What is P and -P?

[Skepdick]

Yes, I'm dismissive if it doesn't count as an answer to me. Your intention wouldn't matter there. You didn't answer.

Seeming as intent is necessary for language, your dismissiveness is irrational.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, I'm dismissive if it doesn't count as an answer to me. Your intention wouldn't matter there. You didn't answer.

Seeming as intent is necessary for language, your dismissiveness is irrational.

So there is correct/incorrect rationality on your view then?

[Skepdick]

So there is correct/incorrect rationality on your view then?

Red herring. Pick another word if "rationality" triggers you.

if the clouds in the sky spelled out "Terrapin Station is an idiot" it's not language - it's just some absolutely ridiculous coincidence/arrangement of clouds to which you ascribe meaning.

[Terrapin Station]

Red herring. Pick another word if "rationality" triggers you.

It's just a question about a comment you made. It was a word you used. If you don't want to support stuff you say--and I certainly don't ever expect you to attempt as much knowing what I know about you so far, then you can avoid it obviously, but I'll still ask in the hope that at some point you move beyond the silliness you've been engaging in.

if the clouds in the sky spelled out "Terrapin Station is an idiot" it's not language

If clouds managed to do that, I'd be fine considering it sufficient to count as language.

[Skepdick]

If clouds managed to do that, I'd be fine considering it sufficient to count as language.

And I wouldn't. I'd be absolutely flabbergasted by the statistical outlier that I am observing, but I wouldn't call it language.

Which is why I said "intent is necessary, but not sufficient for language".

[Terrapin Station]

If clouds managed to do that, I'd be fine considering it sufficient to count as language.

And I wouldn't.

Which is why I said "intent is necessary, but not sufficient".

Sure. Different people are different.

Did we learn something today?

[Skepdick]

Sure. Different people are different.

Did we learn something today?

I didn't. Did you?

[Terrapin Station]

Sure. Different people are different.

Did we learn something today?

I didn't. Did you?

No. I doubt that's likely here, especially interacting with you. (I did learn something about your personality the first couple times I interacted with you, but once I realized it was "stereotypical chat/message board A-hole #3" (out of maybe four or five personality types), there was nothing left to learn.)

[Skepdick]

No. I doubt that's likely here, especially interacting with you. (I did learn something about your personality the first couple times I interacted with you, but once I realized it was "stereotypical chat/message board A-hole #3" (out of maybe four or five personality types), there was nothing left to learn.)

Well, you did learn SOMETHING.

So at least your time wasn't entirely wasted.

[Terrapin Station]

No. I doubt that's likely here, especially interacting with you. (I did learn something about your personality the first couple times I interacted with you, but once I realized it was "stereotypical chat/message board A-hole #3" (out of maybe four or five personality types), there was nothing left to learn.)

Well, you did learn SOMETHING.

Yeah, not today, though.

[Skepdick]

No. I doubt that's likely here, especially interacting with you. (I did learn something about your personality the first couple times I interacted with you, but once I realized it was "stereotypical chat/message board A-hole #3" (out of maybe four or five personality types), there was nothing left to learn.)

Well, you did learn SOMETHING.

Yeah, not today, though.

Consider ourself lucky! The only personality type I've ever encountered around these woods is the philosopher type.

There's nothing to learn from these folk...

[Terrapin Station]

Well, you did learn SOMETHING.

Yeah, not today, though.

Consider ourself lucky! The only personality type I've ever encountered around these woods is the philosopher type.

There's nothing to learn from these folk...

Most people posting on message boards like this don't really qualify as philosophers in the sense that either (a) they'd ever be capable of publishing something in a peer-reviewed journal, or (b) they'd be qualified to teach philosophy anywhere.

It's usually a high percentage of computer techs, programmers, sometimes engineers, etc. of some sort who have some interest in philosophy, so who have self-educated to some extent, but not enough.

[Skepdick]

It's usually a high percentage of computer techs, programmers, sometimes engineers, etc. of some sort who have some interest in philosophy, so who have self-educated to some extent, but not enough.

Well, I tick that box.

The trouble is I can't figure out what "enough" means in Philosophy, and nobody can tell me either.

And I certainly can't find any Philosopher having ever philosophised about the nature of questions. So it seems my field has covered more ground than theirs.

[Terrapin Station]

It's usually a high percentage of computer techs, programmers, sometimes engineers, etc. of some sort who have some interest in philosophy, so who have self-educated to some extent, but not enough.

Well, I tick that box.

The trouble is I can't figure out what "enough" means in Philosophy, and nobody can tell me either.

And I certainly can't find any Philosopher having ever philosophised about the nature of questions. So it seems my field has covered more ground than theirs.

Enough that the paper wouldn't be just thrown into the trash by the journal, and enough to at least have the equivalent knowledge/widsom/experience of someone formally qualified to teach it. Enough to not just post rambling, inane, often incoherent stuff, the errors of which could be spotted by any junior undergraduate, at least.

[Skepdick]

Enough that the paper wouldn't be just thrown into the trash by the journal, and enough to at least have the equivalent knowledge/widsom/experience of someone formally qualified to teach it. Enough to not just post rambling, inane, often incoherent stuff, the errors of which could be spotted by any junior undergraduate, at least.

I am not interested in publication. I am interested in application.

Nobody in the world was "qualified to teach" distributed systems theory, because we invented the systems before the theory was written.

In so far as it's my experience - that's always the order of events. Invention, then publication.