In a sense, i can understand how you can be wrong. I mean, for 2000 years of mathematics from the Greek onward, the notion of "approximate infinite" is embraced, while the notion of "complete infinite" is laugh at. It is only in the light of Georg Cantor that complete infinite is revealed.

I am telling you that it is common to think of the entire set of integers all at once in contemporary mathematics. When people say Z( or the set of integers), they mean that as an infinite set. In fact, it is Cantor that developed a whole need area of mathematics know as set theory, and the theory of transfinite numbers.






This is ridiculous. If you don ` t believe there is an external world, then you don ` t believe i exist, or that the computer in front of you is really there. You can say they are all models, but a model has to be a model of something( which is not a model ). What you say here is very counterintuitive, and contradictory.

Correspondence is used to establish two sets with the same size as the natural numbers. He assumes the size of the natural integers to be infinite, and show that one can construct any higher order infinite by taking the power set of the set in question. The issue is directly related to the issue of infinites, because transfinite numbers are "complete infinities".

I am just trying to help you out. You most likely think you are talking sense, but you might not be. How might "concepts be limited"? Perhaps you mean "we can only have one concept at a time". We might have a concept of infinity, but it does not follow that infinity is finite , because that would be a contradiction, brother.

You said something about concepts are organized in a certain way. What organize the concepts? Is just another concept? if so, how does a concept organize other concepts?

Is a table a concept? Are numbers concepts? Do they have to be part of a mind?

Is a table a concept? Are numbers concepts? Do they have to be part of a mind?

Yes, I know. I understand this. And it's beautiful. But this is a mathematical sort of infinity. It's similar to an infinite series. He only has to prove that correspondence is possible in theory. Because the set is infinite, no human could ever actually correspond the numbers one by one. And yes I understand power sets. Cantor is actually not that hard to understand, compared to some other mathematicians. Of course, I think he's great. Simplicity is part of the beauty.

Concepts are unities, essences.

I'm sure you're a smart guy. The fact that you know Cantor is something I can respect and appreciate. But there is some magic in Kant and Hegel that one cannot get from Cantor or from mathematics in general. Logos and mathema are related but different at certain crucial points.

Believe me or not. That's your concern. But for me, the Hegel-Kant point is quite clear, but hard to express, exactly because it is a radical and beautiful point. Negative ontology/theology is as sublime as the math of Cantor. (Euler is my hero at the moment.)

Are you familiar with this book? I think it's a crucial book, if you truly care to understand my position. Critique of Practical Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think Hegel corrected some of its mistakes/limitations, but Kant opened the door. IMO, Hegel pretty much wrapped philosophy in the grand sense. The rest has been pragmatism. And the pragmatists are just renegade Hegelians

We could use tree as a metaphor for concepts. "Animal" breaks down to cat, dog, mouse, etc. And each of these less-abstract concepts get us closer to the qualia. Dogs and cats reduce further to certain breeds. At some point we are using a proper name for our pet.

A concept like abstraction is the set that includes other sets, to speak in math terms. Hegel used the word Begriff. He thought of concepts as integrated into a system, as indeed they are. Infinity is the negation of finite. Negative prefixes have generally been crucial for philosophy. Ab-solute. Im-material. Unmoved mover. E-ternal. Etc.

Let's use an example. If Frank sees a table, he sees a object, a singular entity. In physics terms, there is no real boundary between table and non-table. In qualia terms, it's just a blob of sensations amidst sensations. It's the concept that allows us to perceive the table as a table, as a singular object. THis touches the old old problem of universals. Problem of universals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy is not a matter of belief as theology is... So what if we believe things exist beyond our sight exist??? We cannot properly conceive of infinites whether they be moral realities,or physical realities of great magnitude.. All of our concepts do not exactly reflect our realites, but only approximate the reality; but if we take some unknown, like time, or existence and project upon it what we know and with what we know presume we know all, then we do not talk sense of it, but only judge our own ignorance... It is pitiful...

We might learn and know -were we not so demanding of certainty without troubling to learn or know...Every concept should be a judgement of what we know, and should not be a demonstration of our ignorance... We cannot know of infinites...

can you stop talking about "beautiful". What matters is if it is relevant, or not. It is relevant if you talk about "complete infinities". Here is my argument:

P1. We can understand, and grasp transfinite numbers.
P2. Transfinite numbers are "complete infinities".
-------------------------------------------------------
C: We can understand, and grasp "complete infinities".

