Between Science and Spirituality

While your concern wanes, there are very many others who spend a lot of their energy and concern to persuade human persons that language is just a material configuration. And they do it with metaphors.

I'm sorry. I don't understand you here. [i woke up dense today, ok?]

What do you mean by this? What concern wanes? I am in total despair about the present culture's inability to reason, to understand the place of metaphore in our thought processes. What do you think I am doing here but trying to understand why people are sooo stupid?

For example, (you will have to paste this to read it) http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/jan/25/012507399.html

They call these 'Darwin Awards' because these people remove themselves from the gene pool before they can breed.

What I meant by my quote was the contra-diction between

active fancy [ability] against language.

and

poetic use of language itself

and

Its achievement will be marked by a reduction of language to nature.

Can you see the contra-diction here? If not, I cannot help you.

I believe you'll enjoy Emperor and I'm very much looking forward to your views on it!

Alamo-Girl, I am just loving it! It's a workout -- I'm only able to do a chapter a day, because so often I have to get out pen and note pad and work out Penrose's ideas "manually." His treatment of complex numbers is fascinating. I'd heard of the "imaginary" i before; but didn't realize its indispensability for, say, plotting the Mandelbrot set. I anticipate his speculation that certain mathematical ideas are "discoveries" (e.g., the Mandelbrot set) rather than "inventions" (e.g., algorithms) will have direct relevance to the problem of consciousness.

An excerpt for today:

"Is mathematics invention or discovery? When mathematicians come upon their results are they just producing elaborate mental constructions which have no actual reality, but whose power and elegance is sufficient simply to fool even their inventors into believing that these mere mental constructions are 'real'? Or are mathematicians really uncovering truths which are, in fact, already 'there' -- truths whose existence is quite independent of the mathematicians' activities?...

"...These are the cases where much more comes out of the structure than is put into it in the first place. One may take the view that in such cases the mathematicians have stumbled upon 'works of God'. However, there are other cases where the mathematical structure does not have such a compelling uniqueness, such as when, in the midst of a proof of some result, the mathematician finds the need to introduce some contrived and far from unique construction in order to achieve some specific end. In such cases no more is likely to come out of the construction than was put into it in the first place, and the word 'invention' seems more appropriate than 'discovery'. These are indeed just 'works of man'....

"Having made these points, however, I cannot help feeling that, with mathematics, the case for believing in some kind of ethereal, external existence, at least for the more profound mathematical concepts, is a good deal stronger than in those other cases. There is a compelling uniqueness and universality in such mathematical ideas which seems to be of quite a different order from that which one could expect in the arts or engineering...."

Then he notes that this was, indeed, the view of Plato; and that this insight "will have considerable importance" for his further treatment of the issues in this book. So, needless to say, I'm looking forward with enormous interest to the further development of his thesis!

Thank you so much for recommending this astounding work!

Thank you so very much for your post! I am so glad you are enjoying it, and I see that you are drawn to exactly the same observations that get my undivided attention!

I anticipate his speculation that certain mathematical ideas are "discoveries" (e.g., the Mandelbrot set) rather than "inventions" (e.g., algorithms) will have direct relevance to the problem of consciousness.

Indeed, it will have a very great deal to do with our discussion on consciousness. Penrose is Platonist, as am I. And he is a wonderful mathematician/scientist. I believe he is Physicalist (rather than Materialist) and thus will explore every possibility, including the natural.

Hugs!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.