chris at mccormick.cx
Fri May 27 10:24:26 CEST 2011
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 09:58:04AM +0200, Bryan Jurish wrote:
> Chris was emphasizing the perception of physical phenomena, and it
> seemed appropriate.
I'm not just emphasizing it - I'm saying that there are no things which aren't "physical phenomena".
I think we are tricked into thinking there are because we occupy the physical computational machinery that does the contemplating of abstraction and therefore take it for granted as always being there.
> even if no one is around to construct or interpret the utterance, the
> associated semantic proposition still holds. A less complicated example is
> the equation: "42=6*7" holds whether or not there is anyone around to
> evaluate it.
Define "still holds". In what way does it "hold" in the situation you have described?
I don't think it holds. I don't even think it exists without a brain to physically compute it. I think that the only place it "holds" is inside a brain, and as "physical phenomena" at that.
Ok, I'm getting repetitive. Will shut up now. :]
More information about the Pd-list