JS
> The point I have been repeating in different ways is that there is
> no such thing as an ideal upper level. Many people have reached
> that conclusion after working very hard to find one. (01)
FK What you are saying then John is that there are no numbers (forms to
recognize), and we cannot divide the world into finite and infinite chunks and
that there is no reflection on time and space. Why?
Because the point is not what you call the semantic primitives, but that you
experience them a) through perception, b) reflection (thinking). Thus you have
an idea of the concept of one, two, and many, and some people get as far as
even three and even four. All the numbers we know are learnt by rote learning,
so are the times tables. In perception terms, we can discriminate 3 to 7 items
at a flash moment. Above that we must freeze the input to be able to do
enumeration.
Some and most of the primitive people had only one two and may as number
concepts in use and they had no problem. There is still one living tribe with
that practice, and as a matter of fact the Hungarians were described by smart
Englishman in the 19th centrury as the dull lot who can only count up to two.
(This is not treu as három a magyar igazság -is our national saying which says
that three is the Hungary truth)
Anyway, here is the latest on the biological foundation of the use of numbers,
especially integers to ponder
on. http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-brain-has-three-layers-of-working-memory-allowing-for-multitasking?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c028008567-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email (02)
What people do ot realize that objects (or call them number one type of
thingies) are idnetified by the sensory perception by taking up a posiiton thta
allows a focus with ONE complete, or separate enttity to process as input,
hence an element for recognition. But by idnetifying one as separate you
automaticaly define what one is not, the rest of the fuzzy environment still
perceiveable, but not identifiable with respect to its boundaries. So you get
infinity, your most lucrative product for thousands of years to sell
people.(Currently as Longevity) . So you need to lift off to see more on ths
single thingies and you stop when you have anything between 3 to 7 (the human
resolution or granularity). But curuously enough, that means that you leave the
perception plane and you go to the reflection plane where you cretae concepts
by
thinking, yet still hooked to that object just identified as one and then you
"define" it in terms of raltion and property - which are abstractions, which is
the same thing as to say that they do not exist ontheir one! (but grounded) So
you have them and you name them as you like wherever you are, becaseu an object
is a quantity and quality at the same time - there is no nunmber without a
referent and vice versa. So even in Physics they would claim that the story of
the infinite progression had to be satrted by square one . But "square one" is
not square, but circle one as we all know from Physics, and time and space obly
define a plane, what makes you thinki that it is three dimensional is that
there
is change to notice, movement to experience and that movement brings in the
cause, energy or the energizer which make time to and space to be be
born wheter in a big way ot a nano way.
To sum up, if you deny the need for the defitnion of a start. starting from the
concept of one, you deny all the storeis about the genesis of everything as
refelected in different chunking all over the world and in history. it is an
other issue how many numbers constitute your next level where your picture is
clear and not blurred, that is where your scale of the mapt that you have drawn
makes senses. No mapy without scales, ma dear friends (03)
Regards,
Ferenc
"our attention becomes structured by external demands. In more intimate
encounters, the level of both challenges and skills can grow very high. Thus,
interactions have many of the characteristics of flow activities, and they
certainly require the orderly investment of mental energy. The strong effects
of (04)
companionship on the quality of experience suggest that investing energy in
relationships is a good way to improve life." Mihály
Csíkszentmihályi"http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/finding-flow?page=3 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|