Does mathematics really exist in nature or not?

[cladking]

 

If our brains don't exist then it is even more difficult to pin down the architecture and mechanics of our thinking, because in that case we clearly do not have easy access to accurate information concerning how we exist, but I would still argue that if I exist, then my thoughts exist as properties of me.

 

 

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.

[Strange]

If you exist then you learned language

 

There is no necessary correlation between existing and learning a language.

 

If your thoughts are real it proves only that they are based in language.

 

Not all thoughts use language.

[cladking]

 

There is no necessary correlation between existing and learning a language.

 

 

There is in humans.

 

 

Not all thoughts use language.

 

 

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.

[sciwiz12]

There are children who grow up with fully functional brains, mouths, and ears who never learn any language and grow up like animals. Savage children I think they're called. So language isn't necessary because you can be a human person and grow up not knowing nor thinking in language. It's just natural to assume that language is part of the package because we have had it for longer than we can usually remember.

[cladking]

There are children who grow up with fully functional brains, mouths, and ears who never learn any language and grow up like animals. Savage children I think they're called. So language isn't necessary because you can be a human person and grow up not knowing nor thinking in language. It's just natural to assume that language is part of the package because we have had it for longer than we can usually remember.

 

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.

[studiot]

 

Not all thoughts use language.

 

I strongly endorse that view.

Or to put it another way.

Not all thinking involves words.

 

Not only is there a vast body of evidence to support this, it is commonplace experience by most (I hesisitate to say all) humans.

 

Acting in three dimensions involves processing sensory input information and direction future action accordingly (thinking).

This skill is used in pickup up a pint of beer, driving a car or an aircraft, the list goes on and an.

Many people report that they think in pictures, not words.

Some think in musical sequences.

and so on and so on.

Edited November 19, 2015 by studiot

[cladking]

 

I strongly endorse that view.

Or to put it another way.

Not all thinking involves words.

 

Not only is there a vast body of evidence to support this, it is commonplace experience by most (I hesisitate to say all) humans.

 

Acting in three dimensions involves processing sensory input information and direction future action accordingly (thinking).

This skill is used in pickup up a pint of beer, driving a car or an aircraft, the list goes on and an.

Many people report that they think in pictures, not words.

Some think in musical sequences.

and so on and so on.

 

 

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.

[Strange]

There is in humans.

 

So you are saying that those people who failed to learn a language didn't exist? That is a pretty extraordinary claim. You had better have some pretty extraordinary evidence.

 

 

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.

 

I hope you have some pretty impressive evidence for this as it appears to be completely untrue.

 

 

It would be more accurate to say that your attention exists and occurs within the operating system known as language.

It would only be more accurate if you have some support for this.

 

 

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.

 

Less of the "we" there.

[studiot]

 

 

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.

 

So far as I can make out your list of unsupported claims is totally disconnected from the examples in my post you quoted in its entirety.

 

So do you pay any attention to what others write or was quoting my post just a slip o' the mouse?

Edited November 19, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

All animals have language.

 

Only if you are redefining "language".

 

A human separated from other humans at birth has a zero percent chance of survival.

 

How is that relevant?

 

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.

 

Citation needed. (Other than Tarzan movies.)

 

I find it extraordinary that you can spew out these ridiculous claims, some of which are very obviously false, with such confidence.

 

 

A child raised by wolves will not sit around the campfire at night doing trigonometry.

 

Neither will it howl at the moon.

It's not only words we use to think but the formatting of words.

 

What does "formatting of the words" mean?

 

We process information using concepts like "if and only if" to save unnecessary processing and speed thought.

 

Citation needed.

 

Language defines how we think rather than what we think or even the specific means of every thought.

 

This sounds like a version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. And is therefore false. (Except in a very, very weak form, which is almost undetectable except under very carefully controlled laboratory experiments.)

 

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.

 

You are just making stuff up now.

 

Consciousness moves about spatially in the brain. Some people have it primarily on one side

 

Hilarious. I would love to see your evidence for that.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Strange

[cladking]

 

What does "formatting of the words" mean?

