It would be a much more productive exercise if you would give my words the attention that is required in order to understand the argument being made. That's how honest conversation is done. We can posit other variables to the scenario after we've thoroughly examined the scenario in question. As I've already noted, the purpose is to test the proposed criterion...

Without a clear scenario there is no basis to test the criterion. The hypothetical scenario is a context to which we apply the proposed criterion. As a result of what the criterion sets out regarding an honest answer to a question, we must know wht Joe believes that Jill is asking about. Now, that being said, any and all interpretations can be and should be tested with the criterion. However, each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate in order to explain them all.

So, you care enough to attempt to prove something about me personally? Why are you here Pan? Are you going to engage by discussing the subject matter at hand, or are you intent upon attacking your interlocutors character?

There are situations in which we can know another's thoughts in reality.



No.



To quite the contrary, Pan, if we know Joe's thoughts we can apply the criterion. Without knowing Joe's thoughts we cannot. The aim is to put the criterion to the test. We do that by posing all of Joe's imaginable answers, and then using the criterion as the means for determining the value of honesty/dishonesty and see whether or not those determinations make sense.

Who are you conversing with? Whose opinion have you been attempting to refute? Who does all that if the opinion means nothing?

Without a clear scenario there is no basis to test the criterion. The hypothetical scenario is a context to which we apply the proposed criterion. As a result of what the criterion sets out regarding an honest answer to a question, we must know wht Joe believes that Jill is asking about. Now, that being said, any and all interpretations can be and should be tested with the criterion. However, each possible interpretation must be set out and adhered to independently of one another in order to assess whether or not the criterion is adequate.

In other words, that's how critical philosophy is done.



I'll take this as a joke, albeit in poor taste, and charitably grant that you understand how to put a proposed criterion to the test.

The aim here, following from bushido, is to attempt to set out a criterion which, when put to use(tested), we can know whether or not one is offering dishonest testimony. Dishonest testimony can come in several different forms. It is my contention that all of those boil down to a deliberate misrepresentation of one's own belief. The criterion I've proposed is as follows...

The honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that.

So, as a means to test the above criterion, I've created a hypothetical scenario in order to provide context. The scenario was originally posed as follows...

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room.

So, Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. It has been argued that that could be taken to mean different things. That is a valid consideration. So, I further clarified by positing that Joe believes that Jill is not asking him to count her; that the question, as posed, means Jill notwithstanding. So, we can now apply the above criterion to Joe's different possible answers and put the criterion to the test in order to see where it leads us.

Based upon the context as it's been set out and subsequently clarified, we can put the criterion to use and imagine all sorts of different answers that Joe could give. Because the goal of the exercise is to evaluate the adequacy of the aforementioned criterion, we must evaluate the honesty of Joe's possible answers based upon the interpretation of the question that Joe is using.

Any questions or concerns at this point?

Well, my good man, that will need to be argued for in a much more acceptable manner than you've shown for the most part. I suspect that you're very capable, I can only hope that you put that potential to use. Examine my next post carefully and tell me what you think.

Are you here to offer criticism of me, or of the scenario being set forth by me? The former is philosophically uninteresting... boring. The latter is the purpose of the thread and of any and all honest philosophical conversations.

So, which is it? What are you here for Pan?

I don't care what the literal interpretation of the question is Pan? I've already answered that question, using the definition you proposed, several times over. What matters here is that the context of Joe, Jill, and Mary is my creation. Just like Samuel Clemens sets out what Mark Twain writes about what Huckleberry Finn thinks, I set out what Jill's question means, what Joe knows about Mary's presence, and how Joe interprets Jill's question.

Do you understand?

The context is my creation, Pan. If there needs to be something clarified, it is my responsibility to do such a thing, and I have.

The first statement is falsified by the facts that have taken place. As such, it is apparent that your opinion above is not informed by, nor based upon those facts. "The additional clarification as to Jill's meaning and Joe's interpretation" is a clarification of the question, and that subsequent clarification took place long ago in this thread. The relevant posts clearly show, that I clarified those two aspects in at least three successive posts.

You also failed to answer a pivotal question. I'll ask again... Why would you imply that I cannot or should not dictate the thought of fictional characters of my own making?



Well it could have been written in several different ways, none of which change the way is was originally formed. There are two different things of concern here. The first being, I didn't ask you what you thought was the best way to originally ask the question. So, once again, your offering information that I've not asked for while not offering other information that I am clearly asking for. It is not your place to tell me what my fictional characters ought say.

