Numbers Do Not Exists - Piraha Tribe

[TruthPrevails]

As we have been debating whether numbers exist independently of the mind or not, here is a significant article that warrant special attention for those who insist that numbers exist independently of our mind.

This is also in respond to my earlier reply to Kennethamy.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4446637#post4446637
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).

http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html
1+1=2. Mathematics doesn't get any more basic than this, but even 1+1 would stump the brightest minds among the Piraha tribe of the Amazon.

A study appearing today in the journal Science reports that the hunter-gatherers seem to be the only group of humans known to have no concept of numbering and counting.

Not only that, but adult Piraha apparently can't learn to count or understand the concept of numbers or numerals, even when they asked anthropologists to teach them and have been given basic math lessons for months at a time.

Their lack of enumeration skills is just one of the mental and cultural traits that has led scientists who have visited the 300 members of the tribe to describe the Piraha as "something from Mars."

p.s. gramm corr: OP should be Numbers Do Not Exist - Piraha Tribe.

[openlyatheist]

There was an excellent PBS documentary narrated by Eric Idle on the history of numbers; how they were invented, how some cultures do not have certain number concepts. I believe they examine the very same behavior in Australian aboriginies.

Unfortunately, I have had no luck finding it on PBS.org, Amazon, or Google. :banghead:

[Preno]

No, intersubjective agreement has nothing to do with the existence of numbers. Even if every person on the face of Earth believe that 23*59 = 1523, that wouldn't make it true. This "consensus theory of truth" (or whatever it's called) is utter non-sense.

[TruthPrevails]

No, intersubjective agreement has nothing to do with the existence of numbers. Even if every person on the face of Earth believe that 23*59 = 1523, that wouldn't make it true. There are different types of intersubjective agreement here.

1. Intersubjective agreement on what independent numbers are; 1, 2,3 ...

2. Intersubjective agreement on the laws of mathematics; 23*59 =1375.
Note 23.49*59.49=1397.42 but it is intersubjectively agreeable that it can also be rounded and resulting in 23*59=1375.

This "consensus theory of truth" (or whatever it's called) is utter non-sense.The 'intersubjective-verifiability of science is in a similar in different shade to numbers. Are you saying science is utter non-sense as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability
Intersubjective verifiability is the capacity of a concept to be readily and accurately communicated between different individuals ("intersubjectively"), and to be reproduced under varying circumstances for the purposes of verification. It is a core principle of empirical, scientific investigation.

[Preno]

No, I'm saying that being intersubjective agreement has little to do with truth. Saying that intersubjective verifiability is necessary for scientific investigation is not the same as saying that intersubjective consensus is a criterion for determining truth. It is not, and it's easy to think of myriads of counter-examples.

I suppose you should state your idea more explicitly. If you are saying that because there is not an agreement among all human beings currently alive on the existence of x, then x does not exist (or the word 'x' is not meaningful), that's patently false. And if that's not what you are saying, what, then?

[Bobinius]

No, I'm saying that being intersubjective agreement has little to do with truth. Saying that intersubjective verifiability is necessary for scientific investigation is not the same as saying that intersubjective consensus is a criterion for determining truth. It is not, and it's easy to think of myriads of counter-examples.

I suppose you should state your idea more explicitly. If you are saying that because there is not an agreement among all human beings currently alive on the existence of x, then x does not exist (or the word 'x' is not meaningful), that's patently false. And if that's not what you are saying, what, then?

I am not a fan of the intersubjective nature of truth. But, how can you epistemically speaking, ever evade intersubjectivity? Any change in truth is a matter of intersubjectivity also.

[kennethamy]

As we have been debating whether numbers exist independently of the mind or not, here is a significant article that warrant special attention for those who insist that numbers exist independently of our mind.

This is also in respond to my earlier reply to Kennethamy.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4446637#post4446637


http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html


p.s. gramm corr: OP should be Numbers Do Not Exist - Piraha Tribe.

How would the fact that some do not have the concept or the idea of x show that there was no x? If a tribe had no concept or idea of atoms, would that show there were no atoms?

[Antiplastic]

How would the fact that some do not have the concept or the idea of x show that there was no x? If a tribe had no concept or idea of atoms, would that show there were no atoms?

