Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Again, OM IS NOT a multivalued logics.

As long as you get OM as a multivalued logics, you don't get it.

OM is "by its nature" at least Non-localit/Locality Linkage.
Click to expand...

You're right Doron. It's not those mathematical terms and forms you use in your papers. It is a qualitative, linguistic, and visionary view.
You try to put it into a kind of mathematical of logical framework, but of course it doesn't fit there, and you wind up in denial of the very claims you make in your papers.


[Apathia, I realize that you actually in agreement with The Man or jsfisher that force local-only view on OM.[/QUOTE]

Nope. I see your intentions to have a mathematics that works with qualities as well as qualities, and ought as well as is. I see what your OM intends.
But what you ironically miss again and again is that Mathematics is a different kind of discourse than ethics and spiritual values.
When you try to fuse them together the way you do, you lose the precision of math and the subjectivity of values.

That's why I say you are ironically forcing what is beyond logical language (what you symbolize as "non-local") into a rational only framework.

Your OM is by your intent a symbol of your attempt to integrate Mathematics and Ethics. However it's structure is merely a special non-binary logic.
You don't see in the lest that a linguistic symbol isn't treated the same as a mathematical sign.

Your Non-Locality is there only in the sense that you use those terms to mean something beyond Mathematical significance.
But then the very structure of your OM Logic doesn't actually serve the qualitative intent you have for it (much less the Mathematical intent the math people here point out you are making a wasteland of.)

It's a disconnect that I realize I'll never be able to bring to your awareness.
 
doronshadmi said:
What enables you Living, Doing, Relating?
Click to expand...

Not OM for sure.

You are wanting to advance some linguistic abstractions into ontological principles and an X/Y Complement formulation that you will put before and transform everything I say with.
It's sort of neat. It trips up any discourse.
 
doronshadmi said:
This ridiculous fight is avoided if we realize that we are all in the same boat as fine and fragile complex systems.
Click to expand...

It is good that you come to that no matter the philosophical program you used to get there.
I'd say that we end the fight because why should the left hand struggle against the right. We are of one body.
Metaphysically we are all integral to each other.

Different philosophy, same boat!

Perhaps the Agreement/Disagreement Linkage.

It's been a good dialog this AM, but I need to get some lunch, since I skipped breakfast.


Cheers to you, my shipmate!
 
Apathia said:
But what you ironically miss again and again is that Mathematics is a different kind of discourse than ethics and spiritual values.
Click to expand...
You ironically miss again and again that Mathematics and Ethics have a common and un-manifested source, which enables their ever developed linkage between them.

Apathia said:
Different philosophy, same boat!
Click to expand...
In other words Samness(areement)/Difference(disagreement) Linkage, which is exactly OM.

Apathia said:
Not OM for sure.

You are wanting to advance some linguistic abstractions into ontological principles and an X/Y Complement formulation that you will put before and transform everything I say with.
It's sort of neat. It trips up any discourse.
Click to expand...
You did not show anything that avoids OM, along our last dialog.

Furthermore, you still get OM as local-only thing, and in that case you can't be sure about OM.

Apathia said:
That's why I say you are ironically forcing what is beyond logical language (what you symbolize as "non-local") into a rational only framework.
Click to expand...
OM is not beyond logical language. OM extends, so called Logics, beyond its local-only view.

Again, Mathematics or Logics are not platonic invariant objects, and can be fundamentally changed by new notions (by using "the mind of the beginner", if you wish).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In other words Samness(areement)/Difference(disagreement) Linkage, which is exactly OM.
Click to expand...

I said:
Different philosophy, same boat!

Perhaps the Agreement/Disagreement Linkage.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I said it first!:wackygrin:


Furthermore, you still get OM as local-only thing, and in that case you can't be sure about OM.
Click to expand...
I get your OM metaphorical extension to qualitative values.
But more I get that you OM is much more than the "mathematical" applications you attempt to make in your papers.


Again, Mathematics or Logics are not platonic invariant objects, and can be fundamentally changed by new notions (by using "the mind of the beginner", if you wish).
Click to expand...

I can't but agree!:wackyyes:

While I was eating lunch, I thought of a beginner's or childish question to ask you.
Next post.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure I already know your answer for this, but I'll ask you for elucidation.

