Think

Originally posted by twhitehead
It wasn't a case of you failing to mention the environment. It was a case of you specifically stating that the environment was not a factor.

Note that you have never suggested that a human, or dolphin or computer AI if put in a different environment would have a different math. Instead you claim that math is dependant on species. Species is not dependa ...[text shortened]... argument. I would say a combination of both, but you seem to think it is entirely the Rossi's.

And just a side note: I never suggested that a human, or dolphin or computer AI if put in a different environment would have different Math. Also, I don't claim that Math is dependent on species. I claim that Math is strictly a human invention.

We do Math. Our Math is a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation, advanced mathematical operations and processes involved in the solution of various problems and in the study of specific scientific fields.

Dolphins don't do Math. Methinks a dolphin that can give us details as regards... pi, is a rare bird😵

Originally posted by black beetle
But you claim “species is not dependent on environment” oh the horror😵

So many words I didn't bother reading them all. But it quite clear that you deliberately misunderstood me because you know you are wrong. Oh well. If you are not really interested in intelligent discussion but would rather behave like a creationist and try to side track every point in order to avoid admitting your errors then I think I shall bow out.
In all those words that you wrote, did you actually explain where you think the definition of 'species' is dependent on environment? Can you provide for example anything from the Wikipedia page for any species where it says "this species only exists in environment X, and when it is found in environment Y then it must be a different species".

Originally posted by black beetle
Also, I don't claim that Math is dependent on species.

You seem to suffer from short term memory loss.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So many words I didn't bother reading them all. But it quite clear that you deliberately misunderstood me because you know you are wrong. Oh well. If you are not really interested in intelligent discussion but would rather behave like a creationist and try to side track every point in order to avoid admitting your errors then I think I shall bow out.
In ...[text shortened]... environment X, and when it is found in environment Y then it must be a different species".

You admit you haven’t read my post but you believe I ‘m wrong. Kindly please read carefully all our correspondence at this thread and show me where exactly you think I am wrong🙂

And what kind of question is this now?!? Kindly please feel free to show me an ape that lives 10.000ft under the sea and I will be glad to stand corrected; show me an ape that lives in Mars; or a goldfish debating about pi with a polar bear under an oak tree on the top of Fujiyama (I will also wait for you to show me where exactly at this thread did I claim that Math is species depended)
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You admit you haven’t read my post but you believe I ‘m wrong. Kindly please read carefully all our correspondence at this thread and show me where exactly you think I am wrong🙂

And what kind of question is this now?!? Kindly please feel free to show me an ape that lives 10.000ft under the sea and I will be glad to stand corrected; show me an ape th ...[text shortened]... t for you to show me where exactly at this thread did I claim that Math is species depended)
😵

The only way you are going to come to a reasonable agreement with
twhitehead is change your opinion to agree with his and admit you were
wrong. FMF is the same way and on some things so am I. 😏

Originally posted by black beetle
I reject the idea of a world that exists independently of the mind, a world who has a particular structure that our sciences and all the rest of our structured languages can set out to reflect. Nothing bears a structure that is intrinsic to it, instead everything has something ascribed to it from outside, from Us. To claim that the truth of a statement ...[text shortened]... e relation between our sciences, our languages, our religions, our concepts etc. and the world😵

Reactions, but first a found statement:

"The epiontic principle therefore states that (our) reality coincides with what we know about it."
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Acerbi_acerbiepionticprinci.pdf

I wonder about the recursiveness of "it" in the statement. Is there not something that is other to both us, and "(our) reality"? The degree of identity suggested here can easily become total; it is we and our reality, that coincide. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I keep getting fooled.

Now to your statements.

"Nothing bears a structure that is intrinsic to it, instead everything has something ascribed to it from outside, from Us."

The capitalized Us is provocative of the following: It sounds like "To be is to be perceived." Because it sounds like: Temporal and/or locational absence of a perceiver implies not only no structure, but no thing to have structure. Or at least, it calls for silence on the subject. Does "Us" harken to Berkeley's divine perceiver? Is the divine perceiver perhaps the ultimate, dare I say, ascriber of both structure and of what is structured, in your book? Would that entity's perceptions not be absolute?

(I am NOT angling for a discussion of theism.)

"To claim that the truth of a statement is based in a similarity of structure between a statement of ours and the bit of the world that it refers to, it does not hold."

This is exactly what troubles me. I see difficulty in getting from fact to truth. It's not unlike getting from is to ought.

"Our languages (sciences, beliefs, arts, philosophic systems, ideas&hellip😉 cannot provide sentences that they can be connected with the observer universe by means of a set of objectively existent structural similarities. We simply cannot find yet any sufficient substantial relation that could allow us to bind together the epiontic universe to the most fundamental level due to the fact that we cannot keep up being constantly in the state of the superposition."

It seems to me that the difficulty in getting from an epionic level to a "most fundamental level" is due to the fact that our access is limited to the epionic level by the fact that the access is "our" access. In other words, Berkeley (our reality) is all there is. We try to get to Oakland (the most fundamental level), only to find no there there.

"So methinks with our conceptually constructed causal relations we remain, and this means that the causation we attribute it cannot be seen as a relation that functions objectively and independent of the concepts we employ."

