cladking

Grammar and mode of thought. Perhaps I phrased that poorly.

Is it? Doesn't your diagram suggest not only an overlap in meaning but also suggests "math", "philosophy", and "science" are just as real as logic? Gees is saying logic is fundamental. I'm suggesting that it underlies, it is, reality itself and we are simply blind to it because we thought ourselves into existence. I'm suggesting that words are constructs and it's not the reality of philosophy and logic that overlap but merely their constructs. We each define these words a little differently and we each use them in different contexts that overlap as well. We hear the definition we expect and there's lots of overlap in the definitions necessary to try to make sense of what others are saying. Of course even I use different definitions for "logic" but I try to make a set meaning that has no variance apparent from context: It is logical to believe logic is reality as determined by the logic I employed to deduce this. "Philosophy" has made so little progress and applied science is far behind the times because of the difficulty of communication. How do you build on the greats of the past if you misunderstand them?

It's not only words we use to think but the formatting of words. We process information using concepts like "if and only if" to save unnecessary processing and speed thought. Just like planning a chess move we don't check every possible eventuality because it would take too long; rather you project all likely scenarios six or seven moves in advance or until you can see it's a poor move. Language is the operating system and the means to acquire most knowledge. It is not the sum total of the animal brain. Language defines how we think rather than what we think or even the specific means of every thought. Much "thought" that doesn't involve language is simply the attention of consciousness shifting. One moment you're thinking about the meaning of an esoteric piece of writing and the next you're hungry for that left-over lasagna. But language underlies all of it. The chef used a recipe to make the dish and it already had a name before you ever thought how good it might taste. Consciousness moves about spatially in the brain. Some people have it primarily on one side and different parts with different language needs and uses become ascendent at any spefific time. If lower brain functions are overloaded with pain we lose consciousness. This certainly doesn't require words or learning.

All animals have language. A human separated from other humans at birth has a zero percent chance of survival. There can't be enough food within reach that it will survive to the point it can move. If another animal were to care for it it would then grow up learning that animal's language which is very similar to the way its own brain is wired. Language isn't necessary to survival; it's necessary for communication and it's necessary for formatting in the human brain for acquiring complex knowledge. A child raised by wolves will not sit around the campfire at night doing trigonometry.

None of this logic exists in isolation. It is all bundled up with all the other formulae we know and those we've yet to learn. The logic never affects things in isolation. Reality is the sum total of everything and when we see our models we are overlooking reality. We are overlooking the existence of all we don't know. Math works when it is properly applied and all the terms are defined. We often lose sight of proper methodology but, no, this is not the problem. The problem is the inability to see the city because all the skyscrapers are in the way. We see our beliefs and knowledge preferentially to reality.

Natural logic is two apples are always composed of an apple and an apple. Or that an apple and an apple make two apples. We quantify this as 1 + 1 = 2. In the real world acceleration is strictly correlated to an object's mass and the force applied. We define units and say f=M X A. These things don't hold true because we do the calculations. They held true even when man still lived in caves. They are real independently of our knowledge or quantification of the terms. Everything happens all the time. Collision between particles and every event involving everything that ever was and everything that will be are occurring now everywhere. All of these events and processes determine the current and will determine the future reality in a chaotic manner and are determined by the past. Each event in the here and now is also affected by every other event in the here and now (probably). These are infinitely complex computations but they aren't actually made because all these events are simply following natural logic. They are all just doing what reality does and what we do is try to isolate the variables in the lab for study. When we identify some of this natural logic we incorporate this into our models and then we see the world in terms of these new models. The models aren't real, the math isn't real, but the logic that composes reality is real.

I'd say natural logic underlies math and philosophy is a failed attempt to assign words to the logic. The three concepts are distinct.

Words are constructs with ephemeral meaning that we use to try to communicate concepts. Even though we think in language concepts aren't really "constructs" per se because the thinker knows what each word means. We can manipulate words, ideas, grammar, and knowledge to arrive at new knowledge and new ideas. However once these ideas arise we have only language in which to communicate them to others. Each listener takes his own meaning based on his expectations and beliefs. But the concept we are trying to communicate is no less real or no less valid because of this; it merely isn't understood. This is why science rejects concepts like truth, logic, and reality. Instead it builds theory by the effect of reality on experiment and individuals build paradigms on this effect. It's not the reality we see but our beliefs whether these beliefs are derived from science, religion, or the man on the moon. But the concepts and ideas generated in the minds of men are real and are valid or invalid independently of science or religion. They are not dependent on anything but reality itself as a measure of their accuracy or truth. Almost all progress has been the result of serendipity and this is because we aren't so smart or as good of observers as we believe ourselves to be. But the ideas that constitute progress don't arise in the minds of those who forego learning and rational thought. These ideas spring up in the minds of those who use the newest instrumentation, or study the hardest, or learn the most, or are keen observers. There are many traits that can lead to serenditous observation. One boss used to tell me that if no one knows how to do a job you put the laziest man in the plant on it and he'll quickly find the easiest way. Reality is astoundingly complex and this is one of the reasons that it is excluded from metaphysics. Factoring observation from reality can't be done directly by the human mind. It requires some metaphysics. The ancients described this as reality itself being "hidden". We simply see our models prefentially to everything else. They named the reality and understood it through these names. But the reality remains. Reality transcends how we study it or define it. Reality must necessarily even affect the tools we use to look at it and understand it as these tools and language define our understanding of it.

