Searle: All Valid Arguments Entailed Evaluation

[RCSaunders]

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.

What numbers are you talking about? I thought there were no numbers.

[Skepdick]

What numbers are you talking about? I thought there were no numbers.

The ones you believe in.

If they exist - they have a location. What is it?

[RCSaunders]

What numbers are you talking about? I thought there were no numbers.

The ones you believe in.

If they exist - they have a location. What is it?

Your premise is that there are only physical locations. I do not accept your premise. I cannot answer your question because it is framed in terms of your premise, that there are only physical locations.

Numbers have no physical location. In your twisted epistemology that means, they do not exist. There's nothing else to discuss.

[Skepdick]

Your premise is that there are only physical locations. I do not accept your premise.

It's not my premise. It's your strawman of my premise.

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

Numbers have no physical location. In your twisted epistemology that means, they do not exist. There's nothing else to discuss.

All locations are physical! There is no such thing as non-physical location.
Numbers don't have a location. Full stop.

If you insist otherwise, tell me where they are located (maybe I am wrong)

[RCSaunders]

All locations are physical! There is no such thing as non-physical location.
Numbers don't have a location. Full stop.

If you insist otherwise, tell me where they are located (maybe I am wrong).

Oh I agree. If all locations are physical, numbers have no physical location. Numbers do not exist physically.

I don't insist on anything. Believe whatever you want to believe. I have no interest in changing your mind. Why do you so desperately want to change mine?

[Skepdick]

Oh I agree. If all locations are physical, numbers have no physical location. Numbers do not exist physically.

Look, dude - introducing the word "physicality" adds nothing to the discussion. Let it go - it has nothing to do with it.

What I am saying is: All that exists ...exists (obviously!). All that exists ... exists SOMEWHERE (it has a location).

If it doesn't have a location then it doesn't exist.

I don't insist on anything. Believe whatever you want to believe. I have no interest in changing your mind. Why do you so desperately want to change mine?

I don't want to change anything - I am trying to understand your view so I asked you a question.

In your view numbers exist. Fine!
In my view everything that exists has a location.

If numbers exist, then they have a locaiton.

Where?

Is just a question.

[Belinda]

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.
Historians, electricians, poets, detectives, lawyers all have their own cri

"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

That's right. For their own safety and profit and those of their significant others there is no other means of making decisions, so reasoning is best. Faith in other people or in traditions is dicey within the present rate of societal change: i.e. climate change, pandemic, and the capitalist/industrial complex.

There are approved methods for evaluating. E.g. medics evaluate delusions according to something or other criteria approved by other medics who share the same paradigm.

Professional and approved trades people all share the same criteria of value. Politicians don't share the same criteria, and to a lesser extent neither do criminals. Religious people share the same criteria of value as each other except that a few of them are also reasonable about myths and devotions.

[RCSaunders]

Oh I agree. If all locations are physical, numbers have no physical location. Numbers do not exist physically.

Look, dude - introducing the word "physicality" adds nothing to the discussion. Let it go - it has nothing to do with it.

You wrote:

All locations are physical! There is no such thing as non-physical location.
Numbers don't have a location.

I am only agreeing with you!

What I am saying is: All that exists ...exists (obviously!). All that exists ... exists SOMEWHERE (it has a location).

AND you also said, "There is no such thing as non-physical location." So, the only, "somewheres," you recognized are physical somewheres.

If it doesn't have a location then it doesn't exist.

You said that already. I have no idea what you are arguing about.

I don't insist on anything. Believe whatever you want to believe. I have no interest in changing your mind. Why do you so desperately want to change mine?

I don't want to change anything - I am trying to understand your view so I asked you a question.

In your view numbers exist. Fine!
In my view everything that exists has a location.

If numbers exist, then they have a location.

Where?

Is just a question.

I hope you find your answer.

[RCSaunders]

Oh I agree. If all locations are physical, numbers have no physical location. Numbers do not exist physically.

Look, dude - introducing the word "physicality" adds nothing to the discussion. Let it go - it has nothing to do with it.

You wrote:

All locations are physical! There is no such thing as non-physical location.
Numbers don't have a location.

I am only agreeing with you!

What I am saying is: All that exists ...exists (obviously!). All that exists ... exists SOMEWHERE (it has a location).

AND you also said, "There is no such thing as non-physical location." So, the only, "somewheres," you recognized are physical somewheres.

If it doesn't have a location then it doesn't exist.

You said that already. I have no idea what you are arguing about.

I don't insist on anything. Believe whatever you want to believe. I have no interest in changing your mind. Why do you so desperately want to change mine?

I don't want to change anything - I am trying to understand your view so I asked you a question.

In your view numbers exist. Fine!
In my view everything that exists has a location.

If numbers exist, then they have a location.

Where?

Is just a question.

I hope you find your answer.

Out of curiosity, where does this, "question," exist?

[Skepdick]

I am only agreeing with you!

OK, but in agreeing with me you are disagreeing with yourself.

If you agree that everything which has a location exists, then you know the answer to the question "Where do numbers exist?"

You said that already. I have no idea what you are arguing about.

I am not arguing? What gives you that impression?

I hope you find your answer.

I hope so too. The answer is in your head.

That is why I asked you the question. My hope lies in you answering it.

[RCSaunders]

I am only agreeing with you!

OK, but in agreeing with me you are disagreeing with yourself.

If you agree that everything which has a location exists, then you know the answer to the question "Where do numbers exist?"

You said that already. I have no idea what you are arguing about.

I am not arguing? What gives you that impression?

I hope you find your answer.

I hope so too. The answer is in your head.

That is why I asked you the question. My hope lies in you answering it.

I cannot help you!

[Skepdick]

I cannot help you!

You are the only person who can!

You know where numbers exist. To you numbers are noumena, so you MUST know. Otherwise you wouldn't say things like this:

Numbers are simply what they are.

Do you have any numbers in your head?
I don't have any in mine - I know. I've looked!

If other people have numbers in their head - that's fine with me. It would totally explain why I believe they don't exist.

[surreptitious57]

Anyone saying they have no numbers in their head would have to explain where their knowledge of numbers does come from
All knowledge is mind dependent so knowledge of numbers must come from the human mind as where else can it come from