I'm surviving the "Great Recession" by working for the largest mail order pharmacy in America.
People gotta have their meds!

I'm in the mailroom, but back beyond that there is a huge room containing a remarkable array of automation.
Spread out over the facility is a very smart machine that sorts pills into bottles.
It "knows" which bottle go with which pills. Which labels to to affix to the right bottles. And how many pills go in a given bottle.
Plus it double checks in a number of internal controls to make sure the process is running correctly.
Thousands of orders are processed and placed in the appropriate mailers with the correct postage everyday.
And there is much more chance a human pharmacist would screw up an order than this machine.

It manipulates objects. It makes calculations. It uses memory.

So does it exhibit the Object/Memory Linkage?
If it does, Is this Object/Memory Linkage indicative of the presence of the non-locality and quality of consciousness?

I'll wait for your reply first before I say what answer I'm expecting you'll give.
 
Apathia said:
I'm pretty sure I already know your answer for this, but I'll ask you for elucidation.

I'm surviving the "Great Recession" by working for the largest mail order pharmacy in America.
People gotta have their meds!

I'm in the mailroom, but back beyond that there is a huge room containing a remarkable array of automation.
Spread out over the facility is a very smart machine that sorts pills into bottles.
It "knows" which bottle go with which pills. Which labels to to affix to the right bottles. And how many pills go in a given bottle.
Plus it double checks in a number of internal controls to make sure the process is running correctly.
Thousands of orders are processed and placed in the appropriate mailers with the correct postage everyday.
And there is much more chance a human pharmacist would screw up an order than this machine.

It manipulates objects. It makes calculations. It uses memory.

So does it exhibit the Object/Memory Linkage?
If it does, Is this Object/Memory Linkage indicative of the presence of the non-locality and quality of consciousness?

I'll wait for your reply first before I say what answer I'm expecting you'll give.
Click to expand...
"Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" is an agent of our memory/object linkage, but it is unaware of itself as a "Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" because it is a local-only system that its functions are totally known. We are memory/object linkage which is not totally known exactly because we are Non-local/Local complex that is aware of its own complexity and directly (without any agents) gets the foundations of its own complexity.


This self-awareness enables to see reality within us and us within reality, where reality is the result of both participation/observation (by using direct perception, reality is not a platonic object, but a changeable environment, and we as participators, has responsibility of some of the changes).
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'll keep up with this thread any longer.

The word 'primes' attracted me initially, but it is obvious that doronshadmi knows nothing and cares nothing about mathematics.

Whatever he is writing about, it is of no interest to me.

Something about the way he writes makes my skin crawl and makes me feel very uneasy. Very odd.

See the rest of you in other threads.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
"Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" is an agent of our memory/object linkage, but it is unaware of itself as a "Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" because it is a local-only system that its functions are totally known. We are memory/object linkage which is not totally known exactly because we are Non-local/Local complex that is aware of its own complexity and directly (without any agents) gets the foundations of its own complexity.
Bolding mine.


This self-awareness enables to see reality within us and us within reality, where reality is the result of both participation/observation (by using direct perception, reality is not a platonic object, but a changeable environment, and we as participators, has responsibility of some of the changes).
Click to expand...

One answer I was expecting from you was that computers and smart systems are creations of our Memory/Object Linkage.

The other was that though such a system is a complex operating by its own Memory/Object Linkage, it is not at the level of complexity as a Human Being in which the Non-Local contribution in the complex is much larger.

I was not expecting you to assert that the smart machine is not a complex of Memory/Object or Non-Local/Local Linkage.

Perhaps you are saying it opperates merely with the local/local numbers of traditional mathematics and not the wider Organic Numbers of Redundancy/Uncertainty Bridging.

But if you are saying that calculators and computational systems are simply not of OM, and OM is only a matter of such complex systems that are aware of themselves and aware of that awareness,
That's an interesting qualification.

It suggests that OM is after all a system to account for beings who manipulate symbols and think analogically with qualities.
While the math of the daily technologies we use is merely the old "local only" business.

But would that apply to the insect brain as well? It not being a Complex because it really isn't complex enough?
Then there would be two kind of nature: Local Only and OM.
I kinda think you want all of reality to be complexes of OM.
It seems contradictory for you to not include the all natural operations in your system.

But again, if you are making that qualification for your views, then your specialized, metaphorical use of mathematic language for the special circumstance of self-consciouness is not a suprise.

