I think you need to think through your definition of “exist” and whether it matches that of those who think that illusionism denies the existence of greenness, without quotes.
To expand a bit, I think this post is confusing ontological and ontic existence, or in LW terms mixing up existence in the map and existence in the territory.
Yes, and I think it is worse than that. Even existence in the map is not clearcut. As I said in the other comment, do dragons exist in the map? In what sense? Do they also exist in the territory, given that you can go and buy a figurine of one?
It is my impression that certain people think that illusionists deny that there is any 🟩 even in the map, and I have never heard any illusionist make that argument (maybe I just haven’t been paying enough attention though). The conversation seems to be getting stuck somewhere at the level of misunderstandings concerning labels and referents. The key insight that I am trying to communicate here is that when we say that A is B, we generally do not mean that A is strictly identical to B—which it clearly isn’t. This applies even when we say things like 2+2 = 4. Obviously, “2+2” and “4″ are not even close to being identical. Everyone understands this, and everyone understands that when we say that 2+2 = 4, we use two different sets of symbols to refer to one single mathematical object.
Claiming that greenness is activity in the visual cortex does not amount to denying that there is 🟩.
But again, perhaps I just misunderstand illusionism (although not even Keith Frankish himself would deny that there is 🟩, see the video linked in the post). Are there any illusionists around here who are claiming that 🟩 is not?
As a side note, perhaps I will stop using the verb “to exist” altogether, and instead start using “to be”.
when we say that A is B, we generally do not mean that A is strictly identical to B—which it clearly isn’t. This applies even when we say things like 2+2 = 4. Obviously, “2+2” and “4″ are not even close to being identical.
This seems to mix up labels and referents. 2+2 is strictly identical to 4. The statement “2+2=4” is not the same as the statement “‘2+2’=‘4’”
I am beginning to think that I should not have used the quotes at all. I used them more or less as a highlighting tool, perhaps a different font style would accomplish this better. I might edit the post. Regarding existence, I am using the verb “to exist” as synonymous with the verb “to be”. And it is my impression that illusionists generally do not deny that (not going to use any quotes this time) 🟩 is. If some here do, I would be interested in hearing their arguments.
This is a rabbit hole, but existence of something is far from a clear-cut settled question. Do numbers exist? Do fairies exist? Does nothing(ness) exist?
I think you need to think through your definition of “exist” and whether it matches that of those who think that illusionism denies the existence of greenness, without quotes.
To expand a bit, I think this post is confusing ontological and ontic existence, or in LW terms mixing up existence in the map and existence in the territory.
Yes, and I think it is worse than that. Even existence in the map is not clearcut. As I said in the other comment, do dragons exist in the map? In what sense? Do they also exist in the territory, given that you can go and buy a figurine of one?
It is my impression that certain people think that illusionists deny that there is any 🟩 even in the map, and I have never heard any illusionist make that argument (maybe I just haven’t been paying enough attention though). The conversation seems to be getting stuck somewhere at the level of misunderstandings concerning labels and referents. The key insight that I am trying to communicate here is that when we say that A is B, we generally do not mean that A is strictly identical to B—which it clearly isn’t. This applies even when we say things like 2+2 = 4. Obviously, “2+2” and “4″ are not even close to being identical. Everyone understands this, and everyone understands that when we say that 2+2 = 4, we use two different sets of symbols to refer to one single mathematical object.
Claiming that greenness is activity in the visual cortex does not amount to denying that there is 🟩.
But again, perhaps I just misunderstand illusionism (although not even Keith Frankish himself would deny that there is 🟩, see the video linked in the post). Are there any illusionists around here who are claiming that 🟩 is not?
As a side note, perhaps I will stop using the verb “to exist” altogether, and instead start using “to be”.
This seems to mix up labels and referents. 2+2 is strictly identical to 4. The statement “2+2=4” is not the same as the statement “‘2+2’=‘4’”
The referent of the label 2+2 is strictly identical to the referent of the label 4, but the labels 2+2 and 4 themselves are obviously not identical.
I am beginning to think that I should not have used the quotes at all. I used them more or less as a highlighting tool, perhaps a different font style would accomplish this better. I might edit the post. Regarding existence, I am using the verb “to exist” as synonymous with the verb “to be”. And it is my impression that illusionists generally do not deny that (not going to use any quotes this time) 🟩 is. If some here do, I would be interested in hearing their arguments.
This is a rabbit hole, but existence of something is far from a clear-cut settled question. Do numbers exist? Do fairies exist? Does nothing(ness) exist?
Of course numbers exist. Here is one.
On a more serious note, regarding the counter-productiveness of the label wars surrounding words such as “to exist”, or “to be”…
So I will just leave you with this: 🟩