Philosophy Now Forum

And it is in your nature to avoid the truth when you see it.
If you think what I say is untrue then argue against it.
Don't give up so easily.
If you argue in the spirit of enquiry, then you will grow from what you may learn.
I thought that was why people contributed to such Forums are these.

Show me a circle!

Never mind a circle. I'd like to show you the door!

I think about practical and pragmatic things. You think about flying shit! I'm not into that.

Close your eyes if you are happier doing that. It seems you have stopped learning.
Makes me wonder why you bother to contribute to this forum.

Makes me wonder too because it is often so dumb and stupid. To bad there weren't more professionals on board, like people from the magazine.

I think you mean "Too bad". People from the magazine would have you for breakfast.

Apart from the physical counters when counting was matching sets? Nature can pretty much be described in integers.
Pebbles in pools?
Shadows on tents, poles, the pole star?
Bees.
I'll give you that the latter of mine were tenuous in the thing you propose but to propose that Maths has not a base in perception, in a way that fairies and deities do, seems wrong to me.

It is much better than faieries, I agree. More useful for one thing, but it reflects nature in human interested ways, It is apriori, not aposteriori.

How do we know we live in 3D?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJJhHknE ... ture=share

How do you use an Ancient Egyptian doorbell?

Sounds like a knock, knock joke: k=(qu<>qu):-)

Toot-and-come-in!

(I'm trying to cheer up Chaz. He seems to be a bit grumpy at the moment and I know he likes jokes about Ancient Egypt.)

Is that like the girl who never was breast fed, but bottled fed.

Never-Titi ?

Sorry- not great - I just made it up!

What about the the pyramid builder that swallowed a key.

He had to have Che- ops to remove it.

Lovely stuff.

Never been to happy about these terms. Are you saying that maths is a Kantian type category? Why is it not built upon experience from the world, you get circles in pools from rain, spiders webs show straight lines, as do claw marks. I accept that symbols are ours but maths appears at source to be the language for describing objects. We counted using heterogeneous sets once, we made right angles with rope and chain, a distance was how far we walked, etc. Not arguing that its not apriori when proving its own theorems, just the idea that it was not experience that gave it its grounds. Just as Logic is entailed by there being objects and states of affairs, why is Maths not the same?