 

 

 

 

 

This sounds like a version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. And is therefore false. (Except in a very, very weak form, which is almost undetectable except under very carefully controlled laboratory experiments.)

 

 

You are just making stuff up now.

 

 

Hilarious. I would love to see your evidence for that.

 

 

What does "formatting of the words" mean?

 

 

Grammar and mode of thought.

 

 

Hilarious. I would love to see your evidence for that.

 

 

Perhaps I phrased that poorly.

[Strange]

Grammar and mode of thought.

 

What does "mode of thought" mean? And what does it have to do with "formatting of the words"?

 

And "formatting of words" is a very odd way to characterise grammar. It is almost as if you know nothing about linguistics. Oh, hang on ...

 

Perhaps I phrased that poorly.

 

Or maybe it is just made-up nonsense. As you haven't attempted to explain it, that sounds like the most likely explanation.

[seriously disabled]

I think that mathematics exists in the universe. I mean how else is someone going to teach quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, general relativity and string theory without using mathematics?

[Bill Angel]

I think that mathematics exists in the universe. I mean how else is someone going to teach quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, general relativity and string theory without using mathematics?

In the equations of the fields that you mentioned, on occasion infinities appear. Are these infinities indicators that the mathematical descriptions have broken down, or can some physical quantity really have the value of infinity? Edited November 21, 2015 by Bill Angel

[DevilSolution]

I think that mathematics exists in the universe. I mean how else is someone going to teach quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, general relativity and string theory without using mathematics?

 

Pictures.....DUHHH

[sciwiz12]

Yeah, I think we can all agree that was pretty bold of you to make those kinds of broad, generalising statements about how the brain operates and interplays with language as well as the nature of consciousness.

 

I mean it is fair to say such claims require empirical data, I'm wondering what your thought process was on that one. Did you intuit that information and assume that your intuitively derived claims would invalidate previous contentions?

 

Did you actually read that in a peer reviewed study or observe this in a peer reviewed study on the brain and language? If so it is incredible news as I was not aware such in depth and insightful studies could be performed even with today's advanced brain imaging equipment. I was pretty sure we could only approximate which general areas of the brain were responsible for specific processes and I'm certainly surprised to learn we've discovered and can track the variations in location of consciousness itself within the brain from person to person. The whole thing? Really?

 

I'm being sarcastic, but you get the idea. I can sympathise with you, it's natural to say what feels like it makes sense, you think it should seem obvious based on what you've read and what you seem to know about the subject. I do that sometimes anyway, all I'm trying to say is I understand where you're coming from. You don't have to feel like defending yourself here, it's OK to disagree to some extent about the nature of the brain.

 

I personally disagree with your stated position based on what I've read in terms of neurology, specific case studies with savage children, and the role of Wernicke's and Broca's areas of the brain as well as case studies on indivuals who have suffered damage to those areas of the brain and the effect it has on a person's ability to process the processing of language. I don't believe that language is necessary for all humans, it seems like you've partially expanded the definition of language in part of your argument but I wouldn't consider chemical neurotransmitters or hormones to be a language in the same sense that English is a language. The brain operates on electrical discharge and signal transmission through chemical messengers, but that kind of organised transmission of data in the forms of energy and chemical reaction isn't quite the same as having a mind built on a framework of language in a format anything like spoken and written languages.

 

Here's my counter proposition, it seems more reasonable to me that as organisms developed more advanced nervous systems over time they were able to incorporate a wider range of senses, and as a mechanism of defense some organisms developed a capacity to manipulate sound for defensive purposes which over time found a new use in the ability to warn and coordinate group activities. Sound is particularly well suited to such activities because of the way air carries sound around visual barriers and over moderate distances thus allowing creatures to warn and communicate without being easily seen by predators and without requiring a clear line of sight for reception.

 

As our ancestors began to develop tools through more complex processes they began to attempt to communicate the processes and skills they wished to teach through rudimentary pictorial and vocal language, which grew more complex with time.

