Unit of Basic Human Understanding. (Response to StellaMonik)

Forgive me but this is how I philosophize on forums. I will go into something very particular of a topic rather then generalise it. Feel free then to respond to this specific aspect of this topic.

(The Unit of Basic Human Understanding) (The Line).

(Basics-) Not Complex but perhaps that is of an Interest)

This is quite interesting I have to say. I think we can take a brief look at these different concepts. Let’s start with divisibility. We need to define this. What were dealing with here is separation in given things but to understand that we must understand what makes it a thing in that we define it as a totality of separate divisible sectionalities we’ll say.
Lets take zebra or animals and general. How do we define it as an animal why is it we separate it from other things. Say you’re an infant and you see a dog. We notice basic things like structure and colour in that animal or entity will say at best here.
But how do we develop it’s separation. First lets deal with the most basic forms of speration. Line and colour. Line cant exist without colour. To know a line we must be able to differentiate colours or shades at least. There is of course the smallest measurement of line possible. But how do we recognize this basic “point” we’ll say. Without knowing this most basic point all other forms of like measurement are impossible. Lets look at this? If we take a larger point or “point line” we’ll say. To know that we must know it’s basic count of any such point line of any limit that is. This is basic mathematics and is not complicated. However no matter the size of a point line we need to know the concept of “count” without this the idea of a point line is impossible.

(Complex) (More Interesting here as you go into it)

-You could say without it you could not differentiate point lines in measurement. But to differentiate here we must see each point line before we can differentiate all those point lines. Let’s not go into this to much. Differentiation can only be done of the differentiation of the same kind of thing. Points here that is. Or at least that 's the kind of differentiation were dealing with. Lets call this basic differentiation. (K)" But basic differentiation builds always in one sense but not in the other. I’ll explain this? Say we take a 8cm line. We cannot know a 10 cm line before we know a 9 cm line. As a 10 cm line is made up 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 cm. But if we learn 9cm for the first time only by seeing a 10 cm line we could call this “multiple inner aspect learning” or MIAL.
We must think as the MIAL as a “arising of thought” on the nature or sub nature of a concept. It is a learning of the nature or sub nature of a concept in that that is the first time the person or “subject” we’ll say recognizes those aspects in that they could be “first recognized or learned that is” in that concept or another.
However for that subject they are recognized in that concept. While another subject could recognize it in another concept. So subject A recognizes for the first time 9 and 10 cm in a 10 cm line while subject B that is rather in a 12cm line. They subject B that is were thinking here recognizes 9cm and 10 cm for the first time in the 12 cm line.
b[/b]MIAL does not go hand in hand with a concept in that every person learns that MIAL “content learning” we could say to that concept in that concept rather then another. The same “MIAL” content learning could happen for different people in different concepts as said. We call this “patterned MIAL differentiation primary concept recognition”.
What I mean by “content learning” is this. Take the concept “10 cm line”. The MIAL"to that" person “to that” concept is 9cm and 10 cm. In that this is the first time they’ve recognized these thing and it happens that for them it was in that concept. Rather then say the concept 12cm where another person might of recognized that same “content learning” 9 cm and 10 cm in that rather as the first time they’ve recognized it. A concept has numerous possible “content learnings” each of which are possible and each happen inevitably to different people. So the concept 10 cm could made of “possible content learnings” of “combinations” - (1,2)(1,2,3)(1,2,3,4)(5,6)(5,6,7) and so on. A concept may have content of which was not first learned in or it may in fact that it may have been first learned in it. So concept 10 cm might be made up say in part of 1,2,3 cm but though this is “recognized” by subject A in it. b[/b]This “content learning” was not part of it in that it did not belong to an MIAL to that subject of that concept. In simplier words those elements of the concpet were not first learned in that concept but were at least recognized that is for that subject in that concept. With that in mind we could have a “Continuation MIAL” for a subject in a particular concept. By that I mean in concept 10cm 1,2,3 cm are recognized in it in that they are already learned for them in say concept 3cm. But now we could have a ”Continuation MIAL”in concept 10 cm for that subject in that because we already have 3cm recognized we can now have the MIAl for that concept(possible for that concept) that can come from that previous recognition that now in fact exists in “that” concept. We’ll look at the “Continaution MIAL” basically this way.
With a “Continuation MIAL” there in it’s given Concept there is the “Primary Recognition” and the “Continuation MIAL” that comes from this. The primary recognition is what has been previously learned by a given subject in another concept. Why does the “Continuation MIAL” come from this “Primary Recognition”. To know the “Continuation MIAL” we must know it’s “Primary Recognition” no matter the concept of a concept category be the concept, 10cm, 17cm or so on. This is because they follow the “same differentiation rule”. That is the Primary Recognition which is “Part” of the “Continuation MIAl”. In that the measurement CM of all sorts is based on a common “differentiation rule”. In that to know 9cm(Continuation MIAL) we must know 8cm (Primary recognition) in that both are know through the differentiation of the same thing. CM… This basic point. Because of this to know any Greater unit of this differentiation we must know all it’s lesser units. Because they share a common method or actual means of differentiation. This is a basic rule of any kind of measurement.
It is probably easier to look at different concepts as being the same category. Such as different cm lines. As such then these lines by being all part of the same category bring with it the possibility of more or less that is possessing the same “possible content learning’s”. In that because as such since 15cm line and 20 cm line both belong to the category CM Line they may both have the same possible content learnings in that both these lines whereby both could have a human subject learn first time that is 14cm in either the 15cm line concept or 20 cm line concept.
However the basic rule is a particular subject will learn a MIAL content learning from one concept over another and not any other concept. This is the case for each subject. While the same MIAL content learning can come from different concepts for that is different subjects. But only from concepts of the same basic category. Such as CM line.