This a valid argument, so if P1, and P2 is true, then C must also be true.



Explain this to me. Essence is mostly applied to "kinds", or "concrete objects"


My feeling is that you don ` t really know what you are talking about. You can prove me wrong. .



It seems you have no substance at all. You know the names of people, and you know what they show, but can you articulate it? No. Can you give me their arguments? No. Essentially, you are like the rest of the population. Most people admire Einstein, but they hardly know a god damn thing about what he did.



Engineers have a concept of the design of an airplane. Qualia is the subjective feeling when a conscious agent does something. How are they related? How is mathematical concepts related to Qualia?




1. You said having sensation about a table, but sensation can only having meaning if there is someone to have the sensation in the first place.

2. You said that concepts is what allow us to perceive the table.

3. There had to be someone to have the concepts of the table( 1, and 2).

4. For someone to perceive the table, then the table must be separate from the agent that does the perceiving. ( from 2)

5. The table is part of the external world( from 4).

1. You said having sensation about a table, but sensation can only having meaning if there is someone to have the sensation in the first place.

2. You said that concepts is what allow us to perceive the table.

3. There had to be someone to have the concepts of the table( 1, and 2).

4. For someone to perceive the table, then the table must be separate from the agent that does the perceiving. ( from 2)

5. The table is part of the external world( from 4).

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 04:51 PM ----------




.

I don't think you have the background to grasp what I'm saying. I mention names to honor the thinkers who have educated me. There's no short cut. If you think mentioning Kant is just name-dropping, I can't have a serious conversation with you. Not yet, anyway. Math is recent obsession. Philosophy has been my obsession for years now, and I have put the time in. It's that simple. Hegel is some difficult but brilliant stuff. To the degree that I understand Euler, Hegel is the Euler of philosophy. And yes it's going to sound strange.

To the degree that I understand Euler, Hegel is the Euler of philosophy.

Please don't mistake this as some sort of weakness. I'm sure we both know quite well how to play the a**hole. I'm just trying to get beyond that, as I want this forum to be an entirely positive experience when I log on. After all, this is an expenditure of free time, and that is my favorite resource, excepting the health to enjoy it.

W
There is nothing emotional about it. If you cannot stand the heat, then don ` t engage in philosophy. As you can tell, i don ` t sweet talk, and i have zero tolerance for bullshit. You respect me by being intellectual honest.

Is a table a concept? Are numbers concepts? Do they have to be part of a mind?

And if you ask him once again, is a table a concept, he will not reply to the question, he will simply spew the same gobbledygook (perhaps is a different form) he spewed previously. He cannot deal with cognition, only with feelings. And he deals with it by creating word salads.

Please don't mistake this as some sort of weakness. I'm sure we both know quite well how to play the a**hole. I'm just trying to get beyond that, as I want this forum to be an entirely positive experience when I log on. After all, this is an expenditure of free time, and that is my favorite resource, excepting the health to enjoy it.

What he is really saying is that any kind of critical thinking about these matters makes him unhappy since he cannot deal with it. So, don't do it. Just accept what he writes (whatever it means) and return some uncritical nonsense of your own. Why he thinks this way only he knows (perhaps).

I struggled with this line at first. How is the real rational, when we are always still figuring out what reality is?

It now makes perfect sense to me, so I'm sharing my view on it, and encouraging a friendly discussion on the matter. Here's my view on it.

The world as we know it is structured by human concept.

i have no time for little toadies, either. later, chump. join your master on my ignore list.

to re-open the perennial can-of-worms, the idea about representation being representaton of something indicates that the person making the argument doesn't really grasp the profound meaning of 'representation'. And indeed it is a difficult thing to grasp.

So - the naive idea is that we have 'the world' or 'objects', and then 'the perceiving subject' in whose mind 'the objects' are 'represented' by the likes of a 'concept' or 'an idea'.

