Hi Esteban,

to_esteban wrote:

> Joe,

[snip]

>
> Notice that 'I hold (something) exists as an empirical matter' IS a
> conjecture. This conjecture initiated with a claim you made and I chose to
> use it and reflected back your arguments with what I hold. If you
> discredit
> what I state then you discredit what you state...

Sorry. I miss your logic here. I'm not discrediting your claim by
pointing out that it's a conjecture. I'm just saying it's less than certain.

> I was seeking to point and
> expose this bias... The central issue centers on how what we hold and
> think
> relates to 'what is', what we hold or think is just half of the tamal; The
> central issue aint if we thinks or hold if something is or is not the
> central issue is that something is or is not...


You and I very much agree on this. Evidently we are both realists.

>
>
> I like your claim " the world of the products of the intelligent mind"
> as a
> description of world 3... Yes I think that world 3 objects exists when a
> knower holds the shared identical copy in their mind and gives them
> meaning
> and life...

Here's where we part company. I hold that the world 3 object exists as
long as there is a disposition for a knower to understand the content of
the object when and if the knower attempts to grasp it. If no knower is
present the disposition is still there and so the world 3 object, once
created, is not dependent on the knower. This is the basic idea of
"epistemology without a knowing subject", the basic idea behind the
notion of Obective Knowledge. This point brings us back to the beginning
of this discussion, now more than a year old.

> To use the opening analogy for there to be a sound there needs
> to be a listener, withouth the listener there be no sounds though there be
> the emision of the perturbation that a listener would interpret as a
> sound...

Not so. A sound exists whether or not a listener is present to hear it.
Our hearing the sound is not the sound itself.

>
>
> Originally I though"that people cannot share identical copies of a
> World 3
> object such as book because your ideas about 'book' and my idea will
> differ
> somwhat as a result of differences
> in our synaptic structures, sitiuational experiences, mental
> predispositiosn
> and variations in other factors". Later in dialogue with you and others I
> realized that it is possible to share identical cpies of a world 3
> object as
> we 'integrate' the difference to come to know the 'area'.


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

>
>
> The notion that world 3 object "book" has undiscovered "content" that you
> and I cannot
> possible share, just because it is undiscovered constitutes a conjecture
> difficult to validate.

Not so. The number system was invented much before the "Odd" and "Even"
numbers and their properties were discovered, but the "Odd" and "Even"
numbers of course existed as logical implications of the number system
before they were discovered.

> Under the same premise we can argue that all
> knowledge (say the number systems) exists waiting to be discovered instead
> of having been created (the products of the intelligent mind).

No. The point only applies to logical implications of theories,
arguments, and other conceptual systems that are undiscovered at the
time of creation of such World 3 objects. Thus conceptual systems that
have not been invented don't exist and are notw aiting to be discovered.

> I personaly
> take a more pragmatic aproach and hold that there be causes to the effects
> instead of just believing in the existance of something without reason at
> all...

This has nothing to do with "cause": anfd "effect" but only with
"content" and the logical implications of such content.

>
>
> AS you know I hold that the implications of world 3 objects 'waiting'
> to be
> discovered dont exists until someone points them out...(and creates
> them)..


I think I've just shown that this position is simply wrong. Logical
implications of systems are something we talk about all the time. They
exists and can be demonstrated to exist by the simple act of performing
logical deductions. Mathematicians, Logicians, Scientists, and many of
the rest of the population perform such operations all the time.

>
> The example of 'general relativity' may be usefull... You may recall the
> diagram I created as a shared copy to use ... I proposed that knowledge
> sharing actually only takes place as a result of world 1 stimuli which we
> agree does not caontain the knowledge but may serve as a conduit to
> regenerate the knowledge... see the conduit methaphor... The process
> agstractly goes from stimulus -to perception -to an internal notion -to a
> shared notion... in actuality the process is a multy-loop from which
> individuals interacting produce the emerging concepts ...

I never did understand your diagram. In fact I've always distrusted
diagrams, because one can't show that diagrams are logically
contradictory. We did agree that W 1 phenomena are involved in
communication, but we did not agree on any shared copies of anything in
minds.

>
>
> BTW note the two different processes involved in "read this book and
> think
> aobut it". We will probably agree what is stated though probably disagree
> in what it means.... It seems clear that these copies CAN be identical and
> we can share knowledge...

What copies?

> When we refer to the
> theory of relativity we are referring to a world 3 object, description of
> world 1 thingies...

Yes. And we refer to the same thing. But that doesn't mean we share
copies of it.

>
>
> The notion of virtual shared identical copy corresponds to the notion of a
> world 3 object, sort of like water corresponding to the liquid H2O.
> Stating
> that liquid H2O exists while deinying that water exists is just wrong...
> just as stating that world 3 objects exists while deinying that there be
> shared identical copies ... When we create a shared identical copy we can
> have a virtual copy which exists in world 3. This world 3 shared copy can
> evolve as beings eevole it...


Saying it doesn't make it so. The science of Chemistry has shown that
the chemical formula for water is H_2 O. I don't think you've
established that Wordl 3 objects are virtual shared identical copies.

>
>
> E> Sure, 'language distinctions' (words) provides an abundant supply of
> shred identical copies we have learned to hold to 'communicate to one
> another' (though most of the time we actually just assume to have shared
> identical copies when our distinciton actually differ)... so we share the
> distincitons of 'CD', 'book', 'mind', 'code', 'color', 'light',
> 'temperature', 'sun', 'being', 'time', and the list could go on and
> one...


We may share distinctions, but that doesn't mean we share identical copies.

>
>
> J>Esteban, we share certain distinctions sufficiently to allow us to
> communicate with one another, but that doesn't establish that my notion
> of "CD" is "identical" to yours.
>
> Indeed thats true just as it is true the through dialogue we can come to a
> shared identical notion of 'cd'. And it is true that our shared identical
> notion of a 'cd' hardly serves to establish the content of a given CD. In
> fact without a CD player it would be difficult for us to see the
> content of
> the CD, heck even with a CD player it may be difficult for us to see the
> content if the content was encoded with a structure we can't
> decipher... The
> notion that we use the 'decoder' to 'get at' 'the contents' is an
> abstraction of what takes place... one uses the decoder to regenerate
> something from the stimulus...


Again, saying it doesn't make it so. You cannot show that my concept of
CD and yours are shared identical copies.

>
>
> [snip]
>
> Cheers
>
> esteban



Best,


Joe

>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]