On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:06:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 1/16/2013 5:32 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> That is the most clear demosnstration that what we perceive is in
the
> mind ,and the rest out of the mind is only mathematics (or some kind
> of underlying conputation)
Mathematics is even further in the mind than geometry (which is why
3D geometry is intuitive to any toddler, while learning basic
arithmetic takes some work).
Mathematics does not exist on its own. It does not haunt the vacuum
of distance.
In your theory. But it has not yet been developed, and it is a bit
exhausting that you talk systematically like knowing a truth. You are
unclear on your idea, and unclear why they should be a problem for
comp, or even for arithmetical realism. I am not sure "mathematics
exists" make any sense to me.
Bruno
Mathematics is two distinctly different (opposite) things:
1) A private experience of imagined sensory symbol-figures which
accompany a motive of quantitative reasoning.
2) A collection of public objects interact in a logical way, without
any private representations, as a consequence of the physics of
multiple rigid bodies.
The problem is that comp seduces us into a shell game whereby when
we look at math 'out there' (2), we smuggle in the meaning from in
here (1), and when we look at meaning in here (1) we misattribute it
to the blind enactment of a-signifying motions among neurophysical
objects.
The only difference between the colors and feelings of private
experience and the structures and functions which we study in
science is that the colors are experienced first hand and are
therefore described with the full complement of human sense
(misleading and conflicting though it may be). We assume that the
world outside of our minds runs on math not because it actually
does, but because our awareness of it is a grossly reduced, indirect
logical construction.
>
> Simply speaking 3D geometry in which we see our body and the rest of
> the colored reality is a product of the mind.
Not a product exactly, more like an induct. Same with every
measurement ever made though. It's all an induction of our
experience (plus the experiences of all of the objects and
substances, times and conditions involved).
>
> The quantum and relativistic mathematics lacks a corresponding
qualia
> of the mind that make them intuitive and "real". They are efective
and
> predictive, but we can not make it apparent and intuitive in our
reality.
>
Right. That's because QM assumes Math (1) is present in Math (2). It
isn't. You need sensory-motor participation, i.e. afferent
perception and efferent participation as a fundamental base before
quantum to make any kind of realism with it.
Craig
I agree!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/3eq5Nzab1ikJ
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
