Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Skepdick]

Nah. If that were the case then the statement "Mary is riding a unicorn" would be a meaningless one. You can't ride a concept.

Idiot. You are conceptualizing Mary riding a unicorn. She isn't actually riding a unicorn because unicorns don't exist outside of your head.

You have to understand what it means to say that someone is talking about something and that there is no requirement for things to exist in order to be able to talk about them.

I understand just fine. You are conceiving of Mary riding a unicorn. Something which Mary can't actually do, so the entire thing is just your conception.

Can't you see what you're doing? When you say "Unicorn don't exist", you're using the word in the standard way, namely, to mean "a horse with a horn". You're talking about things that don't exist. You're doing it yourself.

Are you stupid or yes? Of course unicorns exist. As concepts. When I talk about unicorns I am talking about the concept of a unicorn.

But because you have this erroneous idea that we can't talk about things that don't exist

We can't talk about things that don't exist. All you are talking about is the concept of a unicorn. Which exists.

Now tell me something about a concept which doesn't exist in your head.

you are misled into redefining the term "unicorn" to mean "the concept of unicorn".

No, I am not. The concept ofa unicorn (that's in your head; and my head) is all you are talking about.

Now, you can say that unicorns exist, even though previously you agreed that they don't. It's a silly little word game. Nothing more.

I didn't say unicorns don't exist. I said unicorns don't exist outside of your head. Which is exactly the same as saying unicorns only exist in your head.

We're asking whether unicorns exist anywhere in the world or not.

We who? I am not asking it. I know that they do. I said so. Unicorns exist as concepts. In people's heads.

The location of their existence is irrelevant. They are allowed to exist anywhere.

They may be allowed to exsit anywhere, but they only exist as concepts in your head.

Do unicorns exist, McDickie? If you say "Yes, they exist in heads", can you show me a horse with a horn that exists in someone's head?

Yes. I can show me the unicorn in my head. And you can show you the unicorn in your head.

If you can't show you the unicorn in your head then which unicorn are you talking about?

You're playing word games, dummy. That's all you do.

Fuuuuck. The nerve. I am trying to get you to STOP playing the stupid language games, moron.

You can talk about what can possibly exist, dummy.

So the unicorn in your head doesn't actually exist? It only POSSIBLY exists?

What would be different about the unicorn in your head if it stopped POSSIBLY existing; and it started ACTUALLY existing?

Oh yes, you are. You are making a ton of mistakes. In fact, your entire portfolio is made out of mistakes. What you think about yourself -- which, by the way, is not a definition -- is completely irrelevant.

Of course it is. It's called self-definition. I can (and do) define myself however I want.

You missed the point, dummy.

No, I didn't. The unicorn that you are talking about. WHERE is it located? It's can't be nowhere. it has to be somewhere, otherwise what are you talking about?

So if unicorns came into existence then the meaning of the word "unicorn" will magically go from that of a concept to that of an animal?

Isn't it a bit idiotic to say such a thing?

What do you mean by "come into existence"? Like making a unicorn dolls and selling them on Amazon? That's called reification - turning an abstract idea into a real thing.

Whereas if traveled the universe and happened to find unicorns roaming about on some distance planet - that wouldn't be "coming into existence". That would be "we found unicorns!"

One's an invented unicorn. One's a discovered unicorn. Do you understand the difference?

[Magnus Anderson]

Nah. If that were the case then the statement "Mary is riding a unicorn" would be a meaningless one. You can't ride a concept.

A concept version of Mary can ride a unicorn. I'm experiencing this two part concept right now.

What is "a concept version of Mary"? If it is a concept, then it can't ride a unicorn. Concepts can't ride unicorns. They also can't ride other concepts.

[Magnus Anderson]

Idiot. You are conceptualizing Mary riding a unicorn. She isn't actually riding a unicorn because unicorns don't exist outside of your head.

Unicorns do not exist anywhere, dummy. How many times must it be said? There are no horses inside people's heads. It never happened.

