If 'I' picked out a non-physical substance, its reference could never be fixed through ostension or description, rendering the term semantically incoherent by causal theories of reference.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Causal theories of reference(another modern realist approach being mentioned): An idea about how words and thoughts point to real things: a word like 'water' refers to H₂O because of a causal chain connecting us back to actual water in the world.
Non-physical substance(as used in metaphysics): Something that exists but has no physical body or material form—like a mind or soul, as opposed to things you can touch or measure.
Semantically incoherent(philosophy of language): When something doesn't make logical sense in terms of meaning—it violates basic rules about how language and truth work together.
ostension(contrasted with how 'physical' is defined): Defining something by pointing to clear examples rather than by abstract definitions—like teaching someone what 'red' means by pointing to red objects.

Based on where you are in your exploration