Where does the unwritten law exist? [Archive I]

John Page

May 9, 2007, 03:46 PM

where is santa?
There is no real Santa, he is a myth based on some idealized kindly gentleman who may have existed. Santa, therefore, exists only as an idea.
where is the number 1?
The number one exists in the brain. Numbers are abstract entities used to represents the quantity of a particular type of thing.
where is the color purple?
The color purple is an extrinsic property of objects, a qualia generated throught the processing of light signals by the eye and the optic nerve (and somewhat into the brain).
I would say, and i mean these words completly literally, that the unwritten laws are nowhere.
How would anybody know what they are without the unwritten laws being in their brains? I can't see how you can claim unwritten laws are nowhere without espousing some form of mind/brain dualism. But I may have overlooked something - which I why I'm interested in the views of others.

kennethamy

May 9, 2007, 04:37 PM

There is no real Santa, he is a myth based on some idealized kindly gentleman who may have existed. Santa, therefore, exists only as an idea.

.

Eh, Santa does not exist. The idea of Santa exists. What it would mean to say that Santa exists only as an idea, I'll leave to others to figure out. But Santa exists only as an idea, entails that Santa exists. But Santa does not exist. Therefore, it is not the case that Santa exists only as an idea.

Q.E.D.
Modus Tollens

kennethamy

May 9, 2007, 04:47 PM

How would anybody know what they are without the unwritten laws being in their brains? .

Indeed. And how could anyone know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador without Quito being in their brain? You got me!

spark in the dark

May 9, 2007, 04:48 PM

I think that all the laws, in fact, all the ideas can exist only inside the mind of a living being. There's no such thing as the absolute.

kennethamy

May 9, 2007, 04:54 PM

I think that all the laws, in fact, all the ideas can exist only inside the mind of a living being. There's no such thing as the absolute.

All ideas are in the mind. Where else? But why laws? I don't see this has anything to do with "the absolute" whatever that may be.

John Page

May 9, 2007, 04:56 PM

Indeed. And how could anyone know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador without Quito being in their brain? You got me!
Quito physically exists in South America and is much larger than my brain. It is the knowledge, the information, about Quito that is in their brain.

John Page

May 9, 2007, 05:01 PM

But Santa exists only as an idea, entails that Santa exists. But Santa does not exist. Therefore, it is not the case that Santa exists only as an idea.
There is a misquote here leading to a straw man premise. I used the expression "There is no real Santa...". In case you are unclear, this means there is no human individual correlate of the idea of Santa."

kennethamy

May 9, 2007, 07:03 PM

Quito physically exists in South America and is much larger than my brain. It is the knowledge, the information, about Quito that is in their brain.

Right you are. So, Quito is not in the brain. But that I know that Quito is the capital is "in the brain" (whatever that means).

kennethamy

May 9, 2007, 07:08 PM

There is a misquote here leading to a straw man premise. I used the expression "There is no real Santa...". In case you are unclear, this means there is no human individual correlate of the idea of Santa."

What is the difference between a real Santa and a Santa? Santa is not supposed to be a human anyway. He is supposed to be a jolly old elf. There is no Santa means there is no jolly old elf who brings Christmas presents to good little girls and boys. And, John Page, I fear that you are going to get a lump of coal in your stocking next Christmas.

John Page

May 9, 2007, 07:56 PM

What is the difference between a real Santa and a Santa? Santa is not supposed to be a human anyway. He is supposed to be a jolly old elf. There is no Santa means there is no jolly old elf who brings Christmas presents to good little girls and boys. And, John Page, I fear that you are going to get a lump of coal in your stocking next Christmas.
Correction. The elves make the toys. Santa is not an elf. Even if Santa is mythical. My 9-year old daughter just confirmed this, therefore it's true. :)

Garrett

May 9, 2007, 11:55 PM

John Page
How would anybody know what they are without the unwritten laws being in their brains?
I think mythical creatures, colors, numbers, and unwritten laws exist in the mind.

They are represented in the brain, of course. Similar to written laws are represented by the symbols on the paper.

In the brain are found many things, like neurons and chemicals and electricity. Atoms and molecules and behavior. But really, no one has found a number or a color or a mythical creature in the brain.

Other than that, I agree with you. If we were to say the mind is in the brain, then you are right - all those things exist no where except in the brain. They are not physical objects or events; they are mental objects or events.

Santa is not an elf.
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf (http://www.christmas-tree.com/stories/nightbeforechristmas.html), says Moore. I think he was using poetic license, but there it is in the scripture. :)

comiezapr

May 10, 2007, 12:11 AM

I think mythical creatures, colors, numbers, and unwritten laws exist in the mind.

This cant be a literal usage of these words. There arent things IN the mind other than thoughts, sensations and other mental stuffs. BE LITERAL!

They are represented in the brain, of course. Similar to written laws are represented by the symbols on the paper.

This might be right. The brain or the mind representing things seems to be on the right track. But again BE LITERAL! Written laws arent represented by the symbols on paper. Written laws ARE the symbols on the paper, they are the writing. Now laws might be some abstract sort of thing that is represented by written laws, but WRITTEN laws are definetly not represented by the symbols used to write them, they are IDENTICAL to those symbols. BE LITERAL!

Garrett

May 10, 2007, 01:12 AM

comiezapr
There arent things IN the mind other than thoughts, sensations and other mental stuffs.
Since they are all types of thoughts, sensations, etc, I don't see the problem.

Have you checked the dictionary for the preposition "in"? Which of the several entries should we consider to be "literal"? And why?

