Think

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether they do or not is not particularly relevant. I said that "if" they do, then they will...
I think your argument fails completely because it is quite obvious that all humans share the same mathematics. It is your assumption that non-humans would somehow be different that needs justification. What is it about being human that you believe makes mathe ...[text shortened]... n whether you are European or Chinese by descent?
Quite frankly I find your claim ridiculous.

Edit: “Whether… …ridiculous.”

We share the same Math just the way the English share English and the way the Chinese share Chinese. Once we established a consensus about certain sets of methods, we calculated, and the results proved to be the mental products that we evaluate as accurate. For the sake of the conversation, let’s hypothesize that all the people on Earth speak and communicate in English. What exactly would turn this language into “absolute truth”? In analogy, what exactly turns Math into “absolute truth”?

The agent that makes mathematics universal amongst humans (mind you, not universal among every sentient being) is merely their consensus of analyzing specific epistemic objects in a specific context of perception according an established set of methods. Math does not exist out there on its own. Pi is tailored exactly to the structure of our brains in the context of our struggle to analyze the properties of the circle by means of using Math. Pi is existent solely to the beings that accept Math the way we human beings accept it. Next thing you will tell me is that pi is existent for the mammals or that it is existent on its own in the observer universe, unrelated to our perception
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is simply not true. I don't even know why it needs explaining its so obvious. Its like saying that my University degree or my ability to do maths or read Chinese is entirely a product of my DNA (my programming). Obviously not true.
Its like saying that a Word document containing the works of Shakespeare is entirely a product of Microsoft's programmi ...[text shortened]... because it is being produced by the RHP servers is entirely a product of computer programming.

Edit: “This… …true.”

Methinks you could never get your University degree if you were not programmed so that you could learn the way the human beings are learning. Your ability to learn whatever (you learn solely whatever you can perceive as an epistemic object) is entirely a result of the potential of your DNA, which by means of specific genetic instructions enabled specific modifications of your mind in a given environment that in turn they enabled you to analyze systemically for your convenience whatever you perceive. And here you are, learning constantly thanks to the evaluation of your mind in a given environment. You learned whatever you learned strictly within the bounds of the potential of your species.

The rest of your post is irrelevant😵

Originally posted by black beetle
If you would say that "Cows never have more than two horns", I would reply that, indeed, this is the case in general for the time being😵

When you shake that one around, Aristotle hears the clatter and shows up talking about essential definitions.

Please indulge me, I need education.

What if we throw the right chemicals together, and nature produces, from what we agree is a cow (Bos primigenius), an offspring with three horns? Shall we call it a cow? Probably. What if nature by that route produces a horn-free animal that swims in the sea and has a blow hole and a very smooth skin and can mate with animals we call dolphins? Is it a cow (Bos primigenius)?

Getting back to triangles, where this started: When there came to be more than one geometry being talked about, the word "triangle" became potentially imprecise, or rather, the question of a triangle's essential versus accidental properties became potentially important to communication, and it became possible for friends to play little semantic tricks on one another involving the distinction.

Perhaps all triangles having three horns, is essential. 🙂

The above is probably all wet in one way. All geometries "exist" in the same sense, in all worlds, or, their existence is world-independent. If the word "triangle" is used to designate a geometric object that "exists" in all geometries, its essential properties will be the same in all geometries. Its accidental properties may vary depending on the geometry it is in.

But I am not sure that the concept of essential vs accidental is the best one for abstract objects.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/

"The distinction between essential versus accidental properties has been characterized in various ways, but it is currently most commonly understood in modal terms along these lines: an essential property of an object is a property that it must have while an accidental property of an object is one that it happens to have but that it could lack."

We are on a somewhat different tack: one that concerns what we call a thing, and why.

Originally posted by black beetle
Once we established a consensus about certain sets of methods, we calculated, and the results proved to be the mental products that we evaluate as accurate.

Yet I keep telling you that math can, and has been, be 'invented' independently without any such consensus, a fact you seem to conveniently ignore.

Originally posted by black beetle
Methinks you could never get your University degree if you were not programmed so that you could learn the way the human beings are learning.

Correct.

Your ability to learn whatever (you learn solely whatever you can perceive as an epistemic object) is entirely a result of the potential of your DNA,
No. That is not true.

which by means of specific genetic instructions enabled specific modifications of your mind in a given environment that in turn they enabled you to analyze systemically for your convenience whatever you perceive.
How do you know it wasn't the environment that enabled specific modifications of my mind given the programming of the DNA?
You are admitting two inputs, yet attributing everything to only one of them.