I think I should ask for clarification:
Is our clever machine in its operation exhibiting the various X/Y Linkages that
generate numbers and arithmatic that are themselves derived from a Local/Non-Local Linkage?
Or is it less than and not an example of Complex, being only a tool created by a Complex?
And would that not imply that arithmatic is not a complex?

(Sorry for spelling errors. I'm on break, and this computer has no spell checker.)
 
doronshadmi said:
Another example of The Man’s fixed-only reasoning, which ignores the way (the tool) to get sum result, and focused only on the result. By this fixed approach there are no several alternatives to get some goal, and we are closed under a single step-by-step reasoning that leads to some goal, and as a result the gaol itself is understood by a very narrow view. On the other hand, if some method is taken as a tool, then an open mind is used all along the way that enables to understand some goal beyond a single path.
Click to expand...

What “method” isn’t a tool? Obviously you are simply confusing your own "fixed-only reasoning" for mine. It is you who has determined some goal (avoiding that ‘L value outcome’) and construction your whole "OM" and "EEM" contrivance around that while failing to realize that your own contrivance contravenes your stated goal.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, by this open minded approach one can find more goals that are also considered along the way, and we get richer and more profound understanding of the researched subject.
Click to expand...

So try taking an “open minded approach” when you are considering what you call “standard math”.

doronshadmi said:
Defining a linkage is not limited to your step-by-step deductive reasoning.

Definition by OM also researches the fundamantal conditions that enable, for example, the linkage between opposites, where your step-by-step deductive reasoning gets this linkage as an axiom.
Click to expand...

As I said opposites are linked in that they are, well, opposites.

doronshadmi said:
By their common source. for example: the local aspect of the atomic self-state is the opposite of the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state.
Click to expand...

Again an “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into two aspects (even opposites) is not “atomic” by your own “indivisible” meaning of “atomic”

doronshadmi said:
Yet the atomic self-state is their common source that enables the non-destructive linkage (communication) between them.
Click to expand...

You seem rather preoccupied with ‘destruction’.

doronshadmi said:
The included middle universe between them.
Click to expand...

So just including a “middle universe between them” infers some “communication”? Again as you state above “linkage (communication)” so a “linkage”, even as binary opposites, is your “(communication)”.


doronshadmi said:
Excluded middle framework is not limited to Logics or Ethics. The same holds about included middle framework.
Click to expand...

That still does not show where have I said binary logic "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.". As agian It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to.

doronshadmi said:
OM deals with both frameworks by OR connective between them.
Click to expand...

By “both frameworks” you must mean self-consistent and your self-contradictory frameworks. Sorry Doron no one needs your "OM" to put an OR between them. It is your consideration of self-consistent and self-contradictory as both being valid that that gives your "OM" its, well, self-contradictory defining aspect.

doronshadmi said:
Transcendental Meditation (or other scientifically researched mind training techniques) is an example of “technology of the consciousness”.
Click to expand...

That’s it, some meditation technique? That’s your “technology of the consciousness”?

doronshadmi said:
Opposites are simply the extreme manifestations of a one atomic self-state.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean that indivisible “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into ‘opposing’ “aspects” just so you can combine them again into your “complex”. That’s only ‘extremely’ self-contradictory and contrived
Doron.

doronshadmi said:
Direct perception is not a thought, but it is the foundation of thoughts, you are the one who needs a shrink here because your awareness is disconnected from its source, and gets only the differential state of thoughts, without their integral state. An extreme differential state between thought is known as Schizophrenia, where different groups of thoughts have their own personality. Excluded-Middle reasoning as one and only one thinking styles, actually base on extreme differentiation between opposites (where the middle is excluded).
Click to expand...

So you think. That these thoughts might have occurred to you during some meditative technique does not make them any more than just your thoughts.

doronshadmi said:
“resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty” is done under finite terms. Infinite terms are valued by fogs.
Click to expand...

Again your “fog” has no value, other than to just your own thoughts and fantasies.

doronshadmi said:
You do not understand the meaning of being an agent of ...
Click to expand...

You do not understand the meaning of “ethical skills”.

doronshadmi said:
The Man your posts become more and more pathetic. You can simply say that you have no answer to my question.
Click to expand...