Written laws arent represented by the symbols on paper. Written laws ARE the symbols on the paper, they are the writing.
Your point is stronger here than above, but still wrong. The "written laws" are the writing part, not the law part. Laws are conceptual, and concepts are not on the paper, symbols are on the paper. Those symbols represent the concepts.

BE LITERAL!
Be careful. Your "be literal" campaign may be misguided.

kennethamy

May 10, 2007, 09:33 AM

Correction. The elves make the toys. Santa is not an elf. Even if Santa is mythical. My 9-year old daughter just confirmed this, therefore it's true. :)

Santa not an elf!!! Read, The Night before Christmas and tell me that! Santa's helpers are elves, and Santa is the chief elf. That is why he has pointy ears. Tell your nine year old that she is, like all humans, fallible.

John Page

May 10, 2007, 09:55 AM

Santa not an elf!!! Read, The Night before Christmas and tell me that! Santa's helpers are elves, and Santa is the chief elf. That is why he has pointy ears. Tell your nine year old that she is, like all humans, fallible.
Ha! She knows that adults get it wrong all the time. That's the problem with myths and unwritten laws!

Seems the mythical fellow was originally a Bishop and turned into an elf in 1823. http://www.the-north-pole.com/history/index.htm and confirmed by this site http://www.the-north-pole.com/history/index.htm. But then, one can't always believe what one reads on the Internet.....

Dante Alighieri

May 10, 2007, 12:20 PM

Assuming that, for example, numbers exist in the brain, does this mean that before people existed, numbers (and other "abstract" entities) were non-existent?

kennethamy

May 10, 2007, 12:26 PM

Assuming that, for example, numbers exist in the brain, does this mean that before people existed, numbers (and other "abstract" entities) were non-existent?

Excellent question. Obviously, there were at least two stars before there were people, So the number two existed before there were people.

Dante Alighieri

May 10, 2007, 12:28 PM

:huh: This is one of the things I've never understood about strict materialism.

John Page

May 10, 2007, 01:28 PM

Obviously, there were at least two stars before there were people
Yes. Following the findings of astrophysicists, there were at least two physical entities we call stars before the human race existed.
So the number two existed before there were people.
How does that follow exactly? The number two is a human idea, a concept, not the same category of thing as a star.

kennethamy

May 10, 2007, 10:17 PM

Yes. Following the findings of astrophysicists, there were at least two physical entities we call stars before the human race existed.

How does that follow exactly? The number two is a human idea, a concept, not the same category of thing as a star.

The term "two" is an adjective, just like the term, "rectangular". So, just as if there is a rectangular object, then something is rectangular, if there are two of anything, then something is two.

Dante Alighieri

May 10, 2007, 10:21 PM

How can one affirm that there were two stars before humans since such predicates would not even exist as there would be no minds by which they would be formed in?

kennethamy

May 10, 2007, 10:27 PM

How can one affirm that there were two stars before humans since such predicates would not even exist as there would be no minds by which they would be formed in?

You had better take that up with astronomers. How can one affirm that there were even stars before humans, since such nouns would not exist as there would be no minds by which they could be formed (in?). I suppose, then, that the earth, and indeed, the universe, cannot predate human beings. But that leaves the puzzling question, when human beings did arrive, where did they go? I am afraid that you are too impressed by the view that language or mind creates the world.

Dante Alighieri

May 10, 2007, 10:33 PM

Unless I am a complete idiot, that was mostly directed at John Page, right? Because that question was directed at John Page.

In any case, doesn't a strict materialism imply the lack of well... anything before a mind? Consider propositions. "Stars are made up of matter" is such a proposition. Now, under strict materialism, this proposition is actually material and corresponds to some person's neurons. Now, before that person, indeed, before anyone existed, then that proposition could not have been. The same applies with every single proposition. Thus, reality becomes inexpressible, unknowable, etc, etc.

Is this a veridical problem in strict materialism?

TruthPrevails

May 11, 2007, 01:00 AM

So the number two existed before there were people.Re your theory on numbers, I will nominate you for the Nobel Prize for Mathematics.

Note:
A number is an abstract idea used in counting and measuring. A symbol which represents a number is called a numeral, but in common usage the word number is used for both the idea and the symbol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number

Can you show me at least some links that support your assertion on number?

John Page

May 11, 2007, 08:33 AM

.....humans since such predicates would not even exist.....
You had better take that up with astronomers. How can one affirm that there were even stars before humans, since such nouns would not exist as there would be no minds by which they could be formed (in?). I suppose, then, that the earth, and indeed, the universe, cannot predate human beings. But that leaves the puzzling question, when human beings did arrive, where did they go? I am afraid that you are too impressed by the view that language or mind creates the world.
100% STRAW MAN. Dante does not say "language or mind creates the world"

kennethamy

May 11, 2007, 08:36 AM

100% STRAW MAN. Dante does not say "language or mind creates the world"

No he didn't. He implied it.

kennethamy

May 11, 2007, 08:54 AM

Re your theory on numbers, I will nominate you for the Nobel Prize for Mathematics.

Note:

Can you show me at least some links that support your assertion on number?

Not all abstract entities need be ideas. There is the idea of the number two, and then, there is the number two. In the case of concrete entities we do not identify the idea with what it is the idea of. For example, we don't think that the idea of the Eiffel Tower is the Eiffel Tower. So why should we identify the idea of the Constitution of the United States with the Constitution of the United States?

The only argument for doing that seems to be that since we cannot actually see (touch, smell, taste, see) the Constitution, and we cannot (touch, smell, taste, see) the idea of the Constitution, the Constitution and the idea of the Constitution must be identical. But that is a terrible argument.

