Some people dig being exposed to new information.
Some people dig in their heels.
Some people dig being exposed to new information.
Some people dig in their heels.
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
CosmoQuest Forum: hundreds of people discuss exciting science, while a few people excitedly shout, "Hey, look at me!"
As above, so below
R.W. EmersonWhat is the hardest task in the world? To think.
A little authority for you
From the same authority:
But Emerson wasn't a scientist, nonetheless ... and back to the real topic ...In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.
Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-11 at 07:50 AM.
And how do you do that? How do you test the geometry between the word "apple" (or "ringo" or "miele") and a physical apple? Or the concept of an apple?
With the exception of some slight evidence for a small role of sound symbolism, I am not aware of any evidence that words are not arbitrary. Do you or Bruno have any?If they cannot be reduced to geometry or be shown not to reflect geometry, then they are indeed totally arbitrary and as useful as a fairy tale without a moral or deeper meaning - a bit Harry Potterish.
Your example of an apple is a good one. We can call an apple anything providing we all know what we are dealing with - a common meaning - an accepted definition. But if we want to scrutinize that definition to a degree of exactness, we will apply geometric thought processes to complete the task.
How we construct thoughts through the various symbols used from time to time and place to place, is a different matter. Despite the differences in symbols, the geometric nature of thought will be universal if the thought has validity. If it doesn't, then it is fanciful. There is a place for fancy, no doubt, but it will be largely unintelligible to those from a different place and time - unintelligible for good reason. It's one of the reasons we can never fully understand the Ancient Romans, Greeks or Persians or even people from last century.
It isn't overly complicated. In this post, I have divided something into two parts, reflecting geometry to help explain a thought. I've separated the symbol from a line of thought, or process of thought using the symbols.
We do it regularly, if not all the time in some way. Once you see it and appreciate it, you see it more and more. You also see more clearly when the thought process drifts or becomes ungeometric. In which case, it is almost always inevitably flawed or misconceived.
It is perhaps worth noting that definitions themselves play a pivotal role in geometry.
Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-11 at 09:24 AM.
So you are saying that splitting things into sentences or paragraphs is "geometry"?It isn't overly complicated. In this post, I have divided something into two parts, reflecting geometry to help explain a thought. I've separated the symbol from a line of thought, or process of thought using the symbols.
And, yes, atm things are bit vague, I will freely admit. I'm learning as we go along. I hope to be more specific after I have more time for some reading and to connect things a bit deeper to understand how it works at a pre-language/symbol level with both humans and animals.
Give me time but fire your points or questions at will. It will help give my reading focus.
Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-11 at 10:35 AM.
Both characters seem to have proven their worth to humanity.
Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-11 at 06:14 PM. Reason: grammar
A poor education will consist of disconnecting the two.
Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-11 at 11:07 AM.
There, that. Characterizing "changing your beliefs based on new beliefs" as a lack of fortitude. Avoid personal insults.I confess the same lack of fortitude all too often and know myself to be hardly up to the task.
I think I may understand the issues raised in this thread a little better now.
it seems Bruno may be suggesting by his idea of spatial concepts in language/thought that the geometric spatial reasoning of the brain/mind occurs at such speeds we are not conscious of it generally. We are always doing it with our movements and physical attempts to master, cope or survive. We do it from the outset but very simply. As we mature, the process becomes faster and faster, better developed. It can be developed to a quite fine, extraordinary, degree, despite being limited forever by approximation. It's the approximation which allows for indefinite refinement. In a way, the sky is the limit for how fine the "calculation" can be- the sky at the same time never being a limit.
The brain/mind does not need calculus, (except in the form which pre-dates it as used by Archimedes) in order to achieve what is practical. I think it better to regard the achievement and the means of achievement as a workable approximation necessary for the task, rather than a rule of thumb, but the difference may be one of semantics when examining a rudimentary achievement of a young child doing something simple like catch a ball. There is a great margin of error in the task of catching a ball - generally, within certain parameters, the bigger the ball, the bigger the margin of error, and the less exhausting the method of exhaustion needs to be. In that situation you can take your pick whether you regard it as a "rule of thumb" or a "basic stage of the method of exhaustion".
Developing the speed of this spatial reasoning, necessary for all higher thought and very complex physical activity, is a combination of latent intelligence and education - the two feed off each other continually. It will be developed easier and more efficiently by the study of disciplines which incorporate its principles best but in the preliminary stages best by physical activity. Familiarity with specific situations will assist the process because from memory of previous calculations/constructions held by the brain/mind comes the ability to make ever finer calculations/constructions geometrically according to the method which Archimedes used.
Archimedes is the greatest mathematician because he reflects best the natural working of the brain/mind when it is constantly solving the problems set it from moment to moment, naturally, in order to achieve whatever task befalls it. It is little wonder, therefore, he was so practical.
The skill of spatial calculations/constructions is latent but the speed is something which must be developed. The speed becomes so fast as we develop that it occurs beyond our general ability to perceive it. From our normal point of view, "it just happens" in accomplishing almost all tasks, particularly in environments or routines we are familiar with.
Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-17 at 12:38 AM.
Firstly, the equating of "higher thought" with "complex physical activity". That didn't seem absolutely right at the time of posting and left the thought there must be a difference. The very best sportsman I have generally noticed are far from stupid people, although the temptation of loads of money and sexual attraction may often lead them into regretful actions. They may not be particularly articulate or intellectual sounding in their speech but listen closely and it is not hard to detect intelligence. However, putting them on the same plane as academics and other intellectuals is probably a bridge too far. This is where that feedback loop comes into play cited by 01101001 ("Our Binary Member") earlier in this thread.
It helps to distinguish the intelligent sportsman or those engaged in complex physical activity from the theoretical intellectual. The "physical person" (those engaged in complex physical activity) has the benefit of on the spot updated data constantly being fed into his/her calculations, allowing for greater adjustments. The theoretical intellectual does not have this immediate advantage. His task, therefore, is harder in the calculations he must perform, therefore, making greater demands. In fact, it is so hard we have invented a method, slow and sure, to overcome the difficulty - "science".The visual cues that people use to catch balls on the fly are not that different from the automatic motion detectors built into the tiny brains of critters that catch flies on the wing: frogs. A frog "would have to use the same sort of optical cue to intercept the fly with its tongue," Kaiser said. "And it might make a decent outfielder as well."
*Pity we don't have a link to the source paper for the above media story
Secondly, yesterday, while weighing up the order of my shopping expedition at the local shopping centre awash with holiday makers who invade this Port Stephens paradise at times like this, I noticed myself performing this geometric weighing up of pro and cons of the order of shops I wanted to visit and tasks to be performed. Now, the aim was not to reach any exact figure or number, but rather think it through to determine the best order in light of available information. For this purpose, it was sufficient, it seems, for me to use spatial images, dividing off tasks, comparing their pros and cons in terms of desired order which had to be done relative to a larger concept. I didn't talk myself through these calculations, I used shapes and sizes, I noticed. After noticing this, it appeared to me, that those people who are able to calculate quite large numbers almost instantaneously, probably use the same method but incredibly faster. I have always wondered how they achieved this. It's possible Bruno had accomplished it himself, leading many to regard him as a magician.
Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Apr-15 at 10:15 PM.