And if what you mean by "unicorn" is a concept of some sort then "Mary is riding a unicorn" means "Mary is riding a concept". A nonsensical statement since one cannot ride a concept.

You're trying extremely hard to disobey logic, dummy. Grow up.

I understand just fine.

No, you don't. You have to try again. This time a bit harder.

Are you stupid or yes? Of course unicorns exist. As concepts. When I talk about unicorns I am talking about the concept of a unicorn.

That's what I'm telling you. You redefined the term "unicorn" so that you can say "Unicorns exist". But try sticking to the definition that everyone uses -- one that involves a horse with a horn. Do such animals exist? I am pretty sure you will say "No, they don't". Dummy, you're just playing dumb.

We can't talk about things that don't exist.

We can, dummy. I can ensure you. Just calm down a bit and try to understand and you will see.

All you are talking about is the concept of a unicorn.

An example of someone talking about the concept of unicorn would be something like "The concept of unicorn is similar to the concept of horse" or "The concept of a horse with a straight horn on its forehead is commonly attached to the word unicorn".

You can't ride concepts, dummy. "Mary is riding the concept of unicorn" makes no sense.

You really are terrible at this stuff, dummy.

The concept ofa unicorn (that's in your head; and my head) is all you are talking about.

Not really, dummy. Don't be so dense.

I didn't say unicorns don't exist. I said unicorns don't exist outside of your head. Which is exactly the same as saying unicorns only exist in your head.

You redefined the word "unicorn" to mean "unicorn-concept". So you aren't really talking about unicorns, as normally understood. You're talking about unicorn-concepts. And I agree. These things really only exists within human minds. They don't exist outside of them. But what about horses that have a horn? What about them, dummy?

They may be allowed to exsit anywhere, but they only exist as concepts in your head.

Only unicorn-concepts, dummy, which aren't really unicorns.

Quit playing games.

If you can't show you the unicorn in your head then which unicorn are you talking about?

Dummy, one can talk about possible unicorns. Possible unicorns aren't concepts. Get over it.

I am trying to get you to STOP playing the stupid language games, moron.

You're trying to destroy this forum with your bullshit, dummy. That's what you're doing. Stop pretending you're a good guy.

So the unicorn in your head doesn't actually exist? It only POSSIBLY exists?

I don't know what kind of crap exists in your mind -- that could explain a lot -- but there are no unicorns in my head.

Of course it is. It's called self-definition. I can (and do) define myself however I want.

Stop misusing words, dummy.

it has to be somewhere, otherwise what are you talking about?

You're a dumb materialist, dummy. That's your number one issue.

Whereas if traveled the universe and happened to find unicorns roaming about on some distance planet - that wouldn't be "coming into existence". That would be "we found unicorns!"

Pathetic nitpicking, dummy. "Came into existence" as in "pop into existence". I wasn't talking about dolls. I was talking about real unicorns.

You really are a motherfucking clown.

How can unicorns roam on some distant planet if unicorns are merely concepts? How can concepts roam, you fucking idiot? Can't you see what you're doing? You're redefining words as you go and as it suits you. One moment, the word "unicorn" means "a concept of a horse with a horn"; another moment, it means "a horse with a horn". How can you even talk about these animals roaming on another planet given that they do not exist!? YOU REALLY ARE AN UNBELIEVABLY STUPID SHITHEAD.

[Skepdick]

Unicorns do not exist anywhere, dummy. How many times must it be said? There are no horses inside people's heads. It never happened.

Dummy. You are using the term "unicorn". It's just a bunch of letters on a screen. Surely this term refers to something? Where is that something?
If the term "unicorn" doesn't refer to anything then what the hell are you talking about when you use the term "unicorn" ?!?

And if what you mean by "unicorn" is a concept of some sort then "Mary is riding a unicorn" means "Mary is riding a concept". A nonsensical statement since one cannot ride a concept.

WHERE is marry riding this unicorn? Where is this unicorn-riding activity taking place?

You're trying extremely hard to disobey logic, dummy. Grow up.