And the same goes for the idea of the number two, and the number two itself. Why should they be the same anymore than the Eiffel Tower, and the idea of the Eiffel Tower are the same? When I climb the Eiffel Tower, I don't climb the idea of the Eiffel Tower: and when I add the number two, to the number two, I don't add the idea of the number two, to the idea of the number two, to get the number four in the former instance, and the idea of the number four in the latter instance.

So, what is the argument for the view that in the case of abstract entities, the abstract entity and the idea of the abstract entity are identical; although no one believes that is true of concrete entities where we clearly separate the entity from the idea of that entity?

John Page

May 11, 2007, 09:01 AM

No he didn't. He implied it.
No way, he explicitly refered to predicates, not the actual things. Where do you think he made the implication?

John Page

May 11, 2007, 09:07 AM

So, what is the argument for the view that in the case of abstract entities, the abstract entity and the idea of the abstract entity are identical...
This a Red Herring and not the view being put forward. One abstract entity can refer to or through another abstract entity e.g. the predicactes of Santa refer to the imagined entity Santa. It would be excellent if you could answer the question and defend your assertions...
Can you show me at least some links that support your assertion on number?

kennethamy

May 11, 2007, 09:09 AM

Cheerful Charlie

May 11, 2007, 09:13 AM

Can anybody tell him?

We have it written down here someplace....

CC

kennethamy

May 11, 2007, 09:16 AM

This a Red Herring and not the view being put forward. One abstract entity can refer to or through another abstract entity e.g. the predicactes of Santa refer to the imagined entity Santa. It would be excellent if you could answer the question and defend your assertions...

Lots of philosophers have believed that numbers were abstract entities, and that abstract entities were not mental entities. Plato was one. Frege was another.

John Page

May 11, 2007, 02:15 PM

No way, he explicitly refered to predicates, not the actual things. Where do you think he made the implication?
Predicates are bits of language that denote properties. The properties can exist without any predicates existing. Before there were people and language, the predicate "red" did not exist. Does that mean that there were no red things?
I cannot see anywhere where anyone other than you has stated or implied that a predicate is the actual thing. Stop diverting and either a) agree you were mistaken and he did not so imply, b) state where you think he made the implication or c) stop derailing this thread by leaving it.

John Page

May 11, 2007, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by John Page
This a Red Herring and not the view being put forward. One abstract entity can refer to or through another abstract entity e.g. the predicactes of Santa refer to the imagined entity Santa. It would be excellent if you could answer the question and defend your assertions...
Lots of philosophers have believed that numbers were abstract entities, and that abstract entities were not mental entities. Plato was one. Frege was another.
So, your defense is that other philosophers thought that abstract entities are not mental entities? Appeal to authority alone is meaningless aside from which Plato's dialogs on form indicate at best that he was undecided on the matter. Where does Frege say the abstract is not a mental entity? Please respond to the question or leave the thread. Here it is again:
Originally Posted by TruthPrevails
Can you show me at least some links that support your assertion on number?

kennethamy

May 11, 2007, 04:48 PM

So, your defense is that other philosophers thought that abstract entities are not mental entities? Appeal to authority alone is meaningless aside from which Plato's dialogs on form indicate at best that he was undecided on the matter. Where does Frege say the abstract is not a mental entity? Please respond to the question or leave the thread. Here it is again:

But only too happy to oblige:

It is from Grundlagen (1884), Section 27.

"For that reason, I cannot agree with Schloemilch either, when
he calls number the idea of a position of an item in a series.
If number were an idea, then arithmetic would be psychology. But
arithmetic is no more psychology than, say, astronomy is.
Astronomy is concerned, not with ideas of the planets, but with
the planets themselves, and by the same token the objects of arithmetic
are not ideas either. If the number two were an idea, then it would have
straight away to be private to me only. Another man's idea is, ex vi
termini, another idea. We should then have it might be many millions
of twos on our hands. We should have to speak of my two and your
two, of one two and all twos. If we accept latent or unconscious ideas,
we should have unconscious twos among them, which would then
return subsequently to consciousness. As new generations of children
grew up, new generations of twos would continually be being born, and
in the course of millennia these might evolve, for all we could tell, to
such a pitch that two of them would make five. Yes, in spite of all this,
it would still be doubtful whether there existed infinitely many numbers,
as we ordinarily suppose. 10^10, perhaps, might only be an empty
symbol, and there might exist no idea at all, in any being whatever, to
answer to the name."

May I now stay on the thread? Please?

Tears In The Rain

May 11, 2007, 06:59 PM

Correction. The elves make the toys. Santa is not an elf. Even if Santa is mythical. My 9-year old daughter just confirmed this, therefore it's true. :)

Santa is referred to as a "jolly old elf" in 'Twas the Night Before Christmas.

John Page

May 11, 2007, 08:10 PM

Santa is referred to as a "jolly old elf" in 'Twas the Night Before Christmas.
Yes, please see post #30. :)

John Page

May 11, 2007, 08:32 PM

But only too happy to oblige:

It is from Grundlagen (1884), Section 27.
.
.
.
Excellent, just what he asked for.
May I now stay on the thread? Please?Sure, no problem. Here are my observations:
From Frege's Grundlagen. If the number two were an idea, then it would have straight away to be private to me only.
I don't see why it must be private, ideas can be taught and shared. Maybe he's confusing this with the private subjective experience of one's own idea - which I agree cannot be directly experienced by another. I see Wittgenstein's influence here.
From Frege's Grundlagen. Another man's idea is, ex vi termini, another idea.
Yes, but it can be a similar or equivalent idea. IOW, I don't see why people cannot have ideas that share predicates. Indeed, if this were not possible then how could we share knowledge?
From Frege's Grundlagen. We should then have it might be many millions of twos on our hands. We should have to speak of my two and your two, of one two and all twos.
Yes, and there are two levels to this (no pun intended). First, there is the mental mechanism to quantify two of something and second there is the instantiation of such a quantity. So, when we see a pair of penguins then as a group they have the predicate two.
From Frege's Grundlagen. If we accept latent or unconscious ideas, we should have unconscious twos among them, which would then return subsequently to consciousness.
I'm not sure how this is an objection. Consciousness would seem to have a focus (we cannot remember everthing at ones) so I don't see this as any more complex as a physical object still being there when we are not looking at them.

