“What does ‘right’ mean?” is a wrong question. The correct question is: “What do you mean by ‘right’?”
I agree the initial question should be the latter (and it is the one I’m asking here), unless we can show that everyone means the same thing by “right”.
“What effect do you hope to achieve by invoking the communication symbol of ‘right’ in your speech act?”
In the case of the calculator, it’s not hoping to achieve anything, so it means nothing by “2”?
In the case of the calculator, it’s not hoping to achieve anything, so it means nothing by “2”?
What makes you think you can compare humans with calculators? We are all quantum amplitudes, it’s all cause and effect. But if the previous sentence would settle all issues, why do we still talk about it if reductionism is the answer? I haven’t read most of the sequences yet, so it is a honest question. What made you pose that question?
It’s kind of frustrating when you keep denying seemingly obvious implications of your philosophical positions without explaining why they’re not implications. But I’ll try to be patient...
I agree the initial question should be the latter (and it is the one I’m asking here), unless we can show that everyone means the same thing by “right”.
In the case of the calculator, it’s not hoping to achieve anything, so it means nothing by “2”?
What makes you think you can compare humans with calculators? We are all quantum amplitudes, it’s all cause and effect. But if the previous sentence would settle all issues, why do we still talk about it if reductionism is the answer? I haven’t read most of the sequences yet, so it is a honest question. What made you pose that question?
Not quite, but I don’t feel comfortable explaining my view on that yet.
It’s kind of frustrating when you keep denying seemingly obvious implications of your philosophical positions without explaining why they’re not implications. But I’ll try to be patient...