Ahab,

Earth is the third planet from the Sun. That's a fact, but it's not a fact that is dependent on humans. Earth, the number three, and the Sun exist, and they exist independent of humanity. The human observation of the fact is dependent on humans, but neither the actual objects nor the RELATIONSHIPS between the actual objects are dependent on humans. The human observation of the physical relationships are mind-dependent, but the actual physical order of objects to other objects are not.

We use language to represent reality. Our word "relationship" is one of those tools for representing the phenomena we observe. We observe physical phenoma and represent it as a relationship if it meets the criteria for what we mean by "relationship". That is a mind-dependent, language-dependent observation.
You can't attain a mind-dependent, language-dependent knowledge of the essense of reality. That is an illusion created by the shadow grammar casts on the world.

But that relationship, no matter what we call it, exists mind-independently. All we're expressing with "The earth is the third planet from the sun" is a relationship that is mind-independent. You're saying because the concept of a relationship is mind-dependent, so too must relationships be mind-dependent. But that's not true. The earth's position to the sun exists mind-independently. This relationship talk is just our way of expressing this fact about the world.

Certainly the substances we characterize as being in a relationship can exist independently of humans. But what about 'relationship'. Is there such an entity as 'relationship' that enjoys independent existence.

No, but what we refer by the relationship does enjoy independent existence, and that's all that matters. We are saying that there are two other planets between the sun and the earth, making the earth the third planet. The relationship between the earth and the sun is just that and is something which is true no matter if we classified it or not.

In other words, saying that the relationship exists (some facts about the world are in this certain way), is not saying we think some entity called 'relationship' exists (whatever that may mean).

Then why does Fast think there is an entity that we call "three" that enjoys independent existence?

It is easier to say the relationships we recognize are independent of our ability to recognize them, but we are what that understanding is about, and we cannot be taken out of the equasion, because we supply the meaning... What meaning would the orbit of our planet have around the sun if there were no humans, or no life at all??? Math can tell what is in the physical world, but only humanity can say the meaning of it, as we do for all qualities of the moral world...

Perhaps he means the relationship that we refer to when we say "third" enjoys independent existence.

Then why does Fast think there is an entity that we call "three" that enjoys independent existence?

I'm not sure what you mean by "meaning." Words have meaning, and the kind of meaning that words have is lexical; hence, words have lexical meaning. In fact, they denote lexical meaning, or stand in place of lexical meaning..

When I say that the number three exists, I mean it because the number three has properties, and to say of something that it exists is to say of it that it has properties.

When I say that the number three is mind-independent, I mean it because the number three is an abstract object; in fact, it's a class; indeed, a class of all triples.

I certainly don't think there are physical threes, nor do I think there are some threes floating around in some platonic realm.

I can see how you can say that a group of three seperate objects like three stones enjoys independent exstence. Or that all of the substances that we classify as being horses enjoy independent existence. But I fail to see why you've gone on to make the claim that there are classes called "horse" and "three" that are conceived as entities that enjoy independent existence.

How about the class of all planets? I think the class of all planets (or the planet class) predate all humans.

But, I still say that regardless of what they are, they exist, for they have properties, and that's what's important, whether inside of (or outside of) time.

The lexical meaning of a word is how fluent speakers collectively use it. If we do not know the meaning of a word, we can, for example, consult a credible source like a dictionary, for it is there we find lexical definitions of words. We can read the lexical definitions of the words and glean from it what the lexical meaning of the words are.

Earlier, I was elaborating on what I meant by denote. This is how I understand it. Words having meaning; hence, words have lexical meaning, but "have" is ambiguous, and by "have" I mean denote, so what I mean by "words have meaning" is "words denote meaning"; all together, I mean: "words denote lexical meaning."

So, I'm not so sure our views are all that different. I only go on to explain the relationship between the word and the meaning of words by pointing out that words denote meaning.

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 04:10 PM ----------

How about the class of all planets? I think the class of all planets (or the planet class) predate all humans.

Also, and for what it's worth, I occasionally speculate that because the difference between a concrete object and an abstract object is so great, that it's actually a misnomer to think of an abstract object as a kind of object at all; in fact, to say of an object that it's abstract comes across (to me) as akin to the denial of there being an object at all; for example, can we actually instantiate a class? Maybe not, but we can subclass them. It's no wonder why people want to deny the existence of abstract objects. But, I still say that regardless of what they are, they exist, for they have properties, and that's what's important, whether inside of (or outside of) time.

I spent a long time trying to figure out the fact words denote meaning. Don't mess up my world! :poke-eye:

I don't think concepts are atemporal, but I do think abstract objects are.

I don't think concepts are atemporal, but I do think abstract objects are.

When I say that the number three exists, I mean it because the number three has properties, and to say of something that it exists is to say of it that it has properties.

When I say that the number three is mind-independent, I mean it because the number three is an abstract object; in fact, it's a class; indeed, a class of all triples.

I certainly don't think there are physical threes, nor do I think there are some threes floating around in some platonic realm.