3 ms·

I have been thinking more about the section that I felt was incomplete: are you saying that 1) as you don't think 'the same' can be usefully (verbally) defined,

I have been thinking more about the section that I felt was incomplete: are you saying that 1) as you don't think 'the same' can be usefully (verbally) defined, and 2) as you have defined 'alike' as essentially 'the same in some respects, but not all', then 'alike' itself cannot be (verbally) defined? If so, then that seems to add to the difficulties in accepting your argument as sound. I also do not get the significance of 'verbally' in parentheses. Are you suggesting there is another way to define sameness, and if so, what is it, and why not use it here?

geye1234 2y ago
I think this conversation has reached its end. The requisite goodwill appears to be lacking. We'll agree to disagree: you leave me with my Aristotelianism, and I'll leave you with what I think is your stated position that your thoughts don't need to bear any resemblance to reality for them to be real. I wish you well!
- mannykannot 2y ago
  Well, that's too bad, as I had come to look forward to these exchanges in much the same way that my wife anticipates the Times crosswords - i.e. as a challenging but ultimately inconsequential mental exercise (I say inconsequential because this sort of debating shows no sign of solving the puzzle of what minds are.) It seems to me to be an unfortunate choice for you to retire with a somewhat serious, yet passively-voiced, allegation, but if that is how you want to present yourself, then so be it, and people can make of it what they will. Best wishes to you!
- mannykannot 2y ago
  > and I'll leave you with what I think is your stated position that your thoughts don't need to bear any resemblance to reality for them to be real. Just for the record, I will point out something I wrote in the very post you are replying to: in response to your question "in what manner must [a thought] be like its object", I wrote "[this question] is both the one I think might be answered by information flow via CHOC and the one you have resolutely avoided addressing (you still have not even said whether or not my CHOC-mediated 'correspondence' is your 'likeness')." As you have repeatedly refused to address the question of whether it is what you mean, I will just say this: you have not shown that anything more is needed in the way of likeness in order for someone to have true thoughts. Why are you avoiding this issue? Pretending I haven't answered your question is not helping you.

geye1234 2y ago

I think this conversation has reached its end. The requisite goodwill appears to be lacking. We'll agree to disagree: you leave me with my Aristotelianism, and I'll leave you with what I think is your stated position that your thoughts don't need to bear any resemblance to reality for them to be real. I wish you well!

mannykannot 2y ago
Well, that's too bad, as I had come to look forward to these exchanges in much the same way that my wife anticipates the Times crosswords - i.e. as a challenging but ultimately inconsequential mental exercise (I say inconsequential because this sort of debating shows no sign of solving the puzzle of what minds are.) It seems to me to be an unfortunate choice for you to retire with a somewhat serious, yet passively-voiced, allegation, but if that is how you want to present yourself, then so be it, and people can make of it what they will. Best wishes to you!
mannykannot 2y ago
> and I'll leave you with what I think is your stated position that your thoughts don't need to bear any resemblance to reality for them to be real. Just for the record, I will point out something I wrote in the very post you are replying to: in response to your question "in what manner must [a thought] be like its object", I wrote "[this question] is both the one I think might be answered by information flow via CHOC and the one you have resolutely avoided addressing (you still have not even said whether or not my CHOC-mediated 'correspondence' is your 'likeness')." As you have repeatedly refused to address the question of whether it is what you mean, I will just say this: you have not shown that anything more is needed in the way of likeness in order for someone to have true thoughts. Why are you avoiding this issue? Pretending I haven't answered your question is not helping you.