Hardly. Humans are not obedient to the things that we invent. We invented logic, so there's no need to obey it.

That's what I'm telling you. You redefined the term "unicorn" so that you can say "Unicorns exist". But try sticking to the definition that everyone uses -- one that involves a horse with a horn. Do such animals exist? I am pretty sure you will say "No, they don't". Dummy, you're just playing dumb.

Dummy, you keep tripping over your equivocation of "exists".

Yes, horses with horns exist. They exist in exactly the same place where Marry is busy riding this horse with a horn.

In your head!

We can, dummy. I can ensure you. Just calm down a bit and try to understand and you will see.

I don't need to try anything. All you have to do is tell me something about that non-existing idea in your head.

You can't ride concepts, dummy. "Mary is riding the concept of unicorn" makes no sense.

Dummy. You can't ride a unicorn either. Because unicorns don't exist.

But you can conceptualize Mary riding a unicorn. Dummy. Because

You really are terrible at this stuff, dummy.

Yes, you are. Dummy.

Not really, dummy. Don't be so dense.

Yes, really dummy. Where is Mary riding that unicorn?

You redefined the word "unicorn" to mean "unicorn-concept".

No, I didn't. Where is the meaning of the word "unicorn"?

So you aren't really talking about unicorns, as normally understood. You're talking about unicorn-concepts. And I agree. These things really only exists within human minds. They don't exist outside of them. But what about horses that have a horn? What about them, dummy?

Well, what kind of horn are you talking about? A horn that has been put on the horse's head by a human; or a horn that has naturally grown on the horse's forehead?

An actual horse with an actual horn isn't a unicorn. Unicorns poop rainbows and fart glitter, horses don't.

Only unicorn-concepts, dummy, which aren't really unicorns.

Nothing is "really a unicorn" because unicorns don't exist outside of your imagination.

Dummy, one can talk about possible unicorns. Possible unicorns aren't concepts. Get over it.

We are talking about them. I am still asking you this damn question: WHERE are those possible unicorns that we are talking about.

Locate them for me in spacetime. When and where are they?

You're trying to destroy this forum with your bullshit, dummy. That's what you're doing. Stop pretending you're a good guy.

Well, I am the guy teaching an idiot how to be less stupid. So yeah - I am the good guy.

I don't know what kind of crap exists in your mind -- that could explain a lot -- but there are no unicorns in my head.

OK, so where is this POSSIBLE unicorn?

Locate it for me in spacetime. WHEN and WHERE is it?

Stop misusing words, dummy.

If you have no idea how and why I am using words for, you can't possibly determine whether I am using; or misusing words.

You're a dumb materialist, dummy. That's your number one issue.

No, I am not, dummy. Terms have references. A term without a referent is a vacuous term.

If you use the term "unicorn" without that term refering to SOME unicorn SOMEWHERE and SOMEWHEN in spacetime then you have no fucking idea WHAT you are talking about.

Pathetic nitpicking, dummy. "Came into existence" as in "pop into existence". I wasn't talking about dolls. I was talking about real unicorns.

Now where the fuck would real unicorns "pop" into existence from ?!? Would they be teleported in via some worm hole from another universe?

How can unicorns roam on some distant planet if unicorns are merely concepts?

Because I am conceiving of SOME planet SOMEWHERE in the universe having a unicorn on it.

It's all in my head. An imagination. I don't actually know which planet or where.

I can't LOCATE any unicorns outside of my head!
I can't LOCATE any planets with unicorns outside of my head!

So the planet-roaming unicorn I am talking about must be in my head. Where else would it be?

Location. Location. Location.

You don't get it.

How can concepts roam, you fucking idiot? Can't you see what you're doing? You're redefining words as you go and as it suits you. One moment, the word "unicorn" means "a concept of a horse with a horn"; another moment, it means "a horse with a horn". How can you even talk about these animals roaming on another planet given that they do not exist!? YOU REALLY ARE AN UNBELIEVABLY STUPID SHITHEAD.

You dumb fucking retard. The whole thing is a concept.