Without claiming to be right or wrong, correct or incorrect, is my rejection of Frege's position at least understandable?

TruthPrevails

May 12, 2007, 01:46 AM

It is from Grundlagen (1884), Section 27.1884!! when many thought the Earth was flat. Can you find a more current link or reference.

Meanwhile, i will stick to the current consensus on the concept of numbers, i.e. it is an idea, intersubjectively agreed amongst humans in this phase of our evolution.

"For that reason, I cannot agree with Schloemilch either, when
he calls number the idea of a position of an item in a series.
If number were an idea, then arithmetic would be psychology. But
arithmetic is no more psychology than, say, astronomy is.The basis of all human knowledge will eventually take into account the neural factor of the human brain. Psychology, neuroscience, etc will need to be taken into account when we study any subject. To study any core knowledge effectively, it will need a multi-disciplinary approach. For example, for immunology, there is psycho-neuro-immulogy. Note, neuro-theology, neuro-philosophy. To evolve, we have a responsibility to look at numbers taking into account the psychological, neuro, social, evolutionary, consciousness, etc. factors.

Astronomy is concerned, not with ideas of the planets, but with
the planets themselves, and by the same token the objects of arithmetic
are not ideas either. This is very shallow thinking. A small kid can give you this same 'infantile' conclusion.

If the number two were an idea, then it would have
straight away to be private to me only. Another man's idea is, ex vi termini, another idea. We should then have it might be many millions of twos on our hands. We should have to speak of my two and your two, of one two and all twos. If he was refering to some private 'schizo' thinking, then i agree to that.
However, note the normal distribution and the common majority's view. The acceptance of concepts is based on intersubjective consensus or intersubjective verifiability of the majority of human or certain interest-groups.
A person's conceptual view is a function of their psycho-neuro brain structures. It is possible that each person's concept of 'two' could be as specific as their fingerprints. To facilitate communications and practicality, humans agree to a consensus of what discrete numbers should be.

Numbers do not exist on a transcendental basis. Numbers are concept formulated by human minds and agreed on an intersubjective basis amongst humanity to facilitate survival of the specie.

It is the same for the unwritten law which is consensusly agreed by groups of human and sustained in their minds, or memory. Non-humans, i.e. aliens more intelligent than us may not use numbers.

kennethamy

May 12, 2007, 11:03 AM

1884!! when many thought the Earth was flat. Can you find a more current link or reference.

Meanwhile, i will stick to the current consensus on the concept of numbers, i.e. it is an idea, intersubjectively agreed amongst humans in this phase of our evolution.

Sorry that Frege was not born any later. He was a near contemporary of Einstein's. Einstein was behind the times too, I suppose. I guess if ever you do anything worth citing people may say, "Oh, back in 2007, when people thought that numbers were ideas".

I have no doubt that the concept of numbers is an idea. Concepts and ideas are pretty much the same. But I thought the question was whether numbers were concepts or ideas, not whether the concept of numbers was an idea.

But the question for you, and for John Page, too, is why you believe that numbers must be mental. Have you any argument for that position? The cause of it seems to be that since numbers a not things you can see, smell, touch, hear, or taste, you think that means they have to be in the mind which you identity as the brain. But that isn't an argument. That's a motive. What we need is an argument for the proposition that numbers are "in the mind". Is there such an argument?

John Page

May 12, 2007, 08:12 PM

But the question for you, and for John Page, too, is why you believe that numbers must be mental. Have you any argument for that position?
Evidence includes -
Abnormal Brain Structure Linked to Spatial, Numerical Thinking Problems
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=159681&TICK=CHOP&STORY=/www/story/03-03-2005/0003114788&EDATE=Mar+3,+2005

Scientists Discover the Part of the Brain That Causes Some People to Be Lousy in Mathhttp://www.physorg.com/news11854.html

http://www.amazon.com/Number-Sense-Mind-Creates-Mathematics/dp/product-description/0195132408
and so on.....

....in the face of which can you demonstrate how numbers are accesible to the brain than anything other than a physicalist account?

kennethamy

May 12, 2007, 10:01 PM

Evidence includes -
Abnormal Brain Structure Linked to Spatial, Numerical Thinking Problems
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=159681&TICK=CHOP&STORY=/www/story/03-03-2005/0003114788&EDATE=Mar+3,+2005

Scientists Discover the Part of the Brain That Causes Some People to Be Lousy in Mathhttp://www.physorg.com/news11854.html

http://www.amazon.com/Number-Sense-Mind-Creates-Mathematics/dp/product-description/0195132408
and so on.....

....in the face of which can you demonstrate how numbers are accesible to the brain than anything other than a physicalist account?

I thought you held that number were ideas. No idea what you mean by "accessible to the brain".

TruthPrevails

May 13, 2007, 03:01 AM

I have no doubt that the concept of numbers is an idea. Concepts and ideas are pretty much the same. But I thought the question was whether numbers were concepts or ideas, not whether the concept of numbers was an idea. I'll rephrase, numbers are concepts or ideas. Numbers do not exist independent of the human mind (individual or groups).

