A naive realist is someone who thinks that our perceptions are direct experience of the actual external world.
Demonstrative reference is like saying "that massive brow", referring to an actual think in the external world.

The naive realist reckons that when we talk, we use demonstrative reference all the time, and this seems to be a plus point for the theory, as it's difficult to see how we could demonstratively refer to an object without being directly aware of it.

I'm wondering how they know that we do demonstratively refer, beyond just saying that it seems intuitively like we do.
( Comma, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 19:50, archived)

they seem to be assuming that they're demonstratively referring to the real object in the external world,
rather than the subjective object of their own perceptions, that other people happen to share to some degree.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 19:54, archived)

Exactly. But why?
I can draw up two situations in which one has demonstrative reference and the other doesn't, but otherwise they are exactly the same. A language which demonstratively refers and one which doesn't are indistinguishable from the point of view of the subject.
( Comma, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 19:57, archived)

Because they want to.
What are the alternatives to demonstrative reference?
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 19:59, archived)

The alternative would be either a language which has no meaning, which isn't the case,
or a language in which we don't refer to objects in the external world, but only to our images of them.
( Comma, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:04, archived)

I think we form a concept of objects in the external world from our images of them,
and then refer to that, because two people might have completely different views of an object, but they still know what each other are talking about.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:07, archived)

This all sounds like you're going to start talking about Magritte.

( Druid, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:03, archived)

Well, we clearly do use demonstrative reference. That's how we refer to things.
I guess the issue is whether we're referring to something that actually exists or something in our own minds, as an idealist would say.
The naive realist using that as evidence for their theory seems rather circular to me.
As for being directly aware of something, we'd be aware of it whether it existed purely in our minds or in an external physical world.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 19:56, archived)

"Reality is what you can get away with" - R.A.W

( (|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 19:58, archived)

That doesn't even make sense.
It sounds like some weird kind of motivational nonsense aimed at people who aren't accustomed to thinking.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:00, archived)

Such as Dekion.
Strange that.
( Lord Gnome, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:02, archived)

It makes perfect sense, but I can't be bothered to elaborate.

( (|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:03, archived)

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing you're talking a right old load of bollocks.

( Druid, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:05, archived)

I don't often agree with you
But I may well do on this occasion.
( Lord Gnome, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:07, archived)

It makes no sense at all
You self-delusional tin-foil-hat-wearing idiot.
( Lord Gnome, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:06, archived)

this will explain
spotify:track:62ne0kUEsgXPTFIbX7fdOH
( (|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:07, archived)

I'm not stopping Ray Charles for anything you suggest.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:08, archived)

Why don't *you* explain?

( Comma, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:11, archived)

because i'm half drunk and tired and doing stuff and it's only my opinion and so forth
that said

you should read up on Leary and Wilson
( (|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:14, archived)

*looks up Wilson*
he sounds like an entertaining lunatic.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:18, archived)

Read this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy

(not what you think)
( (|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:21, archived)

I might do,
Spacefish has a copy. And about umpteen copies of the Principia Discordia.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:23, archived)

OoooooooOoh
I ordered Principia from Play, I waited a month, they never had it in stock, I cancelled.

I've not finished Illuminatus yet, too busy.

You have done well.
( (|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:30, archived)

Gaz me your address and I'll stick one in the post.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:32, archived)

BIGGER WORD PIE :(
I don't think I understand.
( Druid, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 20:00, archived)