The unicorn. The planet it's roaming on. The galaxy in which that planet can be found.

It's all imagined. An idea. A concept in my head!

[Iwannaplato]

Nah. If that were the case then the statement "Mary is riding a unicorn" would be a meaningless one. You can't ride a concept.

A concept version of Mary can ride a unicorn. I'm experiencing this two part concept right now.

What is "a concept version of Mary"? If it is a concept, then it can't ride a unicorn. Concepts can't ride unicorns. They also can't ride other concepts.

Then what the heck am I looking at in my mind. It's not a real unicorn and it's not Mary. She's like bigger and three dimensional, the non-conceptual Mary. I've got this concept of Mary riding a unicorn. Though perhaps once you have two concepts in one image it's now one concept made of two - my concept of Mary merging with with the other one. Sort of like you can put two assertions in one sentence. Or even two concepts, though then perhaps when you've got two concepts in one sentence it ends up as one concept. Unless there's a coordinating conjunction. With a subordinating one, that defnitely ends up being one concept.

You can't ride a concept.

I sure can't. But concept Mary can. I can see it. You go 'girl'.

[Skepdick]

I sure can't.

You are definitely riding a unicorn in my mind... Looks fun.

And now I am riding a unicorn too.

[Iwannaplato]

I sure can't.

You are definitely riding a unicorn in my mind... Looks fun.

And now I am riding a unicorn too.

Oh, of course. I hadn't thought of that (literally).
I could have, you know, conceived of myself riding a unicorn.

I'm doing it know. I'm a concept riding a concept.
Meaningfully.

[Magnus Anderson]

Then what the heck am I looking at in my mind. It's not a real unicorn and it's not Mary.

You're looking at a series of mentally fabricated images that make your brain believe Mary is riding a unicorn. In reality, no riding is taking place. Mary isn't riding a unicorn. But also, the concept of Mary is not riding the concept of unicorn. Concepts aren't capable of riding anything. It's nonsense. You're merely believing or imagining that Mary is riding a unicorn.

The point is that, if it's true that the word "unicorn" denotes a concept, then statements such as "Mary is ridining a unicorn" translate to "Mary is riding a concept" which makes them nonsensical. But we know that they aren't and that's because the word "unicorn" does not denote a concept but an animal.

[Magnus Anderson]

You are definitely riding a unicorn in my mind... Looks fun.

He's not riding anything anywhere -- certainly not a concept and certainly not in your head. You're merely imagining him riding an animal ( not a concept, that's unimaginable. )

Again, word games.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'Horse' and 'horn' are empirical elements, as such a unicorn can be speculated as an empirical possibility.

To prove a unicorn exist as real, you will need to provide the necessary empirical evidence of an empirical horse with a single horn in the middle of its forehead to be verified and justified by a human-based science-biology FSK.

Even if there are evidence to support the existence of a unicorn [possible via molecular engineering of DNA or from another planet] it existence and reality can only be confirmed reliably by a human-based science-biology FSK.
Because it is human-based, logical it FOLLOWs, that the unicorn is empirical-rationally real cannot be absolutely independent of human minds.

You are not following what's being said. I am not talking about whether unicorns exist or not. I am talking about what they are and what they are not and that one can answer that question without observing anything other than the concept attached to the word "unicorn".

If you say that the word "unicorn" should only be used to represent horses that have a horn, it follows that all unicorns, i.e. all things that can be represented with the word "unicorn", are horses ( rather than, say, concepts. ) It's completely irrelevant whether they actually exist or not.

OK, if you are not talking about whether unicorns exist or not, I mentioned it as my additional point because it is relevant to the OP.

My point as with the OP is, whatever [physical things, including unicorns, natural laws] are proven to be real, they are "invented" or "constructed" by humans, not via the human mind, but upon the whole-human[s].
This mean their existence as real cannot be absolutely human-independent or conveniently mind-independent.