Well you do set a very low bar to try to crawl under. My suggestions still stand though.

doronshadmi said:
You never re-searched your axioms. It is a good idea to that from time to time. Maybe if you really do that you will find that they have simpler foundations. But this re-reach is not for lazy or coward persons.
Click to expand...


You still don’t understand the meaning and application of axioms, though those two words (“lazy" and "coward”) do seem to accurately describe your own inclinations towards research and, well, axioms.
 
doronshadmi said:
And what are your consequences about develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms, by using your pragmatic approach?
Click to expand...

My “consequences about develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms, by using" a "pragmatic approach”? Not sure that I have any, since the questions just doesn’t make any sense. In general, though, the consequences of something useful are often simply a result of its use.

doronshadmi said:
Here:
Click to expand...

Where? That quote says nothing about “Politics) as non self-made” let alone a “Force-majeure”.

doronshadmi said:
Where extreme means that Politics is some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it.
Click to expand...

The actual non-truncated quote…


The Man said:
Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme and your own consideration of “the goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.” does not exclude that genocidal extreme.
Click to expand...

The “extreme” was yours Doron and specifically referred to your own genocidal extreme being both logically and ethically acceptable by your own “EEM”. If you want to consider politics “as non self-made” or a “Force-majeure”, well that is up to you, but if you try to pawn it off as something I have said or inferred you will simply fail, as usual.

The Man said:
EEM is about developing Ethics according universal principles that are not limited to any particular context.
Click to expand...

You do understand that your particular ethics as “universal principles” would be your intended context, don’t you?


The Man said:
No, it reduces as much as possible results that derived from fears, exactly because it is not based on fragmented contexts that do not understand each other, and this misunderstanding is the habitat of fears.
Click to expand...

Your “OM” and “EEM” certainly have not reduced your fears, nor do they exclude what it is that you fear (that ‘L value outcome’).

The Man said:
You simply understand Complexity only by your narrow context that is limited to Humankind. As a result you do not get Complexity by Ethics that is not limited to any particular context like Humankind, for example. Again The Man by your context dependent view, What You Is What You Get (WYIWYG), which is exactly your fragmented and context dependent view about Ethics.
Click to expand...

Where have I said that “Complexity” is limited to “Humankind”? Ok so clearly “context” is another word Doron simply does not understand. Curious though as his assertions generally depend more upon what he does not say or write (his direct perception) than what he does.

The Man said:
"Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) and you The Man are tend to be pragmatist:
Click to expand...

So after my cautioning against addressing some particular “philosophical stance” as opposed the persons own particular stance, you waste your time quoting some aspect of pragmatism?


The Man said:
People don’t often fit into neat categories exactly because Complexity is not limited to particular persons or context dependent frameworks.
Click to expand...

No, just because they are different.

The Man said:
Your view about usefulness is limited to the current knowledge of a given notion, which has the tendency to reject any notion that can’t immediately valued by your current knowledge.

In other words, you have a very limited understanding of real Complexity, which does not obey to your immediate usefulness demands.
Click to expand...

Nope, just self-consistency demands. It is that lack of self-consistency that makes your notions useless to anyone but you and your fantasies. Your own notions can’t even be “valued” by your own notions since you only get some “fog” by your own notions.

Again try doing some actual research and you will find history replete with self-consistent notions considered useless originally. Fractals are a good example. Considered a mere geometrical curiosity at first, but now used to design the antennas that make up and make useful a lot of the technology of our modern society.
 
Apathia said:
It seems contradictory for you to not include the all natural operations in your system.
Click to expand...
OM includes local-only agents as one of the natural operations of Complexity, that is based on fragmented cybernetic kernel, which are closed under automatic repetition of closed loops that are not aware of themselves, as clearly demonstrated by the representation of cybernetic kernels in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 .

Apathia said:
Or is it less than and not an example of Complex, being only a tool created by a Complex?
Click to expand...
The current mathematical science is a deductive-only and local-only use of real Complexity, which is not less that Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

As a result Technology is understood mostly in terms of automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves, but this is only a narrow view the concept of Technology, which by real Complexity is not only closed under automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves.

Apathia said:
And would that not imply that arithmatic is not a complex?
Click to expand...
Arithmetic at its local-only view is a limited state of real Complexity.
For example, only sums are valid under this limited framework.
 
