How does mathematical knowledge evolve out/into a species? — 3017amen

Mathematics is based on observing relations in the world, and then extrapolating more complex relations, based on the way we think about relations, into a construction we create.

Again, the only way our species (and immediate precursor species) can survive is via the fact that we can take in information from the world, via consciousness, and reason about it. Other mutations led to us not being able to survive long enough to reproduce successfully without concomitant mutations that led to increased consciousness and reasoning abilities. Part of the problem there is that we have to survive at least 11-12 years before we can reproduce. (well, although surely the increases in consciousness/reasoning ability also contributed to the fact that we could be relatively incapable when infants and that we could wait 11-12 years to reproduce, too--each thing fed into the other surely)

If love is subjective, why then do all human's aspire to it (with minor exceptions)? — 3017amen

"Subjective" doesn't mean or imply anything like, "Only some" or "this varies."

It refers to the fact that it's a brain-functioning-as-mind phenomenon.

The subjective/objective distinction isn't about agreement. It's about where phenomena occur. In brains functioning as minds or elsewhere.

Mathematics is based on observing relations in the world, and then extrapolating more complex relations, based on the way we think about relations, into a construction we create.



Sure, that's intellectual abstract knowledge. That's what I'm talking about. You haven't answered why we have it?

"Again, the only way our species (and immediate precursor species) can survive is via the fact that we can take in information from the world, via consciousness, and reason about it."

False. We survived in the jungle through spacial abilities, not abstract mathematical computations.

Sure, that's intellectual abstract knowledge. That's what I'm talking about. You haven't answered why we have it? — 3017amen

If I haven't answered that, then you're not being clear on what sort of thing you're looking for as a "why" response.

So what sort of thing are you looking for? You'd need to be clear about that. You'd need to give criteria for what you'd count as a satisfactory "why" response (and you'd probably need to explain/support the criteria).

It refers to the fact that it's a brain-functioning-as-mind phenomenon.


Ok, so how then is the love phenomena explained using formal propositional logic?

Ok, so how then is the love phenomena explained using formal propositional logic? — 3017amen

Ignoring the "explain" issue (which is similar to what I just asked you re "why" above), the reason that all of a sudden we're asking about love being explained "using formal propositional logic" is?

So what sort of thing are you looking for? You'd need to be clear about that.


Why we have that dual capacity to avoid falling objects?

Ignoring the "explain" issue (which is similar to what I just asked you re "why" above), the reason that all of a sudden we're asking about love being explained "using formal propositional logic" is?

I'm sorry, but I'm not following that. Could you restate that in simplier terms?

What sort of thing you're looking for, your criteria for a satisfactory "why" response, can't be a question.

It would need to be a set of statements re requirements and some justification for those requirements.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following that. Could you restate that in simplier terms? — 3017amen

One part at a time: why would you be asking all of a sudden about explaining love in terms of propositional logic? Where is that coming from?

It seems like being in the middle of a conversation about orange trees and asking how we'd explain the biology of orange trees in a bit of choreography. Why would someone be asking that all of a sudden?

It would need to be a set of statements re requirements and some justification for those requirements"



Ok, help me out with my logic:

1. Love is an objective truth
2. Love is a subjective truth
3. Love is an unexplained human phenomena that defies logic

Tell me how to arrange those thoughts in propositional logic?

(1) and (2) are nonsensical because Love isn't a proposition.

(3) is a proposition, but semantically it's also basically nonsense because logic doesn't have anything to do with "explaining" love--or anything else really. Logic is about "what follows from what." In other words, it's about the implication of formulas or statements, a la, "If P and Q are true, what follows from that?"

Logic has nothing at all to do with explaining natural phenomena.

Similaly:

1. We don't need abstract computations to avoid falling objects
2. We only need spacial perception to do so.

Are those true?

Logic has nothing at all to do with explaining natural phenomena.


Great we agree. The next question is, what does explain natural phenomena?

It would depend on what we're talking about. What's falling, what the context is, etc. If we're talking about something like a large asteroid headed towards the Earth, we'd need the assistance of mathematics. If we're talking about something like Joe not getting hit in the head with a football, mathematics isn't going to help him . . . maybe spatial perception, motor skills, etc. would.

The next question is, what does explain natural phenomena? — 3017amen

Here's the thing. I refuse to do explanation discussions unless we first set out our criteria for explanations. That's because what always happens in explanation discussions otherwise is that someone gives an explanation for something and the other person goes, "That's not an explanation!"

So to nip that in the bud, you'd have to give your criteria for explanations.

If we're talking about something like a large asteroid headed towards the Earth, we'd need the assistance of mathematics.


Not true. We would look at the falling object from a distance and attempt to move away from it.

Not true. We would look at the falling object from a distance and attempt to move away from it. — 3017amen

"Everyone blow really hard and maybe we'll change the Earth's orbit just enough"?

You are an atheist philosopher, here's the criteria:

1. Love is an objective truth
2. Love is a subjective truth

Which statement is true?

It's real simple, no? Am I missing something?

1. Love is an objective truth
2. Love is a subjective truth

Which statement is true?

It's real simple, no? Am I missing something? — 3017amen

I already addressed this (and more than once). What did I say?

"Everyone blow really hard and maybe we'll change the Earth's orbit just enough"?


Would that be considered a miracle lol?

I already addressed this. What did I say?


I think you said you needed more information. I gave it too you, no?

No, that's not what I said.

No, that's not what I said.

Ok, you said you needed more 'criteria'

So in turn, I suggested that love is either a subjective or objective truth.

You said it was an unexplained phenomena of sorts right?

Ok, you said you needed more 'criteria' — 3017amen

Sigh. No. I said that "Love" isn't a proposition, and "Love is true" is nonsense, because that analyzes to saying that "Love" is a proposition that we're assigning the truth value "true" to. But "Love" isn't a proposition.

You could say, "Love is subjective."

That's a proposition. And a true one in my view.

Sigh. No. I said that "Love" isn't a proposition, and "Love is true" is nonsense, because that analyzes to saying that "Love" is a proposition that we're assigning the truth value "true" to. But "Love" isn't a proposition.


Ok we agree. So please share what love is then?

It's a term for a wide range of mental (brain) states, states that involve affection, caring, devotion, etc.

You could just look this up in a dictionary, by the way, if we're going to pretend that you're not familiar with it.

I'm more interested in conversations when we're not pretending we don't know stuff, when we're not playing dumb, etc., by the way. I think that approach to philosophy sucks.

It's a term for a wide range of mental (brain) states, states that involve affection, caring, devotion, etc.


Ok, so loosely speaking, it's part phenomenology, logic & emotion...and a lot of psychology?

Why do we need all that to survive in the jungle?

Why do we need all that to survive in the jungle? — 3017amen

If I'm going to be spending time on this, I need you to pay attention to what I'm typing, otherwise I'm wasting my time while you're playing a game or whatever you might be doing.

So to check if you're paying attention, is there a requirement that something is necessary for survival in order for it to persist?

So to check if you're paying attention, is there a requirement that something is necessary for survival in order for it to persist?


I'm not playing games, I'm trying to follow your reasoning.

Ok, so in very simple pragmatic terms, are you saying that Love is not required for survival in the jungle?

Yes or no; this isn't that complicated is it?