no
-
-
-
Replying to @S33light
From my perspective, it seems that you never fully deconstructed your foundations. Instead, you take a certain level of phenomenology as given and at best confabulate below it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Whatever is given, is undeniably given by phenomenology. In my view, it is the assumption of non-phenomenal givens that needs to be deconstructed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @S33light
No, something needs to give the phenomenology. Not many things have the necessary and sufficient conditions to do that. Once you study the possibilities for languages that can convey phenomenological content, you discover the projects of mathematics and its constructivist update.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
Why would something generate qualia, and how? Language is a part of phenomenology, it just rides on the back end of lower level phenomenology.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @S33light
There is a sense in which language has no phenomenological aspect, but is below that. This is the sense in which we study it in math and computation.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
I would agree that mathematics gives us access to a minimally phenomenological 'common sense' that cuts across many modalities, but to varying degrees. Math is like 'monoaesthetic phenomenology'...least colorful colors but not blindness (anesthetic).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @S33light
As long as you are maintaining the phenomenological angle on math your are missing the point. It is like thinking that the point of the financial system of of baking bricks is how they feel to you.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yes, I have typed this poorly.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.