The Man said:
avoiding that ‘L value outcome’
Click to expand...
avoiding that accurate ‘L value outcome’ is achieved only if the way to this avoidance is inseparable and ever developed, which actually prevents the summed value of L (by your limited framework The Man, also infinite added values has a final and accurate sum, where one of that sums is the final value of L).

The Man said:
So try taking an “open minded approach” when you are considering what you call “standard math”.
Click to expand...
The notion of an accurate sum as a result if infinitely many added values, is an excellent example of a “closed minded approach”.

The Man said:
As I said opposites are linked in that they are, well, opposites.
Click to expand...
In what way? What enables this Linkage?

The Man said:
Again an “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into two aspects (even opposites) is not “atomic” by your own “indivisible” meaning of “atomic”
Click to expand...
You simply can’t understand Y (trunk/branches form), and force your branch-only notion on Y.

The Man said:
You seem rather preoccupied with ‘destruction’.
Click to expand...
You are using ‘contradiction’ instead of ‘destruction’, but both have the same meaning in this case. You are a very poor shrink because you are not aware of your own use of concepts.

The Man said:
Again as you state above “linkage (communication)” so a “linkage”, even as binary opposites, is your “(communication)”.
Click to expand...
The result of the linkage does not end at opposites-only linkage, as its done by your limited excluded middle black/white framework, that currently is the main tool of our developed (and therefore trivial) technologies.

The Man said:
As agian It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to.
Click to expand...
Another example of your generalization problems. Excluded middle framework is not limited to Logics or Ethics.

The Man said:
It is your consideration of self-consistent and self-contradictory as both being valid that that gives your "OM" its, well, self-contradictory defining aspect.
Click to expand...
The Man, your local-only reasoning is a exactly the reason of why OM is understood by you as self-contradictory.

The Man said:
That’s it, some meditation technique? That’s your “technology of the consciousness”?
Click to expand...
One of the practical aspects that are researched by scientific methods. East and west are linked into a one comprehensive and useful framework, in order to develop the technology of the consciousness, where direct perception is a main property of this technology.

The Man said:
So you think. That these thoughts might have occurred to you during some meditative technique does not make them any more than just your thoughts.
Click to expand...
The Man you are simply ignorant of direct perception.

The Man said:
Again your “fog” has no value, other than to just your own thoughts and fantasies.
Click to expand...
You sum-only is a limited value.

The Man said:
You do not understand the meaning of “ethical skills”.
Click to expand...
Your narrow view prevents from you to understand Ethics.

The Man said:
Well you do set a very low bar to try to crawl under. My suggestions still stand though.
Click to expand...
The Man, you have no answer.

The Man said:
You still don’t understand the meaning and application of axioms,
Click to expand...
You do not have the guts to re-search already agreed terms, like any dogmatic person.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
You do understand that your particular ethics as “universal principles” would be your intended context, don’t you?
Click to expand...
Do you understand that by your local-only view of anything is resulted by particular context-dependent frameworks?

The Man said:
Your “OM” and “EEM” certainly have not reduced your fears,
Click to expand...
The fear is not because of OM and EMM, but exactly because of the lack of OM and EEM, as demonstrated by your fragmented context-dependent view of anything.

The Man said:
No, just because they are different.
Click to expand...
Difference is only a particular aspect of Complexity , which is not less than Sameness/Difference Linkage.
Again you narrow view of the considered subjects is shown.

The Man said:
Nope, just self-consistency demands.
Click to expand...
It is your narrow local-only and context-dependent view, which gets OM as self-contradictory.

The Man said:
In general, though, the consequences of something useful are often simply a result of its use.
Click to expand...
It does not mean that the development behind some useful result, is a clear cut single path, which is limited by clear amount of time.

Devomplent (as currently understood) is an infinite Complexity that has finite usful resutls.
 
Last edited:
Apthia's signature said:
"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Click to expand...
Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.
 
doronshadmi said:
OM includes local-only agents as one of the natural operations of Complexity, that is based on fragmented cybernetic kernel, which are closed under automatic repetition of closed loops that are not aware of themselves, as clearly demonstrated by the representation of cybernetic kernels in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 .


The current mathematical science is a deductive-only and local-only use of real Complexity, which is not less that Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

As a result Technology is understood mostly in terms of automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves, but this is only a narrow view the concept of Technology, which by real Complexity is not only closed under automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves.


