From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Sun, 2 Mar 2025, oldernow wrote:   
      
   > 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?   
      
   See first statement. This is trivial. I'll finish this discussion now. =)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)