 

Now this is still merely conjecture but it makes more sense from what I've observed of reality so far, and would if true imply that language is not necessarily innate but is dependent upon the same structures that allowed vocalising organisms to perceive warning in the vocalisations of others.

 

Now you're welcome to continue to believe what you think, I invite you to consider the above possible explanation, but let's neither of us engage in the belief that we know how language works in the brain with unassailable and infallible accuracy, we both know better than to engage in such fantasy.

[DevilSolution]

Yeah, I think we can all agree that was pretty bold of you to make those kinds of broad, generalising statements about how the brain operates and interplays with language as well as the nature of consciousness.

 

I personally disagree with your stated position based on what I've read in terms of neurology, specific case studies with savage children, and the role of Wernicke's and Broca's areas of the brain as well as case studies on indivuals who have suffered damage to those areas of the brain and the effect it has on a person's ability to process the processing of language. I don't believe that language is necessary for all humans, it seems like you've partially expanded the definition of language in part of your argument but I wouldn't consider chemical neurotransmitters or hormones to be a language in the same sense that English is a language. The brain operates on electrical discharge and signal transmission through chemical messengers, but that kind of organised transmission of data in the forms of energy and chemical reaction isn't quite the same as having a mind built on a framework of language in a format anything like spoken and written languages.

 

 

I have no idea what predates this statement, the brain conceives languages via the process of electrical and chemical signals through various parts of the brain, the format is simply the strength of axons to synapse over spread neurological spheres. The neurological structures allow language to be stored, comprehended and then extended. To say "electrical and chemical messengers isnt the same as the framework of language" is a total misconception. How else do you imagine we store and conceive language? conceptually speaking the neurological pathways connecting concepts must be immense.

 

25I-NBOMe is radioactive ligand, try it out

[cladking]

I HAD SAID;

 

"It would be more accurate to say that your attention exists and occurs within the operating system known as language."

 

YOU REPLIED;

 

"It would only be more accurate if you have some support for this."

 

MY RESPONSE;

 

The alternative is to believe animals and babies lack attention and consciousness.

 

 

I don't have time tonight to address some good points that have been raised and I'm not

sure it's possible to address some of them without going in a direction that will be considered

"off topic". Let me sleep on it and for now suffice to say that some of these things are pretty

"obvious" from other points of view. Perhaps the statement that consciousness moves about

in the brain was a little "over the top" as it were but the other statements are, I believe, accur-

ate from my perspective.

... it seems like you've partially expanded the definition of language in part of your argument but I wouldn't consider chemical neurotransmitters or hormones to be a language in the same sense that English is a language. The brain operates on electrical discharge and signal transmission through chemical messengers, but that kind of organised transmission of data in the forms of energy and chemical reaction isn't quite the same as having a mind built on a framework of language in a format anything like spoken and written languages.

 

 

Indeed. I consider all chemical, mechanical, optical, and behavioral changes designed to

intentionally or unintentionally affect another individual as "language". This most especially

applies to intentional communication within the same species.

The brain operates on electrical discharge and signal transmission through chemical messengers, but that kind of organised transmission of data in the forms of energy and chemical reaction isn't quite the same as having a mind built on a framework of language in a format anything like spoken and written languages.

 

 

The human mind is the only one that doesn't use a natural language as this formatting. All

other animals' languages are based on the wiring of the brain. Human language changed

and is now based on beliefs and the assumption of shared perspectives and referents. But

all language whether animal or human is the formatting for consciousness. An analogy would

be the software in a computer. But since animal languages reflect the actual wiring the nature

of consciousness is somewhat different.

 

The brain is extremely adaptable. There may be countless modes in which it can operate.

... but let's neither of us engage in the belief that we know how language works in the brain with unassailable and infallible accuracy, we both know better than to engage in such fantasy.

 

 

I really don't.

 

The nature of modern language masks itself from users of modern language. If you step out of this perspective you can get a little different view of language. This doesn't mean I know anything at all about the brain (I'm neither a rocket surgeon nor a brain scientist) but I do believe I can see its nature and how it and thought works.

