(urth) barrington interview

Adam Thornton athornton at gmail.com
Thu Oct 9 07:17:20 PDT 2014


Not much to do with Wolfe, but Lakoff and Nunez's book *Where Mathematics
Comes From* may be of some interest from a philosophical standpoint.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from
>
> >observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason
>
> >could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our
>
> >minds.
>
>
> I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world,
>
> I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly
>
> reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since
>
> birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are
>
> built to function that way.
>
>
> >Rick Norwood:  In a universe with different physical laws, we would have
>
> >different physics, but the same math.  Math is the knowledge that can
>
> >be arrived at by pure reason.
>
>
>
> Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item.
>
> How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted
>
> by any real world experience or perception?
>
>
>
>  I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its
>
> continued use, the combination  of real world perception and experience
>
> and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains.
>
>
>
> And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math.
> Because
>
> math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet
> earth,
>
> and thus is inherently limited by it.
>
>
>
> A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm
>
> of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so.  The adult human brain
> is a
>
> product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with
> decades
>
> of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life.
>
>
>
> The suggestion that the human brain can somehow  decide to operate
> independently
>
> from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like
> saying a
>
> automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and
> construction and
>
> start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can
> possibly make
>
> sense.
>
>
>
> (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an
> example
>
> of "Genetic Fallacy"?)
>
>
>
> Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually
> did stumble
>
> upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences
> must agree upon.
>
> I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position
> to make that
>
> judgment?
>
>
>
>  Human beings are not universal.  All we know is our own intelligence and
> what we can "see"
>
>  from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the
> system we invented
>
> here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every
> form of intelligence.
>
>
>
> (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't
> invent math; it is
>
> something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at
> that)
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141009/eeb9da82/attachment-0003.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list