|
Post by joustos on Nov 10, 2021 21:42:16 GMT
Fact: Man the measurer emerges in human history. Question: Are his measuring techniques innate or possibly learned from without (hence found, DISCOVERED) or INVENTED, created, by humans or some race of humans? To begin with, to avoid misunderstandings, example: I go to a store to buy apples. I look at them, consider the price of each, and decide to buy ten of them; that is, I decide to buy a certain QUANTITY of them. "Ten" is the outcome of a process, namely the Counting of the apples which I pick from a basket. Counting is a measuring technique which I learned long before my shopping. So, as used presently in the store, the technique is something discovered, remembered, found within myself. In another situation, I buy apples by weight rather than by number, in which case the measuring technique [weighing] -- and relative instrument -- was invented by some humans, and now it is merely remembered.// We measure imponderables like space and time. Project: A week is a set of seven days. It can be thought of as the outcome counting a certain quantity of days, but did the historical notion of "week" emerge as a result of counting? I don't think so. The sum of seven days is a "seven-nary", a row of seven similar individuals; a week is a period of time, which cannot be visualized/understood by a row (that is, in spatial terms). Was "/week/" in any language something invented?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 12, 2021 22:36:09 GMT
We all know that an ancient way of measuring space -- specifically, the distance between two points -- is to walk between them and to COUNT the number of steps that are required. We can also imagine why this technique or method was abandoned and replaced by the invention of a yardstick/meter etc., but the point is that , to begin with, the quantity of a distance is not something we just perceive/discover, but something we produce [not arbitrarily] by an invented measuring method. This is even more obvious when we consider the quantity of a field or what we call a two-dimensional AREA.Those who do not know the ancient/original method do not really understand why the area of a rectangle, learned in school, is the length of one side times the length of the other side. // What we call a WEEK exists (stands out) because of some method human have invented. A week does not exist by nature and cannot be a datum of perception or exploration. [I am expanding on Heidegger's Dasein or what Ficino called the humanization of the universe while, as he said, Aristotle had spoken of the universalization of man, for to know something is to become it "in a way".
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 14, 2021 19:08:30 GMT
Continuing my above post: The mentioned Humanization and Universalization seem to be weird ideas, because we certainly do not turn the universe (of anything within it) into a human being, nor does the universe turn a human being into a universe, namely into something which has the the same nature as the universe. In other words, there is no trans-substanciation in either direction -- no mutation of essence in either direction. For the moment, let us omit any discussion about the fact that alchemists attempted to mutate some base materials into gold, but some chemists have actually changed some elements into elements of a different nature, though not into human beings. Such a transmutation is done by humans, not spontaneously by Nature; so, we can mentally mark it as a humanization. A clearer humanization occurs when primitive man personalizes some natural events -- for instance, when he calls it Zeus and imagines Zeus to be a person who intentionally and purposefully does what is happening. In this case, the storm in mentally transmuted into a human person [with mind, knowledge, will, and emotions]. So, Medieval thinkers would say that the transmuted storm is man-like or is in the IMAGE of man. In the case of the chemist, a transmuted element is not man-like but [mentally for us] bears the mark of its maker, in the same way that a footprint [caused by a man] has a faint or limited resemblance to its maker. The footprint is called a VESTIGE (not an image] of man. So, humanization [which is mystical or imaginary] is either vestigial or iconic/image-wise. [Medieval theologians said that the physical universe/world is a vestige of God, whereas man (the human soul or essence]) is an image of God. Thus all creatures are "deified" in nature -- not made into gods. I find this funny, since what early man called a "god" was personified/humanized, or made anthropomorphic, to begin with.]
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 14, 2021 19:28:30 GMT
I have a friend, a coder. He's interesting in that subject too. From him I knew about Jacque Piaget (?) and how phenomena of technic was presumably discovered. That French scientist said – via studying the own body that process of the technique ideas had been collected, and applied. Also, a friend of mine said some thoughts about "a hand theory", or the theory that takes a hand as something prior to the language or the mind; i.e. handy language appeared before, and curves drawing by a hand were earlier to vowels, sounds symbols, etc.
That question as you put it is more interesting, because indeed – the measure phenomenon is to be something really important. Must note how important and unique your question is!
