What is P and -P?

[Terrapin Station]

The real/anti-real distinction is a distinction of whether something is mental-only versus whether it occurs in the world external to minds. It maps to the objective/subjective distinction, as well as the cognitive/noncognitive distinction.

So your mental states are not real?

Correct, on the usage of the real/anti-real distinction where it is the same as an extramental/mental distinction. That doesn't have anything to do with any other common/colloquial usage of the term "real."

[Skepdick]

Not at all. It's just that denotative meaning occurs in the head, as all meaning does.

It sure sounds as if "denotative meaning" is terribly defined!

denotation noun the explicit or direct meaning or set of meanings of a word or expression.

If all meaning is in heads, then words can't possibly have any!

[Skepdick]

Correct, on the usage of the real/anti-real distinction where it is the same as an extramental/mental distinction. That doesn't have anything to do with any other common/colloquial usage of the term "real."

We are not speaking colloquially. We are on a philosophy forum. What are we doing here if you can't even speak precisely about yourself?

You are a physicalist, so if your mental states are not real then what are they?

[Terrapin Station]

It sure sounds as if "denotative meaning" is terribly defined!

denotation noun the explicit or direct meaning or set of meanings of a word or expression.

If all meaning is in heads, then words can't possibly have any!

"denotation noun the explicit or direct meaning or set of meanings of a word or expression."

That would indeed be a very poorly-written definition of "denotation."

The denotation of a term is what it "picks out" or "points to"--in other words, as we were discussing before, it's the referent of the term. In other words, if the term is "toaster," the denotation is the metal thing on the kitchen counter that we plug in, put slices of bread into, etc. The denotation is that object.

This doesn't, however, imply that the toaster--the metal object on the kitchen counter, is literally a meaning. In other words, meaning isn't "found in the toaster." And after all, we could change the denotation of "toaster" to plants growing in a forest, and we could make the metal object on the kitchen counter the denotation of "cat" if we wanted to. The metal object on the counter doesn't change when we do this. If the meaning were literally in the object on the counter, this shouldn't work. Rather, denotative meaning is something we do mentally--it's the associative thinking we do between the term and the object on the counter. The denotation is the toaster or the plant or whatever--the object. But that's different than meaning qua meaning.

[Terrapin Station]

Correct, on the usage of the real/anti-real distinction where it is the same as an extramental/mental distinction. That doesn't have anything to do with any other common/colloquial usage of the term "real."

We are not speaking colloquially. We are on a philosophy forum. What are we doing here if you can't even speak precisely about yourself?

You are a physicalist, so if your mental states are not real then what are they?

The distinction is between real and antireal, so we can say they're antireal. That's obvious enough. After all, in this context, "antireal" is just a set of letters that stands for "not extramental," so if we accept mental states, we'd apply that set of letters ("antireal") to them.

[Skepdick]

The denotation of a term is what it "picks out" or "points to"--in other words, as we were discussing before, it's the referent of the term. In other words, if the term is "toaster," the denotation is the metal thing on the kitchen counter that we plug in, put slices of bread into, etc. The denotation is that object.

That is an equally terrible definition. You are anthropomorphising terms. Terms don't point to anything. Humans point to things using terms.

This doesn't, however, imply that the toaster--the metal object on the kitchen counter, is literally a meaning.

Of course, I already addressed this point by saying that while you may use the term "toaster" to point at the metal object on the kitchen counter, I could equally point to it using the word "doorstop".

Because the connotation is that you use the object on the kitchen counter to toast things with, and I use it to stop doors with.

So how many possible descriptions do you think we could come up with for the object on the table and which one is the "correct" one?

In other words, meaning isn't "found in the toaster." And after all, we could change the denotation of "toaster" to plants growing in a forest, and we could make the metal object on the kitchen counter the denotation of "cat" if we wanted to. The metal object on the counter doesn't change when we do this. If the meaning were literally in the object on the counter, this shouldn't work. Rather, denotative meaning is something we do mentally--it's the associative thinking we do between the term and the object on the counter. The denotation is the toaster or the plant or whatever--the object. But that's different than meaning qua meaning.

I alreadymeant all of that when I said "use is meaning". Which is why I asked you "What are you using language for?"

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, definitions are also not the same thing as meanings. Definitions are text strings, sound strings, etc. that are correleated to meanings. The meaning can't be in the text (sound etc.) string. Meaning, again, is an associative manner of thinking. Text strings--marks on paper, etc., can't think, and certainly can't think in associative ways.

[Terrapin Station]

That is an equally terrible definition. You are anthropomorphising terms. Terms don't point to anything. Humans point to things using terms.

What do you think the quotation marks are doing in what you quoted?

A lot of comments you make lead me to think that you're an Aspie.

[Skepdick]

The distinction is between real and antireal, so we can say they're antireal. That's obvious enough. After all, in this context, "antireal" is just a set of letters that stands for "not extramental," so if we accept mental states, we'd apply that set of letters ("antireal") to them.

The context "antireal" is anything that doesn't fit in the "real" box...

Your mental states don't fit in it.

Your mental states are not real.

[Skepdick]

What do you think the quotation marks are doing in what you quoted?

Have you heard of the use/mention distinction?

A lot of comments you make lead me to think that you're an Aspie.

Apparently I can pretend to be an Aspie well enough to predict which doctors will diagnose me as one, and which wouldn't.

[Terrapin Station]

The distinction is between real and antireal, so we can say they're antireal. That's obvious enough. After all, in this context, "antireal" is just a set of letters that stands for "not extramental," so if we accept mental states, we'd apply that set of letters ("antireal") to them.

The context "antireal" is anything that doesn't fit in the "real" box...

Again, the terms represent extramental and not-extramental (or mental if we have mental phenomena in our ontology).

This is not diifficult unless you're back to playing stupid.

[Terrapin Station]

What do you think the quotation marks are doing in what you quoted?

Have you heard of the use/mention distinction?

The quotation marks were not there for use/mention purposes.

A lot of comments you make lead me to think that you're an Aspie.

Apparently I can pretend to be an Aspie well enough to predict which doctors will diagnose me as one, and which wouldn't.

Not at all surprising.

[Skepdick]

Again, the terms represent extramental and not-extramental (or mental if we have mental phenomena in our ontology).

This is not diifficult unless you're back to playing stupid.

I understand perfectly, is just that your metaphysic is completely incoherent.

Everything is physical.

Some physical things are real.

Some physical things are not real.

In the conventional meaning of those words, that's some... What do you call it? Bullshit.

[Terrapin Station]

You didn't by any chance used to chat on Undernet #philosophy, did you? Sometimes you remind me of JohnGuru from there. (And interestingly, the channel owner was known as Skept)

[Skepdick]

The quotation marks were not there for use/mention purposes.

You can determine the purpose for which I use language without asking me?

Incredible!

Not at all surprising.

Well, it surprised me! I didn't expect to be able to game it.

Imagine how that destroyed my faith in psychology being any kind of science.