What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

Well are YOU saying that payment Is NOT consensus ?

Why would you pay me for something that doesn’t work with your hard-earned money?

I mean you are stupid but you aren’t THAT stupid!

Aha. We pay for software/hardware, therefore information is more than an abstraction.

That's like saying we pay for two apples, so numbers like two are also objects.

Are you really that stupid?

Whaaaat? You were the one preaching that believing in information is a Reification fallacy!!!

Information is not real you said!

Have you changed your song and dance now?

You are PROFITING from software and hardware? Which is BASED ON and WORKS BECAUSE the fallacy of information!

Are you admitting that you are selling lies?!?!? You fucking charlatan!

[Atla]

Whaaaat? You were the one preaching that believing in information is a Reification fallacy!!!

Information is not real you said!

Have you changed your song and dance now?

You are PROFITING from software and hardware? Which is BASED ON and WORKS BECAUSE the fallacy of information!

Are you admitting that you are selling lies?!?!? You fucking charlatan!

Stop lying, I said it's an abstract concept, which isn't quite the same as "not real".

You've been called out on your bullshit. If a mathematician is working with numbers, does that mean that numbers are objects like rocks?

[TimeSeeker]

Stop lying, I said it's an abstract concept, which isn't quite the same as "not real".

Ooh! A distinction without a difference!

What is the difference between abstract and real?

Is time real? Are quarks real? What makes them real?

You've been called out on your bullshit. If a mathematician is working with numbers, does that mean that numbers are objects like rocks?

Numbers are words, not objects.
'rocks' is a word. It is not an object. It signifies an object.
Information also just a word. It is not an object, but it signifies an object. A statistical one!

I'll just keep giving you rope to hang yourself with now....

[Atla]

Ooh! A distinction without a difference!

What is the difference between abstract and real?

Is time real? Are quarks real? What makes them real?

Understanding the difference between the concrete and the abstract is a minimum requirement for philosophical debates.

'rocks' is a word. It is not an object. It signifies an object.
Information also just a word. It is not an object, but it signifies an object. A statistical one!

I'll just keep giving you rope to hang yourself with now....

We can find the rocks, but where is this information "statistical object" you speak of? Why is it that no sign of it ever has been found?

[TimeSeeker]

Understanding the difference between the concrete and the abstract is a minimum requirement for philosophical debates.

Ooooh! That is a barrier to entry then? An appeal to purity almost! Maybe an appeal to authority? You will be sure to forward those 'requirements' to me, eh? As signed and vetted by the One and Only Ministry of Philosophy.

I don't know what YOU THINK the difference is, but you do and I want to participate in your debates. Please teach me? Explain to me the difference with some examples!

(Lets see if you are smart enough to recognize Socratic irony or tolerate falsification)

'rocks' is a word. It is not an object. It signifies an object.
We can find the rocks

Well obviously we can find the 'rocks' <--- here, I found one!

Now. Are you going to tell me if wave particles are abstract or real? Because you can tell the difference and I can't.

[Peter Holmes]

TimeSeeker

I assume we agree that the purpose of any logic - classical or non-classical - is to provide rules for reasoning. (I think they are really rules for the use of signs - but we can leave that for now.) And I understand your preference for a non-classical logic, and your dismissal of classical logic.

If I'm right that you do agree about the purpose of any logic, I'm interested in your answers to these (genuine) questions.

1 Can a logical system not have (or consist of) rules?
2 Can a system of rules be anything other than conventional and purposive?
3 Does any rule have truth-value?
4 Can the application of a rule - or a rule for the application of a rule, and so on - ever be free of context and interpretation?
5 Can the use of signs ever be non-indexical?
6 Do the words 'true' and 'false', or 'correct' and 'erroneous' - and their cognates - have any use in a non-classical logic?
7 Is the claim 'all models are wrong, but some are useful' right, correct or true? And if so, why - by what criterion?
8 What's the difference between the claim 'all models are wrong, but some are useful' and the claim 'all models are right, but some are useless'?

[TimeSeeker]

I assume we agree that the purpose of any logic - classical or non-classical - is to provide rules for reasoning.

No, we do not.

The etymology of the word 'logic' (logos) comes from the Greek λογική which is the SPOKEN language. It has nothing to do with reason. To mistake logic for reason is precisely how logocentrism takes hold.

Your claim also begs the question: What is the purpose of 'reasoning'?

There is no need to conflate how we think about the world with how we speak about the world.

[Peter Holmes]

I assume we agree that the purpose of any logic - classical or non-classical - is to provide rules for reasoning.

No, we do not.

The etymology of the word 'logic' (logos) is the SPOKEN language. It has nothing to do with reason. To mistake logic for reason is precisely how logocentrism takes hold.

Your claim also begs the question: What is the purpose of 'reasoning'?

1 I assume you're aware of the etymological fallacy. Are you appealing to authority? Performative contradiction?
2 I'm not trying to explain the purpose of reasoning. And, as I said, I think we're discussing the use of signs.

[TimeSeeker]

I assume we agree that the purpose of any logic - classical or non-classical - is to provide rules for reasoning.

No, we do not.

The etymology of the word 'logic' (logos) is the SPOKEN language. It has nothing to do with reason. To mistake logic for reason is precisely how logocentrism takes hold.

Your claim also begs the question: What is the purpose of 'reasoning'?

1 I assume you're aware of the etymological fallacy.
2 I'm not trying to explain the purpose of reasoning. And, as I said, I think we're discussing the use of signs.