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 14, 2021 21:40:37 GMT
I have a friend, a coder. He's interesting in that subject too. From him I knew about Jacque Piaget (?) and how phenomena of technic was presumably discovered. That French scientist said – via studying the own body that process of the technique ideas had been collected, and applied. Also, a friend of mine said some thoughts about "a hand theory", or the theory that takes a hand as something prior to the language or the mind; i.e. handy language appeared before, and curves drawing by a hand were earlier to vowels, sounds symbols, etc. That question as you put it is more interesting, because indeed – the measure phenomenon is to be something really important. Must note how important and unique your question is! I'd say, rather generally, that techniques/methods (or the results thereof) are based upon various human activities in the world plus some analogies and generalizations. And in all such cases, the use of a method turns out to be a humanization of that which is measured or in any way evaluated. In this connection, I'll add another open-ended issue: Is it true that what can be said of an inividual can be validly said also of the whole to which the individual belongs [in kind/essence]? For instance, individual humans go through a process of infancy, adolescence, and adulthood. Now, as Spengler and others believed, is it true that a human society goes though these three phases? Is it true, as some Medieval theologians/philosophers believed, that what is true of physical individuals [ having a beginning, an end, etc.] is true also of the whole physical universe? We have many issues in these few pages of the thread, plus some linguistic issues I may take up in another thead of mine [Logology], sooner or later. Stay tooned.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 15, 2021 9:27:38 GMT
I have a friend, a coder. He's interesting in that subject too. From him I knew about Jacque Piaget (?) and how phenomena of technic was presumably discovered. That French scientist said – via studying the own body that process of the technique ideas had been collected, and applied. Also, a friend of mine said some thoughts about "a hand theory", or the theory that takes a hand as something prior to the language or the mind; i.e. handy language appeared before, and curves drawing by a hand were earlier to vowels, sounds symbols, etc. That question as you put it is more interesting, because indeed – the measure phenomenon is to be something really important. Must note how important and unique your question is! I'd say, rather generally, that techniques/methods (or the results thereof) are based upon various human activities in the world plus some analogies and generalizations. And in all such cases, the use of a method turns out to be a humanization of that which is measured or in any way evaluated. In this connection, I'll add another open-ended issue: Is it true that what can be said of an inividual can be validly said also of the whole to which the individual belongs [in kind/essence]? For instance, individual humans go through a process of infancy, adolescence, and adulthood. Now, as Spengler and others believed, is it true that a human society goes though these three phases? Is it true, as some Medieval theologians/philosophers believed, that what is true of physical individuals [ having a beginning, an end, etc.] is true also of the whole physical universe? We have many issues in these few pages of the thread, plus some linguistic issues I may take up in another thead of mine [Logology], sooner or later. Stay tooned.In other words, different habits are (possible) reasons for humane to repeat them again and again. About a part & a whole. I don't believe in such a coincidence as something to be the law. I mean Why if a person has those stadies, and the universe must have it? I see no necessary link here. Of course, it doesn't mean there are no microcosm and macrocosm conincidences. Anyway, I believen in the next one: if a part is being changed, so about a whole
A: {...} = absolutely = {...}1. If a part is x, then if x has taken out (somehow), then a whole {..., x, ...} has lost its element, and has turned to {..., x, ...}; 2. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become xi, then a whole {..., x, ...} has changed into {..., xi, ...}; 3. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}. B: {...} = not absolutely = C 1. If a part is x, then if x has taken out (somehow), then a whole {..., x, ...} has lost its element, and has turned to {..., x, ...}; 2. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become x i, and there is no such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, ...} has changed into {..., xi, ...}; 3. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, and there is no such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}; 4. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become x i, and there are such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then either a whole {..., x, ...} has left to be into {..., x, ...}; 5. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, and there are such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}.Generally speaking, there are cases for which a whole changes, while there are cases for which a whole doesn't change.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 15, 2021 15:28:52 GMT
