But Leon, this is not a candidate for the greatest number. That's the point. It's the first (defined by "min") of a whole new sequence of numbers grea...
Anselm thinks he proves that the very idea of god shows that He exists. He's mistaken. Klima realises this, but still sees a use for such arguments in...
If you want to raise your own objection, go ahead. I've raised mine, with (1), and you have yet to address it. I explained that, with the comparison t...
Yep. Concepts that contradict themselves. Like "The largest number". That's what I explained previously. If your argument is to hold, you have to show...
No. And so far I am only looking at premise (1), no further. We can go on when this bit has been understood. Yeah, it does, and that can be shown. But...
Yeah, all that, perhaps, but I also gave a very specific critique of (1) in the argument. At least Tim tried to address it. And again you misrepresent...
Close, perhaps. This objection is specific to the argument at hand. The intrinsic limit needed is missing from g:=ix¬(?y)M(y,x), which is "God is defi...
Perhaps I can help. Following the analogue, the first transfinite number is ?:=min{x?x is an ordinal and ?n?N,n<x} You need something like this, but w...
To be sure, it is not clear that the definition g:=ix¬(?y)M(y,x) can be made coherently, any more than can "Let G be the number bigger than any other ...
Well, not yet. One at a time. I did fix the ugly: g:=ix¬(?y)M(y,x). I asked you if it was acceptable, and did not yet get a reply. I'm gonna Pontifica...
Bang on! And yet we do understand one another, at least enough to have invented social media. So what is your answer? How is it that "dog" refers only...
Might be. The analogue you want is the jump from there being no highest number to a number greater than any assignable quantity - to infinity, and bey...
Though shalt engage only in ways expected by Leon. What? Those are the symbols in the HTML text you linked. Ok, so are you claiming g:=ix¬(?y)M(y,x) i...
That's probably what this is trying to head off: What a mess. So god is not the thing greater than everything, but the thing greater than the thing gr...
I must be missing something, since it seems clear enough that the sound of "dog" could be arbitrarily assigned to some different referent in each inst...
(1) g=dfix.~($y)(M(y)(x)) Seems to be, in a more standard notation, g:=ix¬(?y)M(y,x). God is defined as the thought object x such that no y may be tho...
Banno read the whole paper, which you say you have not yet done, then followed the guidelines you set up in posting about the first section. I was fol...
Your criticism worries me more than McDowell's. But we do increasingly understand how the stuff around us works on our neural system... so I'm not con...
Thanks for the response. Perhaps we re talking past each other? So I'll try again. Now this is at odds with Davidson, but also I think it is not accur...
The first sentence of section one says: The descriptive theory of reference had its heyday in the time prior to Kripke. So this struck me as at best i...
Cheers. https://www.marcellodibello.com/commonground/readings/DavidsonConceptualSc.pdf and https://eltalondeaquiles.pucp.edu.pe/wp-content/uploads/201...
Why? I'm not making McDowell's argument. If you think he has a case, then you can make it. Thanks for the response. We ought be careful not to think o...
Are you now suggesting that there is a convention that if you and I are sitting in an empty room with a dog, and I say, "The dog," there is a fixed re...
I wanted to come back to this, to make a point this time about what conceptual schema are not. They are not a neural network. Frank's description here...
The supposed illusory nature of certain experiences is trivial. Consider that we are aware that they are illusions. We are aware of this becasue they ...
For Davidson, the "world-in-itself" is a nonsense. His is a rejection of "Cartesian" and "representative" approaches. Indeed, it follows Wittgenstein ...
You might be. I think the discussion should be somewhat broader. Of course it is an expression of his conception of belief. How could it be one and no...
Davidson denies, as the third dogma of empiricism, that a distinction can be maintained between a conceptual component and an empirical component; bet...
The idea that Davidson would deny that some of our beliefs might be the product of ratiocination is absurd. If nothing else it ignores triangulation a...
, I'm not suggesting the AI is wrong, just unreliable. Nor am I interested in a debate over AI in a thread about Davidson. By all means make a case us...
And now we have Deepseek, raising the spectre of a Chinese technical development pulling out the rug. Investors might not be so willing to take such a...
A belief that you can walk thorough walls can be tested very readily. A conceptual scheme in which you could walk through walls would have very differ...
Well, 's AI starts off by talking about "raw sensory data" in. a way which is not found in the article. Looks to be a confabulation, again. As a found...
It'll be a problem if what you want are the necessary and sufficient conditions (or properties, or whatever you choose - the nature of essences remain...
Comments