1000%

(September 14, 2017 at 4:06 pm)Losty Wrote: 1000%

New math?

(September 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: What I am reading sounds to me like question begging on a massive scale. The statements "People use mathematics to describe reality" and "Mathematical objects are not real" are incompatible statements.

Maybe they're real human constructs that map to the empirical world real well.  Those don't seem like mutually exclusive choices.

If a human construct actually maps onto the empirical real world, then there is some real object in or feature of the empirical world capable of being mapped. Otherwise you have an invented set of symbols that only accidentally reflects phenomenal experience, i.e. there is no essential reason for their correspondence. Now that could indeed be the case, but that is the stance that the world is unintelligible.

(September 13, 2017 at 10:32 am)Little Rik Wrote: Has already been proven that when a brain is destroyed the consciousness live on.

Evidence or shut the fuck up. Not you blabbering on in pshchobabblespeak, but actual studies, real evidence.

NDE's have been thoroughly debunked, and even if they hadn't, they're not evidence of life after death, so don't go there either.

---

(September 13, 2017 at 10:53 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 10:32 am)Little Rik Wrote: Wrong again Mat.
Has already been proven that when a brain is destroyed the consciousness live on.
You can't destroy energy and consciousness.
They are the two sides of the same sheet.
NDEs already proved that.  

Provide peer reviewed publication of reproducible, falsifiable evidence obtained using lab conditions published in a reputable journal otherwise admit that you're wrong. Because if what you are saying really was correct and that proof of NDEs had been achieved then the above would be easy to obtain.

Consciousness is easy to destroy.

(emphasis is mine)

Perhaps more important to the discussion, consciousness can be modified by head trauma.

(September 14, 2017 at 5:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Maybe they're real human constructs that map to the empirical world real well.  Those don't seem like mutually exclusive choices.

If a human construct actually maps onto the empirical real world, then there is some real object in or feature of the empirical world capable of being mapped. Otherwise you have an invented set of symbols that only accidentally reflects phenomenal experience, i.e. there is no essential reason for their correspondence. Now that could indeed be the case, but that is the stance that the world is unintelligible.

But those real objects for which our mathematics map so well are not mathematical objects.  The symbol is not the object.

---

(September 14, 2017 at 5:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Maybe they're real human constructs that map to the empirical world real well.  Those don't seem like mutually exclusive choices.

If a human construct actually maps onto the empirical real world, then there is some real object in or feature of the empirical world capable of being mapped. Otherwise you have an invented set of symbols that only accidentally reflects phenomenal experience, i.e. there is no essential reason for their correspondence. Now that could indeed be the case, but that is the stance that the world is unintelligible.

Better answer: this goes back to all the other 'fortuitous' results of evolution.  The poor mappers have bit the dust.  We are the winner's inheritors.

(September 14, 2017 at 4:06 pm)Losty Wrote: 1000%

I thought that odd, 1000% and science in the same sentence?

---

(September 14, 2017 at 5:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Maybe they're real human constructs that map to the empirical world real well.  Those don't seem like mutually exclusive choices.

If a human construct actually maps onto the empirical real world, then there is some real object in or feature of the empirical world capable of being mapped. Otherwise you have an invented set of symbols that only accidentally reflects phenomenal experience, i.e. there is no essential reason for their correspondence. Now that could indeed be the case, but that is the stance that the world is unintelligible.

What dressing would like with that salad?

(September 14, 2017 at 5:22 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: NDE's have been thoroughly debunked, and even if they hadn't, they're not evidence of life after death, so don't go there either.

In order for that to be true, there would be a definite known reason for why they occur. A debunker would have to have an adequate explanation and currently, no one knows the necessary and sufficient causes for an NDE.

---

(September 14, 2017 at 7:31 pm)Succubus Wrote: What dressing would like with that salad?

You must be really stupid if you cannot parse such simple sentences.

(September 14, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(September 14, 2017 at 5:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: If a human construct actually maps onto the empirical real world, then there is some real object in or feature of the empirical world capable of being mapped. Otherwise you have an invented set of symbols that only accidentally reflects phenomenal experience, i.e. there is no essential reason for their correspondence. Now that could indeed be the case, but that is the stance that the world is unintelligible.

But those real objects for which our mathematics map so well are not mathematical objects.  The symbol is not the object.

No one is saying that the symbols are objects. Only that there is an essential relationship between mathematical symbols and what those symbols signify.

(September 14, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Better answer: this goes back to all the other 'fortuitous' results of evolution.  The poor mappers have bit the dust.  We are the winner's inheritors.

You say that as if there wasn't a reason why some mapping strategies are better than others. What is the difference between a good map and a bad one if not the degree to which it corresponds to real features and objects in reality?

(September 14, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 14, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Whateverist Wrote: But those real objects for which our mathematics map so well are not mathematical objects.  The symbol is not the object.

No one is saying that the symbols are objects. Only that there is an essential relationship between mathematical symbols and what those symbols signify.

But numbers aren't about "what", they're about "how many" or at least "how much". That is pretty independent of what they may be.

(September 14, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(September 14, 2017 at 6:36 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Better answer: this goes back to all the other 'fortuitous' results of evolution.  The poor mappers have bit the dust.  We are the winner's inheritors.

You say that as if there wasn't a reason why some mapping strategies are better than others. What is the difference between a good map and a bad one if not the degree to which it corresponds to real features and objects in reality?

But what difference would that make if we weren't being selected for our mapping abilities? Those who continually get lost aren't going to make it.

Numbers don't directly map to the real world, it is always an amount or quantity of something. That is pretty general, just like our mathematics. That's actually an important part of why it is so useful.

I'm not really feeling what it is which is animating your objection here. Can you break it down for me?