Searle: All Valid Arguments Entailed Evaluation

[Skepdick]

I must find out what "entailed evaluation" means in practice.

That's easy enough - it means conscious choice. An informed decision.

Given any argument you read, and given your understanding of what "validity" means. To assert the argument as "valid" (as opposed to not-valid) is to evaluate the argument for "validity".

But if I had written "there is a mutual assumption between whoever paid the author, editor, and printer of the instructions for assembling a car engine, and the user of the instructions, that assembling the engine has value." ?

Sure. There's a number of things we can speculatively extract out of that scenario.

There's an assumption that engines are valuable (else why make them).
There's certainly an assumption that some people like DYI (why not sell assembled engines? or vehicles in general?)
And there's an assumption that assembling engines isn't intuitive, and so this knowledge must be communicated by whoever knows to whoever doesn't (and wants an engine).

Given the scene being set many true things about the role-players and their states of minds and many possible value-chains.

[Belinda]

I must find out what "entailed evaluation" means in practice.

That's easy enough - it means conscious choice. An informed decision.

Given any argument you read, and given your understanding of what "validity" means. To assert the argument as "valid" (as opposed to not-valid) is to evaluate the argument for "validity".

But if I had written "there is a mutual assumption between whoever paid the author, editor, and printer of the instructions for assembling a car engine, and the user of the instructions, that assembling the engine has value." ?

Sure. There's a number of things we can speculatively extract out of that scenario.

There's an assumption that engines are valuable (else why make them).
There's certainly an assumption that some people like DYI (why not sell assembled engines? or vehicles in general?)
And there's an assumption that assembling engines isn't intuitive, and so this knowledge must be communicated by whoever knows to whoever doesn't (and wants an engine).

Given the scene being set many true things about the role-players and their states of minds and many possible value-chains.

Delusions are characterised by lack of any perceptible value. I believe value is added by the culture, but not by biology. Nobody could evaluate in the absence of a culture of belief.And that is tantamount to saying nobody could evaluate unless they hold a subjective position from which to compare and contrast.
However that subjective position is best when it can evolve by the use of reason. There are established and tried and tested methods for using reason.

"Nobody could evaluate in the absence of a culture of belief" is open to objections and I can think of one or two.

[RCSaunders]

Here is a fractal series:
-2, 2.5, -.2, 16, .8125, -2.692307, -.114285, .355918, 9.428899, .681829, -3.399928

A fractal series is determined and non-repeating and many natural phenomena produce them, from weather to the branching of ferns. One can record a series of values in such phenomena but cannot know what the value of the next event will be, and must wait for it to happen. Fractals can be identified by the way values change, the exact values determining those changes cannot be determined from the series itself, as for example in the series above.

What you've given me is a bunch of numbers.

Given the question "Is this series fractal?" how did you arrive at the answer "yes"?

You insinuated that it's something to do with "the way the values change". What is that "way"?

If you are truly interested I'll give you the formula for the above series and provide a link to a description of the various ways mathematical functions are determined to be chaotic. I'm not gling to waste my time if your just going to argue about it, because it's not my argument and don't really care what you choose to believe.

[If you are using an analog computer to analyze the change in value of the output of PLL for example for the changes in the inputs, since the values of the inputs and outputs are the actual value, no matter how small the changes are they will be indicated. If you are using a digital computer the input values will have to supplied to a AtoD converter and out put to a DtoA converter, both of which truncate some values.]

So what instrument were you using to measure infinitely small changes in an analog signal?

The actual PLL.

You also have the problem of rounding when floating point math is done on a digital computer, which is also is not a problem for an analogue computer which solve the same problems without math except for the final representation of the calculation.

Sounds like you are saying analogue computers can perform infinite-precision arithmetic.

How do you communicate an infinitely precise number from an analog computer to a human?

An analog meter.

Every material existent is finite, and is a discrete entity. Relationships between entities are analogue.

So then... analog computers with infinite precision exist where?

Example: your ear.

You can count entities, but attributes, relationships, and behavior can only be described mathmatically as measurement, which is analogue. That is why you can count six geese and there are six absolutely, but if you weigh six geese, no matter how good the scales are, the weight is only approximate.

... But then you talk about real numbers as points and points are discrete entities. That's the biggest load of conceptual bullshit there is.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I would never refer to numbers as points. I regard the whole "number line," as a total fiction. There are no such entities as points in geometry or mathematics, they are nothing but useful fictions.

Go ahead and randomly pick an infinitely precise real number for me.

"Precision pertains to measurement, and measurement requires an arbitrary unit of measure commensurate with all the entities to be measured. Numbers have no measurement. Numbers are simply what they are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I must find out what "entailed evaluation" means in practice.

That's easy enough - it means conscious choice. An informed decision.