There is in humans. Quite true but thought still exists in a language format. It isn't impossible to think or act without the use of language but these activities are typically the result of habit or are low level that require little thought. It would be more accurate to say that your attention exists and occurs within the operating system known as language. We ponder questions in a language and in logical expressions formed of that language. Even more we ponder in terms of the what we learned and were taught as language was acquired.

D'oh. Thank you. I'm not used to thinking in terms of wavelenghts.

Just as math can't be applied to the real world, logic can't be applied to words. Words can be reasonably "logical" to the individual but definitions are too fluid for the logic to be maintained when communicated.

If you exist then you learned language and use it to think these thoughts. If your thoughts are real it proves only that they are based in language. If you are real you think, if you are not real than it hardly matters. So let's get on with the part that says we're real. Let's see where that goes. Now that we have scientific knowledge to apply to the assumption we are real there should be somewhere to take it. We should never lose sight of the fact the scientific knowledge isn't "real" in the sense we are assuming ourselves to be. Rather the scientific knowledge applies only within its metaphysics and definitions and was determined solely by the effect of reality on experiment. All extrapolations of this knowledge are suspect. You got the general idea though.

I think some individuals can train themselves to see infrared. Indeed, higher frequencies are best "seen" with the palm of the hand. Perhaps these signals tend to be intercepted by the reptilian brain.

I thought I was clear. Counting is mathematics which is based on natural logic which is inherent in the wiring of all brains. However animals don't use any sort of math at all. Math and numbers are human constructs which don't exist in the real world. Animals use natural logic directly without intermediary words and definitions. Their "words" hence are mathematical in nature. They have a concept of first, second, and third, but they lack the constructs of one, two, and three. I certainly appreciate the "support" but with neither logic nor evidence to support it I can simply ignore it.

I'm not familiar with the bird referent so I changed horses in mid-stream. "Counting" as I'm using the term is arriving at a sum. We create a construct to represent the number of an item. The horse doesn't know anything about "three". It can't tell three of something from two because it never needs to know. But it can't differentiate between objects and will understand the difference between an apple and a cube of sugar. It can differentiate between the first apple, second apple, and third apple. If you holds up three fingers it might be able to kick one time for each with training. If it needs to go to the third corral to be fed it will go to the third. But it does all this without having a referent for numbers. It doesn't know you held up three fingers or that it kicked three times because animals don't count. If we count to three normally the number two has no meaning. We are merely determining the total number of objects but the horse has a distinct understanding of the three apples. The first apple remains the first apple even after it's eaten and only two apples "remain". To the horse the second and third apples remain. We see two apples. Obviously though this assumes there are identifiable differences and they were noted which isn't necessarily the case with humans or horses. It was relevant for the accuracy of the statement and perspective. It's relevant because the human mind is still wired the same way even though it employs a new operating system. The evidence to support this is irrelevant in this thread.

How do you know the bird isn't simply creatin a one to one correspondance between its responses and the number of objects. If a horse kicks three times in response to three fingers it might simply be kicking once for each finger rather than counting fingers and kicks. We'll need another thread for the extensive evidence an animal human language once existed.