And here you are, learning constantly thanks to the evaluation of your mind in a given environment. You learned whatever you learned strictly within the bounds of the potential of your species.
Huh? What is this magical 'species' boundary? You get more and more confused as we go on.

Originally posted by JS357
When you shake that one around, Aristotle hears the clatter and shows up talking about essential definitions.

Please indulge me, I need education.

What if we throw the right chemicals together, and nature produces, from what we agree is a cow (Bos primigenius), an offspring with three horns? Shall we call it a cow? Probably. What if nature by that route ...[text shortened]... We are on a somewhat different tack: one that concerns what we call a thing, and why.

Edit: “What… …primigenius?”

Aristotle defines a definition as an account that signifies what it is to be for something. Therefore when he defines an epistemic object he explains what it is, instead of merely specifying the meaning of a word. To him, a definition is mainly an account of the essence of something. Since a definition always defines an essence, the definable epistemic objects do have an essence that can be defined. The Aristotlean essence is analyzed according to eidos (form), genos (genus) and diaphora (differentia). The genus is the kind under which the species falls, and the differentia tells what characterizes the species within that genus. Therefore, keeping in mind the essence of Bos primigenius, Aristotle in me would respond to your questions this way:
Since all definitions are universal and affirmative whereas some demonstrable propositions are negative, by means of definition we cannot demonstrate everything. Furthermore, if a thing is demonstrable, to know it means that you can possess its demonstration, thus it cannot be known just by definition. Finally, some definitions can be understood as demonstrations differently arranged.

Edit: “Getting… …distinction.”

But with our twhitehead I do not disagree over semantics, we all know what a triangle is regardless of its properties under specific conditions. We disagree because, as a pure Platonist, he believes that the triangles exist somewhere out there on their own, unrelated to our mind. On the other hand, I argue that triangles are a product of our mind that we are using for our convenience –I argue that the triangles are empty, that they lack of inherent existence.

Edit: “Perhaps all triangles having three horns, is essential.🙂

You bet!


Edit: “The… …in.”

Yes, but merely because we invented both the triangles and all the geometries and we are using them according to the set of methods we implied to them for our convenience. All the geometries and all the triangles are nothing but mental products of ours -they are empty. Absolute truth remains wishful thinking.


Edit: “But I am not sure that the concept of essential vs accidental is the best one for abstract objects.”

Aristotle merely asks for an account that signifies what it is to be for something. Methinks one has to make one’s way through the investigation of the essence of the epistemic object that one observes😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “What… …primigenius?”

Aristotle defines a definition as an account that signifies what it is to be for something. Therefore when he defines an epistemic object he explains what it is, instead of merely specifying the meaning of a word. To him, a definition is mainly an account of the essence of something. Since a definition always defines an es ...[text shortened]... e one’s way through the investigation of the essence of the epistemic object that one observes😵

What a wondeful turn this thread has taken. I am content for the time to follow as best as I can.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet I keep telling you that math can, and has been, be 'invented' independently without any such consensus, a fact you seem to conveniently ignore.

Since Math is an accurate product of the evaluation of the human mind according to our specific sets of methods and proper calculations of specific epistemic objects, the consensus as regards Math is given. When one wants to multiply he (has to know how to multiply) and doesn't divide. Why? because this is a (man-made, thus it does not exist out there on its own) rule. Since when the mathematical rules we invented are existent somewhere out of our own perception and, therefore, not empty?
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I repeat, I was not aware I was discussing scripture. I was discussing history. That you get your history from scripture, does not make history scripture, does it?
You are quite happy speculating about the big bang, but surely that too is an historical 'what if' and therefore speculation about scripture by your logic (as scripture also covers the origin of the universe).

I'll take your word for it, but it proves my point about offending people had
you done that in the work place it could have become a really big deal, and
I do believe you!
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Correct.

[b]Your ability to learn whatever (you learn solely whatever you can perceive as an epistemic object) is entirely a result of the potential of your DNA,
No. That is not true.

which by means of specific genetic instructions enabled specific modifications of your mind in a given environment that in turn they enabled you to analyze sy ...[text shortened]... b]
Huh? What is this magical 'species' boundary? You get more and more confused as we go on.

Edit: “How… …them.”

But you cannot have an organism separated from its internal and external environment! I wrote down clearly that “the specified modifications of your mind in a given environment enabled you” etc etc, feeling that it is not necessary to write also down “…and the environment, on its turn, enabled specific modifications of your mind” etc. etc. I attributed two inputs at once, because to me it is obvious that the environment and the organism cannot be separated.


Edit: “Huh? What is this magical 'species' boundary? You get more and more confused as we go on.”

