What in the world are you talking about, and how is it relevant to what it means to say X is real or not real?

So you ignored the link too.

How many more with control issues?

It means that it "exists" as per your previous thread.
What does it mean to say that x exists?
It is really the same question, isnt it?

I suppose "Not a real toy duck" would mean "an imaginary toy duck".

In the example I used, I would mean, "A toy duck that is not really from the 17th century."
I can see how the syntax of "not a real toy duck from the 17th century" could lead to confusion though. I'm not sure that even "genuine" or "authentic" really fit the bill either.

If I was in the business of manufacturing baseball memorabilia, would I be lying if I said I make "Authentic reproductions of New York Yankees baseball caps"? I think I could even say they are genuine, and still be telling the truth.

Authentic reproductions of X are real.
They're just not real X.

Then we have the whole issue of simulacras as described by Baudrillard to mix things up even more.

I don't know why anyone would use "real" here. It is a misplaced modifier. It seems to me that "not a toy duck from the 17th century" would not only suffice, but would be clearer. .

Because he was rebutting the suggestion that is was not a toy duck from the 17th century? "It is a real X" is always used to rebut the suggestion that it is not an X. Remember, it is "not real" that "wears the pants".

So you ignored the link too.

How many more with control issues?

And sometimes I think you can clarify that something isn't the real X, without using the term "real" at all. As noted, sometimes "real" lends to confusion, not clarification.

"This is not a toy duck from the 17th century" is sufficient as a rebuttal to the suggestion that it is a toy duck from the 17th century. There's no need for, "This is not a real toy duck from the 17th century".



Control issues? What are on earth are you speaking about? I did not ignore the link, I went to the link. But I don't see how it has anything to do with what we are speaking about in this thread. This is why I asked. And if you won't clarify, then your post will be deemed as off-topic.

Maybe. But suppose someone says, "this looks to me like a very good fake 17th century toy duck. What do you think?" What I think you are pointing to is that (as I mentioned) a real X is really just an X. And that is true. But, nevertheless, the term "real" functions to rebut the suggestion that (in this case) the toy duck is is a fake toy duck. Look at it the other way: suppose I point to a ducky figure on a pond and ask "Do you think that is a duck?", suggesting that might be a decoy duck. You might say, "Yes. That's a real duck", (rebutting my suggestion in the context that it is a decoy).

Control issues? What are on earth are you speaking about? I did not ignore the link, I went to the link. But I don't see how it has anything to do with what we are speaking about in this thread. This is why I asked. And if you won't clarify, then your post will be deemed as off-topic.

Reality is everything that exists, But. matter, energy, and their fundamentally lawlike relations in space-time isn't all that exists. For instance, the number three exists.

I went to the link. It was interesting, but I did notice it was flagged as needing an expert's input . . .

The number three is a concept. Concepts are induced by the mind from instances. The mind is simply the word used to describe the functional aspects of the brain, and the brain is material. So I would include abstractions in reality because they are either reduced to, or identical to, the physical events in the brain.

I don't see how any of this makes "real" or "unreal" tough words. What part is tough to you?

"Not a real toy duck", makes sense. It means that the toy duck is not authentic, according to whatever standards for authenticity there are for toy ducks.

If the number three is a concept, then what is the concept of the number three? The same concept as number three. You would not say that the Eiffel Tower was a concept. Why say that the number three is a concept?

The number three is a concept-formation (abstraction) of physical instances. The Eiffel Tower is a solid, material object in Paris, France.

Of what physical instances is it an abstraction, I wonder? Russell said that the number three was the class of all triples. But classes are not concepts. They are abstract objects, and not concrete objects, like the Eiffel Tower, of course. But why must everything be a concrete object? Much less a material object?

I didn't say that everything that exists needs to be a material object. I'm just saying that the number three is not a material object, but an abstract one that is reducible to mental events.

It is certainly abstract. But can you indicate how it is reducible to mental events? What kind of mental events do you mean? Not everything has to be either material or mental. Those need not be the only two pigeon holes into which we must stuff everything. Maybe there are such things as abstract objects. Abstract objects are objects not in space and time. Like numbers.

I should call you the Socratic method from now on . . . lol.

Abstract objects are reducible to the mind because it is the mind that conceives of such things. I am not positing complete materialism, and I'm certainly not positing any type of idealism. I take the position of physicalism (a monism).

I consider abstractions to exist in space-time because they are reducible to the brain and mental events.