Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 14:48:09 GMT
1. We as humanity have a maximum of three things we can express in a same thought.
2. Some people express one thing, others express two and others express three.
1. So, is basically: tree, apple tree, green apple tree, or apple, red apple, 'tasty' red apple.
It can implies in our perception of things, perceiving only one aspect, two aspect or three aspects.
I believe is a mathematical development of mind, of the inner mind not only the hability of mathematical calculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2021 15:18:27 GMT
1. We as humanity have a maximum of three things we can express in a same thought. 2. Some people express one thing, others express two and others express three. 1. So, is basically: tree, apple tree, green apple tree, or apple, red apple, 'tasty' red apple. It can implies in our perception of things, perceiving only one aspect, two aspect or three aspects. I believe is a mathematical development of mind, of the inner mind not only the hability of mathematical calculation. Could you please explain it? I didn't get the point. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 18, 2021 15:23:50 GMT
1. We as humanity have a maximum of three things we can express in a same thought. 2. Some people express one thing, others express two and others express three. 1. So, is basically: tree, apple tree, green apple tree, or apple, red apple, 'tasty' red apple. It can implies in our perception of things, perceiving only one aspect, two aspect or three aspects. I believe is a mathematical development of mind, of the inner mind not only the hability of mathematical calculation. Could you please explain it? I didn't get the point. To say apple tree without interrupting your thought. Or saying 'apple' 'tree', without being in the same sense. Or perceiving, at the same time, two things, the form of the apple, and the redish colour of the apple. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2021 15:47:53 GMT
Could you please explain it? I didn't get the point. To say apple tree without interrupting your thought. Or saying 'apple' 'tree', without being in the same sense. Or perceiving, at the same time, two things, the form of the apple, and the redish colour of the apple. Please correct me if I was wrong: you mean that we can just "wave the air" or "shaking our face muscles" without saying anything sane? It's a really interesting question. Recently I read Putnam's "Brains in A Vat" where he said something similar. He said (I can't say I comprehended his ideas) that we can be certain about our statements when and only when we're referring to object that there are. And the opposite: when we're referring to something we don't even know what is it, these statements of ours are dull. For instance, we can seriously read a letter from someone thinking someone is calling for help, but it could be that that letter was typed occasionally by some primates. Also, we can't seriously deciphe some crypto codes when there are no algorithms. That's why we have to be sure about a referenced object. Only successful ontology could bring us hope to go further in our analysis. If what Putnam said is close to your views, when I may think I'm on the right way to understand you. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 18, 2021 15:51:18 GMT
It's simple: is to understand two concepts as a single one, making a new concept. The instrumental reason, people understand only the instrumental and the reason, but not instrumental reason.
And some people can understand three, like practical singular reason.
|
|
