Harv,

In your own way, your vision is roughly as narrow as Alex's is; your perspective is just a little different that's all. I know it will be beyond you to comprehend it but you defeat yourself with your own poorly thought out comments. Sincerely, I have no desire to insult you; you insult yourself. If you knew what Alex knows or Alex knew what you know we might have a chance of communicating but both of you are just too narrow minded to pick up on what I am talking about.

****
Harv: For example, if I asked you to tell me what the concept 'lieto' means, you might have no idea what I was referring to if you spoke only English.
****

I stopped reading right here because you are giving an exact example of my point. I have no idea what 'lieto' means at all. Yet I can refer to it with no problem: if I ask "what does lieto mean?", I am clearly referring to the meaning of 'lieto' without understanding it at all (I need not even understand the properties of the concept being referred to by 'lieto'. One cannot even ask such a question about a symbol without referring to the meaning of the symbol!

If you believe understanding comes before the ability to refer than, as I said, you cannot refer to anything you do not understand; a rather ridiculous statement. It leaves Alan's thesis as the only possibility: i.e., you must have been born knowing everything.

Have fun -- Dick

• You are missing the point - harvey1 - November 8, 2002 - 13:10 UTC
  • I hope Stafford doesn't mind my intruding his forum - mrsouza - November 8, 2002 - 14:55 UTC
    • Tell us which school you attended in physics and engineering - carefuluniverse - November 8, 2002 - 17:21 UTC
    • I can totally relate - stormcrow - November 8, 2002 - 21:08 UTC
  • Word games are endless..hence the need for standards of honesty - quiet - November 9, 2002 - 03:33 UTC