Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Do you accept these notions because you have been “Thinking about the self-awareness” or do you just simply accept them without any consideration at all and expect others to simply be equally as credulous?


As usual Doron totally misconstrues the meaning of a word or phrase like ‘Self-awareness’ so badly that his interpretation is the exact opposite of the actual meaning. For those interested see…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness

Again you miss it.

Self-awareness is not any agreed definition about it at the level of thoughts, no matter what has been written about it by some scientific research.

There is a clear difference between "about X" and your experience of X to itself, which is not something "about X" exactly because thoughts are not involved at this fundamental state.

 

[The Man]

Again you miss it.

Self-awareness is not any agreed definition about it at the level of thoughts, no matter what has been written about it by some scientific research.

You mean expect for those that actually agree on a definition.

There is a clear difference between "about X" and your experience of X to itself, which is not something "about X" exactly because thoughts are not involved at this fundamental state.

Well if “your experience of X to itself” is not “about X” then you must have been experiencing something ‘other then X’. Certainly, Doron, no one is going to argue with you that “thoughts are not involved” in any of your notions.

Would you care to actually address my other questions?

Do you accept these notions because you have been “Thinking about the self-awareness” or do you just simply accept them without any consideration at all and expect others to simply be equally as credulous?

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man does not get that to think about the source of thoughts is not to be at the source of thoughts.

One gets it iff he/she at the source of thoughts, which is not a thought.

There is no use to continue this dialog with a person that does not able to get it, if not by experience than at least by imagination.


http://blog.silentadministration.org/2009/04/maharishi-on-source-of-thoughts.html

http://tripatlas.com/Transcendental_meditation

http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/alexander/index#innerpeace

In the ordinary waking state, the knower (or self) is experienced as localized in space and time and separated from the known by active processes of knowing (e.g., thought and perception). During the Transcendental Meditation technique, awareness settles down, thought becomes quieter and quieter, until thought itself is transcended, and the knower is left fully awake within himself. All thought, perception, and feeling are transcended. Knower, known, and process of knowing converge in one undivided, silent wholeness of awareness—transcendental consciousness. No longer bound by thought, perception, or feelings, the awareness is simply awake to itself alone, to its own unified, unbounded existence.

It has to be understood that I do not support the TM organization, what I say is that form my own experience, one can be aware of himself and this awareness is not itself a thought. So from my own experience I know what these links are talking about.

 

[The Man]

The Man does not get that to think about the source of thoughts is not to be at the source of thoughts.

Well again if your thinking about the source of your thoughts is not to be at the source of your thoughts then you must be thinking of something other then the source of your thoughts.

One gets it iff he/she at the source of thoughts, which is not a thought.

There is no use to continue this dialog with a person that does not able to get it, if not by experience than at least by imagination.

Well we’ve heard that before, but then you’ve never actually thought to discontinue your diatribe.

http://blog.silentadministration.org/2009/04/maharishi-on-source-of-thoughts.html

http://tripatlas.com/Transcendental_meditation





It has to be understood that I do not support the TM organization, what I say is that form my own experience, one can be aware of himself and this awareness is not itself a thought. So from my own experience I know what these links are talking about.

Wow, transcendental meditation (flashback to the 60’s), who could have guessed?????

So you do simply accept these notions based on your perceived experience of 'awareness' in transcendental meditation where you are supposed to be free of, well, perception. So I guess you weren’t doing that right either, since you were still separated “from the known” by your perception of 'awareness'.

 

[sympathic]

Indeed. Transcendental Meditation should be added to the curriculum of Math undergrad studies.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you do simply accept these notions based on your perceived experience of 'awareness' in transcendental meditation where you are supposed to be free of, well, perception. So I guess you weren’t doing that right either, since you were still separated “from the known” by your perception of 'awareness'.

This is exactly the description of a person that does not experience itself at the level of itself, which is not a perception by thought, filling, or any use of the senses.

The Man you continue to reflect the ignorance of yourself on others.

Well again if your thinking about the source of your thoughts is not to be at the source of your thoughts then you must be thinking of something other then the source of your thoughts.

This is the exact experience of a person that enables to get himself only on the level of thoughts, which is you The Man.