The second being that your unsolicited opinion here falls victim to the exact same objection that you levied against the original context. That being that if Jill asks Joe if anyone else is home, that could interpreted to mean that Jill was asking Joe to count her.

I have clarified the question and the meaning thereof, in addition to clearly setting out Jill's meaning and Joes' interpretation. The better question is why have you not taken those things into consideration since they've taken place? Furthermore, why would you imply that I cannot or should not dictate the thoughts of fictional characters of my own making?

Not only is this response not an answer to what is being asked, is is also not true. I'm not upset at all. This isn't about me. Folks can assume whatever they choose in normal circumstances. That is what folk do, and is to be expected. However, the case at hand is a hypothetical scenario that I have devised, and I have subsequently clarified where it was need. So, the necessary assumptions have already been set out and thus need not be made.



The charge of not representing your words honestly is vacuous. I've merely quoted your words verbatim, because when placed side by side, the certainly look like self-contradiction. I've asked you several times to explain them. Your earlier explanations did nothing to clarify the self-contradiction, but rather they focused upon a hypothetical character named Joe and whether or not you talked for Joe. You further insisted to let Joe speak for himself. That is an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Joe is my creation Pan. Thus, because that it so, I am the one who clarifies - when need be - what Joe's interpretation is. I speak for Joe, in the exact same way that Samuel Clemens speaks for Mark Twain who, in turn, speaks for Huckleberry Finn.





You're so... so... sadly mistaken. It seems that in your recent fervor to change the subject into being about your personal opinion of me and my motive, that you've lost sight of the big picture that was set out in my last post. Again, I simply asked you whether or not you acknowledge what the question meant, as Jill posed it to Joe. You've still not answered that very simple question, even though you made the claim. Instead of answering what you know that I'm asking for, you're continuing to offer information that you know that I'm not asking for.

I cannot fathom why you are continuing to insist upon taking that approach, when - beacause I've cearly stated it several times over - you know that I'm not asking you to exlain your opinion about me personally, nor your view regarding my behavior and or motive in this threaf. I'm not asking about that.

What I am asking you is clear. I'm asking you whether or not you acknowledged that the question, as posed, meant Jill notwithstanding. Since you've already claimed exactly that(verbatim), I'm now asking you to confirm what you've already said.

Do you, or do you not acknowledge that the question, as Jill posed it to Joe, meant Jill notwithstanding?

Alright, enough of the nonsense...

The aim here, following from bushido, is to attempt to set out a criterion which, when put to use(tested), we can know whether or not one is offering dishonest testimony. Dishonest testimony can come in several different forms. It is my contention that all of those boil down to being a deliberate misrepresentation of one's own belief.

So, I created a hypothetical scenario in order to provide context for further conversation. In the scenario provided there is a question. In order to clarify the context, I thoroughly explained what that question meant, several times over. The scenario is meant to provide us with an an example to serve as a basis from which to test different criterion.

The scenario was orginally posed as follows...

Joe is in one room of a house. Jill comes in and asks Joe if he's the only one there. Unbeknownst to Joe, Mary is in the other room.

--

So, it is a given that Jill wanted to know if Joe was the only one there. It has been argued that that could be taken to mean different things. So, I further clarified by positing that Joe believes that Jill is not asking him to count her.

So if Joe answers "yes" is he lying. Or if Joe answer "no" is he lying...

When I quote two statements made by you that are about something other than me and say "Explain this", it is very clear that I'm not asking you to explain your opinion of me.

Abundantly clear, in fact.

It is either the case that you do acknowledge what the question meant, as posed, or it is the case that you don't acknowledge what the question meant, as posed. It is a simple yes or no question. Why are you refusing to answer it?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the question, as posed to Joe by Jill, meant Jill notwithstanding?

My question to you is do you or do you not acknowledge that the question, as posed to Joe by Jill, meant Jill notwithstanding.

My question to you, or Jill's question to Joe?

Why do you insist upon offering information that I am not asking for?

I'm not asking you for your opinion about me, or your view concerning that. I'm asking you whether or not you know what the question meant, as posed, in the context I created and later clarified.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the question, as posed to joe by Jill, meant Jill notwithstanding?

I'm not making an attempt to explain your stance. I'm charging you with not doing that. Explain your own words.





Do you or do you not know the meaning of the question, as it was posed - by Jill, to Joe - in the hypothetical context that I created and clarified the meaning of?