usage cannot capture meaning.

He would need a conception or idea of the Fountain of Youth. That is, he would have to have some idea of what he was looking for. But he certainly, as you point out, was not looking for that idea.

They are not just imagining the dog show, but their concept of the dog show? Could they ever imagine just the dog show, and not their concept of a dog show (whatever that means)?

If I imagine (form a mental image of) what my aunt looks like that doesn't mean that my aunt is an imaginary person!

Yes of course. The concept of a dog show is one thing and the dog show I attended February, 16th 2010 is another. I can imagine the concept of a dog show or I can imagine a particular dog show. I can even imagine a dog show that hasn't happened (or will never happen). I can imagine the concept of a man or I can imagine a particular man. I really don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand (other than your usual stubbornness).



That's because your aunt is a person and doesn't exist entirely in your mind. Anything that exists entirely inside human minds is imaginary. Do concepts exist outside of your mind? If so, can I borrow a cup of concepts?

My headache exists in my mind. Is my headache imaginary?

That's because your aunt is a person and doesn't exist entirely in your mind. Anything that exists entirely inside human minds is imaginary. Do concepts exist outside of your mind? If so, can I borrow a cup of concepts?

You're grasping at straws. Headaches aren't in the mind. They aren't even in the brain because the brain doesn't have nociceptors.

I can imagine the concept of a dog show or I can imagine a particular dog show. I can even imagine a dog show that hasn't happened (or will never happen). I can imagine the concept of a man or I can imagine a particular man. I really don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand (other than your usual stubbornness).

Concepts don't exist in the mind. They are products of thinking beings.

They are not like physical objects that occupy space.

We both share the same concept of addition. If we didn't, then we would not both know that there is a correct answer to the question ' what does 250 + 300 equal?''.

It is difficult because your usage of 'imagine' seems to be the same as saying 'think about'. But to think about a concept doesn't presuppose that one has possession of a concept. It simply presupposes that you know a particular concept exists.

For example, one can know that there are imaginary numbers but not know how to use them in mathematics. If you don't know how to use an imaginary number then you can't be said to posses the concept of imaginary numbers.

Where do you think mental products are? Of course they are in the mind.

All information requires space. In the case of computers it's magnetic bits. In the case of human brains it's neuron patterns. Do you really think your brain has unlimited storage?

They are the same concept in that they are functionally identical. But the concepts are stored in our brains independently. Think of it like copies of the same algorithm on different hardware.

I don't see how this has anything to do with what we're talking about? Could you quote something I've said and then respond directly to that? Otherwise it seems like you're just starting another discussion. One which I might actually agree with you on.

Concepts are non-spatial so of course the are not in the mind. Leastways, not in any literal sense of the word 'in'.

My brain is not my mind.

But they aren't like copies stored in diffferent hardware. Concepts are non-spatial.

In post #8 you said:
"Imagining the concept of a dog is having the concept of a dog."

Since you refuse to explain what you mean by 'imagining a concept' I can only guess that you mean thinking of or about a concept.

I'll quote again my response to what you claimed in post #8:

"But to think about a concept doesn't presuppose that one has possession of a concept. It simply presupposes that you know a particular concept exists.

For example, one can know that there are imaginary numbers but not know how to use them in mathematics. If you don't know how to use an imaginary number then you can't be said to posses the concept of imaginary numbers. "

All information is spatial.



Your mind is what your brain does.



Why do you think that?




I shouldn't have to explain it. If you don't know what it means then look it up. I'm not here to educate you on trivial matters. If there weren't 11 million hits for it in Google then perhaps I would have some sympathy.



Why do I care about this? So what? How does it disagree with anything I've said that's relevant to this thread? Does it show that concepts are not imaginary? What's the point? Please explain it instead of just repeating yourself.

I'll explain it after you explain what you mean by saying 'imagining the concept of a dog is having the concept of a dog'.

Sorry, but I am simply not interested in playing guessing games.

Where do you think mental products are? Of course they are in the mind.

They are the same concept in that they are functionally identical. But the concepts are stored in our brains independently ["independently" of what?]. Think of it like copies of the same algorithm on different hardware.

Tokens are not identical to the types of which they are copies. And it is highly arguable whether types are identical to sets of tokens. So I have a question:

If "copies" of concepts are analogous to token-copies of the same algorithm on different hardware then, presumably, when John ceases to exist his token-copy ceases to exist too. But if the type (the concept itself) neither exists in John's mind (nor Bill's, nor Bob's), nor dependent on any particular mind for its existence, then in whose mind does it exist (and on which it is dependent)?

Since concepts are non-spatial they can't be said to exist literally inside of the mind or outside of the mind.

For a fuller discussion of types and tokes and concepts I would recommend the following article:
Concepts: Where Subjectivism Goes Wrong

It is not clear the ontological status of meaning. Think of what it means for the word 'plus'. If the word 'plus' is the same as '+', one question to ask is how a person come to learn the meaning of plus? I know someone teach the meaning to you, but the deeper question is how this process is possible at all. When you are a child, someone had to teach you "1+1=2", "2+3=5" etc. There are infinity many arithmetic statements with the symbol '+'. You can only read, and memories finite many of these statements. This means that there are infinite many arithmetic statements concerning '+" that you never saw, or learn about. How is it possible you are able to learn what '+' mean? The second problem of leaning the meaning of an expression is knowing the correct application of the expression. So if an agent A is correct in applying X to situation S. There are again potentially infinite many situations for A to apply X correctly. You can only observe finite many situations for some agent to apply X correctly. Thus, there are potentially infinite many situations that you have not learn how to apply X correctly.



One possible solution is to say you just don` t know what the word 'plus' mean. This seems counterintuitive, but why must something true be intuitive anyway?

The second possible solution is more mystical. There are these crazy spirit like things called meaning that do not take any space, or time. We know what 'plus' mean in a similar way that we know mathematical objects exist.


reference:

Rule-following and meaning - Google Books

Ludwig Wittgenstein (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

MindPapers: 2.5c. Rule-Following

["independently" of what?]

If "copies" of concepts are analogous to token-copies of the same algorithm on different hardware then, presumably, when John ceases to exist his token-copy ceases to exist too. But if the type (the concept itself) neither exists in John's mind (nor Bill's, nor Bob's), nor dependent on any particular mind for its existence, then in whose mind does it exist (and on which it is dependent)?