Francois Tremblay

You are merely repeating what I said. In fact, you even reminded me to mention something else - i.e. not only do I need my senses to know the rules of logic and these definitions, but they are themselves arrived at by sense perception.

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Draygomb

Franc

Are you counting mental perception in with the other five senses (6 if you include ESP)? Because even if you didn't have your physical senses you could still think.

Francois Tremblay

I don't count mental perception, no, although that's a good point.

Draygomb

Franc

My point is that empirical is physical while everything you need to disprove a square circle is mental.

NialScorva

Communicate to me what "square" and "circle" mean without using any empirical references.

Draygomb

Square - 4 lines of equal length set such that opossite sides are parallel to each other and that their ends form angles of 90 degrees.

Circle - The set of all points equal distance from the center.

NialScorva

What is a line? What is "length"? What is parallel? What's a point? You've either undefined terms left, or your resting on empirical concepts.

Nice smiley, hope you can justify it's use.

[edit: spelling and friendly taunt]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: NialScorva ]</p>

Draygomb

NialScorva

I used it because I knew you'ld claim some form of empirical necessity. Sure it helps to have some kind of empirical reference point to help form the ideas but it isn't necessary. The fact that they are ideas indicates that they are in the mental realm instead of the physical realm.

Gravity is an idea that needs support from the physical realm. You don't need physical support to imagine gravity but you do need physical support to prove it's physically real.

NialScorva

Ah, but that's not what you said, and is not what I'm arguing against:
and
You are arguing the a priori/a posteriori distinction in both statements, I reject such a distinction.

You were better off in mathematics. Gravity is a phenomenon of action upon empirically derived objects. You can claim that you can imagine it, but I can also claim after the fact to know all the answers in jeopardy. Instead of assertions, how about an argument: How would you imagine gravity with empirical knowledge of something for gravity to operate on?

Secondly, you make the assumption that one can think without language. You are speaking using words, is there a way you can express thoughts without language (ie empirically learned and transmitted knowledge)? Logic is manipulation of symbology using formal methods, how do you have non-empirical symbols?

If I assume too much, please argue that as well.

Draygomb

NialScorva
Who's to say that I didn't dream the whole universe up? If I did, then there is no empirical data available. So how would I know anything, I'd have to have made it up.

Would not a circle still be a circle even if I didn't have a name for it?

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Draygomb ]</p>