That last part is a bit of a convoluted sentence, but I think I see where we differ. To me, “independently from what anyone thinks” is a meaningful sentence insofar as I can imagine states of reality and contrast those with thoughts in people’s heads. I can imagine that all such thoughts–that is, in everyone’s head–differ from the state of reality. ← But this is a thought experiment. In the thought experiment, I don’t have to imagine myself as generating that state of reality. I can imagine myself as one of the oblivious dopes who carry mistaken thoughts about reality. The me who is generating this reality (i.e. the reality which is dependent on me) is the me in the real world, but it’s trivially obvious that a reality in a thought experiment is dependent on the one conjuring up the thought experiment.
But in any case, the point is that I don’t have to believe a sentence in order for it to be meaningful to me–I just have to be able to imagine a scenario in which the sentence makes sense.
So what’s your response when I say: Santa Clause is real according to the child but not real according to me?
And then, what’s your response when I say: Santa Clause isn’t real?
Can I not argue that “Santa Clause isn’t real” = “Santa Clause isn’t real according to me”?
Why do you insist that, when I say it, “Santa Clause isn’t real” = “Santa Clause isn’t real independent of what anyone thinks”?
Well, this just means the map and the terrain are both subject dependent. But the map can still be accurate. Or if we take someone else’s map (someone else’s expectations) which happen not to be accurate, then we can say that what exists on the terrain is different (independent of) from what that person expects.
You’re the one saying that “that which exists (independently from what anyone thinks)” is meaningless. If there’s no distinction between that and “that which some person thinks exists” then the latter is meaningless too.
I don’t deny there’s a distinction in the meaning. I merely say that when something is the case according to you, that’s usually the same as you saying something is the case independently from what anyone thinks.
Extend meaning what? That they are real outside our perception of them?
If you want to say that hallucinations, mirages, and dreams are real in the sense that one actaully experiences them, then of course they’re real! But you know that’s not what I meant. And you know it’s a perfectly good example of a situation in which it makes sense to say they’re not real.
What’s missing from the context? I see Bigfoot, I report that Bigfoot is real.
And unlike what JSS is telling you, this discussion isn’t about language. It is about how things work. It’s about phenomena.
We’re discussing the difference in meaning between “X is true,” “X is true independently of what anyone thinks,” “X is true according to me,” etc. We’re discussing what the word “real” refers to ← If that’s not about language, I don’t know what is. Once we’ve established what these terms mean, we can move on to talk about phenomena (or subjectivity vs. objectivity) which is the main point of this thread.
I saw a woman yesterday and she was a “real” woman in the sense that she had all of the things I expect in a woman.
You are missing the point.
I know what your point is. You’re saying that the word “real” refers to assumptions. I’m saying that it sometimes refers to objects. Assumptions can enter the picture and taint how we see objects, but when we say, “That object is real,” we are not saying “The assumption in my head is real.”
Events are not defined by effect. You can have events without any notion of cause-and-effect.
I suppose this is true if you have a series of spontaneous happenings with no causal explanation whatsoever, but this is typically not how our world works.
There is such a thing as an assumption that has no effect on behavior. ← Are you contradicting yourself now? This is pretty much indisputable. I don’t think it’s fruitful to discuss it in depth.
I agree. If in one moment you say assumptions are that which have an effect on your behavior, and now you say there are assumptions that have no effect on your behavior, then it’s pretty fruitless to discuss.
Let’s just say that at the present moment in time the assumption that there is a bomb planted in my house has no effect on my behavior. This means it is not motivating me to do something about it (e.g. defuse it or run away from my house.)
Are you saying that assumptions which you don’t hold have no effect on your behavior?