Re: Hypotheses (was: Re: Assumptions vs.

Thread View: sci.philosophy.tech

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by Hakki Kocabas Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:02

#759

Author: Hakki Kocabas
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:02

34 lines
1473 bytes

> I wrote:  
> >> What person thinks he saw can easily be slightly different from what he  
> >> actually saw.    
>   
> In article <10292319.81767.18770@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (H
> >and how would you know that ?    
>   
> Because there have been times when *I* thought I saw something, and later  
  
yes, you thought you _saw_....but you didn't see it clearly...  
  
> evidence (looking at it more closely, for example) led me to conclude that I
> had been mistaken.  
  
then you saw it better...  
  
>   
> >I think you are in a loop.  
>   
> I think you are raising a philosophical point irrelevant to the discussion  
  
how do you know ?  
  
> at hand.  If you want to define perception in such a way that it is not  
> possible to mistaken about a perception, go right ahead; but that is not the
  
we are not talking about "perception", we are talking about the use of  
the word "see"....  
  
> sense of the word I had in mind.  
  
and I am not interested what is the sense of this word in your mind, unless  
you can put it on the sceen :-)

Re: Hypotheses (was: Re: Assumptions vs.

#774

Author: Frank Adams
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:40

38 lines
1827 bytes

In article <10292322.79320.9942@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:
>> I wrote:  
>> >> What person thinks he saw can easily be slightly different from what he  
>> >> actually saw.    
>>   
>> In article <10292319.81767.18770@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (H
>> >and how would you know that ?    
>>   
>> Because there have been times when *I* thought I saw something, and later  
>  
>yes, you thought you _saw_....but you didn't see it clearly...  
>  
>> evidence (looking at it more closely, for example) led me to conclude that I
>> had been mistaken.  
>  
>then you saw it better...  
>  
>>   
>> >I think you are in a loop.  
>>   
>> I think you are raising a philosophical point irrelevant to the discussion  
>  
>how do you know ?  
>  
>> at hand.  If you want to define perception in such a way that it is not  
>> possible to mistaken about a perception, go right ahead; but that is not the
>  
>we are not talking about "perception", we are talking about the use of  
>the word "see"....  
>  
>> sense of the word I had in mind.  
>  
>and I am not interested what is the sense of this word in your mind, unless  
>you can put it on the sceen :-)  

If you have a point which is relevant to the discussion, please make it.
All I can get from this is that you don't like my word choices.  If, on the
other hand, this whole line of commentary was a joke, it wasn't funny.

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads