From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2025-03-02, D  wrote:   
   >> But that's an infinitely long step, because the terms used   
   >> to define the initial terms need to be defined, and then   
   >> those terms, and then those terms, and then....   
   >   
   > Yet, empirically speaking, this step of the process   
   > has been immensely successful with both scientists and   
   > philosophers. So empirically speaking, this is a proven,   
   > profitable first step, that is possible. =)   
      
   Proven to believers that it's proven.   
      
   Also, what percent of the population are   
   scientists/philosophers? How are others faring using the   
   same self-referential symbol slight of hand?   
      
      
      
   Oh my! Locks and keys and passwords and authentication and   
   encryption and walls and police and military and wars and   
   hostages and the flowing of blood and loss of limbs and   
   human trafficking and... and....   
      
   >_<   
      
   > But if we cannot agree on the external world existing,   
   > and objective facts existing, then our conversation will be   
   > ultimately meaningless and a waste of time and electrons.   
      
   How could beings with utterly isolated conceptuality   
   contexts (i.e. minds) possibly agree using symbols to   
   which individuals? Wouldn't such agreement always be some   
   mix of accidental and imaginary?   
      
   --   
   NPC's dutifully ignored.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)