Outside and inside , that is the point. According to a prior differentiation, the outside=the inside in the case of mathematics. It was an absolute re-presentation of thing’s out there, so they become ‘hard-wired’ as absolutes. Post differentiation, they are different, but different in kind. Now, the difference is re-integrated quantitively. For instance with set-theory, and the theory of preception. Numbers are infinitely divisible, as in the early paradox between the tutle and the hare, creating an almost limitless set of numbers. The reintegration occurs to solve the paradox. There are limits -to the idea of the ideal paradigmn. Therefore there is no ideal solution. Uccisure, pls. forgive for a seeming argument, it is but an augmentation of an internally wired in preoccupation with the idea. Most of it is hypothetical and uncertain.
Exist means “objectively real” (according to you); for me, “exist” means having extension in space, with or without an energetic component. This completely covers all existence, even thoughts. “Objectivity” is an appeal to agreement, and is a poor adjective in defining existence, as without the observers to agree what is objective, this might imply that a thing not observed cannot exist.
It’s a common enough misconstrual of objectivity, that I imagine you suffer from like most school boys.
Obviously my understanding of “exist” is more clearly understood than your own. Shame you started a thread without even thinking about what you meant.
As for “objective”, I asked you what it meant to you, since you included it in your “definition” which you hastily borrowed from the Internet.
Until you do that, no one knows what you mean by ‘exist’.
Maths is obviously conceptual, and a grey area for “exist”. However, as you well know, I can completely destroy all the Maths you know by putting a very material bullet in your brain.
Once your brain fails to sustain the concepts that the structure of your cerebral matter encodes then all that stuff you pretend is “immaterial” vanishes.
But to remind you of the “immaterial” thing posited in the OP - that was “ghosts”! Do you put Maths in the same category as ghosts? Obviously when you talk about “TWO”, or the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides of a right angled triangle, we are applying to the world a model of it that we carry in our (material) brains. The idea of a ghost is claim that an idea we carry in our heads has some kind of existence whether or not it is a thought. In other words independent, though, immaterial; and independent of thinking.
Well, that settles it. We have a conflict of definitions–the correct one (mine) and the erroneous one (yours).
Oh boy, here we go again with the confusion over objective/subjective. Objectivity does not hinge on agreement–it may imply agreement, but that’s not at the core of the definition. Objectivity means real or true independently of one’s opinion, feeling, perception, or what one’s consciousness or mind tells one is real or true. Usually this means that if X is real or true, it is real or true for everyone, and that implies that if everyone looks at X, they will all agree that X is there.
No, that would just be you.
If you mean numbers kind of exist and kind of don't, that's stupid. If you mean 'exist' in the sense of your 'extended in space' definition you gave gib, that's clearly false- numbers don't exist under that definition at all. If you mean 'exist' the way everybody else in the universe means it, then yes, the existence of numbers is controversial and I think it's funny that you abandoned your definition of the word as soon as you were no longer talking to gib.
Well, that’s precisely my point. Here’s some thoughts I have:
My thumb hurts.
Raisins are gross.
5x5 is 25.
Paris is in France.
If you shoot me in the head and kill me, it seems those first two ideas lose their reference and any truth in them vanishes (leaving aside for the moment the question of past-realism). The second two however, remain true. "Paris is in France" remains true if you kill the person thinking it because there is in fact a Paris, and it is in France- the truth of it never depended on the thinking of it. Mathematical truths seem to be just the same- they must have some referent outside the thinker, and it is certainly not material.
It makes no sense on pure materialism to say that a billion discrete globs of goo separated by space and bone house the [i]same[/i] notions of mathematics. Without reference to the immaterial, there is nothing that can be the same about them. Imagine if you had an ace of spades in your pocket, and I have an ace of spades in my pocket, and gib has an ace of spades in his pocket. It would be nonsense (though grammatically accepted) to say "THE ace of spades is in our pockets". Physics and common sense don't allow for a playing card to be in three places at once, the law of identity doesn't allow us to say that three playing cards are all the same playing card.
