Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
cyborg, my framework is irreducible into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

Then it's not computable and therefore useless to me.

However I find such a claim dubious at best: the implication being that the visual cortex is somehow beyond computation.

If I read your links I'm not going to find anything approaching what I require am I? Lots of pictures of binary trees aren't going to change anything.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
For the last time, please read the following articles:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes
Click to expand...

4389327007_991e930b4a.jpg


Deus ex machina is the researcher's self-awareness as inseparable factor of the results.
Click to expand...

 
doronshadmi said:
cyborg, my framework is irreducible into verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

For the last time, please read the following articles:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97823738/Unity-Awarness

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes
Click to expand...

Makes not a lick of sense: the odd choice of formatting does not help.

This probably quantifies it best:

So "the Berber shaves" can't be below the outer "{" "}" (YES
thing), which is above membership (it is not understood in terms of "belong to" , "does not belong to" or partial belonging as done by Fuzzy logic)).
Click to expand...

This is not to mention you fundamentally do not get that you have just redefined what the problem stated is in order to "solve" the paradox in the next paragraphs - nothing to do with "visual_spatial" reasoning whatever that is supposed to be in a formal sense.

Deus ex machina is the researcher's self-awareness as inseparable factor of the results.
Click to expand...

No, the "deus ex machina" is a placard of "visual_spatial" being lowered to resolve the play "paradox". It only works in the sense that it completely avoids the actual problem by declaring it has gone away. That is why deus ex machinas are NOT considered a desirable story trope.
 
doronshadmi said:
This is indeed the best that one can achieve by using verbal-symbolic-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

What about the computer you're typing this on? Don't you think that's quite hypocritical of you? But we're not that demanding. Just show us anything, Doron. Anything at all, that can be achieved by doronetics. Except loads of inane gibberish, we got plenty of that from you. So, got anything?
 
cyborg said:
Makes not a lick of sense:
Click to expand...
Again, this is what you achieve if you are using only your verbal_symbolic brain skills.

cyborg said:
This is not to mention you fundamentally do not get that you have just redefined what the problem stated is in order to "solve" the paradox in the next paragraphs - nothing to do with "visual_spatial" reasoning whatever that is supposed to be in a formal sense.
Click to expand...
Since you are using only verbal_symbolic brain skills as the basis of your reasoning, it becomes "flat" (a member of set S and set S are identical, and you have a paradox).

In the formal sense, if one uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills as the basis of his\her reasoning, one enables to define the outer "{" and "}" is different level than anything that may be defined between the outer "{" and "}", and Russell's paradox is naturally avoided (without the need of special verbal_symbolic expression (a special axiom) as done, for example, in ZF(C)).


cyborg said:
No, the "deus ex machina" is a placard of "visual_spatial" being lowered to resolve the play "paradox". It only works in the sense that it completely avoids the actual problem by declaring it has gone away. That is why deus ex machinas are NOT considered a desirable story trope.
Click to expand...
Visual_spatial brain skills (in addition to verbal_symbolic brain skills) simply open your mind beyond its "flat" state, and from this level of awareness Russell's paradox is nothing but an illusion.
 
Ok, I guess I should not have restricted this to just one day.

Receptive aphasia is the official phrase of this thread. Use it liberally. It definitely applies.
 
The current computers are agents of our brain skills, and currently these agents are derived from verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.

By using also visual_spatial brain skills, one is aware of the non-trivial complexity of living organisms, which are not fully captured by Turing-Machine.

By being developed beyond the current reasoning, one enables to define the linkage of Ethical reasoning (in terms of evolutionary scale) AND Logical reasoning in his\her own mind.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, this is what you achieve if you are using only your verbal_symbolic brain skills.
Click to expand...

I literally have no idea what you think the words "verbal", "visual", "spatial" and "symbolic" mean but you sure seem to be incapable or realizing that you must at least be interchanging them by whatever definition you are using.
 
doronshadmi said:
Visual_spatial brain skills (in addition to verbal_symbolic brain skills) simply open your mind beyond its "flat" state, and from this level of awareness Russell's paradox is nothing but an illusion.
Click to expand...