But the question for you, and for John Page, too, is why you believe that numbers must be mental. Have you any argument for that position? The cause of it seems to be that since numbers a not things you can see, smell, touch, hear, or taste, you think that means they have to be in the mind which you identity as the brain. But that isn't an argument. That's a motive. What we need is an argument for the proposition that numbers are "in the mind". Is there such an argument?I would not use the statement "numbers are "in the mind"". The mind is not a container. Numbers are a resultant of neural processes within human consciousness.

Here's is the argument;
P1. I have asserted (you had agreed) the basic premise that all human activities are fundamentally brain and neural processes.

P2. Numbers first appeared to humanity consciousness as a mental activity. This occured when self-aware humans mentally delineated (a neural process) discrete objects from the continuous for evolutionary sake. These discrete objects are mentally manipulated in terms of numbers.

P3. Whatever that is termed as numbers are intersubjectively agreed on a group basis. Intersubjectivity is a critical factor here. There will be no numbers if there is no mentally sustained intersubjective agreements. (i have read where some researcher had found that certain existing tribes do not use numbers -still searching for the link).
C. Intersubjective agreements on numbers by the majority of humans is a human activity. Numbers are thus mental inventions.

Here is another,
A number is a mathematical concept used to describe and assess quantity. It is an abstract entity representing a quantity, used to express how many are being referred to, or how much there is of some thing or property; an arithmetical value corresponding to a particular quantity of something.Conceptualization is a mental activity, therefore numbers are basically mental manifestations.

What is 1 (one) in mathematical terms anyway?
It is just a useful emotional approximation of something to facilitate human survival and preservation of the specie.

When we see a bunch of dense molecules, we crudely called it an apple or "1 apple'. It will be closer to the truth if we can count and describe the position of the actual quantity of atoms, electrons, particles, wave or quarks of that bunch of so-called 'that 1 apple'. Thus the consciousness of one apple is just for practical sake. '1(One)' is just a practical and useful 'white lie'.

John Page

May 13, 2007, 08:16 AM

I thought you held that number were ideas. No idea what you mean by "accessible to the brain".
accessible to approx = known by

kennethamy

May 13, 2007, 10:31 AM

accessible to approx = known by

People know things. Brains do not: anymore than do legs or arms.

People know things using their brains, among other things (their senses, for instance).

kennethamy

May 13, 2007, 10:34 AM

I'll rephrase, numbers are concepts or ideas. Numbers do not exist independent of the human mind (individual or groups).

.

Then how come that when there were no people on earth, and therefore, there were no minds, there were at least two stars in the heavens?

John Page

May 13, 2007, 09:54 PM

People know things. Brains do not: anymore than do legs or arms.

People know things using their brains, among other things (their senses, for instance).
Well, I've posted some links that show brains are the parts of people that know things about math.

Can you help me understand why your statement "People know things using their brains, among other things (their senses, for instance)." is not contradictory to your statement "People know things. Brains do not: anymore than do legs or arms."?

What part of a person do you think it is that knows about math if it is not their brains?

kennethamy

May 13, 2007, 10:14 PM

Well, I've posted some links that show brains are the parts of people that know things about math.

Can you help me understand why your statement "People know things using their brains, among other things (their senses, for instance)." is not contradictory to your statement "People know things. Brains do not: anymore than do legs or arms."?

What part of a person do you think it is that knows about math if it is not their brains?

No part of a person knows anything. What makes you think that parts of people know things? Sounds pretty gruesome to me. I know things using (I suppose) my brain. That doesn't mean my brain knows anything any more than the fact that I use my tongue to speak means that it is my tongue that is doing the speaking.

Dante Alighieri

May 13, 2007, 10:55 PM

kennethamy

May 13, 2007, 11:01 PM

Did I erroneously use the word "predicate?" By predicate, I was referring to a property or relation. I was not referring to the words, but the referent. Is that an improper use of the word "predicate?"

And you are asking, who. It is hard to know whether you are talking about the term, or what the term refers to. But that is an important distinction. In philosophy the term "predicate" is used to refer (as you say) to a property (as when Kant says, existence in not a predicate.

But the sentence, "By predicate, I was referring to a property or relation." is not correct, since it should be written:
'By "predicate" , I was referring to a property or relation.'

Dante Alighieri

May 13, 2007, 11:04 PM

And you are asking, who. It is hard to know whether you are talking about the term, or what the term refers to. But that is an important distinction. In philosophy the term "predicate" is used to refer (as you say) to a property (as when Kant says, existence in not a predicate.

But the sentence, "By predicate, I was referring to a property or relation." is not correct, since it should be written:
'By "predicate" , I was referring to a property or relation.'

Well, I thought that the term "predicate" referred to properties and relations, thus, the phrasing of my original questions.

I'm wondering though that if propositions are material and thus did not exist before minds, does this mean that strict materialism in some sense results in this idea of an inexpressible, unknowable universe or something? Because if propositions are material, then I cannot see how a strict materialist can assert "Before minds, there were two stars."

TruthPrevails

May 13, 2007, 11:09 PM

Then how come that when there were no people on earth, and therefore, there were no minds, there were at least two stars in the heavens?How come? Because every human since the beginning had been gripped by fear of uncertainty and will grapple at anything to conjure certainty, even when there is no certainty. For example, God in one extreme and numbers in the other.
Numbers are processed in the logical part of the brain, but it is your emotional brain that drive the apparent existence and certainty of numbers.

Before humans and even now, the closer truths of any two stars you picked is that they were merely bunches/clusters of molecules churning and breaking up.

