Numbers

[FlashDangerpants]

What I actually don't think true is your explanation for why we can't do sums in redness.

I didn't suggest any explanation for it. I merely pointed it out.

You did the whole "-ness" thing to explain it though, no?

It looked like haphazard attempt at referencing Lockean primary and secondary qualities. But obviously you are the renowned philosopher here, so I wouldn't put words into your renowned mouth.

[Will Bouwman]

What I actually don't think true is your explanation for why we can't do sums in redness.

I didn't suggest any explanation for it.

So what is the because referring to?

But here's the weird thing: one cannot calculate with "redness," because the quality of being red must attach to an object in order to be attributable.

...the reason we cannot do sums in redness, I suggest, is the same: it's not an intelligible idea, because of a category confusion. The term "sums" has no application at all to "redness."

But prove me wrong, if you can. I'd like to see it done.

CC+SC=CSC
+ =
You can do it with any things.
Or you can choose other systems: II+III=V
Anyway, it seems to me that numbers exist insofar as there is more than one thing (probably), and we have attached particular symbols to quantities. Quantity exists both concretely and abstractly, but the symbols we attach are purely arbitrary.

[Immanuel Can]

But prove me wrong, if you can. I'd like to see it done.

CC+SC=CSC
+ =
You can do it with any things.

Well, that's cute, but what you've done there is simply substitute one kind of symbol for another; but the calculation, the equation, is basically mathematical. It's like algebra. Two can be represented by "2" or "II" or " ," or "A" ...but they're all still fundamentally a representation of "two."

I can't imagine how you would even try to do it without depending on mathematics, that is by "summing" nothing but qualia, with no lapsing into mathematical symbols or substitutes. That's what I'd like to see done. And it's that that looks to me like a category error.

[Will Bouwman]

CC+SC=CSC
+ =
You can do it with any things.

Well, that's cute, but what you've done there is simply substitute one kind of symbol for another; but the calculation, the equation, is basically mathematical.

Well you can change the symbols for mathematical operations to shades of red too, but the operations remain the same.

I can't imagine how you would even try to do it without depending on mathematics, that is by "summing" nothing but qualia, with no lapsing into mathematical symbols or substitutes. That's what I'd like to see done. And it's that that looks to me like a category error.

It's not an error anyone has made. The main error you made is in deducing from my not believing that

...one cannot calculate with "redness," because the quality of being red must attach to an object in order to be attributable.

that I therefore believe it is possible to calculate with redness. That is a basic logical error. Your error as a human being is that you cannot admit that you are sometimes wrong and as a moral agent, that you refuse to apologise for falsely accusing someone of dishonesty. Presumably you believe your behaviour is compatible with your version of Christianity, which gives me, and others no doubt, a dim view of your god. It also explains why you so readily accept that humans are born flawed, since it is manifestly true in your case. But there is hope, Mr Can; even for you: I understand Jesus will forgive your shortcomings, just as soon as you confess them and ask forgiveness.

[Immanuel Can]

CC+SC=CSC
+ =
You can do it with any things.

Well, that's cute, but what you've done there is simply substitute one kind of symbol for another; but the calculation, the equation, is basically mathematical.

Well you can change the symbols for mathematical operations to shades of red too, but the operations remain the same.

Precisely what's wrong with your answer. It relies on mathematical symbols, not aesthetic valuations. Now, if you could do a "sum" with aesthetic values, it would be interesting. But basic algebra is not particularly surprising...and that's what you illustrated.

[Will Bouwman]

...if you could do a "sum" with aesthetic values, it would be interesting.

Wouldn't it though? Mr Can, you have accused me of being

Dishonest.

Is that still your belief?

[Immanuel Can]

...if you could do a "sum" with aesthetic values, it would be interesting.

Wouldn't it though?

Yes, it would.

[Will Bouwman]

Mr Can, am I

Dishonest.

[Immanuel Can]

Mr Can, am I

Dishonest.

You mean, are you being now? Or were you then?

[Will Bouwman]

You called me

Dishonest.

Do you stand by that?

[Immanuel Can]

You called me

Dishonest.

Do you stand by that?

Then, or now?

[Will Bouwman]

You called me

Dishonest.

Do you stand by that?

Then, or now?

Both.

[Immanuel Can]

You called me
Do you stand by that?

Then, or now?

Both.

When you make a claim, I'll tell you whether I think you're being honest or not. What's your claim?

[Will Bouwman]

When you make a claim, I'll tell you whether I think you're being honest or not. What's your claim?

That you called me dishonest.

[Immanuel Can]

When you make a claim, I'll tell you whether I think you're being honest or not. What's your claim?

That you called me dishonest.

I called your statement dishonest. If you want to transfer that to a more general characterization -- well, only you are going to know if that's true.