So no, on materialism '2' is not in our brains. There is a 2 in your brain, a 2 in my brain, and a 2 in gib's brain. The only possible connection they could have to each other is if all three 2-concepts reference the same thing external to all of us- which requires there to be existent non-material things.
Actaully this: “… a billion discrete globs of goo separated by space and bone house the same notions of mathematics.”, although you are trying to trivialise the human brain, makes perfect sense.
Objectivity is a concurrence and agreement, based on the perceptual world all humans share. There maybe more bizarre and peculiar things well beyond, in the Nounemal world which we have no access to.
I think you might be stuck in some sort of ancient Platonic World.
Maths is a model devised by humans by which the describe the Universe, there is no perfect “One”, or “Circle” out there in the ether, waiting for us to find it. Maths in a Realm of ideas, stored physically in the brains of humans; it is a system which is self verifying.
Your comment about the Ace of Spades makes no sense.
ALL information in the brain is stored by the neural network’s version of a linked-list. And no two brains do that exactly the same. Thus a number in the brain is never anything that would look anything even vaguely resembling a number written on paper. Computers to that same general kind of thing for more complex things than mere numbers, including pictures.
Numbers written on paper don’t look anything like their neural encodings in the brain or in computers because all of these are symbols, just like 3.14… and π don’t look anything alike yet symbolize the same quantity.
‘4’ is a symbol representing the number of objects in each of the following sets:
{ + + + + }
{ 0 0 0 0 }
{ % % % % }
Insofar as we’re talking about a set of objects, their quantity can be considered the real entity to which the symbols correspond. Insofar as we’re talking about abstracting that quantity and regarding it as a universal entity unto itself, then we’re talking about an immaterial object.
My own views on this question are that abstract quantities–the universal 4 or 15 or π–are the essence of what the sets of tangible objects characterized by that quantity share in common. Essences, according to my theory of projection, are what concepts project as (and concepts are just our understandings of what certain things, like quantities, are–the “is”-ness of the thing). Essences can be infused into the corporeal body of things as when I infuse my concept of “fork” into an actual fork I see (which is to say nothing more than that when I see an object with all the physical features of a fork–shape, color, metallic feel–my mind understands it to be a fork, it brings up and projects the concept of “fork” onto that which I am sensing).
But concepts need not be infused into corporeal bodies in order to be beheld by the mind. One can contemplate the quantity 4 without looking at or even thinking about a set of four objects. What we’re beholding in these cases is an abstract (i.e. immaterial) object–the essence of 4–and this ties directly into what Ucci was saying–as an immaterial object, it makes no sense to talk about a 4 or a 5–there is only the number 4, the number 5. There can only be one such number 4 because there is no basis on which to distinguish multiple number 4’s–physical objects can be distinguished on this basis principally because they can be separated in space and time–they take positions therein, and therefore multiple instances of them can take different positions, and thereby be distinguished on that basis–but quantities taken in abstraction are timeless and spaceless, and the only basis on which to distinguish between them is if they are different numbers–4 compared to 5–but 4 compared to 4 yields only a single number 4 in virtue of its abstract and immaterial character.
Now, I may differ from Ucci in that he seems to believe quantities exist independently of our concepts of them (and he’s right insofar as the quantities we’re talking about are the properties of sets of tangible objects as opposed to the universal abstraction of those quantities) whereas I see quantities (in the abstract) as the projection of our concepts thereof–but as such I still believe they are fully real.
If something is immaterial how can we test its existence? How can we call something immaterial an “object”?
Can we claim we know of anything that exists and is immaterial? Even physical forces such as gravity don’t exist without a body.
Numbers aren’t a good example either, as it has been pointed out they exist in form of neural connections in our brain so even they are, at their core, material and have a material basis the same way that information (music, videos, whatever) stored in the SD card is ultimately material.
