(FB 1548349724 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGICAL SUBTLETY I use the spectra: Display (visible signals) … Word (sound/speech) … … Deed (action) Sense (stimuli) … Perception (stimuli with memory) … … Prediction (imagine) … … … Experience … … … … Memory (result) … … … … … Recursion … … … … … … Intuition … … … … … … … Free Association … … … … … … … … Thinking … … … … … … … … … Reasoning … … … … … … … … … … Calculating … … … … … … … … … … … Computing Imitation (physical) > … Empathy (emotional) > … … Sympathy (thought) >
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548679656 Timestamp) THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”– Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable. Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name. This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548678844 Timestamp) THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC” We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just fine, the way we can observe every other one of our senses. But, until the present era would could not inspect the mechanism by which logic, math, geometry function: the detection of differences in constant relations between recursive neural networks. In other words, we lacked instrumentation for observation and measurement at such scales, and a paradigm (logic) for modeling them instrumental (computer science). it also is the most complex phenomenon we have examined which, because it’s heuristic (adaptive). But the fundamentally ability of us to sense differences, particularly in something so informationally dense (concentrated) as speech, is produced by differences in degree and distribution of excitement of neural networks. In other words we sense both constant and inconstant relations, in what babbage correctly called ‘a difference engine’. The logical facility consists in our ability to detect differences in constant relations between a nearly infinite hierarchy of forever-contingent associations. The discipline we call logic attempts to tests whether we ‘speak’ in constant relations. The discipline of formal logic attempts to produce a grammar of categories of constant relations in an effort to test for inconstant relations, claimed to be constant. —“Long before the twentieth century the prevailing opinion was that Euclidean geometry, standard mathematics, and logic did not rest on experience in any obvious way. They were largely presupposed in our empirical work, and it was difficult to see what if anything might disconfirm them. Geometry was a special case and might be handled in different ways that we shall not discuss here. That leaves logic and mathematics.”—S.E.P.
- Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548679656 Timestamp) THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”– Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable. Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name. This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548678844 Timestamp) THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC” We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just fine, the way we can observe every other one of our senses. But, until the present era would could not inspect the mechanism by which logic, math, geometry function: the detection of differences in constant relations between recursive neural networks. In other words, we lacked instrumentation for observation and measurement at such scales, and a paradigm (logic) for modeling them instrumental (computer science). it also is the most complex phenomenon we have examined which, because it’s heuristic (adaptive). But the fundamentally ability of us to sense differences, particularly in something so informationally dense (concentrated) as speech, is produced by differences in degree and distribution of excitement of neural networks. In other words we sense both constant and inconstant relations, in what babbage correctly called ‘a difference engine’. The logical facility consists in our ability to detect differences in constant relations between a nearly infinite hierarchy of forever-contingent associations. The discipline we call logic attempts to tests whether we ‘speak’ in constant relations. The discipline of formal logic attempts to produce a grammar of categories of constant relations in an effort to test for inconstant relations, claimed to be constant. —“Long before the twentieth century the prevailing opinion was that Euclidean geometry, standard mathematics, and logic did not rest on experience in any obvious way. They were largely presupposed in our empirical work, and it was difficult to see what if anything might disconfirm them. Geometry was a special case and might be handled in different ways that we shall not discuss here. That leaves logic and mathematics.”—S.E.P.