Arithmetic at its local-only view is a limited state of real Complexity.
For example, only sums are valid under this limited framework.
Click to expand...

So bugs and smart appliances are the result of Non-Local/Local Linkage but operate mostly within the local only aspects of Complexity.
While we self-aware beings are of a complexity beyond any traditional, binary logic.

That's more what I thought I'd hear from you.

I still don't get the application of the cybernetic kernels.
I'm not well read in the field of Artificial Intelligence, but I do know that heuristic learning systems based on cybernetic loops have been created.
Some of which take on chess masters.
And all kinds of smart appliances based on "Fuzzy Logic" are in the market.
But none of these exhibit the kind of Non-Local Complexity of beings who carry around a self image they call "I" and can ponder what the heck that means.

Am I right that you are making some kind of one to one correspondence for each CK and a particular "parallel"-"serial" bridging?

I wonder if that really takes in the whole of human complex thinking, or just makes up a clever device that may be aware but not aware that it is aware.
 
doronshadmi said:
Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that we are a part of an integrated whole in which observation and participation aren't separable.

My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.
 
Apathia said:
I agree with you that we are a part of an integrated whole in which observation and participation aren't separable.

My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.
Click to expand...
By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them.
 
Apathia said:
Am I right that you are making some kind of one to one correspondence for each CK and a particular "parallel"-"serial" bridging?
Click to expand...
We are simply complex systems that are able to get the origins of their complexity from "first hand" (we are not agents, but direct self aware things of our realm in any given level, by using both parallel AND serial participation/observation on the same time).

One to one correspondence is a serial-only observation-only non self-awarness view of the re-searched.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
We are simply complex systems that are able to get the origins of their complexity from "first hand" (we are not agents, but direct self aware things of our realm in any given level, by using both parallel AND serial participation/observation on the same time).

One to one correspondence is a serial-only observation-only non self-awarness view of the re-searched.
Click to expand...

Nevermind, I don't know enough about cybernetic kernals and what they mean in AI and much less whatever you are making of them.
I thought there was some realtion to those pretty diagrams and the generation of Organic numbers.
But I guess as far as it goes is that they are both complex.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Apthia's signature
"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Click to expand...

Doron's reply:
Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.
Click to expand...

Apathia:
Apathia said:
My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.
Click to expand...

Doron's reply?
By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them
Click to expand...
.

:wackyrolleyes:
 
doronshadmi said:
Do you understand that by your local-only view of anything is resulted by particular context-dependent frameworks?
Click to expand...

Your loco-only labels do not remove the dependence upon context or your particular ethics as “universal principles” as your own stated context for such ethics.

doronshadmi said:
The fear is not because of OM and EMM, but exactly because of the lack of OM and EEM, as demonstrated by your fragmented context-dependent view of anything.
Click to expand...

Again your “OM” and “EEM” not only permit exactly what you fear (that “L value outcome”) but also make it both logically and ethically acceptable (perhaps even required) to enact such an outcome that you fear.

doronshadmi said:
Difference is only a particular aspect of Complexity , which is not less than Sameness/Difference Linkage.
Again you narrow view of the considered subjects is shown.
Click to expand...

Doron you simply claim everything is “only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than” some dichotomy “Linkage”. The “narrow view of the considered subjects is” entirely yours.

doronshadmi said:
It is your narrow local-only and context-dependent view, which gets OM as self-contradictory.
Click to expand...

Nope, just the fact that your “non-local” “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription contradicts itself. Your loco-only labels don’t change that fact.

doronshadmi said:
It does not mean that the development behind some useful result, is a clear cut single path, which is limited by clear amount of time.
Click to expand...

Since I did not say that, then yes, what I said does not mean that. Yet by your own assertions your “EEM” is a singular “framework” “a clear cut single path” if you will for combining your notion of ethics with your notion of logic.


doronshadmi said:
Devomplent (as currently understood) is an infinite Complexity that has finite usful resutls.
Click to expand...


‘Development’ “(as currently understood)” is just the result of changes. As your notions have not changed to any discernable degree (certainly how you try to describe them has) they have not developed and remain without ‘useful results’, finite or otherwise (except for feeding your fantasies).














