I am only saying that the entire stack of concepts you have just mentioned exists only in your map.
As far as I can tell, you’re saying that there is no territory, or that the territory is irrelevant. In other words, solipsism. You’ve overcome the naive map/territory confusion, but only to wind up with a more sophisticated form of confusion.
This isn’t a “does the tree make a sound” argument. It’s more like a “dude… how do we even really know reality is really real” argument. Rationality is entirely pointless if all we’re doing is manipulating completely arbitrary map-symbols. But in that case, why not leave us poor, deluded believers in reality to define the words “map”, “territory”, and “utility” the way we have always done?
Even though “this is not a pipe”, the form of a depiction of a pipe is nevertheless highly constrained by the physical properties of actual pipes. Do you deny that? If not, how do you explain it?
As far as I can tell, you’re saying that there is no territory, or that the territory is irrelevant. In other words, solipsism. You’ve overcome the naive map/territory confusion, but only to wind up with a more sophisticated form of confusion.
This isn’t a “does the tree make a sound” argument. It’s more like a “dude… how do we even really know reality is really real” argument. Rationality is entirely pointless if all we’re doing is manipulating completely arbitrary map-symbols. But in that case, why not leave us poor, deluded believers in reality to define the words “map”, “territory”, and “utility” the way we have always done?
No, general semantics. There’s a difference.
Can you point out the difference?
Even though “this is not a pipe”, the form of a depiction of a pipe is nevertheless highly constrained by the physical properties of actual pipes. Do you deny that? If not, how do you explain it?