Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

TorgoX (1933)

TorgoX
  sburkeNO@SPAMcpan.org
http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/

"Il est beau comme la retractilité des serres des oiseaux rapaces [...] et surtout, comme la rencontre fortuite sur une table de dissection d'une machine à coudre et d'un parapluie !" -- Lautréamont

Journal of TorgoX (1933)

Wednesday May 08, 2002
01:49 PM

World 3

[ #4769 ]
Dear Log,

«Popper tackled an immense range of subjects: among them the mind-body problem. He was a dualist and more, a pluralist. He defined a third reality beyond the material world and the world of mental events, a World 3 consisting of the products and creations of the human mind, abstract and no longer in human minds - ideas, theories, music and poetry, Shakespeare's plays and the English language, not located in space or time but real because of their ability via human minds to change the face of the material world.»

--"A legacy of swans left to science"

So that's where computer programs live! In their uncompiled form, at least.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Isn't this reminiscent of Platonic Forms?
    • I think Popper's point is in the differences between that and Platonic Forms. I mean, nearly everything but the "blind matter" view of reality can be compared to Platonic Forms.
      • After a close inspection of the article (and doing some more reflecting on it's representation of Popper's philosophy) I would retract my Platonic Forms statement.

        I would go along with this World 3 idea. Not a Form but not part of the physical world either. I suppose a pure Platonist would just push World 3 into the realm of Forms.

        However, creating this place for ideas to exist is rather interesting.

        Damn! Another philospher to read. The upside is that I've been looking for a 20th Century philosopher to r
        • Enh, just go read The End of Science [amazon.com].

          All the fun gossip (Chomsky [cmu.edu] is a grouch, who knew!), and none of the usual tortuous prose.

          Also, read Whitehead, starting with Dialogues with Alfred North Whitehead, which puts everything else into context.

          • How much is Chomsky linguistics and how much philosophy (although from the books I've seen of his he seems to keep them sort of separare, as much as you can separate philosophy from linguistics and vice versa).

            Whitehead looks interesting.

            More brain fodder I guess. :-)
            • I didn't know Chomsky wrote any philosophy.

              His linguistics is, in my opinion, ghastly. Typical mid-20th century stuff: narcissistic pseudo-innovation in notation and methodology, all to cover a near-total lack of worthwhile content. And his writing style fails the Turing test.

              I predict that history will have no patience for him. I certainly don't.