An MIAl therefore can belong in terms of an arising in different concepts for different subjects but only of concepts of the same basic category. We’ll call this the “Category Rule”.

As for a subject learning the same MIAL from different concepts we’ll call this the “MIAL Concept Rule”. This rule is evident and part of the “Category Rule”.

We must think as the MIAL as a “arising of thought” on the nature or sub nature of a concept.

So lets look at it basically like this.

There is subject, concept, MIAL…

First we have various human subjects. To different human subjects the same MIAL will arise in different concepts but only of the same concept category.

Forgive the stupid and simplified math if you call it that. But I did this to outline basically what I’m saying here.

So A-subject - MIAL(x) belongs to Concept(y) of ConceptCatgoryP.

In that MIAL(x) PB(possibility belongs) to , m,n,l,r of ConcpetCatogory P.

So what are we dealing with here. Were dealing with in particular the concept of the line. And the line is part of a concept category. We could have various coloured lines all of which are part of a particular concept category “line” and these various lines could individually be made of the same colour or various other colours. Right so getting back to what were dealing with here. Forgive me but this is how I philosophize on forums. I will go into something very particular of a topic rather then generalise it. Feel free then to respond to this specific aspect of this topic.

So were dealing with the concept of colour and line the basic unit of understanding of every visible and if you look carefully audible thing. This is the very basics of Human Differentiation. And relates to every concept of knowing that was said here in StellaMonika’s post that is.

So feel to respond on this most basic unit of understanding.

List of Concepts Where to Find.

(K)MIAL

(N)Content Learning

(J)Continauation MIAL

It’s interesting that you do lines here. David Hume explains his epistemology using a spectrum of color shades rather than a gradation of line lengths. You find all the colors in experience and you can mix them all to make new shades. However, Hume throws a wrench in his own empiricist project, by positing the challenge of a “Missing Shade of Blue.” We can come to know all the color shades in like manner to the way we find all your line lengths, because a color spectrum is like a gradation of lengths.