Patiently awaiting the subsequent claim that ‘change is only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than Remain/Change Linkage‘.
 
The Man said:
‘Development’ “(as currently understood)” is just the result of changes. As your notions have not changed to any discernable degree (certainly how you try to describe them has) they have not developed and remain without ‘useful results’, finite or otherwise (except for feeding your fantasies).
Click to expand...
The Man said:
Again your “OM” and “EEM” not only permit exactly what you fear (that “L value outcome”) but also make it both logically and ethically acceptable (perhaps even required) to enact such an outcome that you fear.
Click to expand...
This is another example of a person that insists to use a partial view of X in order to get general conclusions of X.

There is no chance to communicate with a person, which insists to use a cyclopean view of a considered subject.

The Man said:
Patiently awaiting the subsequent claim that ‘change is only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than Remain/Change Linkage‘.
Click to expand...
Save your time, your Remain-only view is exactly the best you get (your WYSIWYG).
 
Last edited:
Let us return to the proof without words of S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X:

4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg



Some direct perception notions:

1) S or X are sizes > 0.

2) X is a constant size > 0, which is not changed by any amount of bends along it (exactly because each bend is an 0 size).

3) S is the result of the added projected sizes of the bended forms of X upon the non-bended form of X.

4) The added end-points or the infinitely many points that are located along the infinitely many bended versions of X, contribute exactly 0 size to S value, so S value is the result of the infinitely many convergent sizes (where each size > 0) 2a+2b+2c+2d+… such that for any 0 size (that does not contribute anything to the result) there is a size > 0, that contributes to the result of S.

5) Since there are infinitely many convergent sizes > 0, then S < X exactly by 0.000…3/4, which is the invariant ratio among the infinitely many projected (and convergent) bended versions of X upon the non-bended version of X, where S is a fog (the result of infinitely many different sizes, where each size > 0) exactly as the infinitely added points along the infinitely many bended versions of X, are a sum (=0).

(Please pay attention that this direct perception is truth for any absolute value of X or S.)

6) (5) can't be understood by a cyclopean view local-only reasoning (see The Man's case).
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them
Click to expand...
Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.
 
doronshadmi said:
Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
In that case you have no basis for
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them.
Click to expand...



..
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us return to the proof without words of S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]


Some direct perception notions:

1) S or X are sizes > 0.

2) X is a constant size > 0, which is not changed by any amount of bends along it.

3) S is the result of the added projected sizes of the bended forms of X upon the non-bended form of X.

4) The added end-points or the infinitely many points that are located along the infinitely many bended versions of X, contribute exactly 0 size to S value, so S value is the result of the infinitely many convergent sizes (where each size > 0) 2a+2b+2c+2d+… such that for any 0 size (that does not contribute anything to the result) there is a size > 0, that does contribute to the result of S.

5) Since there are infinitely many convergent sizes > 0, then S < X exactly by 0.000…3/4, which is the invariant ratio among the infinitely many projected (and convergent) bended versions of X upon the non-bended version of X, where S is a fog exactly as the infinitely add points along the infinitely many bended versions of X, are a sum (=0).

(Please pay attention that this direct perception is truth for any absolute value of X or S.)

6) (5) can't be understood by a cyclopean view local-only reasoning (see The Man's case).
Click to expand...

Your “can't be known by thoughts” “direct perception” fails you again.
 
The Man said:
Your “can't be known by thoughts” “direct perception” fails you again.
Click to expand...
Your "thought about thoughts about direct perception" fails you again, because you can't distinguish between a thought as a manifestation of direct perception, and direct perception as the foundation of thoughts.

It is similar to your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Your "thought about thoughts about direct perception" fails you again, because you can't distinguish between a thought as a manifestation of direct perception, and direct perception as the foundation of thoughts.

It is similar to your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form.
Click to expand...

No Doron you simply enjoy claiming your own thoughts “as the foundation of thoughts” while also claiming your “foundation of thoughts” “can't be known by thoughts”. Which of course would include your own thoughts about your “direct perception” as the “foundation of thoughts”. So not only are you claiming that you can not know what you are talking about (when it comes to your “foundation of thoughts”) you are claiming that you can‘t even think about what you are thinking (when it comes to your “foundation of thoughts”) as that would make your “direct perception” “foundation of thoughts” known by your, well, thoughts.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
you are claiming that you can‘t even think about what you are thinking
Click to expand...
Agian we see your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form, where a branch of Y is a thought and the trunk of Y is the foundation of any branch (any thought), which is not itself a branch (a thought).

