Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7350779" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know what you mean by &quot;an objective line on that consistency&quot; - but imagining things clearly is a &quot;brain function&quot; ie an event that occurs in someone's brain.I don't know what criteria you have in mind. Are you simply meaning that it is possible that a boy walked up a hill?I decided that the mathematician can't be in two places at once. I also decided that the mathematician can invent perpetual motion machines. Your because does no work here. I have to decide what bits of reality I am going to stick to, and what bits I'm going to reject. This is not about consistency, it's about authorship.In the boy story, what stops you from going on &quot;And the hill was on the moon&quot;? (Think of, say, Le Petit Prince.) Only a decision not to. There is no objective constraint.As I said in the post to which you replied, &quot;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.&quot;So I've already said that concepts exist. They are abstract objects. They don't exercise causal power. And they are not identical with the things that they are &quot;of&quot; or &quot;about&quot;. The idea of Godzilla is not Godzilla. The idea of a mathematician who can square the circle is not a mathematician who can square the circle. Godzilla is not identical with the concept of him.Immanuel Kant thought that the concept of a triangle has 3 parts, the concept of a square 4 parts, the concept of a chiliagon 1000 parts. Kant was wrong.Likewise, I can write the word &quot;red&quot; in black ink with no loss of meaning.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7350779, member: 42582"] I don't know what you mean by "an objective line on that consistency" - but imagining things clearly is a "brain function" ie an event that occurs in someone's brain. I don't know what criteria you have in mind. Are you simply meaning that it is possible that a boy walked up a hill? [I]I decided[/I] that the mathematician can't be in two places at once. I also decided that the mathematician can invent perpetual motion machines. Your [I]because[/I] does no work here. I have to decide what bits of reality I am going to stick to, and what bits I'm going to reject. This is not about consistency, it's about authorship. In the boy story, what stops you from going on "And the hill was on the moon"? (Think of, say, Le Petit Prince.) Only a decision not to. There is no objective constraint. As I said in the post to which you replied, "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 I've already said that concepts exist. They are abstract objects. They don't exercise causal power. And they are not identical with the things that they are "of" or "about". The idea of Godzilla is not Godzilla. The idea of a mathematician who can square the circle is not a mathematician who can square the circle. Godzilla is not identical with the concept of him. Immanuel Kant thought that the concept of a triangle has 3 parts, the concept of a square 4 parts, the concept of a chiliagon 1000 parts. Kant was wrong. Likewise, I can write the word "red" in black ink with no loss of meaning. [/QUOTE]

Verification