Re: Coextensive properties?

From: AlphaOmega2004 (OmegaZero2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/13/04 

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:55:54 -0700

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wuEnEWV7bDbBFwyX@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <itWad.248243$3l3.165680@attbi_s03>, patty
> <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>>patty wrote:
>>> Lester Zick wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:08:25 GMT, patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net>
>>>> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Neil W Rickert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my estimation, Bill, extensionalism is just neo positivism in
>>>>>>> drag.
>>>>>>> David doesn't deal in explanations because that would be
>>>>>>> intensional.
>>>>>>> He only deals in history and citation of other peoples ideas because
>>>>>>> history can take place without him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History and citation are also intensional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every context is intensional. This notion that there is a scientific
>>>>> context in which identicals are substitutable salva verite is a 19th
>>>>> century pipe dream.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Unfortunately, it is a pipe dream that cost twentieth century
>>>> science dearly.
>>>>
>>> Well it was only a hankering for absolutes, a desire for order, a
>>> natural abhorrence of chaos, a pacifier replacing a absentee God, and a
>>> swaddling cloth for an a baby culture crawling up from the slime. I
>>> truly think that history will take that attitude. Today science is
>>> still our God, a science which yet discovers and unmasks mysteries. But
>>> in the distant future it will be more about what is possible and what we
>>> can create.
>>>
>>
>>PS: Woops ... almost forgot to make my point explicit:
>>
>>We will have a science where intensional contexts are their relationships
>>to each other are understood and manipulated rather than being shunned in
>>favor of some mythical overriding extensional context.
>>
>>patty
>
> It's hardly worth re-iterating I guess and you pay no attention, but
> you're just meaninglessly stringing words together that you don't know how
> to use properly. You don't know how to use them properly because when you
> use them they don't refer to anything. Like Zick, Michaels etc, you're
> reduced to writing metaphysical poetry at best, and it's not very good as
> it just creates "mental cramp" in those who know better,

Which does not include you David. *Your* mental cramp is caused by your
inability to read and understand all the papers at Chalmers' site such that
you may understand what others here have to teach you..

> and perhaps some head whirls in those that don't. What you're collectively
> doing is turning the newsgroups into vehicles for a form of "mental
> masturbation". That's a behaviour in itself of course, a bit like
> head-banging or spatting, but it's no more than abusing language, so don't
> kid yourselves that you're doing anything other than behaving as
> delinquents.
> --
> David Longley