The fact that the existence of a thing, such as a unicorn, can only be proven by using human methods does not mean that that thing is not mind-independent. "Mind-independent" means "not dependent on the existence of minds". Horses won't cease to exist if all minds disappear from existence. Therefore, horses are mind-independent. The fact that we use human methods to prove their existence is irrelevant. It proves nothing.

My principle is,
whatever is real, factual, true, knowledge, is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK [model].
Because it is human-based, logically, it FOLLOWS, whatever is real cannot be absolutely mind-independent, somehow the human element is intricately entangled in the realization of whatever is real.

In this case 'invent' and 'construct' is not like the typical inventor inventing a thing nor like a constructor constructing a thing.
The process is very complicated as conditioned upon a 13.5 billion years of physical history and 4.5 billions years of organic history that contribute to whatever is real that is 'invented' and 'constructed' by humans.

Are you familiar with, Radical_constructivism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_constructivism
which deny reality & things are mind-independent out there awaiting discovery and mirroring, matching and corresponding our conception with things-in-themselves out there.

My philosophical view is similar to Radical_constructivism but on a more wider perspective.

When you subscribe to reality and things are absolutely mind-independent, you're on the Philosophical Realism bandwagon which is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Can you prove reality and things, say an "apple", that you claimed to be absolutely mind-independent exists as real out there?
You cannot and there is no way you can do it.

[Iwannaplato]

Then what the heck am I looking at in my mind. It's not a real unicorn and it's not Mary.

You're looking at a series of mentally fabricated images that make your brain believe Mary is riding a unicorn. In reality, no riding is taking place. Mary isn't riding a unicorn. But also, the concept of Mary is not riding the concept of unicorn. Concepts aren't capable of riding anything. It's nonsense. You're merely believing or imagining that Mary is riding a unicorn.

The point is that, if it's true that the word "unicorn" denotes a concept, then statements such as "Mary is ridining a unicorn" translate to "Mary is riding a concept" which makes them nonsensical. But we know that they aren't and that's because the word "unicorn" does not denote a concept but an animal.

Yes, the only riding a unicorn is happening in my imagination. I never believed anything else. But it's not meaningless. It's a very good description of what's happening in my imagination.

Once it is placed on the spectrum with
Mary unicorn riding banana pancake fizzle wibbly-wobbly gibberish shoehorn jibber-jabber flibbertigibbet!
your claim that it is meaningless is removed from the table.

And there was no non-conceptural table from which it was removed.
Language is really quite flexible....
so are minds....
and concepts...

It's like they've been doing conceptual yoga for so long they're double jointed.

[Skepdick]

You are definitely riding a unicorn in my mind... Looks fun.

He's not riding anything anywhere -- certainly not a concept and certainly not in your head.

Then Mary is not riging anything anywhere -- certainly not a unicorn and certrainly not in your imagination.

So why did you say that she is?

You're merely imagining him riding an animal ( not a concept, that's unimaginable)

Yes, I am conceptualizing him riding an animal.

The entire movie playing in my mind's eye (him riding an animal) is just an abstract idea. A thought. A figment of my imagination.

concept /ˈkɒnsɛpt/ noun an abstract idea.

abstract adjective /ˈabstrakt/ 1. existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

idea /ʌɪˈdɪə/ noun 1. a thought

Again, word games.

Why is English so difficult for you? It's like you keep tripping over your proverbial feet in your own head.

The sooner you stop playing the silly word games - the sooner I'll stop pointing out the fact that you are just being an idiot.

[Magnus Anderson]

your claim that it is meaningless is removed from the table.

You're not paying attention, and as a consequence of that, you're completely missing the point.

[Iwannaplato]

your claim that it is meaningless is removed from the table.

You're not paying attention, and as a consequence of that, you're completely missing the point.

Oh, I added some playful stuff in there, but you were incorrect. Our interaction began with you misinterpreting my first post.

[Skepdick]

your claim that it is meaningless is removed from the table.

You're not paying attention, and as a consequence of that, you're completely missing the point.

It doesn't matter whether he gets your point or misses your point, because nobody (not even you) understands the point of your point.

Why are you trying to make the point that you are trying to make?