Did you know that in the old english period there was a word that meant something like "throw away, chuck", but it was a verb that became unused fairly quickly. It sounded awfully close to "yeet". But it has no etymological connection to today's "yeet". We must have reached into the metaphysical space and brought yeet back. Is this my master's thesis?
2 Likes
For mathematical objects, it'd be they either exist or they don't. If they do exist, they clearly can't physically exist. The nonexistence option is really the only alternative
I see so it is really an argument about what really exists or not. hmmm
Yeah. Gödel was the main 20th century author that super advocated mathematical realism, but it's the oldest view, going back to Plato's whole "a circle exists, but no drawing of a circle is the circle that exists" like the Platonic ideal of a circle
philosophy is too daunting. I prefer using syntax trees to look smart
well the model of language I adhere too on this side of the fence does include a sort of deep level where these things "exist", and then our language faculty does a lot of cool shit to bring it to the surface. sounds agreeable to me.
Yeah, it's a similar notion. The concepts preexist, and the role of a mathematician is to discover them
man the conclusions the shit I worked on could reach were at most like, language isn't merely a communication tool, and even lesser stuff like German doesn't have a Tense Phrase.
I definitely feel like the bass player in the language band rn
What is it beyond a communication tool? On its face, claiming it's just a medium for communication seems foolish
Yeah it is foolish, but some dumb euros believed that and we had to put that shit away in the mid 20th century. Since that process of putting it away involved some work that a lot of people are skeptical about, they throw out the baby with the bath water and entertain that dumb notion again. They are dumb.
Hbotz continued with his idea that all cognition and therefore language, etc. is contained wholly on the brain. When some of his assumptions about math necessarily implied mathematical objects are real so our discovery of them can't be reduced to a material basis, he went with the whole "well math is bad and Gödel's proofs are wrong," argument. Truly a site to behold. I had to block him because of how immensely dumb he is. Or he's just arguing in bad faith
It seems to be natural that language is a tool of knowledge production and the development of language is necessary for things like the development of sense, as in "that makes sense."
the vast majority of language use happens for thought, not communication. but it is so much more difficult to study that language use, and we primarily study the communication use for data. this wouldn't be a huge problem if people understood they are studying a use of a thing instead of thinking of it as the thing itself.
I would agree, but I would avoid using an idiomatic expression as an example. I don't think that one would work out across languages.
That seems to be hbotz's problem. That and he talks about shit without even looking at a Wikipedia article. He says only knowledge that can be investigated scientifically is valuable but doesn't understand that means his assertions about all cognition and consciousness being purely physical processes must be accompanied by an experiment that could falsify it to be valid in any empiricist framework.
And he keeps saying you can empirically study metaphysical objects, which is absolutely fucking hilarious. It's always the pop sci drivel "I fucking love science!" types that are so vocal about how philosophy is meaningless while knowing nothing about the epistemological status of science with well-defined limits, etc
I used it because that's the term Deleuze uses in The Logic of Sense, his work on the formation of language through a person's developmental stage and how it gives birth to sense. Just used the idiom to distinguish it from sense-perception
okay I think I am on the same page now and I would agree. how do you think this tool of knowledge came to be? If we are on that same page, I think we both agree it was not some coevolution (never sure if I am using this word right, not a biologist)? But I mean like, it wasn't human social interaction over a long period that cultivated it. I don't think it was.
I am in the mutation camp
there is growing traction for a belief that it was indeed cultivated over a long period of social interactions and that our move to a more strict bipedalism is what allowed us to cultivate this very complex language system, as our primate relatives' brains and ours have an overlap with shit like hand use and human language apparently.
I think that is malarkey