I think we're talking past each other on some of these points. I wrote:
>> To illustrate what I mean, here's a question about
>> mathematical objects: did the transfinite cardinals
>> (the numbers that describe different orders of
>> infinity) exist before Cantor "discovered" them?
And you replied:
> No. And they will no longer exist if we forget
> about them.
And I agree with this, which was why I put quotes around "discovered", but also why I chose the transfinite cardinals. But I have to disagree when you go on to say:
> To put the matter more plainly, 2 + 2 did not equal
> 4 until somebody created the concepts of "number,"
> "addition," and "equal."
I'm not going to declare "God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man!" as Brouwer did, but my *gut feeling* (can't get more unscientific than that) is with the *positive integers and their properties* (I'm restricting it to that set because I believe the Greeks had trouble with 0) we may have entities that are innate to the brain and its processes.
On another topic, you made a distinction that I find bewildering, i.e., that descriptions are not representations. If anything it seems (there goes that gut feeling again, no science today boy) that what are called "descriptions" are a proper subset of what are called "representations." -- Curtiss
"Blood and broken glass all over the floor, it's just like home" -- William Gaddis
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com