At the level of thoughts the thoughtless source of thoughts is understood as a contradiction of any thought.

 

[doronshadmi]

Indeed. Transcendental Meditation should be added to the curriculum of Math undergrad studies.

The main point is that any researcher has to be aware of the source of his thoughts (which is not itself a thought) as the best base ground for any research.

By doing that he can get finer notions in his mind that improves his ability to research.

I am not talking about any particular notion, but about the ability to get any notion at a finer level.

It can be done only if the central nervous system enables to be aware of itself as the source of its thoughts, which is itself not any thought.

 

[doronshadmi]

This is a link to the "final version" of this slide show. I have removed all earlier versions.

Please do not paste identical or near identical versions of the same post, especially very long posts. Instead, link the previous post and indicated corrections.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[sympathic]

The main point is that any researcher has to be aware of the source of his thoughts (which is not itself a thought) as the best base ground for any research.

By doing that he can get finer notions in his mind that improves his ability to research.

I am not talking about any particular notion, but about the ability to get any notion at a finer level.

It can be done only if the central nervous system enables to be aware of itself as the source of its thoughts, which is itself not any thought.

I got it. This thread is not about Math, it is even not about philosophy, it about religion. This also explains the nature of replies to posts here. The ideas and concepts here stem are supported by belief.

 

[doronshadmi]

I got it. This thread is not about Math, it is even not about philosophy, it about religion. This also explains the nature of replies to posts here. The ideas and concepts here stem are supported by belief.

No, they are supported by an experience of self-awareness as the source of any thought, which is itself not a thought.

Belief is based on thoughts, so this is not the case.

Here is an example of scholars that tries to use self-awareness as the basis of the mathematical science, but they fail because they are stacked the level of thoughts about self-awareness, which is not self-awareness:

http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/EJPhilosophy/PDF/EJP2-Maraldo.pdf

In other words, you did not get it (yet).

 

[jsfisher]

Organic Mathematics (OM) is based on the concept of Distinction as a first-order property of any research.

You have alleged this before. You have been asked several times to explain what you mean.

So, the questions, again, to you are "What do you mean by 'distinction'?" and "In what way is it a first-order property?" (You'll need a bit of predicate calculus to provide a complete answer to the latter.)

 

[doronshadmi]

You have alleged this before. You have been asked several times to explain what you mean.

So, the questions, again, to you are "What do you mean by 'distinction'?" and "In what way is it a first-order property?" (You'll need a bit of predicate calculus to provide a complete answer to the latter.)

Please read ALL of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4597895&postcount=2448 .

 

[The Man]

This is exactly the description of a person that does not experience itself at the level of itself, which is not a perception by thought, filling, or any use of the senses.

Oh so perceiving without perception then.

The Man you continue to reflect the ignorance of yourself on others.

No Doron I just reflect your ignorance and contradictions back to you.

This is the exact experience of a person that enables to get himself only on the level of thoughts, which is you The Man.

Back to the labeling again Doron, is that the only way you can rationalize why someone might not agree with you?

At the level of thoughts the thoughtless source of thoughts is understood as a contradiction of any thought.

No Doron at any ‘level’ ones claims of researching the non-researchable and thoughtlessly thinking about the “source of thoughts” is presented by themselves to be meaningless and without value or merit by those very assertions.

 

[The Man]

No, they are supported by an experience of self-awareness as the source of any thought, which is itself not a thought.

Belief is based on thoughts, so this is not the case.

Here is an example of scholars that tries to use self-awareness as the basis of the mathematical science, but they fail because they are stacked the level of thoughts about self-awareness, which is not self-awareness:

http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/EJPhilosophy/PDF/EJP2-Maraldo.pdf

In other words, you did not get it (yet).

“supported by an experience of self-awareness as the source of any thought, which is itself not a thought”? So this is your idea of ‘support’ your perception of “an experience of self-awareness” that you claim to be imperceptible. Doron you still do not get your own notions.

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron at any ‘level’ ones claims of researching the non-researchable and thoughtlessly thinking about the “source of thoughts” is presented by themselves to be meaningless and without value or merit by those very assertions.

No The Man, your notions get only contradiction because in your case you cannot go deeper than the level of thoughts.

