atom feed67 messages in at.iem.pd-listRe: [PD] CVs
FromSent OnAttachments
Josh MooreMay 7, 2011 3:31 pm 
Patrice ColetMay 8, 2011 1:52 am 
Mathieu BouchardMay 8, 2011 7:46 am 
Martin PeachMay 8, 2011 8:48 am 
Chris McCormickMay 8, 2011 4:51 pm 
Billy StiltnerMay 9, 2011 4:07 am 
Bryan JurishMay 9, 2011 4:53 am 
Mathieu BouchardMay 9, 2011 6:21 am 
Simon WiseMay 9, 2011 6:43 am 
Andy FarnellMay 9, 2011 2:06 pm 
Mathieu BouchardMay 10, 2011 9:11 am 
Jaime OliverMay 10, 2011 10:00 am 
Billy StiltnerMay 10, 2011 10:01 am 
Andy FarnellMay 10, 2011 11:57 am 
Chris McCormickMay 10, 2011 5:16 pm 
Patrice ColetMay 10, 2011 6:43 pm 
Simon WiseMay 11, 2011 1:19 am 
Simon WiseMay 11, 2011 1:23 am 
hard offMay 11, 2011 6:27 am 
Pedro LopesMay 11, 2011 6:48 am 
hard offMay 11, 2011 6:55 am 
hard offMay 11, 2011 6:57 am 
Andy FarnellMay 11, 2011 7:15 am 
Derek HolzerMay 11, 2011 9:58 am 
hard offMay 11, 2011 10:04 pm 
Mathieu BouchardMay 13, 2011 9:38 am 
Chris McCormickMay 18, 2011 9:57 pm 
Chris McCormickMay 18, 2011 9:59 pm 
batinsteMay 19, 2011 1:17 am 
Simon WiseMay 19, 2011 5:01 am 
Bryan JurishMay 19, 2011 8:11 am 
Chris McCormickMay 19, 2011 10:01 pm 
Simon WiseMay 20, 2011 7:04 am 
Bryan JurishMay 21, 2011 3:21 pm 
Bryan JurishMay 21, 2011 3:22 pm 
Simon WiseMay 22, 2011 1:28 am 
Mathieu BouchardMay 22, 2011 10:36 am 
Mathieu BouchardMay 22, 2011 11:00 am 
Chris McCormickMay 22, 2011 6:03 pm 
Patrice ColetMay 22, 2011 8:09 pm 
Chris McCormickMay 22, 2011 9:21 pm 
Bryan JurishMay 23, 2011 12:21 am 
Simon WiseMay 23, 2011 4:53 am 
Simon WiseMay 23, 2011 5:01 am 
Simon WiseMay 23, 2011 5:46 am 
Patrice ColetMay 23, 2011 6:20 am 
Mathieu BouchardMay 23, 2011 9:09 am 
Mathieu BouchardMay 23, 2011 9:37 am 
Mathieu BouchardMay 24, 2011 7:29 am 
Mathieu BouchardMay 24, 2011 9:13 am 
Andy FarnellMay 26, 2011 5:57 am 
Andy FarnellMay 26, 2011 6:14 am 
tim vetsMay 26, 2011 12:11 pm 
Bryan JurishMay 27, 2011 12:57 am 
Bryan JurishMay 27, 2011 1:08 am 
Chris McCormickMay 27, 2011 1:24 am 
hard offMay 27, 2011 1:51 am 
Chris McCormickMay 27, 2011 7:03 pm 
Mathieu BouchardMay 28, 2011 11:08 am 
Mathieu BouchardJun 2, 2011 10:45 am 
Mathieu BouchardJun 2, 2011 2:33 pm 
Andy FarnellJun 20, 2011 10:03 am 
Mathieu BouchardJun 20, 2011 6:14 pm 
Chris McCormickJun 20, 2011 6:51 pm 
Chris McCormickJun 20, 2011 6:54 pm 
Andy FarnellJun 21, 2011 12:22 pm 
Mathieu BouchardDec 7, 2011 12:39 pm 
Subject:Re: [PD] CVs
From:Bryan Jurish (jur@uni-potsdam.de)
Date:May 19, 2011 8:11:46 am
List:at.iem.pd-list

On 2011-05-19 14:01, Simon Wise wrote:

That is which numbers are directly perceivable, without some more abstract mathematical mapping to guide us?

Zero ;-)

Certainly most people can look at four matches on a table and see that there are four, without doing any counting at all.

That's "four matches", not "the number four". If by "number" you mean the characteristic property of all sets of 4 elements, you're perceiving something (the matches) which has that property, but you can't directly perceive the property itself (i.e. its `intension'), because it's a function (in the mathematical sense) from all possible entities (let's ignore possible worlds for now) to a truth value indicating whether or not that entity is a set-of-four. This view is pretty unsatisfying for a number of reasons (for one thing, it doesn't work well for anything other than positive integers), but I hope it suffices to show that "the number four" can't be perceived directly. The same sort of argument goes for other "simple" qualities like volume, mass, density, color etc -- this stuff has had epistemologists tearing their hair out for centuries. There are 2 main camps, and I'm more or less solidly in the one that says "numbers exist" :-)

In some languages, where mathematics hasn't become part of the language,

huh? do you happen to know of one specifically?

and the words for numbers are pre-mathematics, counting goes something like "one, two, three, four, many"

... many one, many two, many three, many four, many many, ... many many one, many many two, many many three, many many four, ... LOTS

[courtesy of Terry Pratchett] ;-)

so I guess that backs up the idea that the first few integers are perceived directly,

Again, I take issue with the details, but yes: there's a lot of empirical evidence that human cognitive/perceptual apparatus does some specialized handling for small sets, including counting. How we get those sets to be __sets__ (as opposed to arbitrarily co-occuring random perceptual data packets) is quite another matter, and im(ns)ho a much more interesting one.

but every other number - counting numbers past that, zero, negative integers, the rest of the rational numbers, the rest of the real numbers, the rest of the complex numbers, ... and so forth are all just constructs in the language of mathematics which all happen to have some quite useful mappings to things we can observe around us. Most integers do not have any more 'existence' (however that may be defined) than complex numbers.

I'll agree that integers and complex numbers have the same sort and degree of existence, but I don't believe they're `constructs'. If forty-two trees fall in a forest and no one is around to count them, __forty-two__ trees have still fallen.

marmosets, Bryan

-- ***************************************************

Bryan Jurish Deutsches Textarchiv Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften

Jägerstr. 22/23 10117 Berlin

Tel.: +49 (0)30 20370 539 E-Mail: jur@bbaw.de