It simply is as it is defined. Changing the problem changes the problem.

Types are not a new concept I'm afraid.
 
cyborg said:
I literally have no idea what you think the words "verbal", "visual", "spatial" and "symbolic" mean but you sure seem to be incapable or realizing that you must at least be interchanging them by whatever definition you are using.
Click to expand...
You still reduce everything in terms of words (which are verbal_symbolic-only brain skills).

As long as this is your only abstractions brain abilities, you are not using also your visual_spatial abstractions brain abilities.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Visual_spatial brain skills (in addition to verbal_symbolic brain skills) simply open your mind beyond its "flat" state, and from this level of awareness Russell's paradox is nothing but an illusion.
Click to expand...
Russell's paradox can be stated with the help of the "verbal_symbolic brain skills" activity

russell_logic.png


or, providing that space is defined by 3 dimensions, it can be described (but NOT defined) with the help of the "visual_spatial brain skill" activity.

reality_boxes.gif


Can Doronetics come up with its own example of Russell's paradox - an example which would unleash the full power of the celebrated cerebral union between both "brain skills?" Let the intercourse between both mental states take firm hold...
And don't forget to rejoice, for a child shall be born!
 
Russell's paradox is an illusion that is derived by using verbal_symbolic-only brain skills.

This illusion is clearly demonstrated by using verbal_symbolic-only expression like
russell_logic.png
that is derived from "flat" reasoning, which according to it a given set and this set as its own member are at the same level of a given mathematical universe.

If visual_spacial brain skills complement verbal_symbolic skills in one's mind, one realizes that Russell's paradox is an illusion.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You still reduce everything in terms of words (which are verbal_symbolic-only brain skills).

As long as this is your only abstractions brain abilities, you are not using also your visual_spatial abstractions brain abilities.
Click to expand...

I understand diagrams just fine thanks.

Do you understand mathematics is neither in jots or tittles or strokes and lines?

Nothing you're talking about here is impossible to generate an isomporhism in no matter if you decided to represent it in curry form.

How the human brian processes information is entirely irrelevant and your naive insistence that they can be broken down into neat deliniatations like this underlines the kind of naive and annoying psychoanalytical approaches that management senimars are made of.
 
doronshadmi said:
Russell's Types are still closed under verbal_symbolic-only brain skills.
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean anything.

Start using your nasal_culinary brain skills and smell the coffee.

From this state of mind one can't achieve the abstraction that is derived from actually using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you say this it won't achieve meaning.

I am very clear about this subject in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8498946&postcount=1811.
Click to expand...

Let me be very clear: that post clarifies nothing.
 
cyborg said:
How the human brian processes information is entirely irrelevant
Click to expand...
Your awareness about this fine subject is naive, exactly because you think that your brain is entirely irrelevant to mathematical reasoning.
 
cyborg said:
No matter how many times you say this it won't achieve meaning.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you read this, it won't achieve meaning as long as only your verbal_symbolic brain skills are used about this fine subject.
 
doronshadmi said:
Russell's paradox is an illusion that is derived by using verbal_symbolic-only brain skills.

This illusion is clearly demonstrated by using verbal_symbolic-only expression like [qimg]http://www.veterangamers.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/russell_logic.png[/qimg] that is derived from "flat" reasoning, which according to it a given set and this set as its own member are at the same level of a given mathematical universe.

If visual_spacial brain skills complement verbal_symbolic skills in one's mind, one realizes that Russell's paradox is an illusion.
Click to expand...
The first paragraph would be a mere assertion, if it were not for an attempt below it to justify the statement. But the justification smells like a circular reasoning, because the set builder formula doesn't "clearly demonstrate" nor does even imply any illusion.

Illusionists amuse their audience, but sometimes they reveal their tricks which create the illusions. Even though you were asked to demonstrate how the union of both "brain skills" works, you again failed to employ the intriguing neural activity in a practical step-by-step way.

