"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.

[WWHP]

Can I ask you what is there is in this trancendent that is not already accounted for in materialism?

It depends upon which interpretation of materialism we want to address. Mine, which is closer to my thought experiment above (which sadly no one seems to be reflecting upon, I guess I got my work cut out for me then ) - or yours as you explain it.

In my version it is easy to see the transcendent with materialism since materialism transcends itself (remember intelligence is self transcending) by producing novelty (consciousness) which then produces material reality back (our organization process, and things like the LHC and the blubrain project at Intel and god knows what else in the distant future - potentially it is us who will one day say "Let there be light!"). So consciousness (considered as the full body of all possible experience) and material reality are so intertwined that you cannot say one is 'in' the other unless you say the 'other' is in both.

I don't think materialism as explained by Dennet accounts for that strange loop in a way in which I can understand him. Please correct me or help make his arguments easier for me to comprehend. Maybe I'm not just that smart and need help.

In your version of materialism, I don't see your model able to account for the distinction between experience and material reality - and when you attempt to account for it, you produce a contradiction, which to me does not seem consistent with material reality, thus negating your materialism into a form of dualism that is non defining.

Self is already merely emergent and experience itself can be seen to be not what it appears to be.

Yes but so? That's also Buddhism as I pointed out, I'm not sure what this really means in the way that you frame it.

There is an ever-present base layer of sensory reality that is selfless and utterly non-dual.

The only sense it's non dual in the material sense - is in terms of 'one set' of physical reality, but that's not so accurate either and that's where it will begin to produce contradictions.

Since we are talking about neurons firing, I can assure you there is a whole set of binary operations in the energy state alone that contain dualities. Dualities are embedded in the structure of reality or in reality in terms of the only way we can perceive and understand it. On/off - male/female - positive/negative - neuron firing/neuron not firing.

It (material) becomes dual (as I see it) in the sense that you are avoiding when the experience is distinguished from the physical set. Like I said, it doesn't matter if there is not a self experiencing that, the experience is the self, the illusion of self, and is continually self evident of it's own existence (consciousness). It's the only way I can say[ 'I am'] and ['the word at the end of this sentence is the word this.] with complete ABSOLUTE certainty.

What is there left for this transcendent to do?

Continually emerge. The only thing it can do

Well, we don't know what this absolute source is, philosophical point-of-view regardless. There is agreement that it is the same, but we don't know how it came to look so different.

then it's self limiting and non defining. It's not comprehensive. If your philosophy does not come balls out and define what the absolute must mean according to it's own principles in a way that is consistent - then it's an incomplete philosophy.

I don't see this absence of knowledge a good reason to call it "spirit!" Do you?

YES! When you become aware of the role in our consciousness between art and science, poetry and objectivity - the feedback loop between rational thinking and intuitive inspiration, I say SPIRIT all the friggin' way baby!

There are things we don't know about the universe. But there is no good evidence that intelligent design is at work.

Well the problem with that assumption is that if there is an order of higher intelligence at work, we are virtually prevented from discovering it by the limitations of our own framework that does not define the absolute (by not integrating cosmology) or defines the absolute in poor, false, or misleading terms. Beginning to see the problem yet?

(All problems are great opps

Why not simply leave it that there are things we don't know? Why create this "god" or "spirit" of the gaps?

Because it can speak to you and tell you things you don't know - because it's so strange that regardless of the fact that it does not exist, you can still experience it - because it can inspire you - because it can bond you to me and the rest of them - because it's friggin' cool to expand and integrate POETRY and SCIENCE, being and non being, ideas about self and self (as a material property).

If you try to force one framework into another and vice versa, it is a natural either/or choice and each will cancel the other out.

You allow for the mystery, for the unknown, as I do, yet you remain an ardent materialist in a classical (non Bubblefish) sense?

See, now you are claiming you are both an atheist and an agnostic. See where I find your contradictions?

Well, consciousness is just processing.

that's the claim -

Conscious processing and unconscious processing are one and the same.

really? No distinction, even the distinction you just outlined in your proposition?

Nothing mystical is going on because the whole notion that they are separated by some observing presence can be seen to be erroneous.

yet you are observing them to make a distinction between conscious and unconscious! See the problem yet?

Does this get us anywhere?

No, that framework you are using will not get you anywhere significant - it will just give you access to all the materialist cocktail parties and that's about it

 

[WWHP]

I is a verb.

oh my god Pixy mesa is a hidden buddhist too! who woulda thunk?

