Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A metalanguage can be spoken by a BIV if the BIV's causal-computational relations track the same semantic norms as non-BIVs.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Semantic norms are partially constituted by reliable causal links to the world. A BIV's relations are systematically decoupled from reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Metalanguage requires the ability to represent and reflect on object language. A BIV cannot access the external world to validate norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Tracking the same relations isn't sufficient—the relations must originate in proper historical-causal commerce with actual referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Semantic content depends on causal-computational relations, not substrate or origin. If relations match, meaning is preserved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A BIV with identical functional organization to a non-BIV would process metalinguistic norms identically, enabling genuine reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Internalism about semantics is true: what determines meaning is internal causal structure, not external historical facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.