Hume posits a shade of blue that we have never seen before. Do we know that shade of blue? Does it make sense to say, “There is x-shade-blue.” Is it one thing “to know” a shade of blue and another thing “to posit” a shade of blue?

What is the advanced unit of understanding?

Why is this a new thread?

Actually I don’t think it’s the same. The line however functions under this rule that to know a greater one you must know every an all it’s lesser counterparts. This is because the share the same unit of differentiation as I said. Color shades are not the same I would think. This is because color is not structural. it does not have “space” as a cm line does. This might sound very strange considering I said color and line are relatively the same. However you have to look at it this way. To know line you must know color. To know line one must first know color. This suggests without any color humans could not recognize structure, space, or measurement. This is probably true for all animals and maybe a product of evolution. I do not think color is a unit of differentiation and so the rule that applies to line does not apply to color.
If the smallest unit is the smallest amount of color how is that color not recognized if it’s not color. What I’m saying there is just color. This is how the human mind thinks when it see’s what is the smallest amount of color. It’s just color the human mind thinks and the space, line developes out of this. Color does not have share the same unit of differentiation as the smallest amount of color is not a unit. Rather the idea of the unit comes out of this. As there can no smaller unit. It’s a bit hard to understand but this is how it goes.

You mean the most basic unit of human understanding? Sorry that is if if I wrote in any way as such wrong. The most basic unit of human understanding here is “the line” specifically dealing with the cm. Without this knowledge would be impossible.

I’m thinking maybe of dealing with other things that it was that stellamonika said each as a new thread as their different. It’s epistemology and what we could give a fun shot at here is the “most basic” way that knowledge happens. I’m not guranteeing for it that is that’ll respond on other things. If I feel like it that is I might.

The blind have no sense of structure, space, or measurement?

I think you may need to rethink this reasoning.

There is a minimal wavelength-difference that the human eye can detect. If a smallest line is a change in distance, then by analogy it’s a change in colour you’re looking for.

As I said I don’t think it’s as simple that the smallest amount of color is in itself a unit. Where does the conception of unit come from. We need to understand this comparitivly. Take a large red circle and also simple red dot. We know the large red circle is made of many dots but what about the lone dot what’s it’s made of. I think color is something that goes against what it is. Because it goes against how to necessarily define itself. That is because it is what it is and no more.In other words it needs nothing else to be.
It is itself differentiation. Perhaps the most basic form of human differentiation is colour. It doesn’t need to differentiate itself from its’ own differentiation to know what it is itself that i’t’s differentiating. (It is differentiation). This is quite easy to understand actually. Take a pear you cut it in half. You know it’s differentiated( cutting it in half) but you can only know it’s differentiated if you know what it is, that’s it’s a something and you can only do that by saying you can differentaite it from other things such as apple. So there are two differeatations here. The differeation that is in a thing itself( cutting) and differentation of what it is from other things. Whereby the latter is needed to know your’e doing the former. We could call this multi-differentiation rule.. We can say the pear cutting is internal differentiation and differentiation of it from other things extra external differentiation.
So if I said again that is to get to what I’m saying here color, it doesn’t need to differentiate itself from its’ own differentiation to know what it is itself that i’t’s differentiating. In other words color does not need to differentiate itself from other things to know what it is. To put in another way it would be like if an apple didn’t need to differentiate itself from a pear to know what it is, the apple. That’s what’s unusual about color. So for a unit of color to differentiated itself from other units of color color itself need not be differentiated from other things to know this. This goes in hand with the philosophy of foundationalism in that we have foundational knowledge that can’t be denied. That is color has no basis because it does not need to differentiate itself from other things to be. It is undeniable foundational knowledge. that is why i think the smallest spec or point of color is not so much a unit as it does not need to differentiate itself to know itself.

As for the second thing that you say i think I gave an answer in my last post. The first thing you say I’m actually not sure what you’re saying. Is it your’e saying that you think it may be I’m thinking the blind don’t have these things. This is something very hard to know. It maybe sound work’s similarly to color.