Another finer truth is that what you saw and numbered were 'historical' light waves. It is only something that twitch yours and every other human retina and the brain/mind/consciousness interpret as one and another star. Because they happened to cluster in a denser pattern, humans had conveniently & roughly quantified them for practical and communication sake.

Which is more real? Two stars (approximated) by the eyes/brain/mind/consciousness or just two clusters of molecules emitting light waves towards your eyes. I am sure you can describe your two stars in more real terms if you drill them down to the finer levels.

Numbers are just mental approximations intersubjectively agreed by a certain group of humans (majority) at this phase of evolution.

TruthPrevails

May 13, 2007, 11:35 PM

No part of a person knows anything. What makes you think that parts of people know things? Sounds pretty gruesome to me. I know things using (I suppose) my brain. That doesn't mean my brain knows anything any more than the fact that I use my tongue to speak means that it is my tongue that is doing the speaking.I have no problem understanding what John Page is asserting regarding the brain and knowledge. Your problem is that your thinking is too black & white (LEM). Probably due to a narrow range of knowledge about human nature.

Ofcourse, the physical brain and tongue cannot think and speak respectively. Come on, such a declaration is kindergarten stuff.

When anyone state that 'we 'know' anything using the brain', it is implied that the 'brain' is the critical part that drive the process of 'knowing'. When one refer to the 'brain' in this context, by default, it would refer to the brain-mind-consciousness which is active & alive, and sustain by a living human body.

Frankly to understand the full picture of the assertion that 'numbers are brain-based', you will need to understand workings of the brain, the mind, human consciousness, and everything about human nature in great depth. Sticking dogmatically to LEM, LNC which is created by fallible humans, will only keep you buoyantly on the surface of knowledge, with legs in the air and unable to dive in any deeper.

John Page

May 14, 2007, 08:42 AM

No part of a person knows anything.
What do you mean? There is zero basis for epistemology?
What makes you think that parts of people know things? Sounds pretty gruesome to me. I know things using (I suppose) my brain. That doesn't mean my brain knows anything any more than the fact that I use my tongue to speak means that it is my tongue that is doing the speaking.
In all cases of limb amputation the subjects subsequently know things. Any defects in their knowledge are to do with phantom limbs. If knowledge is not physically in the brain, how do you explain amnesia through brain malfunction?
The most well known amnesic patient is H.M. who had brain surgery in 1953 for epilepsy leaving him with dramatic anterograde amnesia (7). H.M. was unable to remember new information and events that occurred after his operation. His hippocampus was destroyed surgically in the course of operation to relieve the effects of epilepsy. The brain damage did not result in loss of learned motor skills, but the problem was with declarative memory (8). H.M. more specifically had organic amnesia with bilateral damage to his parahippocampal cortex, entorhinal cortex, and perirhinal cortex (9). The first scenario described above is an example of a patient who suffering memory loss from brain damage involving organic amnesia.

John Page

May 14, 2007, 08:45 AM

It is hard to know whether you are talking about the term, or what the term refers to.
C'mon kennethamy, Dante was explicit in his use of the term "predicate" so there is no reason for confusion. Check his original post.

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 10:17 AM

C'mon kennethamy, Dante was explicit in his use of the term "predicate" so there is no reason for confusion. Check his original post.

I just pointed out that it was difficult to tell, and that there were ways of making it clearer. And why do you care, anyway?

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 10:19 AM

What do you mean? There is zero basis for epistemology?

In all cases of limb amputation the subjects subsequently know things. Any defects in their knowledge are to do with phantom limbs. If knowledge is not physically in the brain, how do you explain amnesia through brain malfunction?

Epistemology has nothing to do with physiology or anatomy.

If you remove a brain from a human being, and you lay it on a table, it doesn't know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Amnesia is explained through brain malfunction because people need brains to remember things. Isn't that obvious? And people cannot eat unless they have throats to swallow with. But their throats don't eat, and their brains don't remember.

How can if be that you do not see that just because some part of the body is necessary for a person to do X, that it is not that part of the body that does X. If a male person uses his penis to have intercourse, it isn't his penis that is having intercourse. It is the male person. I don't really see how I can make the point clearer for you. I suppose that is what is called "being in the grip of a theory".

John Page

May 14, 2007, 10:23 AM

I just pointed out that it was difficult to tell, and that there were ways of making it clearer.
It wasn't difficult to tell as has been pointed out.
And why do you care, anyway?
I don't want you derailing this thread by cluttering it with non-issues.

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 10:30 AM

It wasn't difficult to tell as has been pointed out.

I don't want you derailing this thread by cluttering it with non-issues.

I note your wants and needs. But I don't consider you in authority, or able to decide what is a derailment or not. Is that hard to understand? How about this: my brain doesn't consider you an authority. Is that better?

John Page

May 14, 2007, 10:30 AM

Epistemology has nothing to do with physiology or anatomy.
How do you know that? Some form of dualism?
If you remove a brain from a human being, and you lay it on a table, it doesn't know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador.
If the brain is still alive, I think you will find it does. There was a pretty gruesome thread a while back where the contributors pooled sources on evidence that people are still 'alive' inside their heads after decapitation. Apparently there was an experiment carried our during the French revolution where the victims were asked to make signals with their eyelids after the blade dropped.
Amnesia is explained through brain malfunction because people need brains to remember things. Isn't that obvious? And people cannot eat unless they have throats to swallow with. But their throats don't eat, and their brains don't remember.
So you agree the brain is used to remember things. :wave:

Does your knowledge of philosophy extend to information extend to what is it that knows the thing remembered?

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 10:40 AM

How do you know that? Some form of dualism?