I'd say, rather generally, that techniques/methods (or the results thereof) are based upon various human activities in the world plus some analogies and generalizations. And in all such cases, the use of a method turns out to be a humanization of that which is measured or in any way evaluated. In this connection, I'll add another open-ended issue: Is it true that what can be said of an inividual can be validly said also of the whole to which the individual belongs [in kind/essence]? For instance, individual humans go through a process of infancy, adolescence, and adulthood. Now, as Spengler and others believed, is it true that a human society goes though these three phases? Is it true, as some Medieval theologians/philosophers believed, that what is true of physical individuals [ having a beginning, an end, etc.] is true also of the whole physical universe? We have many issues in these few pages of the thread, plus some linguistic issues I may take up in another thead of mine [Logology], sooner or later. Stay tooned.In other words, different habits are (possible) reasons for humane to repeat them again and again. About a part & a whole. I don't believe in such a coincidence as something to be the law. I mean Why if a person has those stadies, and the universe must have it? I see no necessary link here. Of course, it doesn't mean there are no microcosm and macrocosm conincidences. Anyway, I believen in the next one: if a part is being changed, so about a whole
A: {...} = absolutely = {...}1. If a part is x, then if x has taken out (somehow), then a whole {..., x, ...} has lost its element, and has turned to {..., x, ...}; 2. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become xi, then a whole {..., x, ...} has changed into {..., xi, ...}; 3. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}. B: {...} = not absolutely = C 1. If a part is x, then if x has taken out (somehow), then a whole {..., x, ...} has lost its element, and has turned to {..., x, ...}; 2. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become x i, and there is no such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, ...} has changed into {..., xi, ...}; 3. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, and there is no such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}; 4. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become x i, and there are such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then either a whole {..., x, ...} has left to be into {..., x, ...}; 5. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, and there are such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}.Generally speaking, there are cases for which a whole changes, while there are cases for which a whole doesn't change. About Part and Whole, I agree that if, e.g., a part changes, the Whole is changed -- 0bviously because a part is an integral part of the whole ; however, I was thinking on a different direction: generally speaking, is it true that if a member of a class has certain properties, ABC, then the class or set itself has the same properties? They said Yes; I say No...... And do the properties of a house belong also to any of its contents? Of course Not. On the other hand, the properties of parents are passed on to their offsprings, wherefore, by looking at the offsprings, we can make some inferences about the nature of their parents -- IF we already know that people abcd are offsprings rather than aboriginal/primordial causes.......... The universe does not have a tag that says "I am an EFFECT/CREATURE ". Must it be an effect??? Or is it "that which is" [ to ti esti] ? '
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 15, 2021 21:22:25 GMT
In other words, different habits are (possible) reasons for humane to repeat them again and again. About a part & a whole. I don't believe in such a coincidence as something to be the law. I mean Why if a person has those stadies, and the universe must have it? I see no necessary link here. Of course, it doesn't mean there are no microcosm and macrocosm conincidences. Anyway, I believen in the next one: if a part is being changed, so about a whole
A: {...} = absolutely = {...}1. If a part is x, then if x has taken out (somehow), then a whole {..., x, ...} has lost its element, and has turned to {..., x, ...}; 2. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become xi, then a whole {..., x, ...} has changed into {..., xi, ...}; 3. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}. B: {...} = not absolutely = C 1. If a part is x, then if x has taken out (somehow), then a whole {..., x, ...} has lost its element, and has turned to {..., x, ...}; 2. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become x i, and there is no such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, ...} has changed into {..., xi, ...}; 3. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, and there is no such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}; 4. If a part is x, and x has lost his previous x'ness to become x i, and there are such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then either a whole {..., x, ...} has left to be into {..., x, ...}; 5. If part are x, y, z... and no elements hasn't changed, and there are such parts like y, z... for which is fair that either x=y, or x=z, or y+z=x, then a whole {..., x, y, z, ...} has left to be {..., x, y, z, ...}.Generally speaking, there are cases for which a whole changes, while there are cases for which a whole doesn't change. About Part and Whole, I agree that if, e.g., a part changes, the Whole is changed -- 0bviously because a part is an integral part of the whole ; however, I was thinking on a different direction: generally speaking, is it true that if a member of a class has certain properties, ABC, then the class or set itself has the same properties? They said Yes; I say No...... And do the properties of a house belong also to any of its contents? Of course Not. On the other hand, the properties of parents are passed on to their offsprings, wherefore, by looking at the offsprings, we can make some inferences about the nature of their parents -- IF we already know that people abcd are offsprings rather than aboriginal/primordial causes.......... The universe does not have a tag that says "I am an EFFECT/CREATURE ". Must it be an effect??? Or is it "that which is" [ to ti esti] ? ' Being honestly I do like your thoughts here, it's something important and deep. Firstly let me make a little addition: if a part is changing it does not necessary mean the whole (contained that part) is changing also (or being changed also). Why this? If there are some