Indeed, I have trouble interpreting the OP any other way than as making this silly argument. What is relevant is not whether some group fails to develop a sophisticated mathematics, but whether those groups which do can still do maths without quantifying over things called "numbers". Surprisingly, it turns out that we can.

[untermensche]

How would the fact that some do not have the concept or the idea of x show that there was no x? If a tribe had no concept or idea of atoms, would that show there were no atoms?
The OP says that numbers are not inherent to the universe. Not something humans discovered, but something a few humans at one time by chance invented.

But using people that have no conception of number is not a valid argument.

Just like using people with no conception of charge, electricity, and magnetism, could not prove that these were not an inherent property of the universe.

[kennethamy]

The OP says that numbers are not inherent to the universe. Not something humans discovered, but something a few humans at one time by chance invented.

But using people that have no conception of number is not a valid argument.

Just like using people with no conception of charge, electricity, and magnetism, could not prove that these were not an inherent property of the universe.

I know his view, but his argument is simply rubbish. Truth may prevail, but logic clearly falls flat on its face.

[cpollett]

I would be very skeptical of the word of one anthropologist concerning what remote tribes do or do not know. It seems that information about this Piraha tribe in the original post comes from mostly one source -- not to invoke the shade of Margaret Mead or anything.

[kennethamy]

I would be very skeptical of the word of one anthropologist concerning what remote tribes do or do not know. It seems that information about this Piraha tribe in the original post comes from mostly one source -- not to invoke the shade of Margaret Mead or anything.

But even if it is true, it does not imply that numbers don't exist.

[cpollett]

But even if it is true, it does not imply that numbers don't exist.

I agree it has nothing to do whether or not numbers exist. It might have something to do with whether there is a number part of the brain --or at least how this part of the brain works. From what I have read, most people think there is a number module to the mind. According to the Wikipedia article the Piraha language is used as a counterexample to Chomskian notions of a universal grammar because it supposedly has no recursion. Without recursion you can't really define the natural numbers, so at least whoever is arguing this is consistent. There are brain injuries that can cause people to lose their number sense. I can't remember if the part of the brain responsible for numbers is co-located near that responsible for language or not. In any case, if these people truly had no sense of numbers or the ability to learn it after a certain age it would probably be testable using MRI's.

[kennethamy]

I agree it has nothing to do whether or not numbers exist. It might have something to do with whether there is a number part of the brain --or at least how this part of the brain works. From what I have read, most people think there is a number module to the mind. According to the Wikipedia article the Piraha language is used as a counterexample to Chomskian notions of a universal grammar because it supposedly has no recursion. Without recursion you can't really define the natural numbers, so at least whoever is arguing this is consistent. There are brain injuries that can cause people to lose their number sense. I can't remember if the part of the brain responsible for numbers is co-located near that responsible for language or not. In any case, if these people truly had no sense of numbers or the ability to learn it after a certain age it would probably be testable using MRI's.

There has been a lot of discussion about that tribe. (There was a long article in the New Yorker Magazine about it a number of weeks ago). There is some dispute about the data. It wasn't they did not have a sense of numbers. It was (if I recall) that they did not count above the number 3.

[TruthPrevails]

No, I'm saying that being intersubjective agreement has little to do with truth. Saying that intersubjective verifiability is necessary for scientific investigation is not the same as saying that intersubjective consensus is a criterion for determining truth. The OP did not indicate specifically on truth. It is more about knowledge and existence of numbers.

I agree that intersubjective agreement do not guarantee acceptable truths, but all known truths are agreed intersubjectively by humans.

[TruthPrevails]

How would the fact that some do not have the concept or the idea of x show that there was no x? If a tribe had no concept or idea of atoms, would that show there were no atoms?So you do not accept your logical LNC. This is just an example i brought up to bring to the attention of others and to support my hypothesis that numbers do not exist without the mind. I am not insisting that this is the sole research that will support my hypothesis. I have provided and argued my hypothesis on non-existence of numbers extensively in my other postings.

I bet you that, if members of this tribe are brainwashed long enough, they will slowly began to understand numbers. Numbers are inventions of the human mind agreed intersubjectively.

Just as i had stated that numbers do not exist independent of the human mind, atoms also do not exists independently of the human mind.

What is an atom anyway? It is just an object at a certain level of existence agreed by intersubjectively verification. Humans detected some consistent behaviors and patterns in solids, then they intersubjectively agreed to call it an 'atom' to facilitate communication and harness it's power.