Interesting thread and discussion, but it seems like what it comes down to are definitions.
Is this the thread where we swap home recipes for gnomicide? I’ve got a mad infestation over here guys. Help.
Yes, but it always seemed as if the positivists were missing something all along the way, and they only introduced another duplicity in the mind/brain debate, as to whether, connections apart from the synapses, as an effect of, rather than as the effect of…The point is it’s relativism to argue either from one or the other point of view. To argue that synaptic neural activity has a materiality, is one way to legitimize it, but then the problem of correlation comes in with the phenomenology of preception. How does language develop, within the logico-mathematical matrix, and if there is some substance to the neurological process, there ought to be a counterbalance, in the effector/effected , because ‘thought’ is both: a process (neurologial) and an idea, as in the case of numbers.
At this point Russel's reduction ad absurdum shifts the focus toward the relationship if any between them. This is where the ground of mathematics becomes primary , trying to navigate a course between the logic of language, and the phenomenology of preception.
Here the study is beyond trying to see some linkage between definitions of the immateriality of mathematically abstracted concepts, since that will beg the question. It is not certain, but probable, that immaterial things may exist, within certain boundaries.
Take them by the feet , and twirl them around, to make them dizzy, that will disorient the little buggers.
It’s not a question of testing its existence, it’s about disproving it.
By projecting an essence onto it–universals like love, quantities, God, sadness–are all encapsulated in the mind as abstract objects because it attributes essences to these things. Essences are what make things into object–by bestowing identities onto them–it is this and not that.
Yes, if you’re a question begging materialist. But I think of materiality as the representation. With materialism, you have to reduce everything to matter. But if you’re not a materialist, the reduction can work in other directions. Matter, for me, is reduced, first and foremost, to sensory experience, and more generally is a representation of other mental experiences. This is not to say matter isn’t real–I’m not an eliminativist–but that it is not non-mental and that the mental aspect of matter is more fundamental than its material aspect.
Yes, but I don’t require any kind of exotic definition for “immaterial” in order for it to possibly exist.
Not exactly. But if you’ve got a recipe in mind, I’d be more than happy to kill a few gnomes for you.
Hey, obe, what do you think of the theory of materiality as representation of experience?
Gib,I think it includes all types of material: conceptual and objective, phenomenological. It is the basis of reduction toward it’s sensibility, it’s visuality. This is why it’s content is applied toward the aesthetic. I googled this. Since it’s genesis is the experience, in totality, it’s mea ing is imbued by way of the source of it, as it is materially effected by…It’s application being a visually effected artifact, like in fine arts. This relationship is not based in the positivist sense of what representation ‘means’ but what it exressses, via imagery. There is no mathematical criteria attached to this form of content. Here the materiality is defined as visually interpretative. The effect is the meaning, as purly a visually re-presentative content.
Name one objective thing that does not rely on agreement.
You really need to think this through.
I asked you what “objective” means to you simply because you used it in a definition (borrowed). You clearly have not thought through the implications of “exist” in any meaningful way. ANd you have a naive view of objectivity.
Basically this means that the question you pose at the top of the thread is meaningless.
Extension in space can even include stupidity, as a adjective it describes the workings of a person’s brain. It also includes all emotional states in the same way; hormones, and neurones.
Neither of those definitions really say anything useful. They just exchange one word for another, although the “extension in space” bit is a little bit additive, although hardly defensible.
Anger exists yet has no “extension in space” associated with it.
My own version of the definition of “existence”: Existence Meaningfully Defined.
Oh, geez, that’s challenging… um, the speed of light: 300,000,000 m/s. The agreement among the scientific community about this is not what makes it so.
Sure, if we’re question begging.