One of my favorite bucky quotes "I seem to be a verb"

the self is a transcending .

pixy mesa, mark this down because here you and I are in perfect agreement.

 

[WWHP]

I


I don't know what e-prime is!

he just means to chill on any form of the verb to be so he can better understand what you see.

So it's (more than likely) easier to communicate what you mean when you say "I believe consciousness is an emergent property, and here is how I believe I came to that conclusion"

 

[Nick227]

In your version of materialism, I don't see your model able to account for the distinction between experience and material reality - and when you attempt to account for it, you produce a contradiction, which to me does not seem consistent with material reality, thus negating your materialism into a form of dualism that is non defining.

The chair is beside the door - sensory reality
I see the chair - mental voiceover

Ancilliary to sensory processing, the brain is providing an inner overlay - a story - that there is an "I" that is seeing the chair. You can just sit down and watch it do it if you want.

The only sense it's non dual in the material sense - is in terms of 'one set' of physical reality, but that's not so accurate either and that's where it will begin to produce contradictions.

I'm using the term "non dual" as meditation types use it. Apologies if that is confusing. It means that there is no first person - no self.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if there is not a self experiencing that, the experience is the self,

If there is not a self then there is not an experience. Experience for me clearly implies an experiencer. Without an experiencer then it is just processing.

then it's self limiting and non defining. It's not comprehensive. If your philosophy does not come balls out and define what the absolute must mean according to it's own principles in a way that is consistent - then it's an incomplete philosophy.

For sure. We don't know what the final nature of reality is. People are generally agreed that it's the same stuff, but we don't know how it started to look so different.

YES! When you become aware of the role in our consciousness between art and science, poetry and objectivity - the feedback loop between rational thinking and intuitive inspiration, I say SPIRIT all the friggin' way baby!

You're saying a computer cannot create, say, art? You're saying that a painting or piece of music cannot be the product of a physical process?

Sounds to me like you're just prejudiced against non-cellular consciousness.

Well the problem with that assumption is that if there is an order of higher intelligence at work, we are virtually prevented from discovering it by the limitations of our own framework that does not define the absolute (by not integrating cosmology) or defines the absolute in poor, false, or misleading terms.

I think that's nonsense. Science does not stop God or Spirit coming in, if they're there. It just tries first to account for phenomena rationally. As the years go by, god gets smaller!

Because it can speak to you and tell you things you don't know

like...? Give me an example of when spirit spoke to you and it could not have just been a physical process.

really? No distinction, even the distinction you just outlined in your proposition?

yet you are observing them to make a distinction between conscious and unconscious! See the problem yet?

I am not observing my brain.

There is no objective qualitative difference between conscious and unconscious processing.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

I'm not trying to transcend anything. That's the whole point. "I" is merely an emergent. The whole notion that it has substance and can somehow transcend itself, or anything else for that matter, is nonsensical.

Let me give you an example. You are a male, right? I assume so since Nick is a male name. I'm a male too. Yet I realize that I have an inner feminine aspect. All men do. So by getting in touch with or realizing that feminine aspect of myself, I transcend gender in a way. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I am not my gender, I am more than that. I am not merely my body or ego or persona or mental self but my total Self.

Just so, there is a bit of yang in yin, and a bit of yin in yang. Both are contained in one circle - the tao. In the end, the seeming duality of yin and yang must be transcended - yin and yang are really One. What looks like dualism is really monism. Don't identify with yang or yin but with the totality, the tao. Tat Tvam Asi.

I don't know what e-prime is! But "I" is the result of thinking. Without thinking no mental self can be constructed by the brain.

So our brain "thinks" and constructs a mental self? Does that mean "I" can "think" about constructing other mental selves and make it happen? Like how I might "think" about constructing a model airplane?

And your position is that without a constructed mental self (ego, persona) there is no experiencer and no experience?

 

[blobru]

Wow - okay that's worth a steak/sushi dinner. Tell me where to send the gift certificate.

Only accept payment in donuts.

unstable logically I assume you mean?

Donuts. Not nuts. Not peanuts. Donuts.

Okay, let me frame it this way, which is how I use it, which is very similar to your Doxastic logic you link to above. When referring to a ternary system in the psychological, metapsychological, or conceptual sense, one still uses or has access to the binary operations, it just uses a ternary meta -logic to isolate and apply them when and where they occur. It doesn't negate binary, it embraces the binary operation with a few novelties. So I guess I am saying that a ternary system in the framework that I define and utilize - it's not just ternary, it's both ternary and binary.

