What is P and -P?

[Skepdick]

Right. But how are you figuring that that amounts to only being able to REFER to minds? It seems like you aren't getting what reference is (which is why I sarcastically posted earlier "Reference, how does it work?") Aren't you familiar with denotation or extension?

You are truly set on ignoring the fact that you are still DOING classification.

Referencing is in contrast to dereferencing.
Extension is in contrast to intension.
Connotation is in contrast to denotation.

Minds make classification rules! Referents can always be categorised otherwise. What was a referent (singular) can always become referents (plural) simply by conceptual deconstruction.

So I am still hung up on the question: WHY are you classifying/categorising referents? Why Philosophise?

Cameras create photographs, all photography is done by camera, etc. Does that imply that we can only photograph cameras (and the very same camera that is doing the photography)?

No, but it implies the photo is NOT "camera-independent"! If there was no camera - there would be no photo.
And we can do this all day. If there was no photographer, there would be no camera - because there is no need for photography.

It still doesn't address the "Why?"... WHY are you taking photos of whatever you are taking photos of?

Because I often have a need to refer to things like toasters. I want toast sometimes.

You reference toast and toasters when making toast? What does that look like in practice, because I have zero utility for language when making toast.

Sure. So it wouldn't be honest to say you didn't write that.

As honest as me saying that you cherry-picked it.

What would the significance of prevalence be? Is there any significance to it?

It's as significant as any disincentive. It's a negative selective pressure, so it minimises through the system.

[Terrapin Station]

You are truly set on ignoring the fact that you are still DOING classification.

I didn't ignore that at all. In fact, I said, "Right." I agree with all of that.

The problem is that the fact that only minds can do reference doesn't imply that we can only reference minds. Just like the fact that only cameras can photograph doesn't imply that we can only photograph cameras.

Minds make classification rules! Things can always be categorized otherwise.

Of course. That just has no implication for whether we can reference or categorize things that aren't minds.

So I am still hung up on the question: WHY are you classifying/categorising referents?

I wouldn't say that I was classifying or categorizing referents. I was just using them. Why? Because we can't use language if we don't. Every term refers to something.

Why Philosophise?

Because I enjoy it. It's a way I naturally think. It entertains me.

No, but it implies the photo is NOT "camera-independent"! If there was no camera - the photo wouldn't exist!

Of course. But can you photograph something that's camera-independent? Of course. For example, you can photograph a cow. Cows are camera-independent. They existed prior to cameras, they don't depend on cameras for their existence, etc. But sure, the photo isn't camera independent, and if there was no camera the photo wouldn't exist. But the cow isn't a photo or a camera. It's just something we can photograph. This really isn't complicated to understand. And having to explain it seems like we'd be talking to a two-year old or someone with a severe mental handicap or something.

It still doesn't address the "Why?"... WHY are you taking photos of whatever you are taking photos of?

It would be impossible to produce an exhaustive list of the reasons that people might be taking photos. It could be enjoyment, or because they want to show someone (who isn't there) something, or because they're being paid to do it--all sorts of reasons.

Because I often have a need to refer to things like toasters. I want toast sometimes.

You reference toast and toasters when making toast?

I don't do everything all by my lonesome without ever talking to anyone else. That's not what your life is like, is it?

What would the significance of prevalence be? Is there any significance to it?

It's as significant as any disincentive - it minimises through the system.

I haven't the faintest idea what that's saying.

[Skepdick]

The problem is that the fact that only minds can do reference doesn't imply that we can only reference minds. Just like the fact that only cameras can photograph doesn't imply that we can only photograph cameras.

I didn't say you can "only" reference minds. I said that you can reference anything and everything. Including minds.

But the act of referencing and classification is always performed by minds, and so the notion of "mind-independence" is incoherent.

Of course. That just has no implication for whether we can reference or categorize things that aren't minds.

So you have a category of "minds" and "not-minds"? That's amazing!
Also... of course it has implications! A direct implication on the fidelity of your ontology.

How many things exist?
How many categories of things exist? Because you said that you are a physicalist but I've counted like 10 different categories in your ontology so far.

I wouldn't say that I was classifying or categorizing referents.

Well, you are if you call them anything other than "referents".

There's a referent over there (a cat), and a referent over there (a dog), and a referent over there (a tree).

I was just using them. Why? Because we can't use language if we don't.

Why do you need to use language?

Every term refers to something.

So what does the term "something" refer to?

Because I enjoy it. It's a way I naturally think. It entertains me.

Why do you need to be entertained?

No, but it implies the photo is NOT "camera-independent"! If there was no camera - the photo wouldn't exist!

