Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 3:44 pm
Am I right in thinking the only closed systems known to man are logic, and mathematics?
I would argue strongly against either of them being closed systems. If they were - they wouldn't give us any answers.
Imagine a calculator with no screen. Input and no output. That's just a black hole.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 3:44 pm
Regarding subject and object of consciousness, I prefer 'experience' to 'consciousness'. 'Experience 'is a better word for the job because there is an actual demarcation between things such as engines and stones that are nothing but histories of themselves, and things that intend to experience such as living trees, living spiders and living men. Please refer to Sartre "being for-itself" and "being in-itself". Experiences include thinking about theories of consciousness as intentions i.e. looking towards what does not yet exist, i.e. creativity and creating oneself.
Yeah. I am by no means a stickler for nomenclature.
We can use the language of experience just the same - the subject (experiencer) and the object (being experienced).
The distinction still vanishes when the experiencer experiences themselves.
But apart from the experiences which are bound up in bodies and environments-proper there are no selves. Spinoza "the mind is the experience of the body".
For a living thing, i.e. an experiencer, except for the anatomical limitations of nervous systems , subject and object are the same.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:04 pm
But apart from the experiences which are bound up in bodies and environments-proper there are no selves. Spinoza "the mind is the experience of the body".
For a living thing, i.e. an experiencer, except for the anatomical limitations of nervous systems , subject and object are the same.
Yes, precisely. All dualist/dualising metaphisics are wrong.
And yet Mathematicians can't help themeslves but commit this error by comparing a thing to itself. That is physically impossible.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:04 pm
But apart from the experiences which are bound up in bodies and environments-proper there are no selves. Spinoza "the mind is the experience of the body".
For a living thing, i.e. an experiencer, except for the anatomical limitations of nervous systems , subject and object are the same.
Yes, precisely. All dualist/dualising metaphisics are wrong.
And yet Mathematicians can't help themeslves but commit this error by comparing a thing to itself. That is physically impossible.
x = x is meaningless.
Yes, well does that not imply that mathematics is nothing but a sophistication of the practical tool the ancient Egyptians invented for parceling out fertile land in the Nile Delta?
(Apologies: I should have written "Spinoza "The mind is the idea of the body". However both 'mind' and 'experience' mean the same vis a vis environment.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:21 pm
Yes, well does that not imply that mathematics is nothing but a sophistication of the practical tool the ancient Egyptians invented for parceling out fertile land in the Nile Delta?
Of course. Maths is useful, but it is inherently meaningless.
The truth-value of x = x is an arbitrary choice.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:21 pm
(Apologies: I should have written "Spinoza "The mind is the idea of the body". However both 'mind' and 'experience' mean the same vis a vis environment.
Words. Words. Words. They mean whatever we understand them to mean. And we understood each other just fine.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:21 pm
Yes, well does that not imply that mathematics is nothing but a sophistication of the practical tool the ancient Egyptians invented for parceling out fertile land in the Nile Delta?
Of course. Maths is useful, but it is inherently meaningless.
The truth-value of x = x is an arbitrary choice.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:21 pm
(Apologies: I should have written "Spinoza "The mind is the idea of the body". However both 'mind' and 'experience' mean the same vis a vis environment.
Words. Words. Words. They mean whatever we understand them to mean. And we understood each other just fine.
We can both speak in the same register of higher education. Please see Basil Bernstein , linguistic codes.PS this is not snobbery.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:52 pm
Then learn to read.
I read just fine. Learn to write.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 11:52 pm
If you are different then me, but we are both human, then in regards to being human two distinct phenomenon, me/you, share similarities and they equate through (but not without) these similarities.
Similarities occur thus not all is asymmetric.
That is how abstraction works, genius.
“Abstraction is the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential.” ― Robert C. Martin
When you eliminate/ignore our differences and you amplify our similarities then we are both human.
I am different to you AND we are both human. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Then reality is both asymmetric and symmetric. Distinctions have a dual nature of being similar thus a paradox occurs as distinction has within it similarities and similarities have within it distinctions, yet both are opposites.
Now you said prior:
"Equations imply symmetry.
This leaves out the entire conceptual paradigm of the asymmetrical.
A symmetrical theory can never account for information-flow."
But it does not leave out the conceptual paradigm of asymmetry given 2+2 and 3+1 are both unique expressions of 4. In shorter terms symmetry does not leave out asymmetry. Information flow demands the repetition of past events into current and future events thus requires symmetry.