[Strange]

I HAD SAID;

 

"It would be more accurate to say that your attention exists and occurs within the operating system known as language."

 

YOU REPLIED;

 

"It would only be more accurate if you have some support for this."

 

MY RESPONSE;

 

The alternative is to believe animals and babies lack attention and consciousness.

 

And your response is a classic strawman fallacy. (Why do you do that?)

 

Another alternative is that attention and consciousness are underpinned by some other mechanism than language. But you are making it clear (again) that you have no support for any of your assertions. (Despite stating them with such confidence.)

 

Let me sleep on it and for now suffice to say that some of these things are pretty "obvious" from other points of view.

 

The whole purpose of the scientific process is to get away from what seems "obvious" as such things are very often wrong.

 

Indeed. I consider all chemical, mechanical, optical, and behavioral changes designed to

intentionally or unintentionally affect another individual as "language".

 

So you have a definition of the word that is so broad as to be useless. And also appears to ensure that whatever nonsense you come up can be correct using that definition (which no doubt you will modify, if necessary, to encompass anything you want to assert).

[studiot]

 

 

Sciwiz

Now you're welcome to continue to believe what you think, I invite you to consider the above possible explanation, but let's neither of us engage in the belief that we know how language works in the brain with unassailable and infallible accuracy, we both know better than to engage in such fantasy.

 

 

+1 for perception, knowledge of one's limits and even handedness.

 

 

Since I am posting again I will take the opportunity to reinforce my claim that human thought processes encompass other avenues than language and further that such processes are commonplace.

 

What does an engineer, architect, builder, surveyor, machinist any many other trades and disciplines viewing a set of engineering drawings think?

She does not use language, she visualised a three dimensional object, form the non lingual information in front of her.

In particular this thinking skill requires correlating the non lingual information from several drawings into a composite picture.

Of course most drawing incorporate words and numbers and the viewer can name the parts, but this is subsidiary information.

The shape can be understood without a single word appearing.

 

But of course, that is what engineering drawings are for.

Further one of the beauties of this system is that it is language independent.

So a Chinese viewer can understand an English set of drawings and vice verse, even though they cannot read the words, because their language is different.

So different that, as I understand it, Chinese does not actually work in words in the way English does.

Edited November 21, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

Excellent post, apart from this:

 

So different that, as I understand it, Chinese does not actually work in words in the way English does.

 

Chinese works like any other language. And the writing system reflects the spoken language just the same as any other writing system.

[cladking]

 

 

 

Another alternative is that attention and consciousness are underpinned by some other mechanism than language. But you are making it clear (again) that you have no support for any of your assertions. (Despite stating them with such confidence.)

 

 

 

And, if so, we are centuries from understanding it.

 

You know almost every species uses sexual reproduction. Males and females must get together or there is no longer a species at all. What do you think brings them together? Many species mate for life. How do you think mated geese recognize one another? On what is their cooperation based? How do bees make such perfect hives?

 

Modern people can't see the obvious because we see what we expect. We see intelligence in everything man does and almost none in nature. We can't learn animal language but we can teach animals a few words.

 

Once you accept that language is a manifestation of the wiring of the brain and that language underlies consciosness then everything falls into place. It shows the success of man has nothing to do with intelligence but is the result of language. It was complex language that allowed the complexity of knowledge to sustain us until modern science was invented. Modern science is merely a new way to use language with experiment and observation to gain knowledge.

 

The problem is that it's hard for me to convince people there's no such thing as "intelligence" when they understand everything they see. The one thing we all see prefentially to all else is man's brilliance. People just can't see that our understanding is a construct that that is based on language and that this language is/ was based on the same logic as math in all other species. Now we use this logic as math rather than language.

 

As our ancestors began to develop tools through more complex processes they began to attempt to communicate the processes and skills they wished to teach through rudimentary pictorial and vocal language, which grew more complex with time.

 

 

 

 

The egg must pre-date the chicken. Theory must precede application.

