-1- wrote:You are quite right in how the concept of mathematical principles emerged. But you are merging the baby with the bath water when you don't progress from the event of FORMATION of mathematics to the DEVELOPMENT and ESTABLISHMENT of math principles.
My argument was the grounding of Mathematics is based [grounded] on experience and thus empirically based.
The development and establishment of mathematical principles and axioms are based on the higher rational mind [intellect] i.e. reason but the root of reason is still experience i.e. empirical.
As I had stated Mathematics is grounded on on the empirical but the full range of mathematics is based on the complementary interaction between the empirical [base] and the rational intellect.
You say math would not exist outside of man's mind. This is more-or-less true (given what we know or what we imagine to know of the knowledge extant in other thinking-feeling beings other than humans). However, the same system could be designed by another intelligent species, quite independent from man.
My basis was confined to human minds. Yes, it is possible with beings of other species but basically it is still mind-based.
You say math would not exist outside of man's mind. But not everything INSIDE man's mind is empirical. The system of logic is infallible and unassailable, yet it only exists in man's mind. The lack of existence of something outside of man's mind is not an indication that it's not purely a priori.
By outside man's mind I meant an ontological existent, i.e. absolutely independent of man's mind.
Whatever is DNA based, i.e. a priori is before experience, i.e. inherent and instinctual but mathematics can only arise when these a priori element combine with the a posteriori elements, i.e. Synthetic a priori judgments [Kant].
Yes, early man did use the concept of one goat, two goat, three goat, to develop cardinal numbers. But that tool took a life of his own, mathematics did, and it became a system which is ever increasing in known complexity.
No matter how complex it gets, the basis is still empirically based together with DNA based elements.
The system of math uses axioms, that defy proof, and are accepted without questioning as truth; and the rest of math grew out of there. Whether humans who developed the a priori laws of math used empirical evidence to come up with the superstructure of more complex math systems or not, is immaterial from the point of view that math is a priori. It is immaterial, because the rules of math are not established by empirical evidence (although systematically developed on it) but by the axioms of the system. Even if reality changes fundamentally, the math system does not, it only needs to observe and obey the rules lain down in its axioms.
Axioms are at best more polished "assumptions" that are agreed by consensus within the Mathematical community.
Mathematics is not absolutely a priori, but rather it is synthetic a priori judgments which is dependent on human minds [based empirical elements].
To paraphrase Kant,
Synthetic a priori judgments are like kites flying 'freely' in the sky as if on their own, but if one looks from a distance these kites are controlled by humans through the attached strings.
If we cut the strings of the kites, these kites cannot fly on their own independently and will be destroyed.
Mathematics axioms are like these kites with strings controlled by humans. These mathematical axioms cannot exist independently of humans.
-- Updated 2017 June 30th, 3:26 am to add the following --
Spectrum wrote:
I believe 'fear of death' in combination with self-consciousness is the primary cause of why the majority of people cling to religions [at the subliminal level].
Views?
You need to tell us also whether in your system the fear is a necessary reason, or a sufficient reason, or neither, or both, at the subliminal level, for people to be religious?
Also, if you think about it, NOT every person on his deathbed becomes religious for the rest of his life. Many deconvert. Many stay atheistic. Many don't know the difference. Many are too comatose to think.
In fact, many of the religious do leave their religion or even abandon their faith in god when faced with death on a first-name basis.
My criticism of your point "fear of death is the primary motivator to become religious" is not the denial of death bed conversions. In stead, it is the ignoring of the deathbed conversions. At that point little is at stake: the person can follow the rules of any religion. They are not even required in most cases to do so. But they are forced; they are facing death; they are graspign at straws.
If fear of death was the REAL motivator for religions, then there would be no atheists, way before the death bed stage is reached; for the fear of death is ever-present in man's mind. You can't separate a man's life and thoughts form having a fear of death. So if one guy (on the death bed) fears death enough to convert; why does not the non-death-bed-guy (NDBG) feel the same? The NDBG should be religious if your proposition were true, but the NDBG is prancing around happily with atheistic sentiments. Why?
Note this analogy;
DNA wise,
ALL humans has the potential for sex, by default - heterosexual drives.
You will note [which is obvious] not every adult is sexually active, some are asexual, they just do not have the drive for sex their whole life.
Some are homosexual, bisexual, etc.
It is the same for the religious drive based on the fear factor [subliminal].
DNA wise ALL humans are born with the inherent existential crisis that drives them to seek consonance.
Like the sex drive, not all will seek consonance via God and religion.
Note appx. 10% seek religions that are atheistic, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism to relieve their dissonance.
The point is the basis of all religions are driven and motivated by the fear factor - existential crisis at the subliminal level.
[it is possible for those who are not religiously incline to adopt a religion as a matter of convenience or forced into it, but this number is not significant].
DNA wise ALL humans are born with the inherent existential crisis that drives them to seek consonance through various methods. The majority will be driven to religion
but not all will take to God and religion, the minority [say 10%] avoided God and religion and rely on secular methods, rationality, drugs, and whatever.
My point in the latter posts is, while some avoided God and religion in their early life due to various reasons in their brain, SOME [not all] will resort to God and religion when the inhibitors in the brain atrophize and weakened naturally as they grow older.
I did not say 100% who were not religious nor atheists in their younger days will certainly turn to God and religion as they grow older.
My point is, DNA wise the forces that drive humans to god and religions are inherent, very primal and always there within the depth of the basement of the brain. These drives are dominant in the majority, that is why the majority are either theists and/or religious.
In fact, many of the religious do leave their religion or even abandon their faith in god when faced with death on a first-name basis.
This is happening, not necessary when faced with death. This is because a small percentage will somehow develop stronger inhibitors as they mature to suppress the forces of the existential crisis and turn away from God and religions.
This is what humanity at present should aim for.
The individual[s] should understand why they are driven to God and religion. Once they understand their basis [the machinery] for being religious in in their brain, they can then develop stronger inhibitors to suppress the forces of the existential crisis and be able to wean off theism and religion for higher value morality and spirituality without any potential for evil and violence.
This is the reason for the OP, i.e. for the majority of those who are theists and religious to understand what is going on inside their brain and thus to steer [gradually and voluntarily] away from theism and religionism toward World Peace.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.