Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

[Terrapin Station]

It's nothing that complicated. It's simply that either P and X can be "one and the same" thing or not.

I have no idea what that means.

P is one and the same thing as itself.
X is one and the same thing as itself.

Not P and X. Those are pointers. What they're pointing to. Think of literally pointing at something. Two arms/hands/fingers can be pointing at one thing--just one thing, in one spatiotemporal location.

(It's a pain in the butt to try to Aspie-proof everything one writes, by the way.)

[Skepdick]

Not P and X. Those are pointers. What they're pointing to.
Think of literally pointing at something. Two arms/hands/fingers can be pointing at one thing--just one thing, in one spatiotemporal location.

They are pointers if you are talking about epistemology.
They are not pointers if you are talking about ontology.

If you are talking about epistemology-ontology relation, then you are saying P and X point to the same ontological entity Z

People don't do such shenanigans when they theorize. They default to naive realism: P and X as ontological.

(It's a pain in the butt to try to Aspie-proof everything one writes, by the way.)

You don't have to Aspie-proof it. You have to child-proof it... you are tripping up over yourself.

[Terrapin Station]

Not P and X. Those are pointers. What they're pointing to.
Think of literally pointing at something. Two arms/hands/fingers can be pointing at one thing--just one thing, in one spatiotemporal location.

They are pointers if you are talking about epistemology.
They are not pointers if you are talking about ontology.

If you are talking about epistemology-ontology relation, then you are saying P and X point to the same ontological entity Z

People don't do such shenanigans when they theorize. They default to naive realism: P and X as ontological.

I'm talking about what they're pointing to, however you want to characterize that. That's what the issue is there. Either they can be pointing to one and the same thing in the argument in question or they can't be.

[Skepdick]

I'm talking about what they're pointing to, however you want to characterize that. That's what the issue is there. Either they can be pointing to one and the same thing in the argument in question or they can't be.

So I take it you don't subscribe to Quine then?

You don't buy into the Inscrutability of reference?

e.g you don't think you can change what the terms of a sentence refer to without changing the meaning of a sentence?

[Terrapin Station]

I'm talking about what they're pointing to, however you want to characterize that. That's what the issue is there. Either they can be pointing to one and the same thing in the argument in question or they can't be.

So I take it you don't subscribe to Quine then?

You don't buy into the Inscrutability of reference?

e.g you don't think you can change what the terms of a sentence refer to without changing the meaning of a sentence?

I'm not talking about anything to do with that. It's simply the case that per Gewirth's argument, what P and X are pointing to can be one and the same thing or they can't be. Otherwise what would you say is a third option there?

[Skepdick]

I'm not talking about anything to do with that. It's simply the case that per Gewirth's argument, what P and X are pointing to can be one and the same thing or they can't be. Otherwise what would you say is a third option there?

The third option is that you are equivocating "sameness" and you pre-suppose "thingness".

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not talking about anything to do with that. It's simply the case that per Gewirth's argument, what P and X are pointing to can be one and the same thing or they can't be. Otherwise what would you say is a third option there?

The third option is that you are equivocating "same" and you pre-suppose "things"

It's nothing technical about "thing." One and the same whatever. We're not equivocating if it's one whatever, in one respect, in one spatiotemporal location, etc.

That's not a third option, it's you pretending to be stupid about what we're even talking about.

[Skepdick]

That's not a third option, it's you pretending to be stupid about what we're even talking about.

No. I am pretending that I don't buy your framing/false dichotomy.

Semantics...

[Terrapin Station]

That's not a third option, it's you pretending to be stupid about what we're even talking about.

No. I am pretending that I don't buy your framing/false dichotomy.

Semantics...

How about not pretending?

Otherwise give a third option. Either we can be pointing to one thing or we're necessarily pointing to two different things or the third option for what we're pointing to is?

Again, where this is nothing technical about "thing"--"Pointing to one 'that' "we could say to try to Aspie-proof it (Not that I'd be interested in trying to have discussions about this stuff with that level of Aspie, though.)

[Skepdick]

Otherwise give a third option. Either we can be pointing to one thing or we're necessarily pointing to two different things or the third option for what we're pointing to is?

I gave you one. You rejected it.

How about you tell me what falsification of your framing you would accept? If the answer is "none" then why are you wasting my time?

Again, where this is nothing technical about "thing"--"Pointing to one 'that' "we could say to try to Aspie-proof it

You can't point to it. You misunderstand Quine's point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscrutab ... of_gavagai

[Terrapin Station]

I gave you one. You rejected it.

Because it wasn't a third option for what we could be pointing to re whether we can be pointing to the same thing or we're necessarily pointing to different things.

How about you tell me what falsification of your framing you would accept? If the answer is "none" then why are you wasting my time?

It would have to be a third option of what we could be pointing to where (a) it can't be the same thing and (b) it's not necessarily different things.

I can't tell you what a third option would be because I can't think of any and I don't believe there is one. I believe the above exhausts the possibilities. But if someone is claiming that there would be a third option, I'll look at it and consider it. It's just that it would actually have to be a third option re what we could be pointing at.

You can't point to it. You misunderstand Quine's point.

If only this had something to do with Quine. It's rather a simple dichotomy about logical possibilities. Assuming we can point at stuff, either we can point at a single "that" or we're necessarily pointing at two different "that's" (or a "this" and a "that")

[Skepdick]

Because it wasn't a third option for what we could be pointing to re whether we can be pointing to the same thing or we're necessarily pointing to different things.

The third option is you are equivocating "same" and "thing".
The fourth option is that he's pointing to a different thing BUT the meaning of the sentence is unaffected by the referential difference.
The fifth option is that they are neither same nor different (because sameness and difference are underdetermined).

Do you want more?

It would have to be a third option of what we could be pointing to where (a) it can't be the same thing and (b) it's not necessarily different things.

What third option would you accept if you are prescribing a reference frame with only two categories?

I can't tell you what a third option would be because I can't think of any

That's bullshit. I gave you options and you rejected them. So you can't imagine what a third option would be like, but you can imagine what it WOULDN'T be like ? Nice!

I gave you a 3rd, 4th and 5th options now .

I guess you are going to insist that they map into your two categories?

But if someone is claiming that there would be a third option, I'll look at it and consider it.

Ah well, if it's up to your consideration, examine your pre-suppositions and tell us why they might be wrong.

If only this had something to do with Quine.

If only it didn't.

[Terrapin Station]

The third option is you are equivocating "same" and "thing

That's not a third option for what we can be pointing at, lol

[Skepdick]

That's not a third option for what we can be pointing at, lol

Since you insist being in charge of determination, you need to tell me what third option is acceptable to you.

If any. If none - say so.

[Terrapin Station]

That's not a third option for what we can be pointing at, lol

Since you insist in being charge of determination, you need to tell me what third option is acceptable to you.

If any.

I haven't the faintest idea what that response is saying.