Todate, no one had been able to find out what an atom is fundamentally made of.

You had agreed that all thinking is brain-based.
When you, I and all humans think of an atom, a number or any_thing, it just a mental activity relied upon interubjectively at present or in the past. 'Things' do not exist independent of the human mind.

[RexT]

Since the OP specifically questions whether numbers would exist without some mind that understands numbers, and since numbers are only one way to track and distinguish between different kinds and quantities of things; the answer must be no. Numbers would not exist without a mind, but different kinds and quantities of things could exist without someone to count them using numbers.

Rex

[Preno]

The OP did not indicate specifically on truth. It is more about knowledge and existence of numbers.

I agree that intersubjective agreement do not guarantee acceptable truths, but all known truths are agreed intersubjectively by humans.Of course they are not. There have been many people that believe pi is rational, just like there are people that believe that man never landed on the Moon. There are 'known truths' that are not agreed intersubjectively by humans.

[Chris Porter]

Of course they are not. There have been many people that believe pi is rational, just like there are people that believe that man never landed on the Moon. There are 'known truths' that are not agreed intersubjectively by humans.

What might they be, for example? I'm thinking the issue is that intersubjectivity is necessary, not sufficient, condition for truth to be known.

[Preno]

Uh, the ones I just mentioned, for example? There is also a large number of truths that only one person in the world knows (for example, how many fingers am I holding up right now).

Another reason why defining truth intersubjectively is non-sensical is because you need to already assume the truth of some propositions (like "Chris Porter exists") in order to be able to determine that there are other 'subjects'.

[Juma]

numbers are a human invention in the same way that words are a human invention. That is, the human body has such a construction that allows words and numbers to be part of the toolset of the human mind.

There are no objects or relations out there. Objects and relations are constructed by your mind to make you able to grasp the flood of sensory data. But without objects there are no numbers, without relations there are no mathematics.

[Preno]

numbers are a human invention in the same way that words are a human invention. That is, the human body has such a construction that allows words and numbers to be part of the toolset of the human mind.

There are no objects or relations out there. Objects and relations are constructed by your mind to make you able to grasp the flood of sensory data. But without objects there are no numbers, without relations there are no mathematics.That's all fine and dandy, and I would certainly subscribe to some similar view for most practical purposes, but the fact is that there is no such thing as "sensory data in and of itself". Sensory data cannot be separated from what we know - it is partly a result of an unconscious active interpretation. Thus, I don't see a grayish parallelogramish area in the middle of a larger bluish parallelogramish area, but a book on the couch. And it is a well-known phenomenon that perception may differ according to what one expects.

[anders]

I am not sufficiently interested in the Pirahã to dive into all the more or less absurd claims about their language, which all seem to derive from a certain Peter Gordon from Columbia University who spent a few months in the Amazon.

Search http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/ for Pirahã (works even without the nasalization mark) if you're interested.

[Blueskyboris]

Juma,
numbers are a human invention in the same way that words are a human invention. That is, the human body has such a construction that allows words and numbers to be part of the toolset of the human mind.

There are no objects or relations out there. Objects and relations are constructed by your mind to make you able to grasp the flood of sensory data. But without objects there are no numbers, without relations there are no mathematics.1) I'm not sure why you are using the word "invention". Words and numbers existed before self-concious inventions occured. In fact, without the development of word and numbers in self-concsiousness, invention would have been impossible.

2) Yes, and that construction seems to be the result of the Others: mother and father. And the Others seem to be the result of what is "out there": digested food and water, atoms, etc. So what do you mean by "construction" in relation to "invention"?

3) I will agree that the ability to grasp objects and relations of objects exists purely in your mind, but I will reject that "there are no objects or relations out there". If everything "out there" was a uniform, gray soup, your brain would not be able to grasp any object by "gray soup". Instead, there are relations between very different objects that exist (whatever they might be metaphysically) beyond our senses. For example, I can grasp the difference between this banana I am eating and the computer screen I am looking at. They are different objects in my mind and "out there". The object in my head is created by the objects "out there" by means of sensory data brought in by the senses and impressed upon my gray matter.

The subjective is objective, folks. You can't have one without the other. All self-conscious beings are objects; complex objects, but objects all the same. We are things. All subjects exist in a world of objects. Subjects are objects created by objects.

