Banno

Ok, well and good. There are a few problems here, but let's set them aside and look at the conclusion. If we follow the theme of the OP, an indirect r...

OK.

What does, and how so?

Thanks. Yes, when I was looking for a paper by a mathematician with post modern leanings, it became apparent that most were pedagogical rather than me...

Yep. And Asncombe, but not as approachable.

What's odd is that the article, which @"Joshs" pilloried, makes much the same point as he makes. It specifically provides an example of where a re-sit...

It might be better if I were to let you two discuss the topic for a bit. But I will repeat a point that may have gone unnoticed. The argument, in the ...

Isn't this a homunculus argument? As if you were sitting inside your head, "feeling" nerve impulses? Is that "electric impulse/CNS activity" something...

, , interesting then that this thread so quickly ceased to be about mathematics and became instead a discussion of the opinions of the various PoMo th...

Can this be filled out? Would you say that you don't touch the wall, you touch your nervous system? That doesn't seem right. I touch the wall indirect...

Seems to me you have reinvented the universal set. As such what you have shown is that there is nothing outside of W, not that W is limitless.

How? We see using light; we don't see light. What you see is your hand, not the light. So the argument presented does not work. Have you a different a...

hallucination" is closer to "delusion" than to "illusion", in that something is conjured up in both an hallucination and a delusion, but not so much i...

A common response that is wrong. No one sees photons. Folk might well see using or because of photons. But photons are not visible. It's very importan...

Having a dream is indistinguishable from not having a dream? But I know what a dream is, and I'm not having one now. Dreaming is different to being aw...

~~ So an hourglass changes its identity as each sand grain drops. A few pages back I said: ...and here it is. Thanks.

Into your posts? (Ok, but someone had to say it...)

...unless it isn't, as is the case with sets... No; and that's why the order is irrelevant when determining if two sets are the same... Fucksake. I si...

Then, please, don't feel any need to reply to my posts. For page after page. :wink: But if you do want to get back into a conversation that is on topi...

You havn't posted anything of philosophical merit for page after page; just bitchin'. Here's the link that proves it.

Christ, Meta, sets are not order. The order of the elements is not part of what a set is. See But we are at the point where further discussion is with...

Perhaps. Seems a long bow. I see my hand directly when I look down, indirectly when I see its reflection in a mirror. Here I have a clear enough under...

What? Why would A=A imply that the order of the elements in B would need to be the same as A? I think you've lost the plot entirely.

Or neither. Perhaps representing is perceiving.

Yep. So the reply will consist in an obfuscation of the law of identity by confusing it with an "ontological" principle. Mistaking a language act for ...

The arguments you present were articulated by Ayer and demolished by Austin. See the thread Austin: Sense and Sensibilia. Overwhelmingly, philosophers...

Here is the axiom of extensionality: Here is the law of identity Set out for us exactly how these are not consistent.

Pretty much. One can't do philosophy well without being critical, which entails sometimes pissing people off.

If folk wish my posts moderated, then they have been paying attention to them.

So far as I can make sense of what you have written here, you have said that maths is abstract, and applying maths requires something like particulari...

For my part, I hope he's right... Captures the theme admirably.

Any one else read that as "porno"? May just be the font, or my glasses.... Can you explain this further? What is this "more primordial and fundamental...

Here's the context: There are no true sentences except when there are?

Nice manipulation of context.

...which has me wondering if even you recall what your point was...

I baulk at this. Bees only do bee things, and numbers are a people thing. I'd say that bees do things that people describe using numbers. A small peda...

:rofl: indeed, it is. By you. I don't now actually recall what your point was. It wasn't very clear to start with, and is now buried in the clamour of...

Well, one cannot play chess if there is disagreement as to the rules. A chess player expects their opponent not to think differently, at least in that...

The axiom of extensionality is It tells us how to use the "=" sign. It is an instruction, and so is not the sort of thing that can be false. You eithe...

That sounds much like my thinking on days that do not start with the letter "T". Abstractions as a fabrication of grammar... Increasingly I find learn...

Yep. Further the extent to which the formalisation of intensional logic capture "sense" as used in natural languages remains unclear. But it is an int...

Spot on. Crucial in understanding Wittgenstein's views on mathematics, in which the extension of mathematical terms becomes problematic. My way of mak...

On the contrary, when I check Tone's arguments, they are very mainstream. Almost painfully so. I find that admirable; Tones has corrected my excesses....

Fair enough. I doubt, were you to get together, that you would find much agreement apart from the "cliques" being wrong, and your martyrdom.

We also have at hand that classic rebut to Feyerabend: If anything goes, everything stays. That is, if we drop the notion of truth as a valid assessme...

Very much so. One problem is that PoMo has spiritual objections to truth, but mathematics takes a far more pragmatic approach. So mathematicians will ...

I have some sympathy for anti-realist views in maths, I've expressed this elsewhere over several years. These stem from reading Wittgenstein. The prob...

Yeah, for that reason the emphasis in speech act theory is usually the utterance, not the sentence. But the point holds. That's not correct. Here it i...

Yeah, what would mathematicians know about maths? The article I shared was about as sympathetic as you might expect, and more than I expected. It take...

ok, good. And the next step is to agree that there is something fishy here. Which is what I am saying. It’s incomplete.