“supported by an experience of self-awareness as the source of any thought, which is itself not a thought”? So this is your idea of ‘support’ your perception of “an experience of self-awareness” that you claim to be imperceptible. Doron you still do not get your own notions.

It is clear that you were never aware of the source of your thoughts, which is not itself a thought, so there is no use to continue this sterile dialog with you.

I hopped that you can use your imagination in this case but you can't get it also in your imagination, so let silent be between us.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is an interesting post ( http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=717493&postcount=42 ), which is a part of a thread called "The mathematics of awareness" ( http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58360 ) .

A quote from this post:

http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/papers/bacterial wisdom.pdf

To refer to the genome as being self-aware is a very strong statement with far-reaching implications. The issue will be presented in a forthcoming publication [60]. I briefly describe here the main points needed for this presentation. Our logic and mathematics are based on the notion of a set composed of elements. Implicitly, the set is closed and static, the elements have a fixed identity (it does not change due to the fact that they are part of the set) and they either do not have internal structure or, if they do, it is not relevant to the definition of the set. The set is defined by an external observer, i.e., it is not a result of self-assembly of the elements under a common goal. The elements, being passive and of no structure, do not have any information about the set. The definition of sets leads to logical paradoxes (Russel-type, like the famous barber paradox) when we try to include a notion of self-reference. Russel and others have devoted much effort to construct formal axiomatic systems free of inherent logical paradoxes. Gödel's theorem [62,63] proved that they all have to be "incomplete", including the Principa Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead. It is important to emphasize that Gödel's theorem applies to closed systems which are also fixed in time. I propose that one has to take an entirely different approach and not start with the notion of sets of elements. I believe that here is exactly where the reductionist approach fails. We cannot reach self-awareness starting from passive elements, no matter how intricate their assembly. I propose to replace elements by agents, that possess internal structure, purpose and some level of self-interest, and whose identity is not fixed. The notion of a set is replaced by a cell, which refers to a collection of agents with a common goal and mutual dependence. It also implies that the system of agents is open, i.e., it exchanges energy and information with the environment. I argue that, in order for a cell of agents to be self-aware, it must have an advanced language, i.e., a language which permits self-reference to sentences and to its grammar. The language also enables the individual agents to have information about the entire system.

 

[jsfisher]

Please read ALL of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4597895&postcount=2448 .

Perhaps you should reread your own posts. No where do you ever say what you mean by the term, distinction, and it seems clear you don't understand the phrase, first order property.

So, I ask again: What, precisely, do you mean by "distinction", and what, precisely, do you mean by "first order property"?

 

[doronshadmi]

This is a link to the "final version" of this slide show. I have removed all earlier versions.

Please do not paste identical or near identical versions of the same post, especially very long posts. Instead, link the previous post and indicated corrections.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[doronshadmi]

Perhaps you should reread your own posts. No where do you ever say what you mean by the term, distinction, and it seems clear you don't understand the phrase, first order property.

So, I ask again: What, precisely, do you mean by "distinction", and what, precisely, do you mean by "first order property"?

A part from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic

Take for example the following sentences: "Socrates is a man", "Plato is a man". In propositional logic these will be two unrelated propositions, denoted for example by p and q. In first-order logic however, both sentences would be connected by the same property: Man(a), where Man(a) means that a is a man. When a=Socrates we get the first proposition, p, and when a=Plato we get the second proposition, q. Such a construction allows for a much more powerful logic when quantifiers are introduced, such as "for every x...", for example, "for every x, if Man(x), then...". Every valid argument without quantifiers in FOL is valid in propositional logic, and vice versa.

I generalize it to "a"=Element "is"=Relation and any researchable mathematical universe is at least Relation Element Interaction (REI) (where Relation is non-local w.r.t Element, and Element is local w.r.t Relation, exactly as any member is local w.r.t its set, and the set is non-local w.r.t its member).

Distiction is the state that is based on REI and deteminates the identity of a given Element and also the size of a cardinal, where cardinality, according OM, is the magnitude of the existence of a thing).

 

[doronshadmi]

Some correction at the end of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4602988&postcount=2455 .

It has to be:"Let there be Silence between us".