17447
|
Parsons says counting is tagging as first, second, third..., and converting the last to a cardinal [Parsons,C, by Heck]
|
|
Full Idea:
In Parsons's demonstrative model of counting, '1' means the first, and counting says 'the first, the second, the third', where one is supposed to 'tag' each object exactly once, and report how many by converting the last ordinal into a cardinal.
|
|
From:
report of Charles Parsons (Frege's Theory of Numbers [1965]) by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 3
|
|
A reaction:
This sounds good. Counting seems to rely on that fact that numbers can be both ordinals and cardinals. You don't 'convert' at the end, though, because all the way you mean 'this cardinality in this order'.
|
8849
|
Traditional foundationalism is radically internalist [Williams,M]
|
|
Full Idea:
Traditional foundationalism is radically internalist. The justification-making factors for beliefs, basic and otherwise, are all open to view, and perhaps even actual objects of awareness. I am always in a position to know that I know.
|
|
From:
Michael Williams (Without Immediate Justification [2005], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This is a helpful if one is trying to draw a map of the debate. An externalist foundationalism would have to terminate in the external fact which was the object of knowledge (via some reliable channel), but that is the truth, not the justification.
|
8852
|
In the context of scepticism, externalism does not seem to be an option [Williams,M]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the peculiar context of the skeptical challenge, it is easy to persuade oneself that externalism is not an option.
|
|
From:
Michael Williams (Without Immediate Justification [2005], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
This is because externalism sees justification as largely non-conscious, but when faced with scepticism, the justifications need to be spelled out, and therefore internalised. So are sceptical discussions basic, or freakish anomalies?
|
3159
|
Beliefs and desires aren't real; they are prediction techniques [Dennett]
|
|
Full Idea:
Intentional systems don't really have beliefs and desires, but one can explain and predict their behaviour by ascribing beliefs and desires to them. This strategy is pragmatic, not right or wrong.
|
|
From:
Daniel C. Dennett (Brainstorms:Essays on Mind and Psychology [1978], p.7?)
|
|
A reaction:
If the ascription of beliefs and desires explains behaviour, then that is good grounds for thinking they might be real features of the brain, and even if that is not so, they are real enough as abstractions from brain events, like the 'economic climate'.
|