The mind perceives countable material things in the natural world and, through the process of abstraction, a process that composites multiple experiences linked by a theme into one representative abstraction, links number signs with the property of being countable, an intrinsic property of material things. — ucarr

Numbers are concepts which describe the objects and the world with the values. They are not the objects themselves, and they are definitely not physical in nature.

How do you uncouple seeing the road from the road's existence as a thing-in-itself? — Corvus

You don’t. This has been my point all along.

Saying memory can be unreliable therefore numbers are physical is a poor logic… It is like saying your eyesight got bad, and cannot see the road, therefore the road doesn't exist. — Corvus

You say above it’s poor logic to claim “My eyesight is bad and I cannot see the road; therefore, the road doesn’t exist.” I agree this is bad logic because of the objectivist assumption the road is there whether one sees it or not.* A central implication of this assumption is that the truth content of eyesight depends upon what is really there that it sees. This, in turn, implies eyesight, which is perception of the mind, depends on the physical things populating the natural world. Now we arrive at my premise that the mind is an emergent, cognitive operator ultimately rooted in the physical. This means, specifically, that numbers, which are of the mind, likewise are, ultimately, part of a complex of physical world_brain_emergent mind.

*An unseen road might be quantum mechanically uncertain, but that uncertainty is collapsible.

You don’t. This has been my point all along. — ucarr

I didn't quite understand what you meant by "uncouple seeing the road from the road's existence as a thing-in-itself." in your replies, hence asked to clarify what you mean by that.

You say above it’s poor logic to claim “My eyesight is bad and I cannot see the road; therefore, the road doesn’t exist.” I agree this is bad logic because of the objectivist assumption the road is there whether one sees it or not.* — ucarr

Yes, I was trying to say to you that numbers exist as concepts, whether one remembers them or not. The road exists in front of you, whether you see it, or not (because you had a bad eyesight.)

If numbers were physical, as you have claimed all along, then they might not exist, or stop existing due to some external reasons or ageing, deaths or destruction = Do numbers get old or die? What a baloney even to suggest that !

People get old. But numbers don't get old, because they are concepts. Numbers are not physical, and you cannot break them or throw out in the bin. You cannot uncouple numbers from anything. Numbers are concepts.

Yes, I was trying to say to you that numbers exist as concepts, whether one remembers them or not. The road exists in front of you, whether you see it, or not — Corvus

Don’t confuse number-signs with physical number as countable-things-in-the-world. I’ve never denied what you claim here about number-signs. But even with number-signs, the issue of ontic status is debatable.

If you think numbers existed as concepts before the Big Bang, then you’re attaching yourself to Cartesian Dualism. This attachment parallels claiming God existed before the Big Bang.

You’re positing two worlds, one physical, one non-physical. If non-physical numbers have a relationship to the physical things they describe, but are not themselves physical, then you, like Descartes, have to explain how non-physical numbers have any practical relationship to the physical world.

How do non-physical numbers attach themselves to the physical brain in your head? You will say you have a mind that’s not physical. I then ask you how your non-physical mind attaches itself to your brain. This conversation has always been about how concepts, supposedly non-physical, connect with the physical humans who create and propagate them.

Now we arrive at my premise that the mind is an emergent, cognitive operator ultimately rooted in the physical. This means, specifically, that numbers, which are of the mind, likewise are, ultimately, part of a complex of physical world_brain_emergent mind. — ucarr

I’ve already presented this explanation in our dialog more than two times.

How do non-physical numbers attach themselves to the physical brain in your head? You will say you have a mind that’s not physical. I then ask you how your non-physical mind attaches itself to your brain. This conversation has always been about how concepts, supposedly non-physical, connect with the physical humans who create and propagate them. — ucarr

It is good to see you are now accepting that numbers are concepts.  It is a progress. But you still seem to insist that there are numbers which are physical.  So now we notice that you have changed your claim, and brought in the Cartesian dualism into the argument.

Please bear in mind, the Cartesian dualism is not about numbers as concept and physical existence at the same time.  To start, that is a contraction for something being both physical and mental at the same time.

Cartesian dualism is about mind and body as separate two distinct substances.  It is not what you are trying to claim.

Descartes was a rationalist, and dualist.  He would be the last one who would have said numbers are material or physical.  No,  he would never have said that.  I have not read Descartes, but that is my gut feeling. Please correct me if I am wrong on Descartes on this point.

I tried to understand cases where numbers are physical entities, but I must admit that I couldn't possibly think of any case number that can be regarded as a physical object.  You need to come back with a more convincing argument for your claim.

I tried to understand cases where numbers are physical entities, but I must admit that I couldn't possibly think of any case number that can be regarded as a physical object — Corvus

:up:

It is like saying your eyesight got bad, and cannot see the road, therefore the road doesn't exist. — Corvus

You say this is bad logic because the road is there whether the eyes see it or not.