If my prose confuses you, the entire argument, or experience, can be expressed visually with three dots and two arrows: . -> . -> . The first dot is the world of objects: atoms, molecules, biological matter, etc. The first arrow is the creation of self-conciousness by the world of objects: abiogensis, evolution. The second dot is the self-conscious subject: humans, dolphins, ETs. The second arrow is the self-conscious subject viewing the world of objects with eyes, nose, hands, or ears. And the last dot we returns us to the world of objects.

[Blueskyboris]

Juma,
Objects and relations are constructed by your mind to make you able to grasp the flood of sensory data. They are created by the mind via basic fomulae of Logic that underlies all biological brain functions. Without sensory data, which is created, initially, but the objects out there, there could be no "objects constructed by the mind".

But without objects there are no numbers, without relations there are no mathematics. This is a Humean positions that simply does not make sense. Hume was right in arguing that the objects that we perceive create "impressions" in the mind. But he was wrong in arguing that it is the association of those "impressions" in the mind that creates Logic, mathematics, and Truth in general. In order for impressions to be differentiated from each other in the first instance there has to be a basic binary logic in place that operates the brain: 0 1 or + -. A cat, for example, can differentiate the difference between a mouse and it owner, not because of its prior experience as a simple association of impressions in the mind, but because those impressions have been differentiated by a very basic operating logic that is intertwined initmately with all its senses.

[TruthPrevails]

Uh, the ones I just mentioned, for example? There is also a large number of truths that only one person in the world knows (for example, how many fingers am I holding up right now).Note your statememt is only valid conditioned upon what is intersubjectively agreed as 'fingers'. The quantified number(s) also need to be intersubjectively agreed.

Would i be wrong to answer your question as such;
You are extending some portion of meat, skins, thin bones, keratin from your palm. Now matter how many finger you are holding up, my answer will still represents that truth.
I can provide the same truth of your extended finger is so many ways. Heard of 'lateral thinking'. It takes intersubjectivity to agree on which perspective of truth are we refering to. This applies to all known truths.

[Juma]

That's all fine and dandy, and I would certainly subscribe to some similar view for most practical purposes, but the fact is that there is no such thing as "sensory data in and of itself". Sensory data cannot be separated from what we know - it is partly a result of an unconscious active interpretation.

I agree fully with this.


Thus, I don't see a grayish parallelogramish area in the middle of a larger bluish parallelogramish area, but a book on the couch. And it is a well-known phenomenon that perception may differ according to what one expects.


I think you misinterpret me, and I dont blame you, I was certainly not perfectly clear about sensory data (and probably never will).

I dont think that we experience sensory data. I think that objects is a creation of the mind to make sensory data useful. Objects are a representation of a structure detected in the sensory data. That what we experience are then these representations.

I see it like this:

sensory data are created in our sensory organs. The lowest level of the sensory data consists simply of chemical concentrations, potentials etc. The nervous system extracts information from this by identifying structures etc. From this it forms an internal structure, a virtual model, that simplifies the handling of the data. This is internal structures are what we experience as objects.

Let me take an example: In a dot-stereogram image you see only a "grey mass" until your eyes focus on the correct (separate) spots. Then objects appear "out of thin air". These objects has been created by our mind and has no direct representation "out there".

Thus my conclusion is: Objects are entirely an creation of our nervous system. It is true that objects represents some kind of structure "out-there" but those structures are not objects.

[Juma]

Juma,
1) I'm not sure why you are using the word "invention".

Note that the interpretation of the word "invention" is not central to what I say, "construction" is.

What I want to say is that numbers are close to language and both are made possible by evolution and thus there are no magical connection between "what is out there" and how we represent it in our minds.

Juma,
Words and numbers existed before self-concious inventions occured.

In fact, without the development of word and numbers in self-concsiousness, invention would have been impossible.

And your evidence for this is? I find no such connection between language/numbers and invention. language and numbers will boots the inventions but why should they be necessary?

Juma,
3) I will agree that the ability to grasp objects and relations of objects exists purely in your mind, but I will reject that "there are no objects or relations out there". If everything "out there" was a uniform, gray soup, your brain would not be able to grasp any object by "gray soup". Instead, there are relations between very different objects that exist (whatever they might be metaphysically) beyond our senses.

