Trivial example: Uncle and Uncle-2 are identical. They have a choice to be either open or closed minded. So what?

Open mindedness brings truth. You have said it yourself in another way. Truth does not require inquiry to be discovered. It often comes unexpected. No assumptions need be made, but they are sometimes useful. A model with its assumptions is often helpful in discovering truth, but not always. God, I hope this clears up the matter.

I think you are not open minded enough to receive the truth.

Um. He said you suggestion was preposterous. Not you.

Please explain yourself.

Oh, this.

Utter, utter tosh. By "two minds M and N are equivalent", I mean: For every proposition P, M is open to P iff N is open to P. That in no way entails that the two minds "belong to the same person". Trivial example: I replicate my uncle in an Uncle-replicator. Uncle and Uncle-2 are both open to exactly the same propositions, at least for a short while after replication. Therefore Uncle and Uncle-2's minds are equivalent with respect to openness. But Uncle and Uncle-2 are separate people. QED. Is this really beyond you, or are you deliberately being dim?

Models are what you use to understand the world. All models have assumptions that must be taken as given. Therefore there is no understanding without first accepting the model's assumptions. Noeone is arguing that having what would colloquially be called a closed mind may well contribute to a persons ignorance. But as usual you went too far by spouting pretentious nonsense about open mindedness bringing truth. I have provided two counter arguments (i) Truth requires enquiry which requires assumptions to be made that are taken as correct (closed mind). (ii) The person receiving the results of this enquiry uses schemata to hold the information which itself makes assumptions taken as correct.

But you have no way to decipher what truth is because your mind is open. Therefore all you have done is taken truths and nontruths from outside of your head and placed them inside of your head. Except you have not because your head is not big enough to hold and conceive of the infinite number of models that could explain a given phenomenon.

Are you serious? My argument has been consistent from the start based on what I saw as a flaw in your reasoning. You now claim I should be changing my mind because you don't accept that flaw, and that I do not is evidence of me not being open minded enough to receive truth?!

You assume belief is something you can turn on or off at will - nonsense!

I don't know what position you think I am taking that is "goddamn madcap." Maybe it's the position of responding to every silky comment left on my poems.

-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem is not very important. Here’s why. If there were an equivalent closed mind for every open mind – equivalent in every way except openness or closedness – then the two minds belong to the same person. The rest of your argument breaks down. Corollary: Dovina has said that minds have the ability to open themselves to the possibility of truthful input and they have the ability to close themselves to it.

I'm happy to be considered preposterous in your view. It gives me hope that I have not succumbed to the mire.

Try "point of view." Maybe you'll find it easier to understand.