All that is much to sophisticated for me. I don't have a theory or a model (e.g., in terms of interpreters) for how the mind works.
This all started as a discussion of subjective behavior. It has drifted into a discussion of thinking more generally -- and in particular thinking about mathematical "objects." I see the drift as a positive development since we all presumably agree about what things like "the square root of 2" means. Yet the referent of "the square root of 2" is not (I still claim) a material thing. It is (I still claim) a mental construct, and it exists (at least and perhaps only) in the mind.I see that as important to this discussion since Nick and Eric claim (as I understand them) that talk of things being in the mind is meaningless. So the discussion comes down to the question of whether mathematical constructs are meaningless or how Nick and Eric define what such things mean without talking about thinking about them. (Or perhaps I'm wrong and Nick and Eric think it's ok to talk about thinking about things -- where by "thinking" I mean what most people have in mind by that term. I guess I can use "have in mind" in this discussion since Nick himself used it.) On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM glen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/04/2016 10:27 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > I must have missed the message where you talked about the 3-tuple and > don't > > understand what you mean that a sign is one of 3 objects in a 3-tuple and > > why it matters. Nick talked about a sign; I was distinguishing a sign > from > > its referent -- which you do too. I also said the reference is often a > > mental construct. I'm not sure how your comment relates to that > framework. > > This is the 1st time I've mentioned the 3-tuple. Sorry. It was my guess > at Nick's use of the word "sign". > > It relates to "mental constructs" at least because you have to place the > "mental construct" in one of the 3 types: referent, sign, interpreter. I > gave mathematical examples because you expressed confusion over what Nick > might have meant by "They are signs that stand in a rigorous, systematic, > and extensively confirmed way for a vast collection of mathematical > relationships." I presume you intend to put "mental constructs" in the > interpreter category, but maybe not. They could be in any category. For > example, the mental construct I have of cat-like can be a sign for a > particular image of one of my cats (yes, I have more than one, > unfortunately). And the interpreter is the mental construct(s) I use to > organize the house (feeding times, expected behaviors, etc.) with respect > to those cats. > > -- > ⇔ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