such elements which mutual existence allow to overlap the changes (on the inner levels), this may allow to cause no changes on the upper levels. Two examples: some people pass, some people are born – the number may left the same. Or, in the same country there might happen different changes, while no changes to the country as a whole occurs. A question of yours, as I presume, has many many details and points, and since that it's a good start (as I see it) to elaborate the theme. For instance: a. If there are no similarities on the different levels, how then those levels are connected to each other? Doesn't it mean there are no relations between them at all? b. Can there be some "non similar" copies? Or, on other words, if there are two or more levels, and each of them has some connection to another one, how we determine their relations? By what? c. How an upper level property can avoid any assimilations with its inner levels? Or, if a whole has some properties, and these are made by the part properties, why the whole properties are different? d. Might it be that two different properties are indeed one x–property? And these two properties have some kind of a hidden relation; let's say, these two properties share the same origins, or roots? P.S. ! I used a term "levels" instead of "a part/a whole". It's quite plainer and more general to use "levels". Of course, if something works with "the levels" doesn't mean it will with "parts/a whole"; however, a conversion: "parts/a whole" → "levels" does work.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Nov 16, 2021 20:33:23 GMT
I have a friend, a coder. He's interesting in that subject too. From him I knew about Jacque Piaget (?) and how phenomena of technic was presumably discovered. That French scientist said – via studying the own body that process of the technique ideas had been collected, and applied. Also, a friend of mine said some thoughts about "a hand theory", or the theory that takes a hand as something prior to the language or the mind; i.e. handy language appeared before, and curves drawing by a hand were earlier to vowels, sounds symbols, etc. That question as you put it is more interesting, because indeed – the measure phenomenon is to be something really important. Must note how important and unique your question is! The University Is the Root of All Evil Mathematics comes from a word meaning hand. Manthano means "I learn." We learn to count first, using the fingers of our hand. It comes from the same root as the Latin manus; it doesn't matter that the Greek word for hand is kheir. Another obvious connection that the narrow-minded totalitarian academics refuse to recognize is that "dog" is related to the Latin digitus "finger." Both mean "pointer," which a dog does for its hunter.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 17, 2021 17:01:49 GMT
I have a friend, a coder. He's interesting in that subject too. From him I knew about Jacque Piaget (?) and how phenomena of technic was presumably discovered. That French scientist said – via studying the own body that process of the technique ideas had been collected, and applied. Also, a friend of mine said some thoughts about "a hand theory", or the theory that takes a hand as something prior to the language or the mind; i.e. handy language appeared before, and curves drawing by a hand were earlier to vowels, sounds symbols, etc. That question as you put it is more interesting, because indeed – the measure phenomenon is to be something really important. Must note how important and unique your question is! The University Is the Root of All Evil Mathematics comes from a word meaning hand. Manthano means "I learn." We learn to count first, using the fingers of our hand. It comes from the same root as the Latin manus; it doesn't matter that the Greek word for hand is kheir. Another obvious connection that the narrow-minded totalitarian academics refuse to recognize is that "dog" is related to the Latin digitus "finger." Both mean "pointer," which a dog does for its hunter. Hmm... That's really interesting. I've heard about the theory of language came from using hand-language previously. (Unfortunately, I forgot the name of that scientits.)
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 17, 2021 19:59:35 GMT
The University Is the Root of All Evil Mathematics comes from a word meaning hand. Manthano means "I learn." We learn to count first, using the fingers of our hand. It comes from the same root as the Latin manus; it doesn't matter that the Greek word for hand is kheir. Another obvious connection that the narrow-minded totalitarian academics refuse to recognize is that "dog" is related to the Latin digitus "finger." Both mean "pointer," which a dog does for its hunter. Hmm... That's really interesting. I've heard about the theory of language came from using hand-language previously. (Unfortunately, I forgot the name of that scientits.) Whoever that scientist was, he actually committed the fallacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" [after this, therefore because of this]. It is true that before our voiced [sounded] language, humans used a hand language or, more generally, a gesture language -- which we still use to some extent or on some occasions; however, there is no way that a voice-language can be based on a gesture/visual language. A voice-language started to be homopoeic, that is, by imitating the sounds that animals produce. E.G., even today we can speak of a bow-bow, a quack-quack, and the like. Possibly some trees and animals were named by arbitrary sounds, even though previously they were denoted by gestures (to indicate their size or volume, possibly furious movements, etc.) There is no single theory about the formation of voice-language.... We should also wander whether, like animals, humans produce distinctive sounds. (The ethnologist Vico theorized that the earliest human [voiced]language consisted of singing. I agree, but the theory does not account for the formation of th words or syllables that are sung.).......