If I were to say that there is no reality apart from the representation, the objection would be 'that is ridiculous. Are you saying the object is inside my mind'?
So this idea of 'representation' is not nearly so obvious (or clueless) as many make it sound. The idea that it is saying that 'objects only exist within your mind' is also a representation. In that sense, everything is a representation. But it doesn't mean that it is an illusion or a phantasm in any gross or obvious sense. What I think it means, is that it is not what we take it to be. And for the time being, that is enough meaning to impute to the idea of the representation.

to re-open the perennial can-of-worms, the idea about representation being representaton of something indicates that the person making the argument doesn't really grasp the profound meaning of 'representation'. And indeed it is a difficult thing to grasp.

So - the naive idea is that we have 'the world' or 'objects', and then 'the perceiving subject' in whose mind 'the objects' are 'represented' by the likes of a 'concept' or 'an idea'.

If I were to say that there is no reality apart from the representation, the objection would be 'that is ridiculous. Are you saying the object is inside my mind'?

I think the way consciousness actually works is that it synthesizes sensory input and then arrays it in (as we acknowledged) our internally-generated sense of space-and-time. But it does much else besides that. It places it in sequence and in relation to other things, internally and externally. It makes judgements about it both in visual terms and 'what it means to me' and so on. This is the engine of consciousness. It is the result of a multi-billion year evolutionary process. We have the most sophisticated VR engine in the entire universe between our ears. So the fact that it can do this ought not to be trivialized.

Now this simulation is what the nature of human reality is. Whenever you appeal to 'the moon' or some object 'outside' us, you are nevertheless indicating something of which you and I can both appropriate as an object of experience and array as part of our collective VR environment.

So this idea of 'representation' is not nearly so obvious (or clueless) as many make it sound. The idea that it is saying that 'objects only exist within your mind' is also a representation. In that sense, everything is a representation. But it doesn't mean that it is an illusion or a phantasm in any gross or obvious sense. What I think it means, is that it is not what we take it to be. And for the time being, that is enough meaning to impute to the idea of the representation.

The plus sign symbolizes logos, and in this context, self-conscious logos, that understands itself as the collision of qualia and form of forms (transcendental unity). In terms of the trinity, only the son is real (logos), but the son deduces the peanut butter and jelly he is made of. Accident and essence. Qualia and unity/negation.

Or Quality and Quantity.

can you stop talking about "beautiful". What matters is if it is relevant, or not. It is relevant if you talk about "complete infinities". Here is my argument:

P1. We can understand, and grasp transfinite numbers.
P2. Transfinite numbers are "complete infinities".
-------------------------------------------------------
C: We can understand, and grasp "complete infinities".

This a valid argument, so if P1, and P2 is true, then C must also be true.



Explain this to me. Essence is mostly applied to "kinds", or "concrete objects"


My feeling is that you don ` t really know what you are talking about. You can prove me wrong. .



It seems you have no substance at all. You know the names of people, and you know what they show, but can you articulate it? No. Can you give me their arguments? No. Essentially, you are like the rest of the population. Most people admire Einstein, but they hardly know a god damn thing about what he did.



Engineers have a concept of the design of an airplane. Qualia is the subjective feeling when a conscious agent does something. How are they related? How is mathematical concepts related to Qualia?




1. You said having sensation about a table, but sensation can only having meaning if there is someone to have the sensation in the first place.

2. You said that concepts is what allow us to perceive the table.

3. There had to be someone to have the concepts of the table( 1, and 2).

4. For someone to perceive the table, then the table must be separate from the agent that does the perceiving. ( from 2)

5. The table is part of the external world( from 4).

---------- Post added 04-11-2010 at 04:51 PM ----------




Let ` s be specific. We do know sets with infinite cardinalities. we know that the numbers 1, 2, 3.... will continue on without end. How am i wrong when i claim:

1. we can know complete infinities.

???

gbu;ukgsdife9433fb4f

..As Aristiltle said, they numbers are all in some ratio with one; never the less, infintiy is assumed and not proved...

... We do not need our concepts to perceive reality, but to recognize things in reaity, and to inform us of their nature..

then the concept captures the esssence of the object...

We presume of numbers what we must know is false about humanity.... We will some day end, so our numbers will too...And, you only have one number added infinitely to make all other numbers....As Aristiltle said, they numbers are all in some ratio with one; never the less, infintiy is assumed and not proved...

Every concept is a judgement, and knowledge is judgement...

We do not need our concepts to perceive reality, but to recognize things in reaity, and to inform us of their nature...