Of course. But can you photograph something that's camera-independent?

How? I don't know how to do camera-independent photography. It's implicit in the notion of "photography".

Of course. For example, you can photograph a cow. Cows are camera-independent.

They existed prior to cameras, they don't depend on cameras for their existence, etc. But sure, the photo isn't camera independent, and if there was no camera the photo wouldn't exist. But the cow isn't a photo or a camera. It's just something we can photograph. This really isn't complicated to understand. And having to explain it seems like we'd be talking to a two-year old or something with a severe mental handicap or something.

You are introducing a layer of indirection and successfully fooling yourself. The only thing you can take photos of is referents because ONLY referents exist before you categorize them into boxes like "cows" and "cameras".

"cow" is a reference, not a referent. You can take photos of it, but it'll be stupid - it'll be a photo of "cow".

And in any case, the point I am making is that this cow is NOT mind-independent! It is precisely the mind which makes it a "cow"

cow.jpg

It would be impossible to produce an exhaustive list of the reasons that people might be taking photos. It could be enjoyment, or because they want to show someone (who isn't there) something, or because they're being paid to do it--all sorts of reasons.

I am not asking about an exhaustive list about all people, at all times, everywhere. I am asking about you. Right now. Here.

I don't do everything all by my lonesome without ever talking to anyone else. That's not what your life is like, is it?

When it comes to toast it is. I don't outsource my toast-making. Never had the need to.

I haven't the faintest idea what that's saying.

That which is incentivised - maximises (there will be more of it over time)
That which is disincentivized- minimises (there will be less of it over time).

[Terrapin Station]

I didn't say you can "only" reference minds. I said that you can reference anything and everything. Including minds.

But the act of referencing and classification is always performed by minds, and so the notion of "mind-independence" is incoherent.

Our posts back and forth are getting longer and longer, which I'm not a fan of. Let's settle one thing at a time.

I said that moral stances are not objective if by "objective" we're referring to "mind-independent."

You said, "I don't know how you could possibly use it that way since only minds refer to anything."

So you're saying that you don't know how we could use "objective" to refer to "mind-independent," BECAUSE "only minds refer to anything." In other words, due to the fact that only minds refer, no other thing refers, then somehow we can't use (with our minds, of course) words to refer to things that aren't minds. That makes no sense. It would result in all terms where the referent (or denotation or extension) isn't mind to be "impossible." So we couldn't refer to toasters and cows and so on.

The act of referencing and classification is always performed by minds. That is correct.

Why would referring to something that isn't a mind, and thus that isn't itself referencing or classifying anything--like say a toaster, which isn't a mind and which isn't classifying or referencing anything--thus be incoherent? Yes, toasters don't themselves reference or classify anything. But why can't we refer to a toaster with the word "toaster"? Is there some requirement that we can only refer to things that themselves are capable of referring to things?

[Terrapin Station]

One reason I enjoy philosophy, by the way, is exemplified by the rabbit-hole of stupidity that we're currently traveling down (where it's so difficult for some parties to figure out how simple reference works from a practical angle). I'm intrigued that people so intelligent in some respects can be so imbecilic in other respects. I enjoy the freakshow aspect of that.

To paraphrase G.E. Moore--a lot of my attraction to philosophy is rooted in fascination with figuring out how so many people can wind up saying the utterly absurd things they say under its guises.

[Skepdick]

Our posts back and forth are getting longer and longer, which I'm not a fan of. Let's settle one thing at a time.

I said that moral stances are not objective if by "objective" we're referring to "mind-independent."

You said, "I don't know how you could possibly use it that way since only minds refer to anything."

So you're saying that you don't know how we could use "objective" to refer to "mind-independent," BECAUSE "only minds refer to anything." In other words, due to the fact that only minds refer, no other thing refers, then somehow we can't use (with our minds, of course) words to refer to things that aren't minds. That makes no sense. It would result in all terms where the referent (or denotation or extension) isn't mind to be "impossible." So we couldn't refer to toasters and cows and so on.

And I am saying that the notion of "objectivity as mind-independence" is incoherent since the mind is precisely what makes up the categories of "mind-dependent" and "mind-independent".

It is the mind which constructs the objective/subjective distinction. It's the mind which constructs all distinctions.

Distinction/distinguishing/categorisation is a function of mind. If you are going to choose any particular categorization-schema (out of all categorization-schemas possible) I insist on justification for your choice.

If we are going to define "objectivity" as "mind-independence" - I ask "Why?"

The act of referencing and classification is always performed by minds. That is correct.