 

I believe this initial cause is language. When humans became capable of complex language they became capable of transmitting new knowledge to the new generation. It was this that allowed processes to become complex.

[studiot]

 

You know almost every species uses sexual reproduction

 

Rubbish.

 

The total number reproducing sexually (mostly higher species) runs into the millions.

 

The total number of asexually reproducing species (mostly lower species) runs into the billions.

 

See the section on numbers of species towards the end of this article.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

[sciwiz12]

OK, I think I see part of the problem, you want to talk about interneuronal activity in the same vein as language. So I'll grant you that neurons do transmit information, so in a sense this is a form of communication, but it's here that I will draw the line between almost bit like data transfer and language in a traditional sense.

 

For instance the receiving nerve cells don't understand the information they receive, they just pass it along according to a chemically mechanistic process. It'd be like forming a line of people to pass a bucket of water or sand, or stuff in general. You never look at the bucket, you don't think about it, you just pass it to the next guy in line.

 

Any word I think of in any language however has multiple data points and possible reference sources. If I say "Apple" you have to access all of the information concerning reference apples you've experienced, the color red, the sweet taste of juicy apples, the notion that an apple can rot, etc... You have to turn that data into a reference you understand as being represented by the word used. That's not all of course because to really make it a language I need a succession of multiple words with various references each to provide context.

 

Other vocalisers and communicators may have more rudimentary data exchange but if it does not convey specific enough information then it cannot be said to be a language, and if it can convey specific information to another that understands that communication then it is not akin to the way the brain processes information.

 

Also, many species reproduce asexually, arguably a lot more than those that do so sexually, also most animals don't mate for life, that's pretty rare. In general you're presenting us with fallacious reasoning, even "perfect" hives do nothing to prove your claims about language, it's not even evidence really, or an argument, it's a question and the answer for most of those questions has nothing to do with language.

 

Let me put it to you this way, a computer doesn't really use languages, the languages exist on a layer of abstraction. A computer uses a complex series of electrical components which can be represented as information which produces layers of abstraction on which language can be implemented. Human brains and animal communicators are similar in this way, the nervous system runs a layer of abstraction that can act as an interface for language, language isn't inherent in the inner workings of the brain but the processes of the brain can use data in an organised fashion to interface with others in the world so as to communicate in a language on a level of abstraction which is decoded from language back into information which the brain processes not as a language but electromechanically and chemically.

[Strange]

And, if so, we are centuries from understanding it.

 

So what? (This is typical of your incoherent posting style: random irrelevant facts and falsehoods.)

 

You know almost every species uses sexual reproduction. Males and females must get together or there is no longer a species at all. What do you think brings them together? Many species mate for life. How do you think mated geese recognize one another? On what is their cooperation based? How do bees make such perfect hives?

 

It is a good job you didn't attempt to use this to support your case because (yet again) it is a false assertion. Have you ever considered checking any of your "facts" before posting them?

 

Modern people can't see the obvious because we see what we expect.

 

And you know this how?

 

We see intelligence in everything man does and almost none in nature.

 

Really? What is your evidence for this?

 

We can't learn animal language

 

What is your evidence for this?

 

Once you accept that language is a manifestation of the wiring of the brain and that language underlies consciosness then everything falls into place.

 

There is no reason to accept this until you can provide some evidence. Can you do that? I assume not.

 

The problem is that it's hard for me to convince people there's no such thing as "intelligence" when they understand everything they see.

 

It is hard because (a) there obviously is such a thing as intelligence; (b) your arguments consist of unsupported assertions most of which are false.

 

And why do you claim that "they understand everything they see"? I don't know anyone that that applies to. So yet another in your endless series of untrue assertions.

 

The one thing we all see prefentially to all else is man's brilliance.

 

 

What is your evidence for this?

 

People just can't see that our understanding is a construct that that is based on language and that this language is/ was based on the same logic as math in all other species.

 

What is your evidence for this?

 

I believe this initial cause is language.

 

You can believe what you like. But with no evidence, and continuous false assertions that demonstrate your ignorance, no one is going to take you seriously.