Let me explain something to you, Lev. This reductio ad absurdum of yours is the oldest trick in the book, and only philosopher newbies think it’s clever. You demand a definition for a concept or a term, a person offers one, then you demand definitions for the terms making up the definition, the person offers those to you. You continue this line of inquiry until you leave the person speechless for lack of ability to continually come up with more and detailed definitions, and then you say “Ha! You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.”
You see, Lev, this is a common philosophical mistake that so many amateurs make and the solution is simple: fundamentality != baselessness. Take a man color blind from birth. Try explaining to him what “red” means. Assuming that a lack of color vision from birth means he will be unable to visualize or even comprehend what red is, how would you explain it to him. Indeed, how do you explain it to someone who knows what red is and sees it every day? But does your lack of words entail a lack of understanding of what red really is? That’s absurd. Of course you know what red is. It’s just that your understanding is fundamental–it doesn’t break down into simpler concepts and terms. But a fundamental understanding is not the same thing as a baseless (and therefore false) understanding–it serves as its own basis.
To expect one to perpetually dish up definition after more basic definition is an exercise in futility–no one can do that–for you will eventually come up against terms and concepts which are simply fundamental and aren’t given to further dissection and analysis. But the trick you play hinges on this fact and confuses the fundamentality of terms and concepts for baselessness. You know full well it’s only a matter of time before you force one to confront those fundamental concepts and terms. But if you follow this to its logical conclusion, you come to the absurd notion that since all of our definitions come down to fundamental terms and concepts eventually, none of us ever know what we’re talking about… ever.
This is why I don’t really have a problem relying on common sense definitions or definitions I find in a dictionary or on Google. They’re good enough. Should I feel compelled to give lengthy forethought to every word I use in every utterance I make before feeling justified in making those utterance? Should I have thought about how I plan to define “feeling”, “justified”, “in”, “making”, “those”, and “utterance” before I wrote the last sentence? I had perfectly clear understandings of what those terms meant as I uttered them because they served as their own basis without my having to do a thoroughgoing analysis of what precisely I mean by them. They came with their own fundamental meaning (some of which I could have broken down if I wanted to, but I didn’t have to). This is what makes communication work. This is why no one in this thread but you have any trouble using and understanding the words “immaterial”, “exist”, “objective”, or any other word.
If one comes into a conversation with no position of their own to advance, then spending an eternity nit-picking the definitions used by somebody else’s position is a perfectly viable tactic- if one is taking a tactically-minded approach to a conversation like this for some strange reason.
If numbers exist as structures in the brain, then they can only exist in one brain. The five in your brain is different than the one in mind. If they are related to what they refer to, then they must refer to something other than our brains. This isn’t that complicated.
But those aren't the examples I gave. You made up new ones because you were in the mood for a strawman. "Water is aqua" goes away if you kill all the French speakers because it is fundamentally a statement about French speakers. "Paris is in France" doesn't go away if you kill everybody- those buildings would still be in that place. Besides, you're missing my point; "My thumb hurts" is only true by virtue of a set of circumstances that begins and ends with me. Same with "Raisins are gross". That's why they lose meaning if I die. "Paris is in France" is a thought in my head just like "My thumb hurts" is, but it's truth is not contingent on me. If I die, Paris is still in France, 5x5 is still 25, but my thumb does not still hurt. Why? Because those latter two statements gain their truth from something other than my thinking them.
That simply isn't the case. I think you're confusing languages with ciphers. We could not all simply decide that 5+6=12, unless we used the term '12' to mean '11' or some other such substitution. The terms are not the same as the reality they express.
Not if notions are physically extended structures, as you said at the beginning of your post. Re-read what I said about the Ace of Spades that you didn’t understand. If the Ace of Spades is nothing but a physically extended structure, we can’t both have it in our pockets, you being over there, and I over here.
Actually that’s pretty much the definition of subjectivity, and the very opposite of objectivity. I could understand a person saying “Objectivity doesn’t exist”, but I can’t understand a person saying something as odd as the above.