On Saturday, February 9, 2013 10:10:30 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote: >>> >>> Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of >>> LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of >>> something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is >>> often throttled by the processes of language. We need to move beyond words. >>> This is the importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.) >>> >>> >>> That seems contradictory. Mathematics is very restricted language - >>> declaratory sentences, logically consistent. >>> >>> >>> Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing mathematics >>> and the theories used to put some light on some mathematical reality. >>> >> >> Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People might >> confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some light on some >> semiotic reality. >> >> > I don't understand how you can consistently miss that "sign" is just what > it is. A pointer is not a convincing primitive. Its just a line with a > triangle at the end. >
Not sure what you are saying I'm missing. Bruno claimed that mathematics wasn't a language because he considered mathematics to be the (infinite) referent which our mathematical signs and notations are used to describe. My point was that is true of any language - they all point to transcendent referents...that's why we require a language to point to them. I agree, of course, signs are not in themselves primitive. > > >> >> >>> Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical consistency. >>> That notion is studied by logicians, but with few incidence on the doing of >>> mathematicians. Logic is just another branch of math, with its own purpose. >>> It can have application in math, or not. >>> >> >> What branches of math contain no logic? >> >> > How was that implied to that degree? If somebody is studying topology of > spheres then they aren't studying necessarily the logic, although they make > use of it. > Again, Bruno claimed that "Logic is just another branch of math", so I ask which branches of math contain no logic. Making use of logic would make logic a requirement of topology, not a separate branch. If I said that Homo sapiens are just another branch of primates, and you asked what branch of primates were not Homo sapiens, I could answer, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc. That doesn't work with math. To the contrary, I say that math is a branch of logic, since every mathematical modality employs logic exclusively (as opposed to intuition, humor, sentiment, passion, etc) but there are modes of logic which are not specifically mathematical (critical thinking, philosophical logic, etc). > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be encoded >>> in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of >>> representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way. >>> >>> >>> The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. The >>> mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in logic, or >>> computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but again, we have to >>> distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical tools to >>> point on it. >>> >> >> Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we assume >> that it exists independently of them? >> >> > Because virtually every creative person... I'll just let Steve Jobbs make > the point (Wired, 1995): > > *Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how > they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do > it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. > That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and > synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that > they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their > experiences than other people. > > Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our > industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough > dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad > perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human > experience, the better design we will have.* > > Now, I assume Jobbs doesn't mean that creative people connect material > things physically with strings, and that we're talking concepts that have > assumed the same form, for millions of mathematicians, musicians, > engineers, painters etc.over the ages, regardless of the particular > configurations of their sensory apparatuses as biological beings. > Arithmetic and the major scale don't depend on the senses- this is > backwards. > Arithmetic and the major scale do depend on the senses. You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation, and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory examples and meta-sensory correlations of those examples. We all feel hungry, for example, because we all have stomachs, not because there is some Platonic hunger that exists independently of stomach ownership. > Sensory data is interpreted by consciousness > Not necessarily. I doubt that there is any such thing as "data", and that sensory experience and consciousness are actually different ranges of the same thing, which is a physical reality, and the only physical reality. Interpretation can be explicit through cognitive analysis, but otherwise it is direct and implicit. Perception is nested relativity, not data processing. There is sub-personal perception going on, and computation is necessary to organize that, but organization is not the cause of consciousness. > that perpetually dreams itself a preferred infinite fiction/computation to > encompass that. > It seems like that, but no. We have dreams, and we have non-dreams. The whole of realism is not a side effect of compression algorithms. > The construction of plausibility of said computation is more a property of > consciousness itself, and not something that comes to us by observing a > leaf => we are already dreaming at that point. > The assumption of construction comes from applying sub-personal and impersonal logic, which are reflections of personal logic, erroneously, back onto the source. You are mistaking what you see in the mirror for evidence that the unseen is unreal. > Also note Jobbs' use of "diverse experiences", which ties in directly with > the plant teachers and how experimentation with altered states can, given > some circumstances, be of value. > > And here I have to confirm Bruno's Salvia preference: to say DMT is merely > some extension of mushrooms and not astonishing, is to confirm that one's > method is not yet fully developed, or there is some physiological > incompatibility. This is not the case and dissociative states can be > achieved with most any classical psychedelic is one doses appropriately. > And the same happens with lysergic acid diethylamide, mescaline, psilocybin > containing mushrooms etc. the more you engage the less you need. Thus I > vote diversity concerning plant or molecular helpers. > I'm all in favor of responsible entheonautics Craig (it's Jobs, btw). > >>> Math is as different from language than the physical universe is >>> different from a book in cosmology. >>> >> >> The referents of math are different from the referents of other >> specialized languages, but that doesn't mean that it is different from >> other languages. The referents of mathematics are no more infinite than >> those of art, literature, poetry, etc. >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