I prefer block universe determinism to causal chain determinism. Why beat around the bush? Embrace it.
http://www.egodeath.com/blockuniversedeterminism.htm

"It follows that even causation can hardly be evaluated as a mind-independent way of founding the relation between our sciences, our languages, our religions, our concepts etc. and the world😵"

World? What is this "world" of which you speak?😵

Originally posted by black beetle
And what kind of question is this now?!? Kindly please feel free to show me an ape that lives 10.000ft under the sea and I will be glad to stand corrected; show me an ape that lives in Mars; or a goldfish debating about pi with a polar bear under an oak tree on the top of Fujiyama (I will also wait for you to show me where exactly at this thread did I claim that Math is species depended)
😵

If I find a polar bear under an oak tree then will you give it a different species name?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have been thinking about this recently. Does the truth need protection, and is it ever personal.
Two examples highlighted this for me:
1. On tv, I see that some Muslims in Afghanistan are protesting because somebody burned some Qurans. Their justification is that the Quran is the word of God and is holy. But they seem to take it as a personal insult. ...[text shortened]... truth is deliberately intended as an insult, for example in the case of holocaust denial.

I agree. The truth should not fear constructive criticism and inquiry. We should not be so personally attached to things that we become offended by honest questions. Questions are often a gateway to more understanding.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If I find a polar bear under an oak tree then will you give it a different species name?

You miss the point. The point is that you cannot find a species out of its niche environment😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
The only way you are going to come to a reasonable agreement with
twhitehead is change your opinion to agree with his and admit you were
wrong. FMF is the same way and on some things so am I. 😏

It's alright, there are as many realities as sentient beings😵

Originally posted by JS357
Reactions, but first a found statement:

"The epiontic principle therefore states that (our) reality coincides with what we know about it."
http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Acerbi_acerbiepionticprinci.pdf

I wonder about the recursiveness of "it" in the statement. Is there not something that is other to both us, and "(our) reality"? The ...[text shortened]... the world😵"

World? What is this "world" of which you speak?😵

What a fine reaction!


Edit: “I… …fooled.”

“It”, methinks stands for the reality, thus for the bits of information that we access, perceive, analyze and evaluate. Due to these four actions we attribute a certain value to the bit, hence from the superposition 0/1 we create an event 0 or 1, always valued by us. The degree of identity suggested here becomes total this way: we are becoming the “truth” (our unique, personal truth) simply because we have no other option.
Of course, there are various ways to make similar conclusions and to end up with this evaluation. These ways are not necessarily related to Math, the language can well be a philosophic or even a religious system, where “Truth” is a representation of things as they are (after a specific access, perception, analysis and evaluation of the -100% subjective- evaluation of the mind). “I am the Truth and the Way and the Life”, said Jesus. “I Am the Truth”, kept repeating smiling master Mansour Al Halaj in unison with the ground of his awareness as they were cutting him into pieces. In unison with the ground of his awareness kept himself Master Thich Quang Duc to, silent he remained though. Etc etc. Mind you, “Being the Truth” is Happiness, this is the reason why rabbi Schachtel said “Happiness is not having what you want but wanting what you have”. There are many paths on our mountain leading to the top, I reckon; it's only Us🙂


Edit: “The… …absolute?”

I used “Us” in order to emphasize that “Being the Truth” is a purely subjective case. It is only our nature (the evaluation of the mind) that “creates” (perceives/understands/builds on&hellip😉 the reality the way we perceive it. There are as many realities as sentient beings;


Edit: “This… …ought.”

You see difficulty in getting from fact to truth because deep down you still think that fact, truth and yourself are separated;


Edit: “It seems… …there.”

No. The “epiontic level” and the “fundamental level” are not “special levels” that exist in separation from yourself (from your mind). So, find on your own a way to envelop 0/1.


Edit: “I… …http://www.egodeath.com/blockuniversedeterminism.htm”

One has to feel free to enjoy his palace in the water; the others, all they see is a wave. So, find on your own where exactly you will shift your point of attention;


Edit: “World? What is this "world" of which you speak?”

The observer universe😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You miss the point. The point is that you cannot find a species out of its niche environment😵

Outright nonsense. And I am afraid it was you that missed the point. The definition of species is emphatically not based on environment.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Outright nonsense. And I am afraid it was you that missed the point. The definition of species is emphatically [b]not based on environment.[/b]

The species cannot exist separated from their niche environment😵

Originally posted by black beetle
What a fine reaction!


Edit: “I… …fooled.”

“It”, methinks stands for the reality, thus for the bits of information that we access, perceive, analyze and evaluate. Due to these four actions we attribute a certain value to the bit, hence from the superposition 0/1 we create an event 0 or 1, always valued by us. The degree of identity suggested here ...[text shortened]... tion;


Edit: “World? What is this "world" of which you speak?”

The observer universe😵

"You see difficulty in getting from fact to truth because deep down you still think that fact, truth and yourself are separated;"

Not separated so much as different, which might be a way of being separated. I do distinguish between fact and truth, knowingly and purposefully. I take a fact to be a state of affairs; that which is the case. A fact is not an thought or utterance or verbal representation or expression. A truth is a thought or utterance etc.

That cat's sitting on that sofa is (or is not) a fact. "That cat is sitting on that sofa" is (or is not) a truth.

I agree it does present difficulty in getting from one to the other, in establishing what sort of correspondence (including one of identity) they have.

It seems to me that for an omnipotent God, the thought "That cat is sitting on that sofa" would not be so much a state of affairs taken note of by God, but a state of affairs instantiated by God's thought, and vice versa. The two would be identical in all respects. The truth would be the fact.

This may be a sticking point for me in reaching total buy-in to the ideas of reality that you are hinting at. What is it that my thought, "That cat is sitting on that sofa" (would or would not) be identical with? My thought could be in error, whereas the concept of error does not apply to a fact, as I use the wood "fact." Only by some correspondence to a fact, is the truth or falsity of a thought established for a being whose thoughts can be in error.

Originally posted by black beetle
The species cannot exist separated from their niche environment😵

Just admit that you don't have a single clue about the subject and leave it at that. Any more and you'll just embarrass yourself