tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post6514010735530649037..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-64132693524909404772015-11-24T09:54:53.313-08:002015-11-24T09:54:53.313-08:00Thank you for that. I'm aware that some of th...Thank you for that. I'm aware that some of the things I say may be way off-base. I don't mind being called ignorant by someone who offers it constructively, because I am willing to learn. But I am also somewhat reluctant to shape my manner of speaking to sound more like a trained philosopher, because I think it might sound too pretentious. I prefer to talk in plain language, especially in conversation.<br /><br />If you would like to offer additional comments and criticism, I would like to hear them.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-88835736143033125172015-11-24T00:27:35.272-08:002015-11-24T00:27:35.272-08:00Hi i-s,
Followed the trail here after some commen...Hi i-s,<br /><br />Followed the trail here after some comments on Dangerous Idea... kudos on the writing in this article. Honestly, last time I read some of your articles was when you started this blog, and the quality was, well, not great... I never came back... so nice improvement I think!<br /><br />Regarding the argument, lots to say but no time..., I would put it differently but I agree with tour take on it, in general anyway. Especially the unclear definition of the word 'determinate'.<br /><br />Martin, that's where I disagree with you; definitions from the dictionary are not enough on their own, have often many meaning, and we're not professional philosopher, including you, so it's just normal to discuss what such word means if any meaningful discussion is be held.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-78878329495074049052015-11-23T21:12:07.552-08:002015-11-23T21:12:07.552-08:00"The point is that physical symbols are indef..."The point is that physical symbols are indefinite ... with regard to what they represent."<br /><br />So you understand the term in the manner that I have called semantic indeterminacy.<br /><br />Two questions:<br /><br />Where in Ross' paper is is the term used in that manner?<br />Since formal thought expresses functions in symbolic form, doesn't that imply that they are indeterminate, too?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-86806226251770790252015-11-23T20:28:27.254-08:002015-11-23T20:28:27.254-08:00The word "determinate" is not defined be...The word "determinate" is not defined because it's assumed whoever reading it is a competent language user and knows that it means, as per the dictionary, "precisely defined; definite." If you're vocabulary isn't up to par and you don't know what the word means, that's hardly Ross' fault, anymore than it would be the author's fault if <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150922104647.htm" rel="nofollow">you don't know what "probiotic" means.</a> People in academia are not going to sit there and define words like that, <i>unless</i> they are using them in a non-standard way, in which case they become "stipulative definitions."<br /><br />But that's neither here nor there. <br /><br />The point is that physical symbols are indefinite (I guess we can't use the term "indeterminate" anymore since you don't know what it means) with regard to what they represent. That's Ross' point, and his only point. Now that you know it, you can now examine the argument rather than talking about which word he is using to describe it, which is nothing more than a distraction.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.com