"grey-soup-out-there". is not the only alternative to "objects-out-there".
Objects are our brains representation of structures found in the sensory data. I dont deny that there is some sort of structure in the world-out-there, just that whatever it is it aint objects. To say that there are objects in the real world is similar to say that dogs have three letters: "d", "o", "g". Its a confusion of what is represented with what it represents.

Juma,
For example, I can grasp the difference between this banana I am eating and the computer screen I am looking at. They are different objects in my mind and "out there".

But you cannot see the difference of the structures "out-there" since you cannot observe the structures out there. You can only observe the representation the brain makes of the sensory data that are created in you sensory organs.

Juma,
The object in my head is created by the objects "out there" by means of sensory data brought in by the senses and impressed upon my gray matter.

Yes, very close to what I want to say, but...and its a major but:

What you call "objects "out-there"" are only projections of you brains interpretation. In many cases it makes perfectly sense to talk about some of the structures "out-there" as objects but when discussing technical matter as "does numbers exist" then its important to make the distinction.

Juma,
If my prose confuses you, the entire argument, or experience, can be expressed visually with three dots and two arrows: . -> . -> . The first dot is the world of objects: atoms, molecules, biological matter, etc. The first arrow is the creation of self-conciousness by the world of objects: abiogensis, evolution. The second dot is the self-conscious subject: humans, dolphins, ETs. The second arrow is the self-conscious subject viewing the world of objects with eyes, nose, hands, or ears. And the last dot we returns us to the world of objects.

I will try to explain what I mean in your own language but you will need a third arrow:
. -> . -> . -> .
The first dot is the world "out-there". (no objects yet, but only some sort of structure)
The first arrow is the creation of self-concousness by the world-out-there
The second dot is the self-conscious subject.
The second arrow is the self-conscious viewing the minds representation of the world-out-there (here may be objects)
The third dot is the nervous systems representation of the world-out-there.
The third arrow is the nervous system interacting with the world -out-there.

(Note: Using your way of expressing this makes it look like I say thing like that "the self-conscious" is something else than the "nervous system" which is not a view I support. The "self conscious" belongs to the processes of the complex called the nervous system)

And again. It may look like splitting hairs, but what could be more like hair splitting then discussing if numbers exists...

[Huon]

Numbers do exist in a civilisation of sheperds. It seems that in a civilization of hunters-gatherers, such as that of the Piraha, numbers are not defined. Perhaps, when we "see" two identical situations, they "see" one situation A and one (different) situation B, due to details which we would not consider meaningful.

[TruthPrevails]

What you call "objects "out-there"" are only projections of you brains interpretation. In many cases it makes perfectly sense to talk about some of the structures "out-there" as objects but when discussing technical matter as "does numbers exist" then its important to make the distinction.I agree with your views.
Bats that use sonar would have a different projection than humans even when both are focussing on the same structures "out-there".
Living things with microscopic feelers would have different projections.

We humans cannot be too arrogant to claim that we are the only one having the ability to interpret an object as-it-is.
Whatever humans established as truths, they are arrived at based on intersubjective consensus.

[Preno]

Note your statememt is only valid conditioned upon what is intersubjectively agreed as 'fingers'. The quantified number(s) also need to be intersubjectively agreed.

Would i be wrong to answer your question as such;
You are extending some portion of meat, skins, thin bones, keratin from your palm. Now matter how many finger you are holding up, my answer will still represents that truth.
I can provide the same truth of your extended finger is so many ways. Heard of 'lateral thinking'. It takes intersubjectivity to agree on which perspective of truth are we refering to. This applies to all known truths.I'm not sure I understood, but be that as it may, I was extending two fingers, not one, not three, not six. That the sentence "I was extending two fingers" typed on this occasion is true is determined by the meaning of the construction in English, so insofar as English is an intersubjective entity, you are quite correct. I don't understand what this trivial observation has to do with the existence of numbers.
I dont think that we experience sensory data. I think that objects is a creation of the mind to make sensory data useful. Objects are a representation of a structure detected in the sensory data. That what we experience are then these representations.My turn to say that I agree.

The only catch is that this:
Thus my conclusion is: Objects are entirely an creation of our nervous system. It is true that objects represents some kind of structure "out-there" but those structures are not objects.cannot be true of all objects. Our nervous system is also an object we perceive through our senses, thus, it would follow that 'the nervous system is entirely a creation of our nervous system'. Which does not make sense. If we take what we have learned about our anatomy using our senses, then we could probably say that for most other objects, they are in some sense 'creations of our nervous system' (there is also a problem involving the fact that we need some of those 'other objects' in order to determine our anatomy).

