dear Filippo,

I can agree with your account of zero, in the use of an abacus (a further point being that the absence of the zero means we have a counting system of 9 and not ten which helps illustrate certain lovely things that are based on 9 - like, all the numbers that are multiples of three can be added up to a number that is divisible by three - because it is the square base for 9 - and, all the numbers that are multiples of nine can be added up to numbers that are divisible by 9 - this only happens for 3 and 9 because our counting system is based on 9 - e.g. 12 can be added up - 1+2 = 3; 15 becomes 1+5 = 6 etc).

However, my point about the positive and negative states is exactly illustrated by your account. It is we, the users of the system, that have to locate the zero in the system as an absence and hence, in our use, it becomes a positive. If we had to do this for computers, every time a zero was needed we had to turn the computer off and on again, or we had to manually press a button called "make the negative positive, then we would be the computers as we are with the abacus.


You wrote
>>>Going back to your original paragraph, I think you mean that one must accept
the existence of the conscious agent that originates a thought?
>>>

I can agree with this if by "originate" we mean accept as existing, accept as an event, accept as an experience. That is, we can define the originating of thinking as the moment consciousness becomes aware of and accepts the event of a thought.

As a poet I might say something like "a thought is happening" as opposed to "I am thinking". We are encouraged, by Western society to accept moral responsibility for the thoughts that happen - hence Jesus tells us that thinking about doing something wrong is a sin just as much as actually doing a wrong thing. I can agree with Jesus if we presume that the thinking is being done by a self rather than being experienced by a self. That is, I accept responsibility for acknowledging that a thought has occurred - I don't automatically accept responsibility for the thought as being a though of Keith. Thoughts are firstly events and secondarily they are assigned to authors or agents. If for example, I use the well known Zen trick of telling my students "DON'T THINK OF A MONKEY!" and they have a mental event such that they think of a monkey (most we see some kind of animal), who is responsible for the thought/image?

We are assigning values to mind events all day long and even in our dreams. These value processes use key determinants, like identity, to qualify and organise the valorization of mental events. Many of these determinants fall inside what we would generally call psychology and hence I am concerned that design needs some kind of psychological account if it is to come to terms with the process of valorization. Demasio, if confronted with this issue, might want to suggest that the valorization I am talking about is a secondary cathexis or binding. Given that he uses affect to account for the primary cathexis or binding I would like to refer to this secondary binding (and underwriting) the concept of  identity affect. That is, in binding a neural process and in repeating that process consciously, we are creating an identity relationship with that affect such that it becomes a part of us as conscious beings (this pertains even if I determine that the thought that I am having is not my though - as author - but rather my thought as agent.

cheers

keith








 
>>> "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> 04/05/11 9:58 PM >>> 
Keith,
Actually, I think this helps a lot.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with this notion of negative & positive.  A
zero on the abacus can also be described as "all the counters being
elsewhere."  That is, it's not whether something is or isn't, but rather
that it is or isn't *there* (where you want it to be for some reason).  Even
if you can't see it, it is, somewhere.  This applies to all similar
*physical* situations, I think, and not just counting systems.  The question
of existence of the thing after it's been actually changed (e.g. burning
something, or melting it, or blowing it up, or whatever) is a separate issue
that is not so easily treated.

Going back to your original paragraph, I think you mean that one must accept
the existence of the conscious agent that originates a thought?

Cheers.
Fil

On 4 April 2011 03:52, Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Filippo,
>
> I'm not sure that saying it again will make it any clearer. Face-to-face we
> could probably resolve the things very quickly.
>
> Any event is positive - that is, it happened - a zero in binary is a
> positive state - a zero in an abacus is a negative state (it is the state of
> simply the absence of a counter). When we read an abacus, we treat the
> absence as a presence or else the system makes no sense.
>
> So, all events, in consciousness, to be an event in consciousness, must be
> deemed positive (existing). However, when we are conscious of being
> conscious, we treat the positive moment as negative by virtue of treating
> the moment as possibly being other than itself. The disjunctive (or) is the
> basic logic of thinking - the conjunctive (and) is a sub-logic based on the
> disjunctive.
>
> hope this helps
>
> keith
>
>
-- 
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/