You can't get that The Man like any one that his reasoning is at best "label is lablel", "thought is thought", etc ...


You simply can't get 0.000…3/4 > 0
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.
Click to expand...

Amen!
That's one of the things I agree with you about.

Perhaps it's just an language barrier. You aren't aquainted with the meaning of the word "rationalization" as an error in argument and rational discourse.
It's when an idividual makes up reasons for an idea that isn't supported by the emperical facts.

We humans do it a lot, and it takes vigilance and cooperation for us to see when we are deluding ourselves.

And yes, a return to Direct Perception.
 
doronshadmi said:
Agian we see your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form, where a branch of Y is a thought and the trunk of Y is the foundation of any branch (any thought), which is not itself a branch (a thought).

You can't get that The Man like any one that his reasoning is at best "label is lablel", "thought is thought", etc …

You simply can't get 0.000…3/4 > 0
Click to expand...


Again Just your own thoughts about what you like to claim and think of “as the foundation of thoughts”, which by you own assertion “can't be known by” even your own “Y” and “0.000…3/4 > 0” “thoughts”.
 
doronshadmi said:
In that case you have no basis for
Click to expand...

I'm not read on the meaning of cybernetc kernals in AI research.
I'm not getting for sure just how you are using this for your ends.

But overall I do get what you want your Organic Mathmatics to mean and agree with your ethical intent.

But investing a language of quantites of objects with the transcendence of subjectivity just doesn't work.
it's oil and water.
And shaking it up and calling it an Oil/Water Linkage doesn't make it the Solution.

You do start with a certain perspective of a "direct perception," but then you race into a loose collection of linguistic abstractions as if they were concrete experience or intuitive to all.

Of course I should return to the "beginner's mind."
But honestly, Doron, when I do I don't find X/y Linkage or a an Ontological Locality/Non-Locality structure as a given dictim.
It is a linguistic device you have created.
 
Given your last post, I wouldn't be surpried if you now told me, "If you can't see it, you have no business commenting on it."

Howard: Jonathan, Godzilla's outside. He says if you don't move your car, he's going to melt it with his atomic breath.

Jonathan: I don't see Godzilla outside, and I'm not going to move my car.

Howard: If you can't see Godzilla standing out there, you don't have any argument about the matter. Move your car!


Actually yes, there is an impasse to any discussion if I can't see what you do.
But that's a real thread killer, because no one else participating in this thread does either.

But I can see a hint of why you believe you see what you do, and that keeps me here working toward understanding you.
So I'll still be asking you questions.

However for now, I'll not interupt you inverted triangle.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
But investing a language of quantites of objects with the transcendence of subjectivity just doesn't work.
it's oil and water.
Click to expand...
It works. Trunk AND branches are a one organic form (Y) where the branches are the manifestation of the trunk and the trunk is the foundation of the branches.

Your Oil/Water notion simply do not get Y as an organic form.

Apathia said:
It is a linguistic device you have created.
Click to expand...
Again linguistic device is not only the level of manifestation of that device, but also the foundation that enables its manifestation.

OM is trunk AND branches organic Yform device, where silence is inseparable of that device, and is the common base ground of any labeled manifestation.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Again Just your own thoughts about what you like to claim and think of “as the foundation of thoughts”, which by you own assertion “can't be known by” even your own “Y” and “0.000…3/4 > 0” “thoughts”.
Click to expand...

"bla bla bla ..." is "bla bla bla ..." by "bla bla bla ..."

Indeed "profound reasoning" you have The Man.
 
Actually, Doron, your math is totally wrong. Here's my proof:

X^2--4rr*Z^i -- g5 > fog(0.0000000000000000000000 .... 3/4).

I will only allow people who see it to comment and say what a genius I am. Finally a man had arisen in mathematics who is even a greater genius than Doron -- me! It's a new Copernican revolution, as big as the one Doron himself did to previous mathematics, much like Einstein replace Newton after Newton replaced Aristotle in physics.

Everybody else, who thinks it's gibberish, well, they're just jealous I am a greater math genius than them, or else just don't understand it, and therefore have no business commenting on it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom