SWM wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >The issue is on what basis do we take the third premise to be true? Do >we have some scientific results to interpret? Actually, no. Do we have >a conceptual claim? You bet. The reason to believe in the truth of the >third premise hinges on a certain conception of understanding (and >consciousness). Referring to the truth or falsity of the third premise, >absent the reason for taking it to be true or false, simply misses the >whole point. I can readily agree that we should consider the rationale for taking the third premise as true or false; but, I expect a rational connection between the terms of the third premise and the reason(s) offered for taking the third premise to be true. >Again, the third premise is either true or false (or nonsense, of >course) and our reason for thinking it one or the other is the issue, >not whether any particular proponent of its truth (or falsity) has a >particular mindset. that's why I am taking inventory of what may be taken as true based on the CRT. allegations that someone advocating that the third axiom is true (or false) has a dualistic mindset simply aren't relevant. Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/