If the brain is still alive, I think you will find it does. There was a pretty gruesome thread a while back where the contributors pooled sources on evidence that people are still 'alive' inside their heads after decapitation. Apparently there was an experiment carried our during the French revolution where the victims were asked to make signals with their eyelids after the blade dropped.

So you agree the brain is used to remember things. :wave:

Does your knowledge of philosophy extend to information extend to what is it that knows the thing remembered?

The way I know that numismatics has nothing to do with cooking.

What do you mean "admit"? I assert that brain is used to remember things. What has that to do with it. And I also point out that the brain is not who remembers anymore than the penis is who engages in intercourse. The brain is not a "who", but a "what"; just as the penis is not a "who" but a "what".

It is the person who knows what is remembered. Don't you know that? (And it isn't "what" knows what is remembered: it is "who" knows what is remembered). The question isn't, "what kissed Mary?" The question is, "Who kissed Mary".

John Page

May 14, 2007, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by kennethamy
Epistemology has nothing to do with physiology or anatomy.
How do you know that? Some form of dualism?
The way I know that numismatics has nothing to do with cooking.
And how, exactly is that? What is the basis of your epistemology?
What do you mean "admit"? I assert that brain is used to remember things. What has that to do with it.
You previously posted "No part of a person knows anything. What makes you think that parts of people know things? " Now we agree that the brain remembers things. In my book, if somebody remembers something, they know it.
And I also point out that the brain is not who remembers anymore than the penis is who engages in intercourse.
Your penis doesn't have a name?

It is the person who knows what is remembered. Don't you know that?
Then where is this person, where are they hiding? How is the person that knows things related to the brain that remembers the things that the person knows?

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 11:31 AM

And how, exactly is that? What is the basis of your epistemology?

You previously posted "No part of a person knows anything. What makes you think that parts of people know things? " Now we agree that the brain remembers things. In my book, if somebody remembers something, they know it.

Your penis doesn't have a name?

Then where is this person, where are they hiding? How is the person that knows things related to the brain that remembers the things that the person knows?

There is no general "basis" that I know of. Why need it have a "basis". I take each question as it comes up, and think about it, and try to come up with a plausible reply. I am not a "foundationalist".

I don't think that parts of people remember things any more than that they know things; as I have also written.

I am that person, and I am not, I assure you, hiding.

My penis is called, "penis". If you like, you can baptize it. I suppose you are a person, and that you know a lot of persons, so I assume you know what a person is.

John Page

May 14, 2007, 11:49 AM

There is no general "basis" that I know of. Why need it have a "basis". I take each question as it comes up, and think about it, and try to come up with a plausible reply. I am not a "foundationalist".
OK, so you have no specific epistemology which terms you, I guess, a pragmatist. The issue I have with that is where epistemology is concerned, pragmatism leads to idealism.
I don't think that parts of people remember things any more than that they know things; as I have also written.
In response to the clinical evidence on amnesia you asserted that brains remember. Or had you forgotten that?
I am that person, and I am not, I assure you, hiding.
But your personhood is an invention of your brain/central nervous system.
My penis is called, "penis". If you like, you can baptize it.
Dick.
I suppose you are a person, and that you know a lot of persons, so I assume you know what a person is.
Yes. My identity, ego, or self-identity if you wish, is my brain's sense of who I am. Regarding other people, my brain knows to distinguish them from their different physical appearances and behaviors.

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 12:02 PM

OK, so you have no specific epistemology which terms you, I guess, a pragmatist. The issue I have with that is where epistemology is concerned, pragmatism leads to idealism.

In response to the clinical evidence on amnesia you asserted that brains remember. Or had you forgotten that?

But your personhood is an invention of your brain/central nervous system.

Dick.

Yes. My identity, ego, or self-identity if you wish, is my brain's sense of who I am. Regarding other people, my brain knows to distinguish them from their different physical appearances and behaviors.

<edit> There are just that many pigeon holes, and everything as to fit into one, neatly. "The grip of a theory".

I didn't know my "personhood" (that's a word?) was an invention at all. But, in any case, brains don't invent, people invent. You are really a poet. You personify brains, the way the troubadours of the 14th and 15th centuries, used to personify their hearts. It is rather sweet in its own way. Only, it is not philosophy.

John Page

May 14, 2007, 12:42 PM

You simply adore labels. I guess they are a kind of security blanket. There are just that many pigeon holes, and everything as to fit into one, neatly. "The grip of a theory".
Content free. If you wish to be label resistant that's fine by me. Seems you don't have an epistemology or ontology, though.
I didn't know my "personhood" (that's a word?) was an invention at all.
Really? Reductionism? Ever looked at identity disorder in any depth?
But, in any case, brains don't invent, people invent.
You haven't answered the question about how a "person" (term not yet defined by you) has access to the memories that (you have asserted) exist within the brain. Do you have an answer to this important ontological question?
You are really a poet.
Thank You.
You personify brains, the way the troubadours of the 14th and 15th centuries, used to personify their hearts. It is rather sweet in its own way. Only, it is not philosophy.
Personify? I believe that the location of personal identity is in the brain, if thats what you mean.

Do you have any evidence to suppose that personhood is anything other than a faculty of the brain as indicated in the following link? http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060211/bob9.asp

This is reality waving at you -> :wave:

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 12:59 PM

Personify? I believe that the location of personal identity is in the brain, if thats what you mean.

Do you have any evidence to suppose that personhood is anything other than a faculty of the brain as indicated in the following link? http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060211/bob9.asp

This is reality waving at you -> :wave:

The only hood I wear if my rain hat, and that is when it is raining. This has become tiresome. Philosophy is not physiology or neuroscience. Let's leave it at that.

