Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 10:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2023 6:57 am
Skepdick asked a very valid question;
"How does a description relate to a described?"
So, how??
Well, let's see if we can work it out. And let's start with names.
1. How does the name
dog relate to the
things we call dogs?
2. Well now, could it be as simple as that we use the word to talk about the things?
3. And is the name
the thing itself? Of course not.
4. And does our using the name bring the thing into existence? Of course not.
5. And is the thing 'conditioned upon' our use of the name? Of course not.
6. And would what we call a dog be what it is if there were no humans to perceive, know, name and describe it? Of course there would.
Now, a description 'relates to the described' in exactly the same way. A thing can be named and described in any number of different ways. But neither a name nor a description
is the thing being named or described.
What you started off in the above is using the human-based linguistic-FSK.
As such 'that thing itself' and the name 'dog' is
conditioned upon the human-based linguistic-FSK, i.e. without this linguistic-FSK, there is no way you can
realized and
expressed the above.
Therefore both "that thing itself" and the name 'dog' is 'CONDITIONED UPON' i.e. the human-based linguistic-FSK.
Note, the linguistic FSK is "human-based" thus cannot be absolutely independent from the human conditions or in general "mind-independent."
You agree, the name 'dog' does not bring
that-thing into
existence.
Now what is 'that thing
itself'? or to be specific the 'thing-in-itself'.
When you speak of 'thing itself' you are
assuming the thing exists by itself, i.e. unconditionally of the human conditions. [your point 6].
Do you realize your are conflating and equivocating the conditioned [thing as dog as conditioned to the human based FSK - point 1&2] with the unconditional thing-itself.
That is a fallacy of equivocation.
This is why your conclusion is illusory.
That is where there is a problem with "your" simply linking the description with 'the-described'.
And note 'existence' is not a predicate, it is merely the copula "is" or "is_ness" in this case. This is a serious issue that need attention.
Your simple predicating the 'existence of the dog' with the human-based linguistic FSK is too superficial.
What is more precise is to rely on the science-biology FSK which can only confirm that "thing" is an animal plus biologically an animal and taxanomically a dog within the dog species, Canis familiaris.
In addition, the breed of 'that-thing-dog' is determined by some authority [dog-breed-FSK] which at present rely on DNA testing to confirm the exact breed of a dog.
"Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI): FCI is an international canine organization that recognizes and standardizes dog breeds on a global scale. It works with national kennel clubs to establish and maintain breed standards."
There is no such thing as a dog-in-itself existing absolutely and unconditionally independently from the human conditions.
What is that 'thing' that is 'dog' is conditioned via the linguistic, science-biology FSK and dog-breed FSK.
That thing as 'dog' and conditioned upon the above FSK is an emergence and a realization as conditioned upon 13.5 billions years of physicality and 4.5 years of organic and biological evolution [since LUCA] as I had argued below;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
You have not bothered to counter my points rationally with critical thinking but merely brush them off with dogmatic clinging to your simple fundamentalistic ideology of independence and the linguistic-FSK.
What you are claiming that the dog-itself exists absolutely independent of the human conditions [your pt. 6] is merely trying to mirror your description to something that is illusory.
There is no way you can realistically link your description to the-described without conditioning this linkage to the relevant human-based FSKs.
And I keep repeating this because you and moron dick-for-brains seem unable to grasp its significance - even if you agree that it's true. Your silly idea is that, since we have to perceive, know and describe reality in human ways, reality itself is 'conditioned upon' our ways of knowing (via 'fsks') and describing it. You say there's no such thing as 'reality itself' at all. And that conclusion is completely unjustified.
Yours is the silly idea from some kindi, what I have presented is relatively a Ph.D level view for you to chew [if only that is possible].
