The Human Question

Natural scientists aspire to be able to explain nature in quantitative terms : that is, terms of its common sensible characteristics as well as the force, and other quantifiable characteristics needed to explain changes in common sensible characteristics. out the recognition of the qualitative features of experience. Thomas Nagel recognized this problem in his article "What's it like to be a Bat?" That article points out that scientific knowledge of how a bat perceives can never convey the experience that a bat has from a bat's point of view. These perceptual notes are called qualia what it's like for a to perceive, so that if we never perceive things the way a bat does, we wouldn't know how to point out that part of nature that indicates that, when you've then you will leave out the recognition of the qualitative features of nature or experience, including the proper-sensibles. But that is not to say that these qualia are immaterial. Rather, it ma...

Math soliter is descriptive, not explanatory. And the description has to do with quantity (DUH!) But the quantity deals first of all with form in the sense of shape. (note atomists) But when applied to the explanation of natural phen, math can refer to quality in the sense of disposition, as in force, for example, as well as action and passion... after a fashion... too late to finish... wife sez blogging not my buz at this hour...

Continuing that division between the quantitative treatment of things in nature and the analogical-to-human agency approach that is brewing in this blog: Add that communicative acts are human acts par excellence. Then note that can't treat everything as a little person: treat non-persons some as instruments OF persons. And add that to treat them via math is to treat them simply in relation to each other AND (perhaps) as being manipulated by me.  Push and pull.  stuff like that.  Not communicative.  Non-telic.  Ergo math is the logic of instruments in relation to each other. On the other hand can treat them as word-like: as instruments of human agents interacting with each other. Not quite sure what all this means or where leading, but--PTL--it seems to be promising.

The quantitative approach, inasmuch as it becomes a kind of sola scriptura (sola mathematica?), can understand ligher levels of being only as higher levels of complexity, for it cannot grasp the one that unites the many.