Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 17 Feb 2007 04:39:26 -0800
On Feb 17, 2:27 am, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:37 am, "Keith H Duggar" <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > David BL wrote:
> > > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > > If you have x, y, z, deltaX, deltaY, and deltaZ you
> > > > won't need orientation. The location of a piece is
> > > > actually an interval
> > > Yes, because Lego blocks can only be rotated about the
> > > vertical axis z by 0,90,180,270 degrees. The interval
> > > approach also brings out their symmetry under rotation by
> > > 180 degrees. Also square shaped blocks (deltaX = deltaY)
> > > are symmetric under rotation by 90 degrees.
> > I would like to claim that this very discussion reveals one
> > of the advantages of trying to think without entities. It
> > encourages us to think about the /problem/ instead. That is
> > to think about our goals, our requirements, our knowledge,
> > etc. It forces us to consider the facts at hand and those
> > that may arise and design solutions for handling them.
> > Is this part of what DB professionals do for a living?
> > What lingo is used to describe this process?
> > Keith -- Fraud 6
> I'm still unsure about this. Let me pose an alternative view, to see
> whether you can persuade me...
> Is it possible for the human mind to reason about how to represent
> Lego configurations without having some awareness of Lego blocks as
> entities? This is a subject that is outside mathematics and depends
> on our "belief systems" that the human mind seems to depend on. In
> that sense this whole discussion is surely meta-physical. In fact I
> would say that meta-physics largely concerns the study of the mind.
> This is what I mean when I justify Platonism. It seems to be the
> closest fit to how the mind works.
"It seems to be the closest fit to how the mind works"
Gah....Unghhh....<gnashing of teeth/>
Gah....Unghhh....<gnashing of teeth/>Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 13:39:26 CET