4 ms·

>But what I've stated 'is' still valid, if you look beyond conceptions and words. No, it is not valid and you know it. Putting scare quotes around "is" is an a

• JRandem1 8y ago
  Yes disproof does not apply, as mentioned, it would be about validation/invalidation. Definitely would have to phrase this differently then with "is". Okei, we have these facts: An actual 'object' does not equate to a term for it. To use what was in the blog post (which, will be restated definitely :) The term chair does not equate to the actual underlying objective process termed chair. Stating that a chair is a chair. Is neither true nor false. Because we cannot talk about the actual underlying processes only describe them with terms. And yes, a proof would signify a concept, and any word about the chair would remain a word. Do you have a suggestion for how one might phrase this more coherently? As proof clearly belongs to conceptions, and is not valid in relation to this, as you mentioned. The thinking is coherent, but how do one state this properly. If we say that "A chair is a chair" then ask if a chair is the word chair? We get a no, the chair is not the word, or yes, the chair is the word chair which would clearly be delusional. Then a chair is not a chair, But since a chair is a chair, we are at an impasse.
• dang 8y ago
  Please don't post uncivilly to HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you think they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• JRandem 8y ago
  Yes, 'Disproof' does not apply, as mentioned, it would be about validation/invalidation. Should definitely phrase this differently then with 'is'. Okei, we have these facts. An 'actual object' does not equate to a term for it. To use what was in the blog post (which, will be restated :) The term chair does not equate to the actual underlying objective process/es termed chair. Stating that 'a chair is a chair' is neither true nor false, because we cannot talk about the actual underlying processes only describe them with terms (as nothing can be it's own sign). And you're correct in that we cannot use a 'proof' or 'disproof' in relation to that. They would signify conceptions and as you've said the Law of Identity enters. Do you have any suggestion for how one might rephrase this with greater coherency? It will be most welcome. As 'proof' clearly belongs to conceptions, and it is not valid in relation to this, as you mentioned. The thinking is coherent, but how does one state this properly. Or succinctly. If we say that "A chair is a chair" then ask if a chair is the Word chair? We get a No, "the chair is not the word chair", or Yes, "the chair is the word chair" which would clearly be delusional, the basis for many mental illnesses, confusing a Word with a 'Thing'. (Ascribing objective existence and values to terms) Then "a chair is not a chair" but since "a chair is a chair" we are at an impasse. Would you say this is a valid outcome? Or invalid? Or something else? Thank you i appreciate your feedback