Counting isn't natural logic/ natural math. It is a human construct founded on modern language but employing terms that mirror natural logic. Numbers are part of language moreso than math. They are constructs. just as all operators in our math are constructs. Animals can't understand human math or counting. Counting is simple enough an individual monkey or other "intelligent" animal might be able to "get it" but then the individual couldn't describe how our system differs from its. Even if it had the words we wouldn't understand them. I doubt any coulds have the words because animal language is geared toward more immediate needs and they lack the ability to build on past learning generationally so they lack the complex knowledge to frame such thoughts. At the risk of going off-topic, early humans were animals. They used a complex language for 40,000 years but this was a natural language with natural logic. When complex language arose the language became increasingly complex to contain all the new learning which accumulated generationally. The language became too complex and failed leaving us modern language where words are constructs with many meanings which become apparent through context. I don't believe these early "coiunters" counted at all but rather they used animal math. ie- the first egg plus the second egg is the sum total of the eggs. The second egg is half the first and second egg. In a set of the first and second eggs, two eggs exist. I don't think this is even "math" in our terms but rather a way of seeing the world by use of natural logic. There is a one to one correspondance between the set of eggs and the set of myself and my mate. Hence breakfast is served. The ability to manipulate this logic became so complex that we still haven't figured it out. Some operations are rather clumsy using this "math", of course. We count. It makes perfect sense to us. When we apply the rules of math and nature correctly we are often capable of great things. ...but this doiesn't mean we understand the laws of reality or gravvity better than a goat.

I'm not sure to exactly what degree I distinguish between measurement and observation either. However observation is virtually theory free. When you are observing you're supposed to be experiencing a thing or event outside of known explanations and pre-conceptions. Of course this is merely an ideal and always impossible. Measurement on the other hand is just converting a property of an object into terms that are standardized for communication or calculation. Not only can a 1 foot square shape be defined in many ways but it can also be measured in many ways. All such measurements and calculations provide the same results within the scope of the equipment and the margin of error. It's true most individuals will see this all in theory and construct but it really isn't. Just as one giraffe plus one giraffe makes three giraffes it's very straight forward. Each individual gets equivalent results whether the product is a giraffe or a square foot. Perhaps it could be said that measurement is a thing done by people observation is a thing done by science. I fully understand that most people don't see it this way but I believe this is due to the operating system of the mind obscuring the means by which it operates. Just as we don't observe reality directly we don't observe the way the mind works directly because it is obscured by language in which we think as proven by the oft held belief that we think and hence know that we exist. The irony is that animals understand theory better than most people. This is simply because the natural world is wired directly into their brains. No, it's not "instinct" it's the way their brains work, it's the operating system of their brains. This operating system is based on "mathematics", or more precisely, the same logic that underlies math. Goats walk on the sides of mountains because the alternative is death. Birds communicate while scanning the ground and sky for predators. Those which fail any part of this behavior will not lend their genes to future generations. They "all" do this while each doing it in subtlely different ways as a matter of "personality". Animals are excellent observers but lack the extensive knowledge of humans to make sense of most of their observations. Humans are generally extremely poor observers because we see what we expect prefentially to the reality. Even when modern humans make good observation it will still be interpreted within the construct of models. Most scientists might do a little better observing anomalies than expected things because these stand out as needing further observation. Most peoples' models are so poor they couldn't tell rope from a snake unless it bit them.

You're assuming their construct is identical to the human construct. It's far more likely animals 1st egg, 2nd egg, 3rd egg, etc. To the animal there is no construct. Just eggs. Humans imagine that 1, 2, and three are entities but they are not.

As he said; measurement is distance. Of course we can feel a child's forehead to guage whether he's sick or not and we don't need an anemometer to tell us why our hat fell off. Measurement is mostly quantification of constructs and mostly related to distance. We compare something we "know" to fit a construct to a physical object of phenomenon to determine how they relate to each other. Perhaps I am missing the point. Measurement seems highly straight forward to me and simply a part of observation.

I'm obviously not referring to the "logic" we study in school. Frankly, I see this subject as interesting but it is far more about semantics and definitions than the logic of nature. Logic is easily twisted and tortured by words and until we create concrete definitions for words this will always be the case. Words with concrete definitions are still constructs as we use language but there's no wiggle room for twisting meaning. "Logic" as I'm using the term and saying nature is inherently logical is embedded deeply in reality itself and is brutal. If you need two oars to propel a boat and you bring two types of ores you might find yourself up the creek without a paddle. Logic is every single mammal having one male and one female parent. This is the logic where one plus one equals three yet we each have two parents. We have four grandparents. This logic is wired right into the human brain and the brains of all animals. This logic is simply quantified in mathematics. One plus one is said to equal two because in reality when one thing is considered in conjunction with a similar thing there is typically about twice as much. Thus one times two is equivalent to one plus one. Of course in the real world one plus one can equal anything from a very large number to minus a very large number. The logic always holds because a man and woman are inherently different so this difference is what creates the third. This same thing applies to apples, grains of sand, and miles. Each is inherently different and each follows the logic of nature. We invent concepts and words to describe it and math to quantify it but it all still always obeys the logic of nature preferentially to the logic of man. Every thing and all of their parts bend to the will of nature and we merely strive to understand her.