Careful, you're jumbling a lot of terms together here. A metalogic isn't a ternary logic. A metalogic evaluates the whole system from outside. A ternary logic introduces a third value inside the system.

When you introduce another value into a system of logic, you have one more value that's not true, not a value that's somehow more than true. True is as true as it gets in logic. It means a statement has followed the rules, that it's reliable, that it's useful, that it can be derived from the assumed truths of the system. Truth is the goal of logic. Having an extra value to worry about makes it much harder to get there. So ternary limits what you can prove; it restricts operations; it doesn't embrace binary and add a few novelties.

The upside: it may allow you to better model situations that involve vagueness and uncertainty.

For example (speaking of playing with poetry and logic)

we think of a logical coupling of true and false. true and false have a logical relationship clearly. Let's just call them 1(t) and 2(f). let's throw in the third value (which 'third' value is not relevant, it could be fuzzy, probability, para-consistent or unknown), let's just call it 0.

now let's create a novel set binary couplings

a.) 1 and 0.
b.) 2 and 0.

I want to be able to define those relationships. What do you think I would be looking at to do that, poetry or logic?

If you want to understand and use it, logic. If you want to talk about it (to non-logicians), maybe a little poetry.

Compounding true(1t) and false(2f) is already defined in logic: true and xyz = xyz; false and xyz = false. That is, adding something true doesn't change the overall value; adding something false makes it all false. So 1 and 0 is 0; 2 and 0 is 2.

Query put into a bivalent framework to test your claim that it stands a greater likelihood of producing a truer answer. (please insert appropriate emoticon - i just go with the classic to signify personality. Apparently your more wanted at all the dinner parties.)

Oh - were you trying to tell me something with this one? - :

Not truffles. Donuts.

 

[Brainache]

Only accept payment in donuts.



Donuts. Not nuts. Not peanuts. Donuts.



Careful, you're jumbling a lot of terms together here. A metalogic isn't a ternary logic. A metalogic evaluates the whole system from outside. A ternary logic introduces a third value inside the system.

When you introduce another value into a system of logic, you have one more value that's not true, not a value that's somehow more than true. True is as true as it gets in logic. It means a statement has followed the rules, that it's reliable, that it's useful, that it can be derived from the assumed truths of the system. Truth is the goal of logic. Having an extra value to worry about makes it much harder to get there. So ternary limits what you can prove; it restricts operations; it doesn't embrace binary and add a few novelties.

The upside: it may allow you to better model situations that involve vagueness and uncertainty.



If you want to understand and use it, logic. If you want to talk about it (to non-logicians), maybe a little poetry.

Compounding true(1t) and false(2f) is already defined in logic: true and xyz = xyz; false and xyz = false. That is, adding something true doesn't change the overall value; adding something false makes it all false. So 1 and 0 is 0; 2 and 0 is 2.



Not truffles. Donuts.

So, does this mean that our brains use a form of logic which isn't binary, or ternary, but some higher number?

That our selves are created by (,emerge from) brains, which evolved to their current state by trying to successfully interpret an objective reality where values for true and false (as far as any individual brain is concerned) can be divided into many more classes than '0', '1' and '2'?

 

[blobru]

So, does this mean that our brains use a form of logic which isn't binary, or ternary, but some higher number?

That our selves are created by (,emerge from) brains, which evolved to their current state by trying to successfully interpret an objective reality where values for true and false (as far as any individual brain is concerned) can be divided into many more classes than '0', '1' and '2'?

If I understand the question, our brains can be based in binary logic yet generate higher-level procedures that aren't (same as a computer, by interpreting binary as something else).

 

[Nick227]

Let me give you an example. You are a male, right? I assume so since Nick is a male name. I'm a male too. Yet I realize that I have an inner feminine aspect. All men do. So by getting in touch with or realizing that feminine aspect of myself, I transcend gender in a way.

You can have babies now?

Do you see what I'm trying to say? I am not my gender, I am more than that. I am not merely my body or ego or persona or mental self but my total Self.

I appreciate the whole Inner Man, Inner Woman thing, Limbo. It's cool. But I don't see that you've transcended gender by developing a softer side. I mean, come on! And I don't see that materialism is necessarily one half of an equation requiring its opposite to make it whole.

