tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3263529353660258683.post5956883126853017598..comments2023-10-29T05:06:54.465-04:00Comments on dig it.: engine, engine, number nineJasper Yatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03361411725325420424noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3263529353660258683.post-57930506138809782542008-02-01T21:38:00.000-05:002008-02-01T21:38:00.000-05:00i forgot to respond actually. i got halfway throug...i forgot to respond actually. i got halfway through and realized it was too complicated to get into at the moment.<BR/><BR/>the initial problem with deriving number solely from empirical experience is that in concept if you know that "R R" is two R's, you wouldn't know that the number two applies to apples as well; you'd have to make sure that two of anything is indeed two of anything. its like new discovery: 2 applies to rabbit turds as well!<BR/><BR/>so it cannot be purely that exists, that exists; its pretty much proven that it must be a priori. the problem ive run into is that inner number differs from outer number. (inner = time, outer =space)<BR/><BR/>you can see this through various things, such as zeno's paradox. in the number system that is conscious and synthetic something can never get anywhere (i corrected you earlier on the phone, i was semi wrong; there are two different versions), because it must get halfway there first, etc. but clearly the way we spacially cope, we can reach and overtake, etc.<BR/><BR/>so the question becomes how do these two a priori cognitions cooperate? is there possibly a spacial derivation of number? can we rightly say we derive number from a succession of thoughts? if they influence each other, in kantian terms, why isnt the transcendental object exactly conformed to our perect concepts of mathematics?<BR/><BR/>for this reason i cannot believe that the mind is influenced of itself, if it was, wouldnt everything at least cooperate exactly according to its mathematical schema? (i mean, there are no triangles in the empirical world, no straight lines, no parallel lines, no circles, etc)<BR/><BR/>so where im at now is that the mind has this conscious and synthetic ever expanding concept of number, somewhat provided by the inner and somewhat by the outer senses. the mind is like this because over time it has evolved from whatever it has evolved from such that it almost nearly mirrors the world. the reason that it does not exactly is because this synthetic qulity which allows it to see workings and mathiematical properties which are not readily, or at all, displayed to the human senses. so we are very closely cooperatvie with the world, we are nearly the same operating system, we just think the way it operates, and it actualy 'does' the way it operates.<BR/><BR/>furthermore from this i gather that this discrepancy of the synthetical nature of mind and of the operations of the 'world' is the basis for us being able to distinguish ourselves consciously from the world, unlike fish, flies, etc. by this i mean that this ability to sythetically produced mathematical functions from the other senses and faculties that we have is the reason that we are so 'conscious' as we think we are; it must be very closely related to the cognition that says I AM, which is in differentiation from what isnt, or what else is. <BR/><BR/>The difference i think comes when the 'calculus of the mind' (ill call it) computes something to happen and it doesnt happen. the mind closely mirrors and copes with the world, but operates on the human operating system, not on the universes; one watches and copes with events, the other is constantly acting. so when the mind is experienced enough to recognize aball that is thrown, but it's parabolic path is thrown off by the wind, the child begins to separate himself; he sees that the world is not operating the way it should or the way he supposes it too:::the mathematical functions in the brain are so powerful that some sort of synthetic process with experience can judge tha path of a ball thrown as a certain parabola. and it judges this way all the time; but sometime the wind takes it, and this may form the first (events like this) moments when the mind begins to distinguish itself from the world.Jasper Yatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03361411725325420424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3263529353660258683.post-79227896887373705332008-01-31T22:31:00.000-05:002008-01-31T22:31:00.000-05:00genius.Do you think you could even come around and...genius.<BR/>Do you think you could even come around and say that we recognize symbols for numbers- as in "there are 3 apples in the basket" as recognizing each object. As in the mind is going really fast "that exists" "that exists" "that exists" and knows that each thing is seperate has the basis that they are three? I don't know if that made sense but I got a fun imagining of the apples not being seperated- as if their molecular basis was a fluid one like ice and therefore by sitting next to eachother they became one existence of melded together. <BR/>marvel at my madness<BR/>love maddyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com