Ken Hanly wrote:
> [snip].
> Minds don't see anything except in a metaphorical sense.
> Your eye does not see just bits of ink rather YOU see an
> equation. Someone who does not recognize equations may just
> see bits of inks.
> There is a difference between imagining you are seeing an
> equation written on a piece of paper and seeing an equation
> written down on a piece of paper. Except in special
> circumstances it would be most odd to say "I imagine I see
> an equation written on that piece of paper" when you are
> actually looking at an equation written on the paper.
If you read "dog" on a slip of paper you don't back off to keep from being bitten. What you do do, of course, is the subject of a few million pages in the 20th century alone.
Similarly it is not an equation on the slip of paper but the name of an equation. That too can lead to endless arguments over what it means. In particular the dog referred to (in common understanding) has an existence independent of any mind -- except of course on a nominalist basis "dog" refers only to the name, and only the individual dogs are real. WE are back to the old realist vs. nominalist argument.
> [snip] According to you equations exist only in minds. I have a
> few questions.
> 1) Take the equation x + y = 10. Is there a different
> equation in your mnd and my mind and everyone else's mind
> who reads this? Are there then equations or an equation we
> are talking about?
> 2) How do I know that the equation in your mind is the
> same as in mine?
> I cannot access your mind. Ditto everyone else who reads the
> equation.
This is where the argument began in Plato himself. If I ask you what "dog" means and you give me an example of a dog, I can say to you how do I know that that is an example of "dog" rather than of "safety pin" until you can tell me what dog is without referring or pointing to any particular dogs. And so forth.
>
> 3) Is the same equation in everyone's mind? [snip].
> 4) If the mind sees the equation this seems to imply that
> the equation is something distinct from the mind just as
> when we see something it is not typically the eye except as
> reflected in some external medium such as a mirror. The
> implication of using "see" is that the equation itself is
> not within the mind.
The equation does not exist in the world out there. There would be no equations if humans (or other mathematizing species) did not exist, though the world described by those equations would still exist. Also it is is the same equation in the mind of everyone wo has a reasonable understanding of algebra. This as you note above raises insoluable conundrums which I think are soluable only I can't solve them myself. Put another way, both classical realism (Platonism) and classical nominalism lead to all sorts of difficulties, and showing the difficulties in one (e.g., Platonism) does not justify the other. Plato justified his absurd doctrine of forms by demonstrating quite conclusively that unless we accepted the forms we didn't know anything.
> You seem to raise more metaphysical problems than you solve.
> That's what comes of
> talking funny! Personally, I think there are equations all
> over the place: stored on disks and hard drives, on pages in
> books, in people's brains, etc.etc.
The point is that your position also raises more problems than it solves.
One possible alternative (or set of alternatives) is suggested by Marx in the Theses on Feurbach.
In the Beginning was the Deed. Any theory which tries to start with thought and arrive at the deed leads to mysticism. (See Thesis VIII)
Carrol
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
P.S. to Charles. "practical" in Thesis 8 means consists of practice, not "practical" in the everyday sense of something that works. The practical in Marx's sense here can be the most stupid or obnoxious practice, practice which either pursues a false goal or fails to achieve its goal.