[Juma]

The only catch is that this ... cannot be true of all objects. Our nervous system is also an object we perceive through our senses,

Note that we cannot observe the full extent of the nervous system from the inside. As an object it can only be observed from the outside, as in another beings.The reality behind what we call the nervous system belongs to the world-out-there where there are no objects. We can only observe the nervous system as an object in the same way as we observer another persons nervous system. What we internally experience is necessarly created by the nervous system, since we cannot experience anything else.

[Preno]

Right, that's what I was getting at.

[Blueskyboris]

Note that the interpretation of the word "invention" is not central to what I say, "construction" is.

What I want to say is that numbers are close to language and both are made possible by evolution and thus there are no magical connection between "what is out there" and how we represent it in our minds. Who said anything about a "magical connection"? I am only asserting that what we see corresponds to what is out there (at least in basic visual impressions, I mean; there is no doubt that the senses filter the information though what we call the "personality", with all its attributes, so there is no perfect correspondence).

[Blueskyboris]

And your evidence for this is? I find no such connection between language/numbers and invention. language and numbers will boots the inventions but why should they be necessary? I don't think providing evidence on an informal philosophy internet forum is feasible. This is not a formal academic debate.

Why you think there is no such connection between numbers and invention? At one point in time there were no inventions and numbers and then later there were. It seems to me that the development of numbers and invention go hand it hand. Before numbers you had a simple binary system existing - a system that exists in all organism - yes and no. For a cat, you are either a dog or not a dog, based on a series of sensory data which say, basically, to the cat's brains, yes, no, yes, no, yes. A cat's brain is constantly looking for predators and prey (if you watch a cat they seem to be constantly watching for something), so all sensory inputs are constantly being "yes-noed".

Anyway, numbers are derived from this basic yes-no biological system. In fact, it seems that "the I" is derived from it as well. Because you can't have an "I" without a yes or a no. I am Blueskyboris, not Juma. Yes, no.


"grey-soup-out-there". is not the only alternative to "objects-out-there".
Objects are our brains representation of structures found in the sensory data. I dont deny that there is some sort of structure in the world-out-there, just that whatever it is it aint objects. To say that there are objects in the real world is similar to say that dogs have three letters: "d", "o", "g". Its a confusion of what is represented with what it represents. Not at all. I am not arguing that the image of the dog in my mind and the actual dog are identical. I am arguing that the basic impression of the dog in my mind corresponds, basically, with the actual dog. The sensory is filter through my person and interpreted, which can change the dog image not at all, significantly, or insignificantly.


But you cannot see the difference of the structures "out-there" since you cannot observe the structures out there. You can only observe the representation the brain makes of the sensory data that are created in you sensory organs. I agree. Completely. But you are making one mistake. You are forgetting inter-subjective communication. We can talk about the banana, comparing each other's sensory data.

What you call "objects "out-there"" are only projections of you brains interpretation. In many cases it makes perfectly sense to talk about some of the structures "out-there" as objects but when discussing technical matter as "does numbers exist" then its important to make the distinction. Yes, you are right. And let me say that I am enjoying your response. You are clearly thinking.



I will try to explain what I mean in your own language but you will need a third arrow:
. -> . -> . -> .
The first dot is the world "out-there". (no objects yet, but only some sort of structure)
The first arrow is the creation of self-concousness by the world-out-there
The second dot is the self-conscious subject.
The second arrow is the self-conscious viewing the minds representation of the world-out-there (here may be objects)
The third dot is the nervous systems representation of the world-out-there.
The third arrow is the nervous system interacting with the world -out-there.

(Note: Using your way of expressing this makes it look like I say thing like that "the self-conscious" is something else than the "nervous system" which is not a view I support. The "self conscious" belongs to the processes of the complex called the nervous system)

And again. It may look like splitting hairs, but what could be more like hair splitting then discussing if numbers exists... No, no, you have only expanded on my argument. The third arrow, just like the first, contains more than I described. I agree with what you have written above, although I think I am more interested than you in understanding what self-conciousness is. I agree that it is apart of the nervous system, but I'd love to know the relation of nevous-systems and bilogical growth and the world out there in the sense that the "I" ultimately comes from inorganic matter.