of rocks and they are in their positions because of nature (weather, etc.). Those rocks transfer their “data” to me by light (the light from the sun reflects off of them and I can then see them). Is meaning being transferred to me? In an exaggerated sense yes! One can even say that those rocks are transferring geological meaning to me. For example, let’s say, from their pattern I can calculate that there was a river bed there a million years ago. However, as I said previously, to say that meaning was transferred from the rocks to me, to me at least seems an exaggeration.
Only consciousness can create meaning.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
““Thus, consciousness is hardly necessary for predicates.”
Curious George
The word “blue” is just an ink pattern ( not a predicate) if there is no consciousness .
Suppose the ink pattern “blue” causes the ink pattern “this particular part of the spectrum”. Without consciousness there are no signifieds.
Now of course, I agree, one can write letters etc. However, without qualia they are meaningless. I always find it humorous when some people talk about inter-subjectivity and yet do not believe in subjectivity (qualia). It is impossible to have intersubjectivity without subjectivity ( qualia).

I do not think my computer program hypothetical stretched the meaning of "meaning" at all.

 

[raw_thought]

Subjectivity= qualia. Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Are you saying that computers have qualia ( awareness)?
1. There can be no meaning without intersubjectivity .
2. There can be no intersubjectivity without subjectivity.
3. There cannot be subjectivity without qualia.
4. Therefore, there cannot be meaning without qualia.
Since you are claiming that computers can contain meaning, it follows that you must conclude that computers are conscious.

 

[raw_thought]

Physical objects (in this case signifiers Signifier - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary) cannot be true or false. A rock for example, simply exists; it is not true or false. Without qualia, any signifiers used are not true or false. Therefore, if one says that consciousness is not required for meaning if one is consistent he must admit that what he claims is gibberish ( meaningless)

 

[Curious George]

Subjectivity= qualia. Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Are you saying that computers have qualia ( awareness)?
1. There can be no meaning without intersubjectivity .
2. There can be no intersubjectivity without subjectivity.
3. There cannot be subjectivity without qualia.
4. Therefore, there cannot be meaning without qualia.
Since you are claiming that computers can contain meaning, it follows that you must conclude that computers are conscious.

Ahh, I see what you are saying.

I disagree with either one, two, or there depending on how you define the terms. But I do not deny subjectivity, which is what I thought you were saying. I am either suggesting meaning does not need intersubjective interaction, subjectivity does not require qualia, or intersubjective interaction does not require subjectivity. And it's not gibberish. But please define the terms.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I disagree with either one, two, or there depending on how you define the terms. But I do not deny subjectivity, which is what I thought you were saying. I am either suggesting meaning does not need intersubjective interaction, subjectivity does not require qualia, or intersubjective interaction does not require subjectivity. And it's not gibberish. But please define the terms.

Be careful. Every time I pester my debate partner to define his terms, I get accused of making stuff too complicated and even of <gulp> SOLIPSISM!!

(But they always refuse to define what they mean by 'solipsism,' so I'm not sure if it's an insult or whether high praise, so....)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I did it in this thread. So just re-read my messages in this thread.

In other words, you cannot provide me with a quote or the post number of the post in which you have done what you claim to have done. Gotcha.

Fictitious incivility. Right. So you would argue that calling one's dialogue partner a moron is an example of good old-fashioned civility?

Provide the post number in which I called you a moron, please.

[FONT=&quot]The main point with the OP is that saying: "There are no truths" is a false statement. Why? Because even the statement “There are no truths” is considered false by that same logic. [/FONT]

:yes:

The statement "there are no truths" was mundanely put forth by enaidealukal as a futile attempt to make his opponents look foolish. See "straw man fallacy".

:no:

See post #143. Regardless of how we word it, the position is incoherent and self-refuting. And given the fact that the position is untenable and cannot even be endorsed without a performative contradiction, it's no surprise that AmbiguousGuy has completely demurred from making any attempt to defend this view, despite inviting me to create this thread for precisely that reason.

 

[Curious George]

Be careful. Every time I pester my debate partner to define his terms, I get accused of making stuff too complicated and even of <gulp> SOLIPSISM!!

(But they always refuse to define what they mean by 'solipsism,' so I'm not sure if it's an insult or whether high praise, so....)

No, I am going to try to do this without slipping into solipsism. But as I am sure you know, solipsism is a concept that only self can be known or exist.

It fits with your "ambiguous" take.

My point is that we are either defining subjective from the reference of a human mind or we can broaden the definition as from a reference of any entity capable of processing information, or we can completely broaden the term so it is near synonymous with relative. Then we have to define intersubjective. I think the standard definition is comprehensible or similar to a language, and we have to define meaning. I would imagine we can say that meaning is having a information which can be processed.

I think that "meaning" is probably my weak link and perhaps why I am mistaken because it is hardest for me to define without using synonyms disguised with wordiness, but I think that is the best I can muster right now. Perhaps raw thinker, will set me straight with better definitions.