From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed 28 May 2003 - 22:32:02 GMT
> Joe wrote:
>
> > It is logically inconsistent to on the one hand, acknowledge
> > that a set (thoughts) reside in the mind, and on the other hand,
> > that a subset of that set (communicable thoughts) do not reside
> > there.
>
> *set theory
> n : the branch of pure mathematics that deals with the nature
> and relations of sets
>
> <mathematics> A mathematical formalisation of the theory of
> "sets" (aggregates or collections) of objects ("elements" or
> "members"). Many mathematicians use set theory as the basis
> for all other mathematics.
>
> Mathematicians began to realise towards the end of the 19th
> century that just doing "the obvious thing" with sets led to
> embarrassing paradoxes, the most famous being Russell's
> Paradox. As a result, they acknowledged the need for a
> suitable axiomatisation for talking about sets. Numerous
> such axiomatisations exist; the most popular among ordinary
> mathematicians is Zermelo Fränkel set theory.*
>
> - As I understand, pure mathematics is just that. Applying set theory
> to any _process_ or aggregate of processes is, perhaps, a bit
> specious, if not downright irrelevent. It is not a calculus.
>
> I do know I can describe the bricks in the sidewalk outside my
> apartment building in terms of all kinds of sets- the set of bricks
> with the manufacturing mark up, the set with the mark down, the set of
> chipped bricks, the set of loose bricks, the subset of loose bricks
> with the mark down, the subset of chipped bricks with the mark up, the
> subset of loose and chipped bricks, etc.
>
> But, nothing about set theory will tell me a thing about the process
> of laying bricks, or making bricks, or why bricks are here, or how
> slippery they are when wet, and yet, there they are, and they got
> there somehow. Furthermore, I doubt any application of set theory will
> explain any facet of behavior, at all. Set theory is not a description
> of physical processes, it's a math of after-the-fact relational
> observations.
>
> And, nothing about set theory will tell us a thing about cognition, or
> effectively elucidate consciousness, not as a process.
>
> Prove to us all that set theory is applicable to consciousness. What
> rationale is there to demand that set theory is relevant to
> understanding the cognitive process, or even the structure of thought
> or the system of mind?
>
C'MON, Wade, bricks can be divided into red and non-red bricks, just
as ideas/memories/thoughts can be divided into communicable and
noncommunicable, and fruit can be divided intop oranges and non-
oranges.
>
> - Wade
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 28 May 2003 - 22:36:44 GMT