Just so, there is a bit of yang in yin, and a bit of yin in yang. Both are contained in one circle - the tao. In the end, the seeming duality of yin and yang must be transcended - yin and yang are really One. What looks like dualism is really monism. Don't identify with yang or yin but with the totality, the tao. Tat Tvam Asi.

You see, this is where I think you're getting me wrong. Materialism does not need a compliment. It can just stand alone. What is lost? I don't see anything lost by me not dwelling in some spiritual fantasy world.

For me it's clear that there is no soul, in the sense of there being some immortal observer. It's clear. It's a fantasy. So why should I believe in such a thing? Will I feel more whole if I allow half of my brain to dwell in fantasy? I don't think so.

So our brain "thinks" and constructs a mental self? Does that mean "I" can "think" about constructing other mental selves and make it happen?

MPD aside, it seems fairly clear that the average brain does develop, to a degree, multiple mental selves. It's normal I think to be able to see and assess a situation from many perspectives. But I find this more an unconscious process, rather than something which "I" do.

And your position is that without a constructed mental self (ego, persona) there is no experiencer and no experience?

With reduced thinking, or no thinking, but full sensory awareness there is no experiencer. It's clear. This experiencer only emerges when thinking restarts. The body is just a bio-mechanical computer. It cannot create an actual internal duality - a self which observes. It can only simulate it.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

You can have babies now?

I said in a way, Nick.

You see, this is where I think you're getting me wrong. Materialism does not need a compliment. It can just stand alone. What is lost? I don't see anything lost by me not dwelling in some spiritual fantasy world.

Materialism doesn't have a choice. Evil needs its compliment - good. Dark may not want the light but it needs it and it's stuck with it. Male needs female. Death needs life. Yin needs yang. And as always, underneath the surface duality is unity.

For me it's clear that there is no soul, in the sense of there being some immortal observer. It's clear. It's a fantasy. So why should I believe in such a thing? Will I feel more whole if I allow half of my brain to dwell in fantasy? I don't think so.

Immortal? Now you have introduced a new word to the conversation. Or have you used that word already in this thread, and I missed it? Are we talking a Highlander style immortality, in which this soul of yours has an "I" of it's own that lasts forever and ever and ever and ever? Or are we talking about some sort or immortality through cycles of rebirth? Or is it that time and space is Maya, and the aspect of our being that penetrates Maya is by definition immortal and non-local and transpersonal?

MPD aside, it seems fairly clear that the average brain does develop, to a degree, multiple mental selves. It's normal I think to be able to see and assess a situation from many perspectives. But I find this more an unconscious process, rather than something which "I" do.

Unconscious process? So what's the difference between an unconscious process and "thinking"? Can "I" communicate with an unconscious process, or it with "me"? Can "I" read the "thoughts" of an unconscious process or vice-versa? Can an unconscious process "think" to itself? If a conscious process "thinks", and an unconscious process also "thinks" then exactly what is the difference between the two, other than the un-?

Sorry about these shot-gun questions, I'm just trying to piece together your personal model of the psyche. I'm having a hard time figuring you out.

With reduced thinking, or no thinking, but full sensory awareness there is no experiencer. It's clear. This experiencer only emerges when thinking restarts. The body is just a bio-mechanical computer. It cannot create an actual internal duality - a self which observes. It can only simulate it.

So in your view, a mystical experience in which the ego/mental self/"me!" of the mystic temporarily dissolves or dies or is repressed, and yet despite that there continues to be some sort of "experience" is impossible?

"My place is the no-place
My image is without face
Neither of body nor the soul
I am of the Divine Whole.

I eliminated duality with joyous laughter
Saw the unity of here and the hereafter
Unity is what I sing, unity is what I speak
Unity is what I know, unity is what I seek" -Rumi

"In God's presence, there is no room for two egos. You say "ego," and he says "ego"?
Either you die in his presence, or he will in your presence, so that no duality may remain.
Yet it is impossible that he should die either in the universe or in the mind,
for "He is the living, who does not die." (Qur'an 25:58). He has grace in such measure that,
were it possible, he would die for you to remove the duality. But since his death is impossible,
you die, so that he may become manifest in you and the duality be lifted."

-Rumi's Discourses (Fihi ma fih, 24-5)

 

[WWHP]

Careful, you're jumbling a lot of terms together here. A metalogic isn't a ternary logic. A metalogic evaluates the whole system from outside. A ternary logic introduces a third value inside the system.

okay - i think the problem I am having is that I am trying to define a dialectic process that is ternary in nature that is metalogical in discussion - and trying to find a formalized way of aligning it with hard logic. What I am getting from you is that is just not possible, it's not what you can do with formal logic.