Why would referring to something that isn't a mind, and thus that isn't itself referencing or classifying anything--like say a toaster, which isn't a mind and which isn't classifying or referencing anything--thus be incoherent?

Because a mind categorised it.

Yes, toasters don't themselves reference or classify anything. But why can't we refer to a toaster with the word "toaster"? Is there some requirement that we can only refer to things that themselves are capable of referring to things?

I repeat myself. You can refer to anything and everything you want, but you can't do it INDEPENDENTLY OF MINDS.

The referent you have classified/categorised as a "toaster", I could classify/categorise as a "door stopper"

[Skepdick]

One reason I enjoy philosophy, by the way, is exemplified by the rabbit-hole of stupidity that we're currently traveling down (where it's so difficult for some parties to figure out how simple reference works from a practical angle). I'm intrigued that people so intelligent in some respects can be so imbecilic in other respects. I enjoy the freakshow aspect of that.

To paraphrase G.E. Moore--a lot of my attraction to philosophy is rooted in fascination with figuring out how so many people can wind up saying the utterly absurd things they say under its guises.

Well. I said that... very early on.

I am here Philosophising about the vacuousness of philosophy.

[Terrapin Station]

And I am saying that the notion of "objectivity as mind-independence" is incoherent since the mind is precisely what makes up the categories of "mind-dependent" and "mind-independent".

Are you thinking that I'm saying that objectivity exists (objectively) as a category?

[Skepdick]

Are you thinking that I'm saying that objectivity exists (objectively) as a category?

No, I am not.

I am saying that the concept of "objectivity" is constructed by a mind.
The category of mind-independence is mind-dependent.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you thinking that I'm saying that objectivity exists (objectively) as a category?

No, I am not.

I am saying that the concept of "objectivity" is constructed by a mind.
The category of mind-independence is mind-dependent.

Right. We agree on all of that. You understand that, right?

Mind-independent things, however, are NOT concepts, NOT categories, etc. Can we refer to them?

[Skepdick]

Right. We agree on all of that. You understand that, right?

Do you understand that I understand? We do agree...

Mind-independent things, however, are NOT concepts, NOT categories, etc. Can we refer to them?

Look dude, the category you've constructed in your head called "mind independent things" contains things.

Which particular things you place in the category called "mind-independent things".... that requires mind.

This is a thing.

cow.jpg

It requires a mind to identify it and assign it some particular social significance.

And even that's going too far because it's not even a thing before a mind referred to it as such! It's not even an "it"....

[Terrapin Station]

Right. We agree on all of that. You understand that, right?

Do you understand that I understand? We do agree...

Mind-independent things, however, are NOT concepts, NOT categories, etc. Can we refer to them?

Look dude, the category you've constructed in your head called "mind independent things" contains things.

Which particular things you place in the category called "mind-independent things".... that requires mind.

This is a thing.
cow.jpg

It requires a mind to make it anything other than a thing! And even that's going too far because "thingness" is still a mental construct.

Yes, that all requires mind.

The question remains: Yes or no, can we refer to mind-independent things?

No one is saying that they're literally concepts or categories or whatever names we use or anything like that. The question is simply whether we can refer to them. In other words can we point at them (using language rather than our fingers)?

[Skepdick]

The question remains: Yes or no, can we refer to mind-independent things?

You can't! Unless a mind constructs the category of "mind-independent things"!

You can't refer to anything until the mind invents the reference.

No one is saying that they're literally concepts or categories or whatever names we use or anything like that. The question is simply whether we can refer to them. In other words can we point at them (using language rather than our fingers)?

Yes, you can refer to "them" once the mind invents the concept of "them".

[Terrapin Station]

The question remains: Yes or no, can we refer to mind-independent things?

You can't! Unless a mind constructs the category of "mind-independent things"!

Obviously to refer, we have to use our minds. Why would you think that would be in dispute?
When we refer to something, we're doing something mentally. But referring to something can involve pointing at something that's not itself mental, right? Or no, and you disagree with that. We can't point at something that's not mental in your view?

(It's like you have a weird mental block about this where you can't focus on what we're pointing at, but can only focus on the pointing itself/how the pointing works, etc.--"you're pointing at a finger!" "You have to use your finger to point!" etc.)

[Skepdick]

Obviously to refer, we have to use our minds. Why would you think that would be in dispute?
When we refer to something, we're doing something mentally. But referring to something can involve pointing at something that's not itself mental, right? Or no, and you disagree with that. We can't point at something that's not mental in your view?

I'll try saying this in the language of epistemology.

Referents are necessary, but insufficient for referencing.
References are necessary, but insufficient for referencing.
Minds are necessary, but insufficient for referencing.

All three together may be sufficient.