Huck Turner wrote:
> "Kevin Aylward" 
wrote in message
> news:...
> 
>>Huck Turner wrote:
>>
>>>"Kevin Aylward"
 wrote in
>>>message news:...
>>>
>>>>Huck Turner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Kevin Aylward"
 wrote in
>>>>>message news:...
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Wilkins wrote:
>>>>>
>> 
>>
>>>>The point is that a circular argument, although consistent, can not
>>>>*distinguish* between *any* argument. They may well be a correct
>>>>derivation, but
>>>>one would never be able to eliminate all the other derivations. It
>>>>makes no
>>>>sense to claim that this one argument is the true one, if that same
>>>>claim can be made
>>>>for the millions of other ones. If we don't know which one is valid,
>>>>than we have no
>>>>argument at all. Look, I can simply make up any argument and it could
>>>>still be consistent in a circular system.
>>>>
>>>>Why is the bible true. It says that it is true in the bible, so it
>>>>must be. etc...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are we talking about circularity in arguments or in processes?
>>>Understanding is something that happens - it's a process of some kind.
>>
>>Define "understanding". Don't say its a "kind of
process". Actually
>>define it for me.
>>
> 
> 
> Below is how Merriam-Webster defines 'understand'. Definition 1 (from
> the transitive senses) is the one that seems most appropriate to the
> current discussion.
> 
Isn't it about time this thread was abandoned in a dark, snowy alleyway 
to die in its sleep?  When you have to start discussing the definition 
of "understand", I think it's clear that that's one thing you won't end 
up doing in this thread.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/17/04 8:31:27 PM