Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

So having stated that I ascribe to no particular philosophy of life you find it necessary to label me with one of your own creation. Thank you Doron, for answering my previous question and conclusively demonstrating that you must label people within the confines of your own perspectives as opposed to addressing them, their perspectives or what they say directly

You used I in this quote.

A=I

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

Why you can't get it?

Because you are not aware of yourself during your logical reasoning.

Nothing is mystical here, actually self-awareness is the core of reasoning, whether it is formal or not.

 

[doronshadmi]

By explaining a symbol you claimed required no explanation to be understood? Typical, the poor understanding, contradictions and demonstrative lack of self-awareness is again yours and yours alone.

First, Self-awareness is a meaningful direct experience that can be symbolized by a single symbol.

Second, further re-search discovers that this meaningful direct experience that is symbolized by a single symbol is not enough, because even this most intimae experience is not less than Relation Element Interaction.

A=I

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

AGAIN:

The minimal terms for re-search are:

Element (the local aspect of re-search)

Relation (the non-local aspect of re-search)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of re-search)

No re-search holds unless it is REI.

 

[The Man]

You used I in this quote.

A=I

So what, I never claimed I can be understood without definition or explanation and the usage and syntax of my application of “I” is well defined and therefore understood. Oh but wait you did make the claim that it could be understood without explanation.

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

Why you can't get it?

Because you are not aware of yourself during your logical reasoning.

Nothing is mystical here, actually self-awareness is the core of reasoning, whether it is formal or not.

So you continue to explain your usage of I, obviously you must understand that symbols require explanation yet you claimed your usage of that symbol did not require explanation thus demonstrating your lack of self-awareness of even your own understanding.

 

[The Man]

First, Self-awareness is a meaningful direct experience that can be symbolized by a single symbol.

Second, further re-search discovers that this meaningful direct experience that is symbolized by a single symbol is not enough, because even this most intimae experience is not less than Relation Element Interaction.

A=I

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

AGAIN:

The minimal terms for re-search are:

Element (the local aspect of re-search)

Relation (the non-local aspect of re-search)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of re-search)

No re-search holds unless it is REI.

More explanations of your usage of a symbol you claimed required no explanation to be understood. It seems you are becoming less and less aware of yourself or what you have written with each subsequent post.

 

[doronshadmi]

More explanations of your usage of a symbol you claimed required no explanation to be understood. It seems you are becoming less and less aware of yourself or what you have written with each subsequent post.

No The Man.

What is shown by your replies is that you don't understand what a meaningful re-search is, where the I case is an example of such a re-search that you don't get, simply because you are not aware of yoursef during re-search and then move to the second stage of re-search.

In that case you can't understand a single word or symbol of what I say as long as you don't get what I say.

It can be done only if you move from first to second stage of re-search ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4509833&postcount=2142 ), somthing that you don't do.

 

[The Man]

No The Man.

What is shown by your replies is that you don't understand what a meaningful re-search is, where the I case is an example of such a re-search that you don't get, simply because you are not aware of yoursef during re-search.

In that case you can't understand a single word or symbol of what I say as long as you don't get what I say.[/QUOTE]


So your usage of the symbol I is not understandable without explanation and further your attempts at explanation do not make your usage of that symbol any more understandable. Your requirement is an understanding of your usage of that symbol so your usage can be understood without requiring you explaining that usage. So you revert back to your typical stance that one must simply accept your assertions in order to find your assertions, well, acceptable.

 

[doronshadmi]

In that case you can't understand a single word or symbol of what I say as long as you don't get what I say.

So your usage of the symbol I is not understandable without explanation and further your attempts at explanation do not make your usage of that symbol any more understandable. Your requirement is an understanding of your usage of that symbol so your usage can be understood without requiring you explaining that usage. So you revert back to your typical stance that one must simply accept your assertions in order to find your assertions, well, acceptable.

I subscribe to no particular “philosophy” destructive or otherwise just as I subscribe to no particular “school of thought”.

What is this I that has no particular “philosophy” ?

Does it needs any definition, opinion, philosophy etc. ... in order to be aware of itself?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

3 times you referred to yourself in this quote.

Hurrah! You can count! Too bad you can't comprehend.

Let's review what I actually asked:

When I say "The moon is made of cheese", there is no self reference. Is Little 10 Toes the moon? Is Little 10 Toes cheese? No. I am stating the moon (which you may or may not be seeing) is made of cheese.

Your edited reply is:

All you say is: I

and we are not talking about any property of I, what I is, etc ...

At this fundamental level we reseach what we need in order to define I.

That's all (at this fundamental level).

So, once again, I'll ask a basic question. Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

Surprisingly, there is a way to use a single symbol in such a way that it will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition etc, …

 

[doronshadmi]

Hurrah! You can count! Too bad you can't comprehend.

