Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37713)	5/10/1999 11:43:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>>>>>don't try to argue with me<<<<< Well, you're no fun! >>>>>we will never know, and can never know<<<<< So you say, but when we start talking to dolphins, won't you be interested in what they have to say?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37713)	5/10/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

BTW, don't try to argue with me that biology, science, etc. aren't constructs of the human mind. There may (or may not) be an external reality, but whatever reality there is is only described in terms of human language and human constructs of thought. We can know nothing we can't think about (see Descartes), we can't think about anything we can't articulate in language, and language is a construct of the way our minds and bodies function. Of course our understanding of reality is a function of the human mind. That's a truism. And it is also irrelevant. I believe that philosophy must begin with an objective view of reality. We must place our subjective ideas of reality into the crucible of science to see if they make sense. How can we take seriously a philosophy that denies the importance of genetics? We can and do think about things we cannot articulate. It happens all of the time. Deaf mutes are perfect examples. Animals think -- unless you believe that problem solving is distinct from thought. I think this is really sloppy anthropocentric thinking. Question: If dolphins have mathematics, what does 2 plus 2 equal for them? Answer: we will never know, and can never know, because we aren't dolphins.) If they have mathematics they will have some representation of 4. If it's a binary system they will have 100; if it's a ternary system they will have 11; if its a quaternary system they will have 10; anything higher will be 4. You are confusing the internal representation of the answer with the answer. Perhaps what you are really asking is whether dolphins have language, and if so can we hope to understand the language. My answer is that if they have language (this is not my area of expertise) we can probably learn the language with sufficient study. Have you seen the movie Contact? If you did you will have noticed the use of prime numbers as an initial language. What is interesting about prime numbers is that they are still prime regardless of the internal representation. The number 7 is a prime regardless of whether it is represented in binary, octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. It is universal. TTFN, CTC

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37713)	5/10/1999 1:24:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christopher, just wanted you to know I am 100% with YOU in this particular debate. Don't have time to enter it myself right now, but am putting myself on record. <g> Without an understanding of the way in which humans really think and interact, you can't understand the human mind, and therefore can't understand the constructs of the human mind. Good literature does precisely this. It distills the essence of human nature and inter-actions. Joan

To: The Philosopher who wrote (37713)	5/10/1999 1:37:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

If dolphin mathematicians don't publish, they will perish. I don't believe words are necessary to all knowledge. There is plenty of evidence that the brain stores images that have nothing to do with words. Music is another body of knowledge created by humans without words. Mathematics and physics are far beyond the our little world of words, so that concepts, objects, particles and waves are created and manipulated initially by humans without words. It is only when it is necessary to teach the ignorant that memorable labels like "quark", "blackhole". "tensor" become necessary. Indeed, the ambiguity of words conceals more knowledge than it reveals. Does anyone imagine that Superstring theory has anything with strings?