It beats me why people want to deny that there is a physical environment that we share with others, as well as with other kinds of physical entities, who perceive pretty much the same persistent features of the environment as we do. — Janus
counting is something we do, not something we discover.
Its a way of talking about stuff. The way of talking is made up. The stuff isn't. — Banno
One can agree that in very general terms higher animals perceive pretty much the same persistent features of the environment as we do without having to then conclude that there is such a thing as a ‘physical’, organism -independent basis for this commonality. Analytic philosophers fou sit necessary to jettison the ‘myth of the given’ , the idea that we directly perceive the stuff of the world unmediated by our own schemes . Phenomology didn’t deny that we perceive an ‘out there’. They only denied that the ‘out there’ come packages as physical stuff. Enactivists say that each organism co-creates its environment in relation to its needs , goals and aims as an ongoing environmental
process. So each specie’s world is in some sens u inquest to its own functional goals. — Joshs
So even the ‘stuff’ rendered as self-persisting is made up (an idealization) — Joshs
The consistency of certain systems (PA and the like) cannot be constructively proved by any means. — sime
Gentzen proved that the inconsistency of PA implies the inconsistency of PRA + transfinite induction on the ordinals. — sime
Are we talking about spoons here, or that there are five spoons? — Banno
I don't see what work "real" is doing in your post. — Banno
We're talking about (among other things) numbers - whether they have any reality outside individual minds, outside of the individual act of counting. — Wayfarer
And yet that could happen if they thought that the max compressive resistance of their concrete is say A, but also 2*A, and also 329*A. If we allow contradictions free reign in mathematics, everything follows. — Olivier5
it is said that 0.9999999999999... equals 1, because .33333333333333... equals one third and three thirds equal one. — Janus
No offence, but I think you pay too much attention to naïve materialists. — Olivier5
I'd like to do an analysis of "realism" to see when it came into use. — Banno
0.999999 can converge infinitely with 1 out ever reaching it — Janus
when I say we have an inconsistency I just mean that the intuition that .9999 does not equal 1 is inconsistent with any proof that the two are equal — Janus
What?
If what you are saying is that there must be something to count before one counts, then... well, sure, but I don't see the relevance. — Banno
If there were no "physical organism-independent basis for this commonality" then what would explain the commonality? A universal mind? — Janus
having done so , what can we conclude about the status of ‘truth’? Can we save some sense of it that doesn’t get sucked down into the relativity of use? Is ‘true’ just another thing we say in certain contexts for certain purposes? — Joshs
materiality is already ‘conceptual’ through and through in that the very notion of an empirical object is a complex perceptual construction , an idealization. Furthermore , it is this idealizing abstraction at the heart of our ideas of the spatial object that makes the mathematical
possible. They are parasitic on and presuppose each other. — Joshs
:up:Math is too serious a matter to be left to philosophers. — Olivier5
Every event is a carrying forward and a transformation of a prior world of referential relations. if you start with such a premise , and take a look at the modern empirical notion of objects as presently occurring entities with duration it should strike you that at some point someone decided to ‘pretend’ that this constantly flowing, changing pragmatic unfolding of world froze itself into ‘objects’ with duration and extension. — Joshs
The difference between this enactivist model and physicalism is that the latter creates commonality by correspondence with a presumed already existent reality. — Joshs
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.