John Page

May 14, 2007, 01:26 PM

This has become tiresome.
Because you are unable to provide coherent and consistent answers to the issues set forth in this and other threads. I suggest further study.
Philosophy is not physiology or neuroscience. Let's leave it at that.
I think you are a closet dualist and are running away from a debate based on facts and knowledge.

In another thread you expressly agreed that people use their brains to think. Philosophizing is thinking. By disregarding the findings of physiology and neuroscience you are likely stuck in a philosophical age pondering 'first principles' which are ultimately the product of your brain activity.

Look, here is a link to the Internet Enyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Personal Identity. http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/person-i.htm#H5. You will see that it specifically raises issues of the brain citerion, identity over time and, of course, contingent propositions.

The difference between written laws and unwritten laws is merely that the former are memorialized in writing. Both originate from brain activity.

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 01:44 PM

Because you are unable to provide coherent and consistent answers to the issues set forth in this and other threads. I suggest further study.

I think you are a closet dualist and are running away from a debate based on facts and knowledge.

In another thread you expressly agreed that people use their brains to think. Philosophizing is thinking. By disregarding the findings of physiology and neuroscience you are likely stuck in a philosophical age pondering 'first principles' which are ultimately the product of your brain activity.

Look, here is a link to the Internet Enyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Personal Identity. http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/person-i.htm#H5. You will see that it specifically raises issues of the brain citerion, identity over time and, of course, contingent propositions.

The difference between written laws and unwritten laws is merely that the former are memorialized in writing. Both originate from brain activity.

I am not disregarding anything that I know of. I am just pointing out that philosophy, and in particular, the philosophy of mind, is not reducible to physiology nor neuro-physiology. I am sure that brains are pretty much all alike, and that the criterion of personal identity is not the brain itself. I have ((I hope) a brain, but I am not identical with my brain. I don't know what you think the fact that there are contingent propositions has to do with the matter. But then, I don't think you know what a contingent proposition is. I agree that laws originate in brain activity. But disagree that laws are brain activity.

John Page

May 14, 2007, 02:33 PM

I am not disregarding anything that I know of. I am just pointing out that philosophy, and in particular, the philosophy of mind, is not reducible to physiology nor neuro-physiology.
I didn't say it was. What I am questioning is how you have an ontology by disregarding the finds of such scientific endeavors, especially regarding the underlying nature of personal identity.
I have ((I hope) a brain, but I am not identical with my brain.
kennethamy yet again posts an unsupported opinion in response to scientific evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
But then, I don't think you know what a contingent proposition is.
:D
I agree that laws originate in brain activity. But disagree that laws are brain activity.
What else could they be? You already agreed that the brain remembers things which must include unwritten laws.

kennethamy

May 14, 2007, 03:23 PM

I

What else could they be? You already agreed that the brain remembers things which must include unwritten laws.

I never said that. We remember things. Brains remember nothing, since only persons remember things, and brains are not persons. QED

law1 /lɔ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[law] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.

There is no definition of "law" that says, that law is "brain activity". Have you some different dictionary?

John Page

May 14, 2007, 03:56 PM

I assert that brain is used to remember things.
I never said that. We remember things. Brains remember nothing, since only persons remember things, and brains are not persons. QED
You're right. Apologies for misquote. But as I've asked before:

1. "Who the fuck are "we"?". What evidence do you have that personal identity is separate from our brains to gainsay the research examples I posted earlier.
2. Please provide evidence that shows that the brains are not doing the remembering by one or more processes known as brain activity. (Have you forgotten my post on amnesia again?

law1 /lɔ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[law] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.

There is no definition of "law" that says, that law is "brain activity". Have you some different dictionary?
Really? How do you think customs and policies come about? We've already established that the Constitution is the memorialized form of people's thoughts as indicated by defintion #2 above. To repeat my question, "What else could they be?"

TruthPrevails

May 14, 2007, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by kennethamy
I have ((I hope) a brain, but I am not identical with my brain. <edit>

As i had mentioned earlier to relate to a living person, we need to take into account the physical brain, mind, consciousness, genetics and a whole load of other knowledge.

However, the individual's specific physical brain and it's structure is sufficient to identify and relate to the specific individual. Just as with fingerprints and DNA, it is possible to have a 'brainprint'. The brain have 100 billions neurons, each neurons have an average of 10,000 synapses. Now, just imaging the number of possible permutations of the neural connections in the human brain.

The pattern of neural connections is thus specific to an individual and no others. Currently we have FMRIs to produce images of brain connectivities and active areas. Eventually scientists would be able to develop machines to image the connectivities down to the neuronal levels.

From a narrower perspective, the specific brain neural structures = specific individual. So you can be identical to your living brain. I am sure there are means a person can be identified with his/her dead brain as well.

kennethamy

May 15, 2007, 08:37 AM

<edit>

As i had mentioned earlier to relate to a living person, we need to take into account the physical brain, mind, consciousness, genetics and a whole load of other knowledge.

However, the individual's specific physical brain and it's structure is sufficient to identify and relate to the specific individual. Just as with fingerprints and DNA, it is possible to have a 'brainprint'. The brain have 100 billions neurons, each neurons have an average of 10,000 synapses. Now, just imaging the number of possible permutations of the neural connections in the human brain.

The pattern of neural connections is thus specific to an individual and no others. Currently we have FMRIs to produce images of brain connectivities and active areas. Eventually scientists would be able to develop machines to image the connectivities down to the neuronal levels.

From a narrower perspective, the specific brain neural structures = specific individual. So you can be identical to your living brain. I am sure there are means a person can be identified with his/her dead brain as well.

My fingerprints, and my DNA seem to have all the properties you ascribe to my brain, but I am not identical with my fingerprints, nor with my DNA.