Thanks! Cheers! Sam Carana
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > Excellent Sam! > > On May 21, 12:55 am, Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Good to hear from you too, Carlos, an excellent post! >> >> I always like to explore similarities and differences between maths >> and language. I love your idea of form (geometry) as a more likely >> basis of maths than arithmetic. >> >> However, let's be careful not to fall into Socrates/Plato type of >> assumptions of native knowledge. The square of the hypotenuse might >> equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right-angled >> triangle, but that only works within a context that is artificial in >> the first place. After all, in nature something may have a certain >> length at a given moment, but the next moment the temperature will be >> different, resulting in expansion or contraction of the material on >> which the triangle was drawn, etc. Yes, such expansion may take place >> over the entire triangle, but not exactly the same in each part. >> >> Anyway, my point is that scientific analysis may, by taking something >> in isolation, take things out of context. >> >> Let me get back to language, to show what I mean. I sometimes think >> that the meaning words is formed more through relations in the brain, >> rather than that meaning existed inherent in the word. Observations >> are stored in our brain and the links between observations, as stored >> in our mind, determine their meaning, rather than that meaning was >> inherent in words. >> >> Applying that idea to maths, the value of a number would be determined >> by its place within a sequence of numbers, i.e. its value being >> relative to the other numbers, allowing one to zoom in and out, >> magnifying the sequence, while remaining the relationship between >> numbers. >> >> Again, let me go back to language, to show what I mean. Language is >> often seen as based in words that are part of verbal language (audio). >> However, as you say, it makes sense to use form (video) as the basis >> of meaning. Form is part of our visual perception. We recognize things >> visually, because their form remains the same, as we approach it (zoom >> in and out). >> >> Thus, it makes sense to argue that much of the meaning of words is >> founded in forms, as part of visual perception, even though many >> linguists have traditionally regarded most languages to be more >> audio-based. Indeed, for centuries teachers have used the institute of >> school to remove many visual parts of language (such as gestures and >> body-language), as if only the audio was important, then further >> stripping language even of intonation and other life, to end up with >> written words, as if words in isolation constituted the perfection of >> language. As a result, children all over the world have spent much >> time translating written words from one language into the other, while >> in the process losing their very ability to speak. Indeed, school may >> seem a great way to preach religion, but it's not necessarily the best >> way to prepare children for life. >> >> Interestingly, there's also something like form in the audio part of >> perception and, as I said, it comes down again to relationships. >> Volume is something that is perceived relatively, i.e. a single sound >> becomes loud after silence, while a similar sound could be perceived >> as soft when accompanied by louder sounds. Pitch is more relative than >> absolute, i.e. relationship forms the sound, rather than the >> instrument. >> >> In conclusion, science all to often takes something in isolation, when >> studying a phenomenon. Their research then looks at the instrument >> only, to conclude that the instrument formed the sound, while in >> reality, sound is each time formed in a different context making the >> instrument sound differently every time, and is primarily formed by >> the player of the instrument, rather than by the instrument on its >> own, which conclusion makes a mockery of many research findings that >> did strip people out of the picture in an effort to focus on objects >> only. >> >> I encourage scientists to include more context in their work. Not only >> would this make more people gain interest in their findings and >> conclusions, it would also enrich their research method itself, which >> is all too often analytic only. >> >> Where a research team finds it difficult to look at wider impacts and >> importance of things, it could try and include members who are more >> inclined to use such perspectives (I'm making a pitch for >> epistemologists here). >> >> Anyway, here's an example of a group of scientists who do make an >> effort to step out of the box and reach people who typically don't >> read scientific papers. It's a rap video by Australian scientists, >> called: >> I'm A Climate Scientist, >> at:http://sustainable.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=2814749793... >> Please do have a look! >> >> Cheers! >> Sam Carana >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 5:40 AM, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I'm not a mathematician, I'd love to be one oh yes, but a simply >> > linguist for Spanish and Portuguese. >> > Even so, language has something in common with Maths. >> > May be there are other points to discuss, but my intention today is to >> > say that the part they share the most is something which clearly shows >> > the difference between discrete elements and a continuum. >> >> > In language there are forms which can only be considered as discrete >> > units, they mean nothing and their only mission is to differentiate >> > from each other. Each of this forms is unique, and it has an unique >> > position within a chain, an address. That chain is conventional. >> > And there is also a continuum which is the space of meanings, >> > whatever this means. >> > Like in "Romeo and Juliet" we understand? their love regardless the >> > letters R O M E and etc. >> >> > Back to Math this represents the same relationship that exists between >> > Geometry and Arithmetic. >> >> > IMO the World/Nature does not use numbers but forms, so somehow can be >> > said that Math can only base on Geometry. >> >> > Numbers are to Math, like information to Language. >> > Math and Language can only base on forms, that is what they have in >> > common, IMHO of course >> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Epistemology" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> > For more options, visit this group >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