It's entirely possible that you have taken a wrong neural path, and as a result, you called Russell's paradox an illusion instead of saying that Russell's paradox can create an illusion. Such a possibility can be justified by the way the paradox is usually rendered - likened to a real-life situation - involving a story of a barber and his activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox

Given the circumstance, Russell's paradox does create an illusion and that's of an upward movement, as it is clearly demonstrated below with the help of
hippocampus_thalamus_hypothalamus_frontal lobe skills (locally distributed throughout the cranial and other non-rectal areas).


barber-shop-pole-animated.gif
 
Last edited:
We have an additional demonstration of a mind that gets the activity of brain skills as practical, only if the intriguing activity is done only by step-by-step way.

Brain's step-by-step-only activity is characterized by its verbal_symbolic-only expressions, and from this partial Brain's activity, one can't comprehend that, for example, The Barber is not at the same level of the shaved people (please see http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes, Part 1, pages 4-6).

The conclusion that Russell's paradox is in itself an illusion (and therefore can't create an illusion) is achieved only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills are practically (actually) used in one's brain.

This the not the case about the one who wrote:"you again failed to employ the intriguing neural activity in a practical step-by-step way."

He indeed using only "step-by-step way" (according to his own evidence).
 
Last edited:
Receptive aphasia is the official state of mind of the one who claims that |{a,b}| = |{a,b,b}|.
 
doronshadmi said:
We have an additional demonstration of a mind that gets the activity of brain skills as practical, only if the intriguing activity is done only by step-by-step way.

Brain's step-by-step-only activity is characterized by its verbal_symbolic-only expressions, and from this partial Brain's activity, one can't comprehend that, for example, The Barber is not at the same level of the shaved people (please see http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes, Part 1, pages 4-6).
Click to expand...
:confused:
How the heck am I supposed to understand that the barber is not at the same level with the shaved people when you explained that by using the insufficient step-by-step only activity characterized by its verbal_symbolic-only expressions using ordered steps labeled Part 1, Part 2, etc in your text?
:rolleyes:

If you hadn't divided your explanation into steps and had used the powerful spatial_visual-only means of explanation instead, it would have become crystal clear to anyone including myself that the barber possibly couldn't be at the same level with his customer, because he is standing whilst his customer is sitting, as shown in Fig. 1 below.

2293255-494905-barber-shaving-his-client-at-shop.jpg

Fig. 1
 
doronshadmi said:
Your awareness about this fine subject is naive, exactly because you think that your brain is entirely irrelevant to mathematical reasoning.
Click to expand...

The brain is entirely irrelevant to mathematical reasoning: fact.

Your ability to mathematically reason is dependent on having one functioning properly. No particular faculty of the way the brain interprets reality has any bearing on it no matter how many words you join with underscores: the level of abuse of punctuation roughly correlating with faulty faculties.
 
doronshadmi said:
Receptive aphasia is the official state of mind of the one who claims that |{a,b}| = |{a,b,b}|.
Click to expand...
You got that wrong on takeoff: {a, b} is a subset of {a, b, b} and therefore the official state of mind can't be receptive aphasia but expressive aphasia. Proof:

"Expressive aphasia is one subset of a larger family of disorders known collectively as aphasia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressive_aphasia

Q. E. D.
 
cyborg said:
The brain is entirely irrelevant to mathematical reasoning: fact.

Your ability to mathematically reason is dependent on having one functioning properly. No particular faculty of the way the brain interprets reality has any bearing on it no matter how many words you join with underscores: the level of abuse of punctuation roughly correlating with faulty faculties.
Click to expand...
I am aware of you being unaware of using your brain for mathematical reasoning.
 
How the heck one supposed to understand that the barber is not at the same level with the shaved people, if his mind is focused only on the verbal_symbolic expressions, which are labeled by Part 1, Part 2, etc steps?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I am aware of you being unaware of using your brain for mathematical reasoning.
Click to expand...
The word aphasia, which describes a family of neural disorders, ends with two vowels i and a. The order of both letters assures that the word describes what is supposed to describe, as opposed to the case where a disorder causes a to precede i thus affecting the whole word that would read incorrectly aphasai, which is not a word.