Ok. Let’s discuss the use of signs.

Do you think we should speak about the world more like how we think about the world.

OR

Do you think we should think about the world more like how we speak about the world?

I favor the former. That is we need to invent languages which align more with our way of thinking!

Which is why I am a Type Theorist.

[TimeSeeker]

While you are talking about the USE of signs, I am talking about the REPURPOSING or even the INVENTION of signs.

Signs are tools. They are either fit for purpose or not.

So while you are avoiding the purpose of reason, you cannot avoid the purpose of signs.

[Peter Holmes]

No, we do not.

The etymology of the word 'logic' (logos) is the SPOKEN language. It has nothing to do with reason. To mistake logic for reason is precisely how logocentrism takes hold.

Your claim also begs the question: What is the purpose of 'reasoning'?

1 I assume you're aware of the etymological fallacy.
2 I'm not trying to explain the purpose of reasoning. And, as I said, I think we're discussing the use of signs.

Ok. Let’s discuss the use of signs.

Do you think we should speak about the world more like how we think about the world.

OR

Do you think we should think about the world more like how we speak about the world?

I favor the former. That is we need to invent languages which align more with our way of thinking!

Which is why I am a Type Theorist.

Now I'm confused. I explained what you called my taxonomy earlier: features of reality; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (classically) may be true or false. I know you reject the classical bit. But, as you can see, I agree that we shouldn't conflate these three things. So of course I reject logocentrism, just as I reject the bifurcation of the sign. That was Sausurre's mistake, which Derrida ran with.

But you talk about 'our way of thinking about the world'. What and whose way of thinking? Don't you reject such talk?

Back to the way we use signs. I'm still interested in your answers to my questions.

[TimeSeeker]

1 I assume you're aware of the etymological fallacy.
2 I'm not trying to explain the purpose of reasoning. And, as I said, I think we're discussing the use of signs.

Ok. Let’s discuss the use of signs.

Do you think we should speak about the world more like how we think about the world.

OR

Do you think we should think about the world more like how we speak about the world?

I favor the former. That is we need to invent languages which align more with our way of thinking!

Which is why I am a Type Theorist.

Now I'm confused. I explained what you called my taxonomy earlier: features of reality; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (classically) may be true or false. I know you reject the classical bit. But, as you can see, I agree that we shouldn't conflate these three things. So of course I reject logocentrism, just as I reject the bifurcation of the sign. That was Sausurre's mistake, which Derrida ran with.

But you talk about 'our way of thinking about the world'. What and whose way of thinking? Don't you reject such talk?

Back to the way we use signs. I'm still interested in your answers to my questions.

Well yes WHOSE way of thinking?

And when you ask that question you also ask WHY do they think this way?

We never left the “use of signs”. You are yet to address the purpose for using signs for the WHOM we are talking about.

This line of enquiry inevitably leads us to phenomenology.

[Peter Holmes]

Ok. Let’s discuss the use of signs.

Do you think we should speak about the world more like how we think about the world.

OR

Do you think we should think about the world more like how we speak about the world?

I favor the former. That is we need to invent languages which align more with our way of thinking!

Which is why I am a Type Theorist.

Now I'm confused. I explained what you called my taxonomy earlier: features of reality; what we believe and know about them; and what we say about them, which (classically) may be true or false. I know you reject the classical bit. But, as you can see, I agree that we shouldn't conflate these three things. So of course I reject logocentrism, just as I reject the bifurcation of the sign. That was Sausurre's mistake, which Derrida ran with.

But you talk about 'our way of thinking about the world'. What and whose way of thinking? Don't you reject such talk?

Back to the way we use signs. I'm still interested in your answers to my questions.

Well yes WHOSE way of thinking?

And when you ask that question you also ask WHY do they think this way?

We never left the “use of signs”. You are yet to address the purpose for using signs for the WHOM we are talking about.

I beg to differ. You say we need a language (or languages) that better conform to 'our' way of thinking about the world. So you think 'our way of thinking about the world' is a separate category that comes prior to our use of signs. And what sort of 'conformity' are you positing? Is this a correspondence theory pushing back in?

And if our way of thinking, etc, rests on classical logical rules, why is that model wrong?

[TimeSeeker]

I beg to differ. You say we need a language (or languages) that better conform to 'our' way of thinking about the world. So you think 'our way of thinking about the world' is a separate category that comes prior to our use of signs.

Yes, it is a separate category. Phenomenology.

And what sort of 'conformity' are you positing? Is this a correspondence theory pushing back in?

I am speaking of conformity to the phenomenological structure, not the ontological structure of the universe. And if that is what you understand by the 'correspondence theory' so be it.

It's just that I know how to conceptualize any particular macro-phenomena in terms of micro-phenomena (scientific reduction) at various scale and levels of analysis so I have multiple different 'correspondences' for the same phenomenon.

Which makes my system of thought (holistically) a coherence, not a correspondence theory.

And if our way of thinking, etc, rests on classical logical rules, why is that model wrong?

If I am pedantic, then yes - it RESTS on the classical logical rules. At the first order (predicate logic).
But Type Theory is a Higher order logic.

If logic was a skyscraper the classical rules are relevant only on the 1st floor. I am in the penthouse.

[TimeSeeker]

Here is some reading: I do not identify as a 'classical logician'. I am a constructive logician.

That is a fundamental difference which is outlined here: http://www4.di.uminho.pt/~mjf/pub/SFV-C ... rd-2up.pdf

The Butterfly effect explains the rest of our misunderstanding.