One day at the dinner table a husband tells his wife that afternoon he saw a statue of George Washington. Your wife tells him he’s wrong. “The statue you saw at the location you gave is a statue of Thomas Jefferson,” she says. Next day he returns to the location and, going much closer to it than on the previous day, he sees that, indeed, it’s a statue of Thomas Jefferson.

Do you acknowledge that in order to check the truth content of the husband’s first mental impression of the statue, he had to return to the site and try to verify or revise that first impression?

[deleted]

You say this is bad logic because the road is there whether the eyes see it or not.

One day at the dinner table a husband tells his wife that afternoon he saw a statue of George Washington. Your wife tells him he’s wrong. “The statue you saw at the location you gave is a statue of Thomas Jefferson,” she says. Next day he returns to the location and, going much closer to it than on the previous day, he sees that, indeed, it’s a statue of Thomas Jefferson. — ucarr

You know that even if your eyesight is bad, and cannot see the road, the road exists.

You know when your memory and eyesights are both bad, so you can't tell what the statue was, and you must go back to it to check it out, but you know that the statue exists.

Therefore even if  your memories can be unreliable,  numbers  do exist in your mind.  To say that numbers are material and physical, is a bad logic.

Do you acknowledge that in order to check the truth content of the husband’s first mental impression of the statue, he had to return to the site and try to verify or revise that first impression? — ucarr

Of course, you need to go back and see the statue to confirm what it is. Therefore it proves, even of your memory is unreliable, things exist as they are, be it physical or mental. Just because your memory is unreliable doesn't mean that mental objects become physical. Even if you memory becomes bad, numbers are concepts in the mind.

Do you acknowledge that in order to check the truth content of the husband’s first mental impression of the statue, he had to return to the site and try to verify or revise that first impression? — ucarr

Of course, you need to go back and see the statue to confirm what it is. Therefore it proves, even of your memory is unreliable, things exist as they are, be it physical or mental. Just because your memory is unreliable doesn't mean that mental objects become physical. Even if you memory becomes bad, numbers are concepts in the mind. — Corvus

During the week following the husband’s discovery about the statue, he goes out walking and steps onto a patch of ice hidden under snow. He takes a hard fall and hits his head on the pavement. That night in his hospital room, his wife, visiting him, cheers him up with stories. At one point, she asks him if he remembers telling her about the statue of “George Washington” in the town square. She uses a mocking tone while speaking the name of George Washington and laughs, expecting hubby to laugh along with her little joke about his mistake. The husband, instead of laughing, doubles down on his claim that, indeed, the statue in the square depicts George Washington. At this point, the wife’s smile is overtaken by a sad expression as she realizes the head injury must’ve destroyed his correct impression of the statue. All that remains now is his earlier, incorrect impression.

The correct impression in husband’s head is either damaged or destroyed. Does this correct version of his impression, that was previously operational within his head, but now is not, still exist somewhere outside of his head?

The correct impression in husband’s head is either damaged or destroyed. Does this correct version of his impression, that was previously operational within his head, but now is not, still exist somewhere outside of his head? — ucarr

Well, whatever happened to the man's head, the statue exists. Someone's head going off, doesn't affect the physical or mental existence which has been exiting before.

If the statue was there before, it would still be there existing as it was unless someone moved it away. If it didn't exist before, then it doesn't exist now unless someone placed one at the location.

Numbers will always be existing in the minds of humans. Because someone died, or someone's head gone off doesn't mean numbers turn to physical or disappear into non-existence.

Because someone died, or someone's head gone off doesn't mean numbers turn to physical or disappear into non-existence. — Corvus

The correct impression in husband’s head is either damaged or destroyed. Does this correct version of his impression, that was previously operational within his head, but now is not, still exist somewhere outside of his head? — ucarr

We have been talking about the nature of numbers.

We have been talking about the nature of numbers. — Corvus

We have different mental impressions in our heads. This variety includes: grocery list items, images of statues observed, numbers learned in grammar school now being used to count grocery list items.

Do you acknowledge that in order to check the truth content of the husband’s first mental impression of the statue, he had to return to the site and try to verify or revise that first impression — ucarr

Of course, you need to go back and see the statue to confirm what it is. Therefore it proves, even of your memory is unreliable, things exist as they are, be it physical or mental. Just because your memory is unreliable doesn't mean that mental objects become physical. Even if you memory becomes bad, numbers are concepts in the mind. — Corvus

We’ve been talking about mental objects. This category includes numbers as well as other mental objects as, for example, the memory of the statue.

Of course, you need to go back and see the statue to confirm what it is… — Corvus

The correct impression in husband’s head is either damaged or destroyed. Does this correct version of his impression, that was previously operational within his head, but now is not, still exist somewhere outside of his head? — ucarr

We have different mental impressions in our heads. This variety includes: grocery list items, images of statues observed, numbers learned in grammar school now being used to count grocery list items. — ucarr

Is it the Humean impression are you talking about?

