Mathematics and Nature

I think this is a clear, concise, correct summary.Math is a tool that fit the bill.I hope we can find appropriate math tools to describe cognition and neuroscience. Looks like some signal analysis might be doing the trick. But looks like some of those tools (such as wavelet analsyis, independent component analysis, and "Parallel Factor Analysis" [which I'll start reading about tomorrow] ) are being driven by the science.So it's not even just a one way street; further evidence of the relationship you described in your post.At least, that's how I see it.Ben

Well I'm IN the library right now, so...(looking it up)found it.(Running upstairs to get it... )

I'm not so sure this is a valid objection. After all, if you're going to talk about "reality", then you have to also say that there's actually not any "1" thing at all; "objects" change all the time, whether it's their molecular motion or some atoms getting scrubbed off, etc.And if you really want to talk "reality" and abstraction... then talk about how "objects" are "identified" and "persist", even though the input signals we get from the world basically show us CHANGE. "Objectness" itself is an abstraction, an abstraction of the human mind. It fits right in with all other types of categorization.So I would say that, exactly in the same way that math is an abstraction of some "reality", so is our consciousness. We live an abstraction.And in the same way, I would say, don't mistake the abstraction for the "reality".Don't mean to push this off topic, just to point out that ... if you're going to go the philosophical route you are going, I think it's proper to "complete" the route.Ben

Gee nwr, thanks for saying what I said in 4 paragraphs, in 2 lines.Back to the drawing board One of these days, I'll figure out this whole communication thing.