The species boundary is not "magical", it is simply a product of the essence of each species that helps us to define them. The essence that makes a dog a dog and a human being a human being, that is
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
What a wondeful turn this thread has taken. I am content for the time to follow as best as I can.

I will wait to see you coming, my feer 😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I will wait to see you coming, my feer 😵

It seems to have taken a turn with a kind of Aristotelian-Wittgensteinian-Quantum Entanglement (or Buddhist non-separability/mutually arising) presentation on the one hand, and an interesting combination of Platonism and Empiricism on the other. Although I tend to lean one way, I want to exercise a kind of “skeptical restraint” (e.g., the skepticism of Sextus Empiricus here, not Descartes) as a discipline for learning.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “What… …primigenius?”

Aristotle defines a definition as an account that signifies what it is to be for something. Therefore when he defines an epistemic object he explains what it is, instead of merely specifying the meaning of a word. To him, a definition is mainly an account of the essence of something. Since a definition always defines an es ...[text shortened]... e one’s way through the investigation of the essence of the epistemic object that one observes😵

"But with our twhitehead I do not disagree over semantics, we all know what a triangle is regardless of its properties under specific conditions. We disagree because, as a pure Platonist, he believes that the triangles exist somewhere out there on their own, unrelated to our mind. On the other hand, I argue that triangles are a product of our mind that we are using for our convenience –I argue that the triangles are empty, that they lack of inherent existence."

It is of no interest to me that it is tw on one side and bb on the other on this matter. But I have to ask myself, how is it of interest that there ARE sides on this matter, or that the sides are what they are?

Are there implications of the position that you ascribe to tw, that are importantly different than the implications (if any) of the position you ascribe to yourself? If so, what are they?

Originally posted by black beetle
But you cannot have an organism separated from its internal and external environment! I wrote down clearly that “the specified modifications of your mind in a given environment enabled you” etc etc, feeling that it is not necessary to write also down “…and the environment, on its turn, enabled specific modifications of your mind” etc. etc. I attributed ...[text shortened]... at once, because to me it is obvious that the environment and the organism cannot be separated.

Yet you do separate them and assign DNA a special place as a special input, just as you assign programming a special place in computers.

The species boundary is not "magical", it is simply a product of the essence of each species that helps us to define them. The essence that makes a dog a dog and a human being a human being, that is
😵
It is somewhat ridiculous that you recognise a 'species essence' yet deny the existence of triangles. I on the other hand find the 'species essence' to be far less tangible and much more a product of our categorization system than any real fact about life.
Are you saying that dog math and wolf math would be different, but that greyhound math and sausage dog math would be the same? What would the math of a cross between a dog and wolf be like?

So I ask you again, considering that there is significant differences between the DNA of different people, is the value of pi different for different people? Is it bigger for men than for women? Our brains work quite differently you know.

Originally posted by JS357
"But with our twhitehead I do not disagree over semantics, we all know what a triangle is regardless of its properties under specific conditions. We disagree because, as a pure Platonist, he believes that the triangles exist somewhere out there on their own, unrelated to our mind. On the other hand, I argue that triangles are a product of our mind that we are ...[text shortened]... than the implications (if any) of the position you ascribe to yourself? If so, what are they?

Edit: “It... ...are?”

twhitehead and bb have a different evaluation of the mind as regards the essence of a specific science and the essence of the necessity of inventing products for our convenience and of the act of becoming ourselves products of our products; at the same time we examine the way we actually exploit our learning process. The different approaches trigger different understanding as regards the way Reality unveils and also the meaning, the Story we attribute during our struggle to bring up a Meaning, if meaning in the interpretations of two sentient beings is indeed existent. Methinks the interest lays in the different way we are monitoring specific, identical fractals of the observer universe, creating events and connecting the dots of a tiny part of huge picture that is decoded differently by each one of us because we simply have establish different points of attention.
I fail to see how the “sides” are not always subjective; and I believe that the ideas we hold can be qualified either as accurate or as non-accurate. To me, the point of the conversation is to evaluate in full our different subjective interpretations, to get to know what we know and what we ignore and to move on.


Edit: “Are... ...they?”

There are implications, related to our very nature and the way we perceive, analyze and evaluate whatever becomes our epistemic object. Furthermore, they are related to the very nature of the Physical World that surrounds us, of our Inner World and of the World of Ideas.
What are these implications? In the context of this thread I propose we are products of our products the way Popper does it and I argue that objectivity/ absolute truth is non-existent in our Epiontic/ Holographic Universe because it is nothing but our collective subjectivity. On the other hand, our Platonist friend proposes that a so called “absolute truth” is existent😵



What do you think, JS357? Think! Where exactly lays the "absolute truth" and how is it related with the differ sentient beings?
😵