We’ve been talking about mental objects. This category includes numbers as well as other mental objects as, for example, the memory of the statue. — ucarr

You are using the concept impression wrong, if it is the Humean.  It would make more sense if you used ideas instead of impressions.  Numbers are mental concepts, and they would have no matching impressions according to Hume. Humean impressions are not associated with knowledge, judgement or concepts. They are passions, emotions and feelings viz. sensations in nature.

  Well, the idea of the statue is from the external object, and the idea of number is from the mental concept, so you are talking about totally different ideas in nature.  You cannot have an idea of the statue without seeing the statue, and having the impression of it.   But you can have an idea of a number without having to see any external objects or impressions of the object.

Number has both mentality and physicality. The material world is expressive of the mental number. And all design and art is fundamentally founded upon number. Blessed be he who sees number for he sees God.

The correct impression in husband’s head is either damaged or destroyed. Does this correct version of his impression, that was previously operational within his head, but now is not, still exist somewhere outside of his head? — ucarr

——————————————————————————————————————————

Well, the idea of the statue is from the external object, and the idea of number is from the mental concept, so you are talking about totally different ideas in nature... — Corvus

Impression - an especially marked and often favorable influence or effect on feeling, sense, or mind. — Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Regarding the statue as impression from the external object and number as impression from a concept, are they both non-physical contents of the mind?

Humean impressions are not associated with knowledge, judgement or concepts. They are passions, emotions and feelings viz. sensations in nature. — Corvus

Have you directly observed passions, emotions, feelings, and sensations? Mind you, this question is very specific. I’m not asking if you’ve directly observed humans (or other animals) experiencing passions, emotions, feelings, and sensations. I’m asking if you’ve directly observed passions, emotions, feelings and sensations divorced from humans (or other animals) experiencing them?

…you can have an idea of a number without having to see any external objects… — Corvus

You’re claiming numbers and their relations are understandable a priori, regardless of age, situation, and personal experience?

Do you, or anyone you know of, have knowledge of a human society that does no counting of material things whatsoever?

Do you, or anyone you know of, have knowledge of a human society with children who can’t see the difference between one lollipop and two lollipops?

Number has both mentality and physicality. — IP060903

.

In your opinion, do these two attributes of number bind abstract numbers to physical things and physical things to abstract numbers?

You’re claiming numbers and their relations are understandable a priori, regardless of age, situation, and personal experience?

Do you, or anyone you know of, have knowledge of a human society that does no counting of material things whatsoever?

Do you, or anyone you know of, have knowledge of a human society with children who can’t see the difference between one lollipop and two lollipops? — ucarr

You still seem to be misunderstanding the difference between the act of counting physical objects, and the ontology of numbers. The two are not the same thing. I have given you enough explanations for the reasons that they are not the same.

If you are talking using a religious language, then yes you can say even rocks have minds, because they are created by God, and even say the recent frequent volcanic eruptions around the world were the acts of God showing his frustration for the Global warming trend. However we want to reject that type of metaphors, when we are debating the point in philosophical analytic perspectives.

The correct impression in husband’s head is either damaged or destroyed. Does this correct version of his impression, that was previously operational within his head, but now is not, still exist somewhere outside of his head? — ucarr

——————————————————————————————————————————————

You’re claiming numbers and their relations are understandable a priori, regardless of age, situation, and personal experience?

Do you, or anyone you know of, have knowledge of a human society that does no counting of material things whatsoever?

Do you, or anyone you know of, have knowledge of a human society with children who can’t see the difference between one lollipop and two lollipops? — ucarr

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Hume followed John Locke in rejecting the existence of innate ideas, concluding that all human knowledge derives solely from experience. — https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki

Hume followed John Locke in rejecting the existence of innate ideas, concluding that all human knowledge derives solely from experience. — https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki

I was just wondering if your use of the word "impression" was Humean, or from the ordinary language. But even for Hume, numbers are concepts which is part of the rationality or reason. I don't believe that any philosopher in history has said that numbers are physical.

Boxers, like debaters, engage in a battle. When the bell rings, signaling the start of a new round, the fighters leave their corners and enter into the middle of the ring. The new round commences shortly thereafter and the punches start flying.

Debaters, using words instead of fists, throw punches by asking questions. When the battle is engaged, the questions start flying.

If, on the other hand, only one of the fighters enters into the middle of the ring and just stands there awaiting engagement with the other boxer until, finally, it’s clear the other boxer will not leave his corner, it’s universally understood that that fighter has conceded the fight.

I’ve answered your questions over and over. As a recent example, I’ve responded to your citation of Hume with a quote from him that supports my position. As another recent example, when you attempted to distance concept from impression, I cited a dictionary definition that establishes their similarity along the axis of non-physicality, a central element within our battle.

You, however, have lately been refusing to answer my questions. You’re like a boxer who refuses to leave his corner to engage with the other boxer.

Your avoidance began with this question:

Does this correct version of his impression, that was previously operational within his head, but now is not, still exist somewhere outside of his head? — ucarr

You’ve avoided it three times. You’re still talking, still asking questions, but you’re doing this over in your own corner, where the fight cannot continue.