The Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 1:22 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 7:40 am 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 1:22 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 7:40 am 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?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 9:18 pmBut 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 1:22 pm...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.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 9:42 am

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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 1:57 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 9:42 am 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 1:57 pmI 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

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2026 9:18 pm...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.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:34 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 1:57 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2026 9:42 am 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 5:56 pm...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

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 5:53 amDishonest.

Is that still your belief?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 11:21 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 5:56 pm...if you could do a "sum" with aesthetic values, it would be interesting.

Wouldn't it though?

Yes, it would.

Mr Can, am I

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 5:53 amDishonest.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:10 am Mr Can, am I

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 5:53 amDishonest.

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

You called me

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 5:53 amDishonest.

Do you stand by that?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:25 am You called me

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 5:53 amDishonest.

Do you stand by that?

Then, or now?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:26 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:25 am You called me

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 5:53 amDishonest.

Do you stand by that?

Then, or now?

Both.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:31 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:26 am

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:25 am 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?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:33 am 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.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2026 12:33 am 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.