When you introduce another value into a system of logic, you have one more value that's not true, not a value that's somehow more than true. True is as true as it gets in logic. It means a statement has followed the rules, that it's reliable, that it's useful, that it can be derived from the assumed truths of the system. Truth is the goal of logic. Having an extra value to worry about makes it much harder to get there. So ternary limits what you can prove; it restricts operations; it doesn't embrace binary and add a few novelties.

okay, I get that - and that actually helps me see (after a few head bumps in trying to frame what you are saying within my framework) that I am trying to force something that really does not exist in formal logic.

In a dialectical framework - 'false' is defined in a manner that transcends formal logic - in a way that allows for uncertainty - poetry - chaos - that sort of thing, and embraces that relationship with things that are objectively true - like formal systems of logic.

The upside: it may allow you to better model situations that involve vagueness and uncertainty.

yes

If you want to understand and use it, logic. If you want to talk about it (to non-logicians), maybe a little poetry.

well I have so many more questions here, but it is really going to de-rail the thread. Maybe I will start a topic in the philosophy section called 'Are dialectical systems formal logics?'

and then you can pound me there

for donuts of course.

Compounding true(1t) and false(2f) is already defined in logic: true and xyz = xyz; false and xyz = false. That is, adding something true doesn't change the overall value; adding something false makes it all false. So 1 and 0 is 0; 2 and 0 is 2.

yes, this is helpful - this helps me see that dialectical logic cannot be fit into a formal logic. the value of false is more meaningful than just 'not true' - it's not avoided like in formal logic - it's merely a step toward's defining another truth value.

Only accept payment in donuts.



Donuts. Not nuts. Not peanuts. Donuts.


Not truffles. Donuts.

ask and you shall recieve

https://shop.krispykreme.com/collectibles_kkcards.html

ready when you are

thanks again blobru - I will see if we can continue this in another thread.

ps - your making my head hurt! love that.

 

[WWHP]

If I understand the question, our brains can be based in binary logic yet generate higher-level procedures that aren't (same as a computer, by interpreting binary as something else).

From what I understand, coming straight out of the mouth of Dr. James Fallon, head of the neurobiology department at UC Irvine - brain circuitry is ternary in nature.

I wish I had some sort of a link for that - or an understanding of what that means in neuro science. But it was something he stressed directly to me without equivocation.

 

[Limbo]

Bubblefish, have you read anything by Robert Anton Wilson? I just finished Quantum Psychology. He talks a bit about yes-no Aristotelian logic vs yes-no-maybe quantum logic. Is that basically what you two are talking about?

ETA: Hail Eris

 

[WWHP]

The chair is beside the door - sensory reality
I see the chair - mental voiceover

experience can and does transcend language. bang your toe on the chair you mention, and you will 'feel' something that you can describe with language, but the essence of the feeling is experience - it's not 'telling you' anything, it is something that is happening in your being.

Ancilliary to sensory processing, the brain is providing an inner overlay - a story - that there is an "I" that is seeing the chair. You can just sit down and watch it do it if you want.

oh I have experienced by brain's operations on ayahuasca - and even reprogrammed it. Now that's anecdotal, I don't expect my experience there to account for anything other than how personally i find so much of what you describe simply contradictory and incomprehensible.

I'm using the term "non dual" as meditation types use it. Apologies if that is confusing. It means that there is no first person - no self.

but there is a physical self that is composed of the entire network of our biology - not sure how or why a materialist is not counting or considering the material self in the equation, unless the physical self is part of an illusion, which then means your aligning with mysticism, not materialism.

If there is not a self then there is not an experience. Experience for me clearly implies an experiencer. Without an experiencer then it is just processing.

this is what happens when you try to frame these things in a bivalent or dualistic system.

You are either forced to accept there is a self, or forced to accept that experience does not exist, which is not only counter intuitive to your experience, it is contradictory to your experience. Your just getting stuck in semantics. Your calling experience 'processing' - and you can call it what ever you want. Experience is above the language.

the experience is the self. the self is a verb, like Pixy Mesa and Bucky Fuller both state, and I agree. I am a process. I am both a noun and a verb. I am a thing that is not a thing (zen).

In your version of materialism - there must not be any meaning to happiness, joy, eros, love, poetry, sensuality. all of those things do not exist. Yet you are confronted with experiencing a reality that does not exist - every single day of your life. Meaning itself does not exist. Yet meaning is flowing out of you and contradicting that sentiment.

