I agree with Cheerskep. But one problem is what I call the fallacy of infinite regressIon. Cheerskep refers to the fact of the material world by saying "When I refer to a rock". But of course there is no "rock", only a particular material substance. And then there is no material, except something more or less different from some other material. And then there is no substance....ah, you see the problem. It all comes down to the rather placid observation that there is something independent of our knowing it and all of whatever it requires some sort of naming or indexing to be known. You will appreciate my alternate uses of such words as rock, material, observation, known, named, each one of which, outside context, is a total orphan. Orphan? See, I can't say anything without being metaphorical -- and that's the essence of language and communication. So if Cheerskep had simply said that he doesn't agree with Boris' metaphors, OK; otherwise, he too is subject to the same sorts of critique he offers. Except Cheerskep's error is just a few words further down the metaphorical path. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, July 4, 2010 3:37:21 PM Subject: Re: The "trinary" view of "what there is". Boris quotes me: "As I say at the top this posting, at no time have I denied this. (Though it's helpful to consider that it's not the external event that is causing the notion; it's our observation of the event. That's why I keep saying those external events and objects are the "occasion", not the cause. )" TM And then Boris comments: "Observation is paying attention to external signal. Until notion is formed unique observation is an external component to it. Notion, immediately after formed, becomes external info for the next notion. This is a difference in our thinking." I have no clear idea what runs through your head when you say "external signal". One entry in a dictionary reads, "An indicator, such as a gesture or colored light, that serves as a means of communication." Another is, "Something that incites action, as in, "We heard the bugle giving the signal to retreat." In both of those, the key element is intention to convey info. I believe that in the "external, material, world" only living creatures ever have "intentions" When I observe a rock in the park, I would never say it is sending me a signal. Moreover, I think of the event I call an "observation" as always a mental event, notional. To "look at" the rock is merely to position my eyes in such a way that the light rays reflected off the rock strike my retina, which is literally part of my brain. If I'm not looking at the rock, light rays are nevertheless reflecting off it. But "observation" isn't taking place. And if the rays are hitting retinas wasted by a stroke, no observation is taking place - even though there is a material rock and reflected light rays. All "information" is notional. I am putting aside here the physicalist argument that there is no "notion" whatever ever, only disposition of brain tissue, because it's non-pertinent to your point. I feel sure that with 'external' you mean to convey "outside the head entirely", and I agreed with that: I accept that there is an external material rock, and external light rays . So I claim it's misleading to call "observation" an "external" event/component/object. In particular, I cannot assent to "notionb&becomes external info for the next notion". External to what if not to conscious notion? This seems to say notion is external to notion, which feels absurd to me. A notion created by an observation certainly can, and usually does, prompt further notion, but I'd never call that first notion "external info". I'd tend to feel it is "info" "about" the material world, but the "info" itself, being notional, is not itself "external". Boris concludes: "And language is often a marvelous tool to help us not only in the kitchen (and the garden, and the machine shop). It creates Society 'breathing' Arts and Sciences on marvelous levels." No. "Language" creates nothing, because it DOES nothing. Words are inert, like many tools I have - hammers, screw drivers. There are things I couldn't do without the screw driver, but 'd never attribute the action to the screwdriver. If I stab someone with a knife, I can't say, "It's not my fault! The knife killed him!" When you contemplate a printed word, all the activity is in your mind. When you utter a word, you count on its being heard -- processed by another mind. Because if it isn't, your utterance may disturb the physical air, but no communication -- i.e. new awareness in someone else's head -- takes place.
