From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:15 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Infinity (was: You' have to be God....ATTN: PH) Jim Humphries wrote: > With the present example - an idea of 6 *today*, > and an idea of 6 *yesterday*-every property > of the one does *not* belong to the other. As your quoting of my text shows, I agreed with this both times you said it previously, have never disagreed with it, and will agree with it as many times you say it in the future. > the conceptualism that you are espousing > does not entitle you to assume "six-ness' over > and above individual mental acts. No, I told you precisely why I'm entitled to talk about six-ness as distinct from individual mental acts. You did not respond to or even dare quote my reason, so I'll repeat it: it is obvious that there is something that "an idea of 6 today and an idea of 6 yesterday" have in common. It's precisely that which led you to say '6' both times rather than saying '7' or '525923'. > Conceptualists say that numbers exist in our minds. Conceptualists say that universals (like numbers) are concepts (i.e. abstractions), and do not exist independently of the instances that instantiate them and the minds that conceptualize them. > > Conceptualism is hardly incompatible with identifying that > > which is in common across individual events of contemplation. > > > You had better say exactly which brand of conceptualism you > adhere to, Why? > and how 'abstraction' enters the picture. You quoted me telling you: "identifying that which is in common across individual events of contemplation". -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net