Re: Platonism

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/29/04 

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:22:12 +0000

In article <320e992a.0411281536.241f1c51@posting.google.com>, Eray
Ozkural exa <examachine@gmail.com> writes
>Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
>news:<coaodt$agi$1@usenet.cso.niu.edu>...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> examachine@gmail.com (Eray Ozkural exa) writes:
>> >Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:<co8a92$cbs$1@usenet.cso.niu.edu>...
>>
>> >> This should illustrate why the mathematical sense of existence is
>> >> different from the ordinary sense.
>>
>> >So, it is not existence at all. But I cannot see why mathematics is
>> >not merely a mental or social activity...
>>
>> That's a problem with how you are looking at mathematics.
>>
>> Philosophers have long had difficulty with mathematics. But the
>> problem isn't with the mathematics; it is with the philosophy.
>> Philosophy is in need of a paradigm shift.
>
>Maybe "fictions" have a lot to do with the very foundations of the
>mental, Neil.

It's certainly true that we encourage children to develop a "theory" or
"concept" of mind (around the age of 6) - and how that's done has been
the subject of considerable research in developmental psychology. This
in turn informs educational policy whether you know this or not.
However, you should not assume that it has anything to do with what you
think of as "mental". This is just a word to describe some classes of
behaviour, and whatever anyone tells you (and whatever else you might
think apropos its utility viz a viz "creativity", it mentalism is
anathema to *science* for reasons I've already covered at length.

Like others here, you will have to do some serious training in behaviour
science to learn what that means (a sine qua non for that would be to
listen to experienced behavioural scientists instead of thinking you
know better), but for now, just appreciate that this newsgroup
(comp.ai.philosophy) could in fact just be called philosophy.science or
behavioural.science and that your prejudices, like Neil's are stopping
you from learning. Neither of you make the appropriate discriminations
because both of lack the appropriate training - this shows in your
behaviour - that's why we pointed you to the Lashley-Wade hypothesis.
You, Neil et al. just don't see things because you lack the context to
be able to make the discriminations. That this happens is inevitable
given how "meaning" actually works - see last third of "Two Dogmas" or
some of the other material which Glen and I have tried to expose you to
(but which you have ...."ignored"). This is why you can't "discuss" -
you don't know enough. 

-- 
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Platonism
    ... >> That's a problem with how you are looking at mathematics. ... >> Philosophers have long had difficulty with mathematics. ... think apropos its utility viz a viz "creativity", it mentalism is ... Neither of you make the appropriate discriminations ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Das Kalenderblatt 090929
    ... of rejecting ZFC as a foundation for mathematics. ... Some philosophers may naturally be reluctant to pursue this ... (Maddy [Naturalism in Mathematics, 1997] paints a very ...
    (de.sci.mathematik)
  • Re: Atheistic Philosopher now believes in God
    ... >mathematics, which has inspired many of the great philosophers. ... Savages and barbarians believe in a magical connection between ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Question about proof by contradiction
    ... we know that a system is consistent if and ... it into a sort of joke, philosophers telling mathematicians to mind ... Intuitionistic logic is agnostic on the law of the excluded middle, ... formalisations of constructivistic mathematics, we find actual ...
    (sci.math)