On Jul 12, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Joe Niederberger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It is very funny to see you cling to the notion that you simply know better than not just me, but large numbers of practicing mathematicians.
So? Are you telling me to stfu again?:)
> > > R Hansen says: >> But you would have even done this even if I placed the two bars next to each other without any mention of 4 and 5. This is what I am calling "rat-sense". This is not rational. >> If however, in this example you justify to yourself the general association of each bar with its length in units (a measure) and then justify to yourself that the visual comparison of length is equivalent to the abstract comparison of length (a measure), then it is rational. > > Nonsense. Measure itself is based on intuitive notions.
Based on? I don't think you are getting my drift. I am not denying intuitive notions (rat-sense). I'm just saying that they are not rational. While you seem more interested in fantastical theories of how a chimpanzee might rationalize, I am more interested in the reality that they can't and why is it that they can't. Could rational thought exist without any intuitive input from our senses? Of course not. It wouldn't know where to begin. But rational thought, when it begins, if it begins, begins after those intuitive senses, not during, and it involves a different sense. I don't understand why you think this is such a harsh delineation.
 drift: one's stated premise.  rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.  delineation: the action of indicating the exact position of a border or boundary.