What is P and -P?

[Terrapin Station]

The difference, of course is that no evidence could possibly convince you that you aren't having an itch. There's no alternative experience that could falsify your itch other than the itch going away.

Falling off a bycicle the first time you climb onto one would sure falsify you "understanding" how to ride it.

That's conflating "how-to knowledge" and understanding, which aren't the same thing in my usage.

You can be in different mental states at different times, obviously. But when you're in a mental state at a particular time, you know you're in that mental state.

You don't have to report to anybody but yourself that you "understand" how to ride a bicycle.

You never have to report a mental state to anybody. That has nothing to do with this.

[Skepdick]

That's conflating "how-to knowledge" and understanding, which aren't the same thing in my usage.

You can be in different mental states at different times, obviously. But when you're in a mental state at a particular time, you know you're in that mental state.

What about the mental state of falsification?

The critical moment when you understand that you didn't understand.

When new information causes you to revisit.

You never have to report a mental state to anybody. That has nothing to do with this.

I know.

I am talking about your supposed ability to know/recognize the mental state of "understanding".

The moment you recognize this mental state of "understanding" you hold a belief about yourself. You believe that you understand.

New information can always falsify belief. Even about yourself.

[Terrapin Station]

What about the mental state of falsification?

The critical moment when you understand that you didn't understand.

You must be thinking that there's a fact with respect to whether you "really understand" something or not.

That's not my view.

But sure, you can certainly think "I understand x" at time T1, but at time T2, you think, "No, I didn't understand x," but really, per my characterization of what understanding is, at time T1, you did understand x insofar as your knowledge of/experience with/thought about x went at time T1. At time T2, you can have a different view of x, either a different understanding of it, or a feeling that you can no longer make sense of it, in light of new information. Neither of those change the fact that you understood x (however you did) at time T1, even though"Wait, I didn't understand x" (at time T2) is a common way to talk about this.

You never have to report a mental state to anybody. That has nothing to do with this.

I know.

I am talking about your supposed ability to know/recognize the mental state of "understanding".

The moment you recognize this mental state of "understanding" you hold a belief about yourself. You believe that you understand.

New information can always falsify belief. Even about yourself.

What does any of that have to do with reports? Anyway, new information can't falsify that you're in mental state m at time T1. Again, there isn't something that's "really understanding." It's just a mental state you're in at a given time.

[Skepdick]

You must be thinking that there's a fact with respect to whether you "really understand" something or not.

That's not my view.

I am not at all thinking that.

I think that "understanding" is an empirical hypothesis about your own mental state. Subject to being updated as new information arrives.

e.g If my wife asks me to bring her some berries, and when I do she tells me "I said cherries, not berries" surely I would no longer believe that I "understood".

But sure, you can certainly think "I understand x" at time T1, but at time T2, you think, "No, I didn't understand x," but really, per my characterization of what understanding is, at time T1, you did understand x insofar as your knowledge of/experience with/thought about x went at time T1. At time T2, you can have a different view of x, either a different understand of it, or a feeling that you can no longer make sense of it, in light of new information. Neither of those change the fact that you understood x (however you did) at time T1, even though"Wait, I didn't understand x" (at time T2) is a common way to talk about this.

So it sounds to me that what you call "understanding" is something like "I've discarded all alternative hypotheses and I am down to one".

You are not uncertain that you understand - you are just out of self-skepticism.

What does any of that have to do with reports?

It doesn't have ANYTHING to do with reports. I said you don't have to report your understanding to anybody and you agreed! Why are you still talking about this?

Anyway, new information can't falsify that you're in mental state m at time T1. Again, there isn't something that's "really understanding." It's just a mental state you're in at a given time.

At T1 you experienced the mental state of understanding.
At T2 you experienced the mental state of understanding that your understanding at T1 was mistaken.

So is your understanding at T1 the same as your understanding at T2?

[Terrapin Station]

Here's my definition of understanding:

Understanding obtains when one assigns meanings to objects, actions or events in a way that is coherent and consistent to one and that also makes sense in the context of both present and past related objects, actions and events, especially those (one considers) related to the objects, actions or events in question.

Mutual understanding (for example, in the context of communication) obtains when multiple parties do this in conjunction with each other, so that if there are two parties, say A and B, A is in the state in the paragraph above with respect to B, and B is in the state described in the paragraph above with respect to A.

Note that this does not imply that A and B have similar content to their states. Since meaning is subjective and inherently first-person in my view, we can never know whether A and B have similar content to their states.

"Communication," by the way, I define as follows: Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person) in a way involving understanding.

[Skepdick]

Here's my definition of understanding:

Understanding obtains when one assigns meanings to objects, actions or events in a way that is coherent and consistent to one and that also makes sense in the context of both present and past related objects, actions and events, especially those (one considers) related to the objects, actions or events in question.

Mutual understanding (for example, in the context of communication) obtains when multiple parties do this in conjunction with each other, so that if there are two parties, say A and B, A is in the state in the paragraph above with respect to B, and B is in the state described in the paragraph above with respect to A.

Note that this does not imply that A and B have similar content to their states. Since meaning is subjective and inherently first-person in my view, we can never know whether A and B have similar content to their states.

"Communication," by the way, I define as follows: Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person) in a way involving understanding.

I don't know why you are involving multiple parties in this and what communication and mutual understanding has to do with any of it.

I am asking you to perform my thought experiment in your head, ask yourself a question about yourself and provide a yes/no answer.

I am using "I" and "you" interchangeably since the distinction should make no difference whatsoever when you perform my thought-experiment in your head.