But there is an instance where an improper reorganization of both vowels I and A in a word doesn't blow the fuse. The instance is the name BRIAN where both vowels will swap their places resulting in BRAIN, which is a word. That means an internal disorder in one word creates another word, with us suspecting nothing wrong until the context emerges for us to spot the error:

41WM27G2HHL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

http://www.mathematicalbrain.com/author.html

Of course, there are many cases where the disorder of the only vowels I and A in a word doesn't matter, because in both cases the words don't make any sense, such as

SHIDMA
SHADMI

and so we informally refer to such cases as gibberish.

Awareness is mother of all neural spectacles and as long as she survives the massacre of the fallopian tubes, the size will never ever matter.
 
cyborg said:
I am aware of your inability to separate the mechanism of the human brain from mathematics.
Click to expand...
I am aware of your inability to link between the human brain and mathematics, exactly because you are focused only on the subjective aspects of its functions.

Since the human brain has subjective AND objective aspects it enables to deduce the needed generalizations (by recognize the difference between subjectivity and objectivity) in order to do maths, only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills complement each other during deduction.

Your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning actually closed under the subjectivity of partial brain skills and as a result you can't define the complementarity of Ethical reasoning (in terms of evolutionary scale) AND Logical_reasoning.

Without the the understanding and practice of this complementarity in one's brain, his\her probability to survive as a complex phenomenon is reduced, because Ethical AND Logical reasoning are not synchronized during further manipulations of Nature's forces.

Furthermore, Entropy and its essential importance for further development of complex creatures like us, is not understood if the mathematician is not a factor of the mathematical science.

One of the signatures of this misunderstanding is the ignorance of the mathematical community along the last 4000 years, about the irreducibility of collection of members into NOthing (that has no predecessor) or the their non-extensibility into YEShting (that has no successor), which is exactly the property of a non-entropic realm (which is not known by the current mathematical science, as long as lower mathematical spaces can fully cover higher mathematical spaces (according to this reasoning we are at full entropy state, which is simply nonsense)).
 
cyborg said:
I am aware of your inability to separate the mechanism of the human brain from mathematics.
Click to expand...
What you call "the mechanism of the human brain" is exactly the subjective collections of functions, which are not its objective state, which is at the level of the whole.

Your mechanic reductionist-only reasoning is inaccessible to the level of the whole, exactly because it is derived only from the verbal_symbolic brain skills, which can't be used alone in order to actually be aware of brain's whole\parts relation (and so is the case if one uses only its visual_spatial brain skills).

For example, http://www.scribd.com/doc/98276640/Umes (pages 13-18) can't be known by using mechanic reductionist-only reasoning, which derived only from verbal_symbolic brain skills.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8500473&postcount=1812 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8504477&postcount=1816 rigorously demonstrate the misunderstanding of Identity, if one using only its verbal_symbolic brain skills.

More details are found also in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8498946&postcount=1811.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I am aware of your inability to link between the human brain and mathematics, exactly because you are focused only on the subjective aspects of its functions.
Click to expand...

Meaningless.

Since the human brain has subjective AND objective aspects it enables to deduce the needed generalizations (by recognize the difference between subjectivity and objectivity) in order to do maths, only if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills complement each other during deduction.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
cyborg said:
Meaningless.

Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes, and yes.

You may have missed Doron's earlier claims regarding direct perception. His current verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial fixation is a simple renaming of his spewage under the direct perception mantra. At least direct perception was more honestly named since the claim was (and still is) that he knew something to be true simply because he perceived it as such. The latest word salad nomenclature serves to obscure that obvious absurdity, but is nonetheless identically ridiculous.

At some point, Doron will figure out he's getting no traction with verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial, so he'll find another name for it then recycle. That's what he does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom