If you were talking about the inherent order the entire time, and if the inherent order is not perceived or apprehended, then why did you say: It can ...
That's odd. When I asked you what the "internal perspective" of an arrangement of objects was, you said: And only a day ago you said: But now you say ...
So you don't know whether intention has anything to do with Kant's phenomena-noumena distinction? And yet you still use this distinction as the basis ...
Where does Kant say this? Also, do you have any intention of accounting for your latest blatant contradiction: Before your claim was that the inherent...
How is intention phenomenal (in the relevant Kantian sense)? Or are you no longer talking about Kantian concepts, just like you are no longer talking ...
That doesn’t work and you’ve misunderstood. You are trying to draw an analogy between order/inherent order and phenomena/noumena. However, phenomena a...
If the true order cannot be assigned from an external perspective, then what is the "internal perspective" of an arrangement of objects? Will I know t...
That what does actually happen normally? That people follow norms? Yes, that is (statistically) normal. To borrow your own example, do you think it wa...
You continue to assert that the elements have an order without specifying what that order is. "What is that order? An arrangement. And what is that ar...
There are two issues here: "order" and "inherent". You claim that the elements of the diagram have a "spatial order". Effectively, this is to say that...
That’s a cop out. You claimed that the diagram has an inherent order. Specify that order. Which dots are the start and end points of that order? This ...
How does this account for the order of rank of military officers, or of suits in a game of bridge? Or the order of values of playing cards in Blackjac...
Perhaps “numerical” wasn’t the right word. The context of the post and the preceding discussion indicates that a “before and after” ordinality was imp...
If not specified, then at least strongly implied in the same post: Did you not read this when you went on to argue that the diagram has the order it h...
Hopefully others will correct me if I'm wrong but, as I understand it, the point iof the diagram of "dots" is that the elements of the set have no inh...
We don't? To which particular object does the word "tree" refer, then? We seem to have been using "individuals" differently. I was trying to explain t...
The numeral/symbol represents the number, or “how many”. The symbol is not the number, it is the numeral. Similarly, the word “tree” represents a tree...
Right, so numbers are not objects? You said your teacher insisted that "the numeral is not the number" and that you couldn't understand it. But you al...
You could see the quantity of objects but not the number of objects? You must have already understood that the number is not the numeral in order to d...
We perceive in the present, remember the past, and anticipate the future. If I remember correctly, until now, physical matter has always been found to...
I'm sure you meant the impersonal pronoun. This is more obvious with the preceding sentence provided for context: You assert your stipulation/argument...
As in, if you were arguing that numbers are not objects? But you already told us that you were. You also told us that you assume numbers are objects. ...
I explained this already. Your “quantity” is based on ascending order, therefore your supposed “count” of quantity means nothing unless it is reciting...
I welcome you to provide a non-circular reason for why "determining a quantity" is (true) counting and why "reciting the natural numbers in ascending ...
In plain terms, your argument is like saying that there is a difference in meaning between beating a drum and beating eggs, therefore we shouldn’t use...
I see. Allow me to try again. If you give the number 2 meaning, a definition, to validate its existence as a conceptual object, you might say that it ...
If the number 2 means "a quantity of two", then how could counting the natural numbers be "expressing an order", as you claim? If you give the number ...
I propose instead that we reserve the term "counting" for counting the natural numbers and counting imaginary things, and that we should use the term ...
That's not your point, though. Your point is not merely to avoid equivocation; your point in drawing the distinction between the two senses of "counti...
You call it "counting" even though you consider it a misnomer to call it "counting" (since there is "nothing being counted")? You introduced this dist...
You're the only one who thinks it's a misnomer. Everyone else considers "counting up to ten" to be counting (you also called it "counting", by the way...
You have it backwards. The standard for counting is "the unit". The standard for measuring is "the unit of measurement". What unit of measurement is r...
You are saying that counting is the same as measuring, but that can’t be right. Otherwise, what unit of measurement do we use to count? Litres? Metres...
You're just going to gloss over your accusation that I misquoted you, and the fact that I didn't? I never took your position to be that "imaginary thi...
You don't need my help with that. You asserted that natural numbers are not countable because they are imaginary: You then stated that "we can only co...
I didn't call it counting; you did. You said: "So we are not really counting the imaginary things, but symbols or representations of them." If imagina...
Imaginary things only exist as symbols or representations; that's what makes them imaginary. You therefore acknowledge that we can count imaginary thi...
I wouldn't consider that an experience on top of another experience; it's just part of the dream experience. There is something it is like to have a d...
Comments