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 17, 2021 20:40:55 GMT
Hmm... That's really interesting. I've heard about the theory of language came from using hand-language previously. (Unfortunately, I forgot the name of that scientits.) Whoever that scientist was, he actually committed the fallacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" [after this, therefore because of this]. It is true that before our voiced [sounded] language, humans used a hand language or, more generally, a gesture language -- which we still use to some extent or on some occasions; however, there is no way that a voice-language can be based on a gesture/visual language. A voice-language started to be homopoeic, that is, by imitating the sounds that animals produce. E.G., even today we can speak of a bow-bow, a quack-quack, and the like. Possibly some trees and animals were named by arbitrary sounds, even though previously they were denoted by gestures (to indicate their size or volume, possibly furious movements, etc.) There is no single theory about the formation of voice-language.... We should also wander whether, like animals, humans produce distinctive sounds. (The ethnologist Vico theorized that the earliest human [voiced]language consisted of singing. I agree, but the theory does not account for the formation of th words or syllables that are sung.)....... Maybe you're right. It seems that he might've done that fallacy, and followed the wrong way. As you rightly pointed there are names, and these names reflect different sounds /since we've got ears that repeats of hearing different voices as well as using gestures may be this - the process of reflection, and along with it, some plain moves, like swimming, crawling, breathing/. I remember a Polish linguist book by Adam Schaff "Introduction to Semantics" where he doubted that gesture-language theory. Well, I'm not an expert. All I think that those processes might go a shoulder by a shoulder. Survival living those centuries required many abilities to have, and voice was one of a good one, especially when a squad is plotting something. I mean if groups of people intend to cooperate they'd better have some sound signals to act quicklier. May I ask you, why "th" words are so important? Had these words come previously to appearance of the othe ones?
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Nov 17, 2021 21:51:27 GMT
Sorry, I do not know what "TH" words you are referring to. Anyway, the English words like THIS and THAT are likely to be very early words that replaced finger signals (towad somehing respectively near the speaker and far from the speaker). (Some languages have have a third "demonstrative pronoun", like the Italian "codesto', to indicate something next to the listener. The 3: Questo [<Latin Iste], Quello [<Latin ille/illa/illud], Codesto [newly coined]. These words are inflected to express gender and nunber, as most Indo-European words are.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Nov 17, 2021 23:27:52 GMT
The University Is the Root of All Evil Mathematics comes from a word meaning hand. Manthano means "I learn." We learn to count first, using the fingers of our hand. It comes from the same root as the Latin manus; it doesn't matter that the Greek word for hand is kheir. Another obvious connection that the narrow-minded totalitarian academics refuse to recognize is that "dog" is related to the Latin digitus "finger." Both mean "pointer," which a dog does for its hunter. Hmm... That's really interesting. I've heard about the theory of language came from using hand-language previously. (Unfortunately, I forgot the name of that scientits.) Why the Russian Sto Is Related to the English Hundred The S and the H sounds come from the mouth: hissing and huffing.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Nov 17, 2021 23:40:47 GMT
Whoever that scientist was, he actually committed the fallacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" [after this, therefore because of this]. It is true that before our voiced [sounded] language, humans used a hand language or, more generally, a gesture language -- which we still use to some extent or on some occasions; however, there is no way that a voice-language can be based on a gesture/visual language. A voice-language started to be homopoeic, that is, by imitating the sounds that animals produce. E.G., even today we can speak of a bow-bow, a quack-quack, and the like. Possibly some trees and animals were named by arbitrary sounds, even though previously they were denoted by gestures (to indicate their size or volume, possibly furious movements, etc.) There is no single theory about the formation of voice-language.... We should also wander whether, like animals, humans produce distinctive sounds. (The ethnologist Vico theorized that the earliest human [voiced]language consisted of singing. I agree, but the theory does not account for the formation of th words or syllables that are sung.)....... Maybe you're right. It seems that he might've done that fallacy, and followed the wrong way. As you rightly pointed there are names, and these names reflect different sounds /since we've got ears that repeats of hearing different voices as well as using gestures may be this - the process of reflection, and along with it, some plain moves, like swimming, crawling, breathing/. I remember a Polish linguist book by Adam Schaff "Introduction to Semantics" where he doubted that gesture-language theory. Well, I'm not an expert. All I think that those processes might go a shoulder by a shoulder. Survival living those centuries required many abilities to have, and voice was one of a good one, especially when a squad is plotting something. I mean if groups of people intend to cooperate they'd better have some sound signals to act quicklier. May I ask you, why "th" words are so important? Had these words come previously to appearance of the othe ones? On-Air AirHeads TH comes from pointing, as I explained in reference to dog and digitus. T, TH, and D are interchangeable. Indo-European was learned as a second language by the "Old Europeans" who were conquered around 3000BC. Those indigenees did not have one of these sounds in their language, so they used the other, just like we don't have the KH sound, so we called Khrushchev "Krooshchef." (Actually it should have been "Krooschoff," but our careless university-educated media took decades before pronouncing Gorbachev" the reasonably correct way)
|
|