'There is only processing' is equal to 'there is only process' is equal to 'there is only tao' is equal to 'the tao that is called the tao is not the real tao' is equal to 'my neuro processing is transcending any language that can be used to describe it'.

For sure. We don't know what the final nature of reality is. People are generally agreed that it's the same stuff, but we don't know how it started to look so different.

We only know what reality is through the lens of our nervous systems. Ultimately, we are only studying our nervous systems in this regard. But in that light - when we approach this through the lens of a dialectical prism, we can see that ultimate reality can only be this, or not this, or some-combination of both this and not this transcending.

For example - the universe is a super computer - that is a claim right now being put forth by a group of physicists who claim they have hard data to support this.

Therefore, do you not accept that the universe must be conscious in some sense if this is true?

If it is true, can you accept that you have had about a year and a half of integration into materialism - and that your understanding of materialism can continue to embrace complexity?

If so - what would that look like in an eternity of a universe that is both computational and conscious, intuitive and rational, unknown and known? Or in simple terms, how would the universe see materialism after an eternity of reflection? Do you think it would like like your model?

You're saying a computer cannot create, say, art? You're saying that a painting or piece of music cannot be the product of a physical process?

I am saying that computers that we have today cannot be inspired to create art, have esthetic visions. There are already AI programs out there that write some pretty beautiful verse. Can't find the links right now though.

Sounds to me like you're just prejudiced against non-cellular consciousness.

well let's see if your projecting on me here. Nick, do you accept that the universe must be conscious in some sense if claims about it's computational nature are true?

I think that's nonsense. Science does not stop God or Spirit coming in, if they're there. It just tries first to account for phenomena rationally. As the years go by, god gets smaller!

lol, until you start to get data coming in that the entire universe is a quantum computer, then all of a sudden, god starts getting really big again, eh?

like...? Give me an example of when spirit spoke to you and it could not have just been a physical process.

Your missing the point again

I am not observing my brain.

There is no objective qualitative difference between conscious and unconscious processing.

There is PROFOUND SUBJECTIVE difference however, and whenever you are encountering subjectivity is the same place where you produce contradictions. You cannot say subjectivity does not exist and then turn on your favorite tv show the same day without that contradiction being recorded in your mind and embedding itself in your worldview.

You are observing a model of the brain, which is based on observations of the brain, with the conscious networks of the brain able to distinguish between conscious and unconscious networks because it is EXPERIENCING.

EDIT:

Don't the conscious and unconscious networks move around a bit? I am under the impression that the process is very dynamic, not static. We don't just have a lump of permanently consciousness networks that are always 'on' the same neurons. I could be wrong here, does anyone know this answer?

 

[WWHP]

@ Nick - your quote in your sig ""Resentment is like drinking poison and hoping the other person dies"

That is one of the most profound teachings in Buddhism, and one that I am deeply indebted to the Buddhists for.

But resentment does not exist in your version of materialism just as much as the 'poison' really doesn't exist when we are resentful. Yet we can appreciate the meaning in the non existent regardless, eh?

And then does not this meaning influence our behaviors? Does it not become manifest in physical reality in some sense? Does it then begin to alter physical reality?

If you see this, then you see the relationship that is between the non material and the material.

I'm still hoping there is a way to formalize that relationship logically, but blobru is showing me the ignorance of my thinking, but i still have just a little hope

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish, have you read anything by Robert Anton Wilson? I just finished Quantum Psychology. He talks a bit about yes-no Aristotelian logic vs yes-no-maybe quantum logic. Is that basically what you two are talking about?

ETA: Hail Eris

FNORD! I discovered Robert Anton Wilson in 1985, and would not be here talking to you today about all of this if it were not for that man. Hail Bob! I cried the day he died

EDIT: yes on the logic question. Bob planted the idea in me years back. I have then come to integrate that, apply it, develop it, and use it as a practical application in content strategy for social networks.

 

[Limbo]

Content strategy for social networks? Sounds interesting. What exactly is it that you do, if I may ask?

 

[WWHP]

Content strategy for social networks? Sounds interesting. What exactly is it that you do, if I may ask?

Content Strategy for Social Networks

at least that is how I pay my rent.

 

[Limbo]

Social networks like facebook? I don't do any of those. What sort of content do they have, and why does a social network need a strategy for it?

 

[Limbo]

For you guys who haven't read any Bob:

Maybe Logic