Let's review what I actually asked:



Your edited reply is:



So, once again, I'll ask a basic question. Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

There is necessarily self-reference at I first-level (I=I), before we say what I is (which is I's second-level, and the second-level is not necessarily self-referential).

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You still didn't answer my questions. So, once again, I'll ask a basic question. Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

 

[doronshadmi]

You still didn't answer my questions.

You do not understand my answer.

The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

I am talking about the direct experience of self-awareness.

Do you need any further explanation in order to immediately expiriance it and be sure of it?

EDIT: A = "bla bla bla" is not not necessarily a direct self-referential as A=A is.

It does not mean that from a meta-view A = "bla bla bla" is the result of self-referece (REI).

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You do not understand my answer.

I am talking about the direct experience of self-awareness, do you need any further explanation in order to immediately expiriance it and be sure about it?

No, you don't understand my questions. I'll high-light some of the basic info:

Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."
The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

 

[doronshadmi]

No, you don't understand my questions. I'll high-light some of the basic info:

Please show me where there is self reference when I say "The moon is made of cheese."
The follow-up to that question is, why do we need to define I when I haven't used it and when you claim that the symbol I, "will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition"?

I do not need to define I in order to show that from a meta-view any researchable framework is the result of an interaction between Locality and Non-locality.

I used I in order to show that also this direct experience is not less than REI.

By showing this I show why jsfisher is wrong when he claims that A alone or = alone are formulas.


As for "The moon is made of cheese." , please look at this diagram

and exchange any intersection point by some letter from the above sentence.

If you do that, you are able to understand why "The moon is made of cheese" is some result the interaction between Locality and Non-locality, where Interaction is based on Self-reference.

Why don't you have the one-dimensional case staying constrained within its one-dimensional world?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496320&postcount=2015

Because no thing alone is a formula.

 

[ddt]

As for "The moon is made of cheese." , please look at this diagram
[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/SR.jpg[/qimg]

There is neither moon nor cheese in the diagram. I don't see any relevance.

and exchange any intersection point by some letter from the above sentence.

That makes no sense at all. You destroy the diagram, and besides, there are not enough intersection points for all the letters.

 

[doronshadmi]

There is neither moon nor cheese in the diagram. I don't see any relevance.


That makes no sense at all. You destroy the diagram, and besides, there are not enough intersection points for all the letters.

The abstract principle ddt, the abstract principle that is based on Relation Element Interaction, as the minimal term for a Well Formed Formula (WFF is based on REI).

After all you are a mathematician, isn't it?

 

[jsfisher]

The abstract principle ddt, the abstract principle that is based on Relation Element Interaction, as the minimal term for a Well Formed Formula (WFF is based on REI).

This quote is not a sentence. This quote is not semantically meaningful. This quote includes gibberish.

After all you are a mathematician, isn't it?

This quote is not semantically meaningful.

 

[doronshadmi]

This quote is not a sentence. This quote is not semantically meaningful. This quote includes gibberish.



This quote is not semantically meaningful.

Ye,

A alone is

 

[The Man]

What is this I that has no particular “philosophy” ?

Once again my usage and syntax of “I” is well defined, established and therefore well understood by others. Your claim that…

Surprisingly, there is a way to use a single symbol in such a way that it will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition etc, …

with regard to your use of the symbol I is refuted by you in your need and continuing desire to attempt to explain and define your usage of that symbol.

Does it needs any definition, opinion, philosophy etc. ... in order to be aware of itself?

Well since whether or not something could be considered ‘self-aware’ would depend on the “definition, opinion, philosophy etc. ...” of self-awareness being applied at the time, the answered is quite obviously ‘yes’. How do you identify something as ‘self-aware’ without first defining what constitutes ‘self-awareness’ in the first place? Oh wait, how silly of me, you do not bother with things like defining your notions since it usually shows your notions as self contradictory and you as lacking self-awareness about your self contradictory notions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again my usage and syntax of “I” is well defined

How it is well-defined if first I (or "my", as written by you) has do define what is well-defined?

Your first usage is not less than what you call "my" where "my" does not hold without self-reference.

So is I, it is not less than I=I (self relation of I to itself, which is not less than I=I).

You are stack in I (or "my", as written by you) at the level of direct experience, without understand it.

The direct experience of I does not depend on its understanding, exactly as some apple falling on your head even if you don't understand the laws of Gravitation.

A Well Formed Formula holds only if I is understood and not just directly experienced.

So is the case of A alone or = alone,

They are not understood unless they are interact with each other under a one framework, where the minimal interaction is Element's self-relation, notated, for example, as A=A, where A is the Element aspect of that interaction and = is the Relation aspect of that interaction.

 

[doronshadmi]

AGAIN:

A=I

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

The minimal terms for re-search are:

Element (the local aspect of re-search)

Relation (the non-local aspect of re-search)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of re-search)

No re-search holds unless it is REI.