At T1 I/you experienced the mental state of understanding.
At T2 I/you experienced the mental state of understanding that my/your understanding at T1 was mistaken.

Is my/your understanding at T1 the same as my/your understanding at T2? Yes or no?

[Terrapin Station]

At T1 I/you experienced the mental state of understanding.
At T2 I/you experienced the mental state of understanding that my/your understanding at T1 was mistaken.

Is my/your understanding at T1 the same as my/your understanding at T2? Yes or no?

No. Nothing is ever literally identical if it's numerically distinct (which it is if we're talking about two different times, two different people, etc.) I addressed this above already when I said:

"But sure, you can certainly think "I understand x" at time T1, but at time T2, you think, "No, I didn't understand x," but really, per my characterization of what understanding is, at time T1, you did understand x insofar as your knowledge of/experience with/thought about x went at time T1. At time T2, you can have a different view of x, either a different understanding of it, or a feeling that you can no longer make sense of it, in light of new information. Neither of those change the fact that you understood x (however you did) at time T1, even though"Wait, I didn't understand x" (at time T2) is a common way to talk about this."

[Skepdick]

"Communication," by the way, I define as follows: Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person) in a way involving understanding.

In other news you notion of communication fails to distinguish between synchronous, asynchronous, simplex and duplex communication.

And so you probably can't distinguish between "understanding" that is the product of adductive reasoning, and "understanding" which is the product of inductive reasoning e.g "understanding" which has withstood some falsification attempts.

[Terrapin Station]

"Communication," by the way, I define as follows: Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person) in a way involving understanding.

In other news you notion of communication fails to distinguish between synchronous, asynchronous, simplex and duplex communication.

And so you probably can't distinguish between "understanding" that is the product of adductive reasoning, and "understanding" which is the product of inductive reasoning e.g "understanding" which has withstood some falsification attempts.

Not that any of that make a difference for what communication or understanding is on my view, but in the definition of communication I wrote "Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person . . ."

We're getting to the fun part where it turns out that you're just not bothering to read a lot of stuff I write.

[Skepdick]

No. Nothing is ever literally identical if it's numerically distinct (which it is if we're talking about two different times, two different people, etc.) I addressed this above already when I said:

It doesn't address it.

We are not talking about two different people. We are only talking about you.

And since you introduced a time-dimension into the discussion in doing so you decoupled the time from state, creating a language in which you can say things like A @ Time 1 and A @ Time 2

I am not asking you about "literally identical", which they aren't - because of their different time co-ordinates.

I am asking you if A = A.

[Skepdick]

Not that any of that make a difference for what communication or understanding is on my view, but in the definition of communication I wrote "Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person . . ."

We're getting to the fun part where it turns out that you're just not bothering to read a lot of stuff I write.

It turns out, that I do, in fact read everything you write and you are equivocating "sameness" left, right and centre.

Because just in the post above you said (and I am quoting) "Nothing is ever literally identical if it's numerically distinct (which it is if we're talking about two different times)".

So what do you mean by the " two temporal instances of the same person" ?

[Terrapin Station]

No. Nothing is ever literally identical if it's numerically distinct (which it is if we're talking about two different times, two different people, etc.) I addressed this above already when I said:

It doesn't address it.

We are not talking about two different people. We are only talking about you.

Again, we're at that stage of interaction where it seems that you're not even reading what I'm writing:

Nothing is ever literally identical if it's numerically distinct (which it is if we're talking about two different times,

And since you introduced a time-dimension into the discussion

What you asked me right before the "No" above was this:

At T1 I/you experienced the mental state of understanding.
At T2 I/you experienced the mental state of understanding that my/your understanding at T1 was mistaken.

, . . so now you're not even reading what you write.

Is my/your understanding at T1 the same as my/your understanding at T2? Yes or no?

NO
Can you see that I'm typing "NO"? I typed "NO" above, too, very plainly.

If you don't mean "identical" by "the same" what do you mean? What notion of non-identical "sameness" are you employing?

I am asking you if A = A.

Not if we're not referring to a numerically identical A. I explained this already. Why didn't you read it? If we're referring to anything with any difference, any what's-called "numeric distinctness" then the two things ARE NOT THE SAME/ARE NOT IDENTICAL.

[Skepdick]

Nothing is ever literally identical if it's numerically distinct (which it is if we're talking about two different times,

two temporal instances of the same person

So.. two temporal instances of the same person are not the same person?

Gotcha!

Not if we're not referring to a numerically identical A. I explained this already. Why didn't you read it? If we're referring to anything with any difference, any what's-called "numeric distinctness" then the two things ARE NOT THE SAME/ARE NOT IDENTICAL.

It's precisely because I read is why I can find all of your contradictions. Is my job to debug logical errors, you know.

[Terrapin Station]

Not that any of that make a difference for what communication or understanding is on my view, but in the definition of communication I wrote "Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person . . ."

We're getting to the fun part where it turns out that you're just not bothering to read a lot of stuff I write.

It turns out, that I do, in fact read everything you write and you are equivocating "sameness" left, right and centre.

Because just in the post above you said (and I am quoting) "Nothing is ever literally identical if it's numerically distinct (which it is if we're talking about two different times)".

So what do you mean by the " two temporal instances of the same person" ?

"So called 'same,' not literally."

In other words, in a conventional manner of speaking, but they're not literally the same or identical. Basically, it's a way of not insisting that everyone adapt to nominalism in how they speak about things, even though nominalism has things right.

[Terrapin Station]

Nothing is ever literally identical if it's numerically distinct (which it is if we're talking about two different times,

two temporal instances of the same person

So.. two temporal instances of the same person are not the same person?

Gotcha!

Correct, they're not literally the same person.