Given any argument you read, and given your understanding of what "validity" means. To assert the argument as "valid" (as opposed to not-valid) is to evaluate the argument for "validity".

But if I had written "there is a mutual assumption between whoever paid the author, editor, and printer of the instructions for assembling a car engine, and the user of the instructions, that assembling the engine has value." ?

Sure. There's a number of things we can speculatively extract out of that scenario.

There's an assumption that engines are valuable (else why make them).
There's certainly an assumption that some people like DYI (why not sell assembled engines? or vehicles in general?)
And there's an assumption that assembling engines isn't intuitive, and so this knowledge must be communicated by whoever knows to whoever doesn't (and wants an engine).

Given the scene being set many true things about the role-players and their states of minds and many possible value-chains.

Delusions are characterised by lack of any perceptible value. I believe value is added by the culture, but not by biology. Nobody could evaluate in the absence of a culture of belief.And that is tantamount to saying nobody could evaluate unless they hold a subjective position from which to compare and contrast.
However that subjective position is best when it can evolve by the use of reason. There are established and tried and tested methods for using reason.

"Nobody could evaluate in the absence of a culture of belief" is open to objections and I can think of one or two.

Obviously.
The fundamental is to evaluate to survive or die.

[Skepdick]

Delusions are characterised by lack of any perceptible value.

And how would you characterise the presence/perception of too much value?
Everything is valuable - to different degrees.

I believe value is added by the culture, but not by biology. Nobody could evaluate in the absence of a culture of belief.And that is tantamount to saying nobody could evaluate unless they hold a subjective position from which to compare and contrast.
However that subjective position is best when it can evolve by the use of reason. There are established and tried and tested methods for using reason.

There's nothing contentious with what you are saying, but in context of the OP I observe the following:
1. You value reason.
2. To decide whether any particular decision/conclusion is "reasonable" or "unreasonable" requires evaluation.

"Nobody could evaluate in the absence of a culture of belief" is open to objections and I can think of one or two.

Ultimately, that is the paradox of Buridan's ass

[Skepdick]

If you are truly interested I'll give you the formula for the above series and provide a link to a description of the various ways mathematical functions are determined to be chaotic. I'm not gling to waste my time if your just going to argue about it, because it's not my argument and don't really care what you choose to believe.

You kinda missed the point. I asked you how you knew the yes/no answer to the question "Is this series fractal?"
And it's obvious how you knew - you have a formula which produced the numbers.

So knowing the origin of those numbers and asking me the question that you are asking me is playing a stupid game.

This is called information asymmetry.

The actual PLL.

Yes. What infinitely-precise value did you read from the actual PLL?

Give me the value.

An analog meter

What is the smallest change in value that your meter can communicate?

Example: your ear

My ear isn't infinitely precise - it can't detect frequencies above 20KHz and below 20Hz or thereabout.

That's why most digital computers' sound cards have a sampling frequency of 44Khz or thereabout - twice your hearing range as per sampling theorem.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I would never refer to numbers as points. I regard the whole "number line," as a total fiction. There are no such entities as points in geometry or mathematics, they are nothing but useful fictions.

OK, lets not trip over nomenclature. Lets not use the word "points", lets use the phrase "discrete entities". If you accept "infinite precision" as a valid notion then every infinitely-precise real number is unique and uniquely identifiable e.g real numbers are discrete.

The yes/no question I am throwing at you is thus: are infinite-precision real numbers uniquely identifiable?

"Precision pertains to measurement, and measurement requires an arbitrary unit of measure commensurate with all the entities to be measured. Numbers have no measurement. Numbers are simply what they are.

Numbers don't exist. Which number is "2.1212321" ? Show it to me.

[RCSaunders]

Numbers don't exist. Which number is "2.1212321" ?

Quite frankly I have no idea what your question means. If numbers, "do not exist," your question is, "which is the 'non-existent' I'm identifying by the meaningless marks, "2.1212322?" If it is 'non-existent' there is no such thing. If there actually is such a thing, you've answered your own question. The number is whatever you intend or mean by those marks; whatever, for you, they represent.

[Skepdick]

Quite frankly I have no idea what your question means. If numbers, "do not exist," your question is, "which is the 'non-existent' I'm identifying by the meaningless marks, "2.1212322?" If it is 'non-existent' there is no such thing. If there actually is such a thing, you've answered your own question. The number is whatever you intend or mean by those marks; whatever, for you, they represent.

We understand each other perfectly.

The symbols "2.1212322" exist.
What do those symbols represent?
Apparently they represent a number.
Does the number represented by the symbols "2.1212322" exist?

It's not a trick question, it's a yes/no question. If you choose to answer "yes" then tell me where numbers exist.

