Re: Why I chose Other
 

I do not think it is plausible to suppose that thoughts exist independently of the thinker. You can take that for what it's worth. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Why I chose Other
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think it is plausible to suppose that thoughts exist independently of the thinker. You can take that for what it's worth. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that there are any plausible positions that you do not agree with?

I mean that kind of seriously. For me, I can distinguish among those claims that I disagree with between ones that have some plausibility and some that have none. If people were incapable of doing this, I am not sure I understand what the purpose of the word "plausible" would be. (Perhaps, "It is plausible that x" would then be equivalent to "It cannot yet be determined whether x or not x"?)

I hope I am not being too annoying, but I do enjoy debating these kind of things from time to time. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why I chose Other
 

I looked up "plausible" in a layman's dictionary and got "seemingly or apparently valid, likely or acceptable; credible". By that definition, it looks like a matter of personal opinion. If there are two plausible (IMO) arguments leading to contradictory conclusions, I can't honestly say I agree with either of them.

In this case, there can be no sensory perception of the concept of mathematics, so in essence, if one says math exists ouside the mind, he is merely inventing the concept of an unobservable framework that is not part of him.