- Curt
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548790553 Timestamp) SEARCHING FOR PROPER TERMS… SOPHISTS Skeptics (aristotle) Idealists (plato et al) … NATURALISTS Naturalists (Democritus, Aristotle) Empiricists (Bacon, Locke, Smith, Hume) Scientists (Poincare, Maxwell, Menger, Weber, Darwin) Falsificationists (Popper, Hayek, (..?..), (most physicists) ) Operationalists ( (Brouwer, Bridgman, Mises), Turing, Chomsky, Searle. Recirocalists ( Hoppe, Doolittle(completeness))
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548789834 Timestamp) WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? 1) I understand your meaning. 2) That statement is meaningful. 3) That statement is true. “…for the purpose of … ” a) conveying an experience (allegorical) b) conveying a causal relation (contingency) c) conveying a premise for the purpose of deduction (consistency) Note how we conflate these. 1 = a, 2 = b, 3 = c. Truthfulness requires the satisfaction of the market demand for meaning(disambiguation), contingency(opportunity), consistency (deduction).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548790553 Timestamp) SEARCHING FOR PROPER TERMS… SOPHISTS Skeptics (aristotle) Idealists (plato et al) … NATURALISTS Naturalists (Democritus, Aristotle) Empiricists (Bacon, Locke, Smith, Hume) Scientists (Poincare, Maxwell, Menger, Weber, Darwin) Falsificationists (Popper, Hayek, (..?..), (most physicists) ) Operationalists ( (Brouwer, Bridgman, Mises), Turing, Chomsky, Searle. Recirocalists ( Hoppe, Doolittle(completeness))
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548789834 Timestamp) WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? 1) I understand your meaning. 2) That statement is meaningful. 3) That statement is true. “…for the purpose of … ” a) conveying an experience (allegorical) b) conveying a causal relation (contingency) c) conveying a premise for the purpose of deduction (consistency) Note how we conflate these. 1 = a, 2 = b, 3 = c. Truthfulness requires the satisfaction of the market demand for meaning(disambiguation), contingency(opportunity), consistency (deduction).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548869369 Timestamp) MORE ON ADAM AND CURT’S DISCUSSION ON METAPHYSICS. (QUESTIONS FOR METAPHYSICISTS) —“…substance…”— Your [Adam] approach is extremely useful in demarcation of legal decidability. It is the physical equivalent of the decidability provided by potential interest and demonstrated interest. So as you taught me recently Aristotle is an exceptional framework for cognition at human scale, and while we may know post human scale both micro and macro, that only assists us in removing falsehood and error from decisions at human scale. We are only capable of acting at human scale and cooperating at human scale…. So Aristotle really did learn about the universe from writing the athenian constitution…. —“…underlies…”– Operationalize that term and … —“Real Metaphysics – How we ought to think. If you are actually thinking, then you are so constrained that you cannot help but think such and such, which we call “metaphysics”. This there is a form of necessity that is neither logical nor physical, but which underlies both.”— I don’t know what metaphysics means – other than ‘Aristotle’s failed attempt to operationalize the brain’. So ‘fitting’ is simply error. And any talk of “metaphysics’ is fitting. We can instead ask, given his ignorance, what categories of phenomenon was he seeking to explain? He could not explain the function of the brain, and the relationship between that lower function, and the means of calculation and communication we call language. (serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation, resulting in sufficiency for a contract for meaning.) I know the following. 1 – the natural world exists (reality) and persists independent of our thought and action, and follows simple deterministic rules from which complexity arises, including the complexity of near chaos due to the hierarchy of possible operations and near-infinite scale. I know this because I am unwilling to act contrary to that condition in any manner that would test that condition; and I observe this in everyone else; Beyond that is meaningless because only action determines outcomes. 2 – to be able to act in this world and capture calories we have evolved a great deal of memory with which to convert high information density experience into fragmentary (distributed fractional memory) but reconstructable experiences, of lower information density. 3 – to be able to plan a sequence of actions we have evolved categories of constant contingent relations in memory by the addition of more layers of memory. 4 – to be able to communicate we evolved language to communicate stories in serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation until a contract for meaning has been achieved.) 5 – this language required rules of continuous disambiguation, and so we evolved the natural grammar. 6 – once we had the grammar we could engage in reason, calculation, and eventually computation. 7 – increases in opportunity for exploitation of the natura world (and the human) cause increase scope of communication. T 8 – the greater the correspondence with reality, and the greater the scope, and the more consistent the relations in those categories and grammar, the greater the ability to act to seize calories by which to insulate the mind, emotions, and body from stress and cellular damage (wear and tear). 9 – at some point a competitive advantage in non-correspondence evolved (frauds and deceits) in order for those lacking agency to compete with those possessing agency. 10- this ‘resistance movement’ creates many fictions (non correspondences) to improve political resistance in opposition to economic and military agency Ergo my only interest is not in the correspondence per se but in the use of non-correspondence for the purpose of parasitism and predation.