Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7349832" data-attributes="member: 42582">Thoughts aren't abstract objects. They are concrete - located in time and space.(Well, "thought" is ambiguous. Sometimes it is used to mean "meaning" or "proposition" or "content" - that's abstract. But the state of your brain that constitutes the fact that you're thinking whatever you're thinking right now - that's a concrete physical process in your brain.)Likewise emotions.No. You can use your brain to make things happen. You can use two (hammers, cables, kilograms of concrete, etc) to make things happen. The number 2 itself does not do anything, because it does not participate in causal processes, because (for starters) it's not located in time or space.Correct. But your concept of the number 2 is not the same thing as the number 2. The general point is that an idea of something isn't the same thing as the thing itself. I have an idea of Godzilla. That idea exists - it's in my brain. I'm prepared to say that the content/meaning of that idea exists - it's an abstract object. The idea in my brain expresses that content. So does the idea of Godzilla in someone else's brain - that's why it is possible for us to have "the same idea" ie to both have an idea that has the same content meaning.But Godzillla doesn't exist. And is not the same as the idea of Godzilla. The idea of Godzilla can fit in my head. Even if Godzilla did exist, it's too big to fit in my head. My story about my super-mathematician had a couple of points.First was to point out that it's trivial to tell a story about impossible things.Second was to point out that it's trivial to tell a story about inconsistent/contradictory things - the idea that any person squared the circle is contradictory; the idea that any person designed a perpetual motion machine is inconsistent, as the same causal processes that are necessary conditions of anyone being a person (eg basic physical and chemical processes constitutive of and necessary for the continuing existence of all living things) make it impossible that there should be such a things as a perpetual motion machine.Third was to point out that I can draw a line on consistency or inconsistency whereever I want. So I'm happy to tell a story about my super-mathematician doing these impossible things that involve self-contradiction and are actually inconsistent with my mathematician even existing, but I draw the line at my mathematician being in two places at once, and so insist that first the circle was squared, and then the perpetual motion machine designed.The relevant constraints are (as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has already pointed out) aesthetic ones - what conventions do I wish to follow, or perhaps to flout, in my storytelling? It's just laughable to say that a fictional construct of time in fiction to dictated how I authored the fiction. I mean, which construct do you even have in mind - the one that says the mathematician can't be in two places at once, or the one that says that perpetual motion machines are possible?No fictional construct dictated anything. I decided to tell a story which conforms to some but not other ideas about what is possible in relation to time.I don't really understand this, but in any event here is what I did in my example: I told a story about a super-mathematician who squares the circle and who designs perpetual motion machines, but who is unable to do both at once.If this was a RPG, presumably we would have rules which say things like "Whenever a player declares that his/her PC is trying to perform a feat of impossible mathematics or science, follow procedureX XYZ." Much like the spellcasting rules found in many fantasy RPGs.(As I said, I don't understand what you mean by "without ever referring to any fiction whatsoever". If you mean "tell your story without telling your story", well that seems rather hard and I haven't done that. If you mean "tell your story about imaginary things without talking about any imaginary things" well I haven't done that either, for much the same reason. If you are assuming that to talk or think about something implies that it exists, well I refer you once again to Godzilla: from the fact that I've mentioned Godzilla several times in this post, it doesn't mean that Godzilla exists. From the fact that I've told a story about a super-mathemtician who can square the circle and design perpetual motion machines, it doesn't follow that any rule for constructing a square from a circle exists - there is no such rule - nor that any perpetual motion machine exists - there are no such machines.)</blockquote>

Verification