9987
|
An aggregate in which order does not matter I call a 'set' [Bolzano]
|
|
Full Idea:
An aggregate whose basic conception renders the arrangement of its members a matter of indifference, and whose permutation therefore produces no essential difference, I call a 'set'.
|
|
From:
Bernard Bolzano (Paradoxes of the Infinite [1846], §4), quoted by William W. Tait - Frege versus Cantor and Dedekind IX
|
|
A reaction:
The idea of 'sets' was emerging before Cantor formalised it, and clarified it by thinking about infinite sets. Nowadays we also have 'ordered' sets, which rather contradicts Bolzano, and we also expect the cardinality to be determinate.
|
18424
|
If two people can have phenomenally identical experiences, they can't involve the self [Brogaard]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is plausible that you and I can have perceptual experiences with the same phenomenology of two trees at different distances from us (perhaps at different times). ..So our perceptual experiences cannot contain you or me in the content of representation.
|
|
From:
Berit Brogaard (Perceptual Content and Monadic Truth [2009], p.223), quoted by Cappelen,H/Dever,Josh - The Inessential Indexical 08.2
|
|
A reaction:
If you accept the example, which seems reasonable, then that pretty conclusively shows that perception is not inherently indexical.
|