The value of currency in modern economies is irrelevant to economic considerations. It is arbitrarily chosen by central banks. There is some meaning to the value of currency times the total quantity of currency and, no doubt, this total is far higher in South Korea. But new conflations are introduced because things like total debt and purchasing power become germaine.

Measurement isn't any more "real' than area. "Distance" is real and "distance" is the concept we're trying to quantify. Take a square that is twelve inches on a side. We say that the lenght can be multiplied by the width or the width by the lenght to determine that it's 144 in ^ 2. But this square is also 1 ft by 1 ft so it's eqally true that it's 1 ft ^ 2. These numbers both fit and are equal because this is how reality is. I often redefine things to equal one so the math can be done in my mind more easily. I say distance is real but we need to remember even this is a perception and means of understanding what we see. It's is always either this "distance" or time which prevents two objects from occupying the same space.

There are not really any answers to any questions. The concept that "I think therefore I am" is simply ludicrous. One doesn't think outside of language so a more realistic perspective is "I am therefore I think". And this is the heart of every question, all communication, and all knowledge; perspective. I simply prefer a perspective from which an axiomatic reality is most easily visible. Yes, I invented "reality" as being axiomatic and assuming it is exactly what people perceive and as defined by scientific results as seemn through the definitions, processes, and rules of the science that produced those results. My perspective yields no more knowledge than any other but some of the connections between various aspects of reality are more easily seen. Of course, some are harder to see as well. Bouncing around the different perspectives is what I call generalism and was very similar to what I believe ancient science was. Rather than experimental results it used observation and the natural logic of a sort of mathematically based language. Most of understanding reality is independent of perspective and this applies especially to scientific knowledge but I believe there are some deviations between theory and reality caused by perspective. While specialization and the ability to use a great deal of knowledge at narrow focus is of immense value to individuals and society there is a huge need for people trained to see other perspectives. The current trends are all unsustainable and apparently getting worse. Debt in a broad spectrum of meaning is increasing geometrically while ever more resources are being wasted to combat it. Meanwhile ever more highly leveraged bets on the future are a weight on any eventuality. Eventually one individual will have all the money and it will have no value at all. Math works because it is logical and logic is an aspect of nature. It just does it. Area is equal to lenght times width or width times lenght because it is. This isn't apparent from the perspective of the mind using modern language as its operating system. If you think that you exist because you are conscious then you can't see that it is language in which you think. If you think 1 + 1 = 2 because this is the right answer or this usually seems to agree with reality then you can't see that these are constructs and a shorthand way of thinking rather than reality itself. It is a reality where 1 + 1 doesn't really = 2. It's merely the logic of nature which we never did see directly but are now removed another step away by language.

Certainly all individuals have aspects of both male and female but it's all "supposed" to add up to men being masculine and women being feminine. There's nothing wrong with a man admiring or being attracted to any given masculine trait in a woman (and vice versa) but now days it can be hard to tell a man from a woman based solely on behavior, appearances, or perspectives. You identify what could be a major factor; the concordance of plastic and microwaves. If you eat much food out of plastic containers you might easily impact testosterone levels and this goes many time over if the food is heated in the plastic. Some manufacturers are even lining canned goods in plastic. Hollywood now presents men as trouble making troglodytes and women as the answer to all society's ills just as they've swapped underrepresention and bad portrayals of minorities and women for overrepresentation and bad portrayals of majority people and this goes many times over for men. It's only natural young men and boys will shy away from masculinity and roles normally reserved for men. Our schools fail boys very much preferentially to girls. In the LA school system only some 20% of boys ever even graduate high school while the figure for girls is usually over 80%. We spend more on these schools than most schools because it's not easy to keep children from learning. Children naturally want to learn but they teach them to hate it and still have time to declare war on Arizona. A lot of the problem is the quisling media and a mindset that says traditional values and perspectives must be replaced by a feel good smilie faced status quo. Not hurting peoples' feelings has been elevated to the only good and being a man has been relegated to unthinking, unfeeling, unintelligent, brutes of past ages. Individual rights no longer exist and only civil rights now apply and civil rights are based chiefly on being the member of a minority. It's not only unpopular to assert one's rights but dangerous in the modern age. Of course much of thgis is caused by coddling criminals and failing to even remove them from sociuety. With large numbers running loose it really is more dangerous so laws restricting everyone's rights are enacted. Now days thousands of laws and regulations with the effect of law are made almost daily. Old laws are almost never removed from the books and stay in full effect but are simply not enforced. We've enterred a brave new world where men are hardly even welcome.