[RCSaunders]

Quite frankly I have no idea what your question means. If numbers, "do not exist," your question is, "which is the 'non-existent' I'm identifying by the meaningless marks, "2.1212322?" If it is 'non-existent' there is no such thing. If there actually is such a thing, you've answered your own question. The number is whatever you intend or mean by those marks; whatever, for you, they represent.

We understand each other perfectly.

I don't think so.

The symbols "2.1212322" exist.
What do those symbols represent?
Apparently they represent a number.
Does the number represented by the symbols "2.1212322" exist?

There is no way I can tell you what you mean. You say the symbols, "apparently," represent a number. There are two things I would have to know before I could answer your question: 1. what you mean or intend by the word, "number," and what you mean by the word, "exist."

I cannot guess what you mean by number, but I think what you mean by, "exist," must be one of two possible things: 1. exist means to be a physical entity (possibly including physical events, attributes, and relationships), or 2. exist means the same thing as the verb, "to be." Whatever, "is," exists.

I am almost certain your meaning of exist is the first. It is a unique use of the word, but one is free to use any term the way they like.

What do you say, then, about riddles, questions, problems, and originality. Do you say there are no riddles, questions, problems, or originality? They certainly do not exist physically. When someone uses one of those words does the word identify nothing?

When you use the word, "question," for example, you know what you mean by the word. I'm sure you can explain what you mean by the word, "question." Whatever that explanation is, that is what everyone else means by, "questions exist;" that is, there is what you describe as a question. Such things do not exist physically and have no physical attributes, like a location.

What everyone means (except you) by riddles, questions, problems, and originality exist is only that there are such things. If there are no riddles, questions, problems, or originality the words would mean nothing.

[Skepdick]

There is no way I can tell you what you mean. You say the symbols, "apparently," represent a number. There are two things I would have to know before I could answer your question: 1. what you mean or intend by the word, "number," and what you mean by the word, "exist."

You want to play that game?

Before I could answer your question, what do intend by the word "meaning"?

What are these marks and what do they represent?

-2, 2.5, -.2, 16, .8125, -2.692307, -.114285, .355918, 9.428899, .681829, -3.399928

Such things do not exist physically and have no physical attributes, like a location.

Everything that exists has a location. No location - no existence.

[RCSaunders]

Such things do not exist physically and have no physical attributes, like a location.

Everything that exists has a location. No location - no existence.

Assuming you do not regard analogies as existents, only that which has, "physical," location exists, (as opposed to someone being a, "distant," relative, or something being, "nearly," complete, or the, "central," objective.) Why didn't you just say, only the physical exists? It doesn't really matter, of course, so long as I know what you mean.

So, according to your view, numbers do not exist. That's fine.

It's not my view, but I'm not interested in pressing my view, only in understanding what you mean.

Thank you!

[surreptitious57]

Anything can be said to exist that has property or dimension but this is not limited to only things that are classed as physical
There are also things classed as mental that are not regarded as physical [ although in fact they are a subset of the physical ]

So everything that is usually classed as mental is merely a more subtle variation of the physical
And with regard to that certain questions can now be asked that will provide definitive answers

Do numbers exist ? Yes they are mental representations of specific quantities that make up all the various number lines
Do questions exist ? Yes they are physical representations of thought processes expressed in spoken or written formats

Now others may treat the mental and physical as entirely separate categories and this is indeed the majority view
I have no problem with that but I think of them as being the same as everything mental is by default physical too

Now human beings like to put things into boxes for reasons of clarification and simplification but this is problematic for two reasons
The map is not the territory and reality cannot be put into boxes as everything is directly or indirectly connected to everything else

Reality treats everything that exists as physical [ including what many humans regard as just mental ] and so for that reason so do I
As a pragmatist my worldview is grounded in logic and reason and empiricism so must automatically conform with observable reality
I also do not think there is either a valid or sound argument that can demonstrate that the mental and physical are entirely separate

[RCSaunders]

As a pragmatist my worldview is grounded in logic and reason and empiricism so must automatically conform with observable reality.

Observed by what?

[Note: Philosophical pragmatism does not agree with empiricism.]

[surreptitious57]

By human sense perception and cognitive ability through application of the scientific method
Which is the basis for all empirical knowledge that pertains to phenomena that is observable

[Skepdick]

Assuming you do not regard analogies as existents, only that which has, "physical," location exists, (as opposed to someone being a, "distant," relative, or something being, "nearly," complete, or the, "central," objective.) Why didn't you just say, only the physical exists? It doesn't really matter, of course, so long as I know what you mean.

I didn't say "only the physical exists" because I don't think only the physical exists. It would be great if you stop putting words in my mouth.

Everything that exists, exists. - when you give me the location of the existent then I will know what you mean.

So, according to your view, numbers do not exist. That's fine.

It's not my view, but I'm not interested in pressing my view, only in understanding what you mean.

Thank you!

Then tell me the location of numbers.