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

[WWHP]

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?

Sure, Facebook, Twitter, Stumbleupon, Youtube, and the blogosphere. Even discussion forums The 'content strategy' entails the development of the content for those mediums, as well as the interactive strategy where those communities become part of a 'branded network' over all. Basically my job is to create critical mass. I do this for worldwide brands, studios, PR companies, marketing companies, political campaigns, and right now I am even pitching a country.

If the economy is not doing good, it sure doesn't look like it from where I am.

Social networks of course entail personalities and many uncertainties, so an open strategy in ternary works best. I can actually predict human behaviors online with a pretty good efficacy.

 

[Limbo]

Sure, Facebook, Twitter, Stumbleupon, Youtube, and the blogosphere. Even discussion forums The 'content strategy' entails the development of the content for those mediums, as well as the interactive strategy where those communities become part of a 'branded network' over all. Basically my job is to create critical mass. I do this for worldwide brands, studios, PR companies, marketing companies, political campaigns, and right now I am even pitching a country.

If the economy is not doing good, it sure doesn't look like it from where I am.

Social networks of course entail personalities and many uncertainties, so an open strategy in ternary works best. I can actually predict human behaviors online with a pretty good efficacy.

Wow, neat! The quantum logic of Reverend Bob yields practical fruits!

 

[WWHP]

Wow, neat! The quantum logic of Reverend Bob yields practical fruits!

sure does! I had to develop it extensively though - but his ideas were definitely one of the seeds of what I do. He introduced me to ternary thinking and Bucky Fuller's synergetics, which set off years of study into many other systems other than his own. I can proudly say that I have updated his quantum logic into a very practical, elegant and dialectical form. I wish ol Bob was around so I could show him.

 

[WWHP]

@Blubro: thanks for this introduction 'Raymond_Smullyan'. another case of donuts are in order. I think he may be my soul mate

responded to your last post on page 9 of this thread.

do you have an emoticon that expresses what your moniker means ?

 

[WWHP]

oh man blobru! how in the world did i ever miss this guy???

http://server3.pianosociety.com/protected/smullyan-rambles.mp4

bubblefish is in love

 

[Limbo]

sure does! I had to develop it extensively though - but his ideas were definitely one of the seeds of what I do. He introduced me to ternary thinking and Bucky Fuller's synergetics, which set off years of study into many other systems other than his own. I can proudly say that I have updated his quantum logic into a very practical, elegant and dialectical form. I wish ol Bob was around so I could show him.

Wow, way to go man. I bet he would be impressed.

 

[WWHP]

Wow, way to go man. I bet he would be impressed.

oh he would definitely be impressed with the set of Wilsonian coincidences in the entire process! two of which boggle my mind and rattle me to this very day.

 

[Limbo]

oh he would definitely be impressed with the set of Wilsonian coincidences in the entire process! two of which boggle my mind and rattle me to this very day.

As a student of synchronicity I bet he would get a big kick out of that!

 

[blobru]

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.

It really depends on what you're trying to do. Formal logic breaks things down for proofs (traditionally); or more abstractly, entailment (modern logic -- what follows from what). If you can define what you mean precisely, and it makes sense as a system, logic should be able to model it (there are databases implemented in 3-valued logic; electronics designed with 4 values; etc).

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.

I'm not sure. Your examples seemed a bit scattered, so my answers were too, I'm afraid, and oversimplified.

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.

Hoo boy. Short answer: Dialectics has a specific meaning in the history of philosophy, where an apparent conflict (contradiction) is resolved by a "truth" that embraces the conflict. It's very much in vogue with one branch of philosophers (post-moderns -- whose writing tends to poetry and/or gibberish); it's pretty much trashed by the branch coming out of formal logic, though. So yeah, the two don't get along well, both logics and disciples.

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?'

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.

False isn't avoided in formal logic, though. It can be very useful in proving its opposite true (proof by contradiction), when a direct approach would have been much harder, or impossible. (A big difference between classic formal and dialectical logic [so-called] is how they treat contradiction).

ps - your making my head hurt! love that.

Trying to cover a lot of ground, oversimplifying, no doubt screwing some facts up. Don't get too attached to any of these ideas*; it's very broad stroke impression, not a how-to.
*For example, where I've been saying binary is more powerful than ternary, that's for proof and definition, when true and false are values and concerns. If you drain the variables of meaning, so the logic is only meant to work mechanically, then ternary is more 'powerful' (efficient) than binary (it stores and processes data in less time and space). And 4-ary is more powerful than ternary, and so on.
Your examples mentioned true and false, so my answers compared binary and ternary for truth-finding. Data-crunching is another matter. How's that for confusing?

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).

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.

Cool. Obviously at the level of mind (brain systems), the brain must be able to work with any logic we can imagine and implement. As footnoted above, ternary circuits are better data-crunchers than [computer] binary. I'm not sure what -ary brain circuits are, (or if brainache was asking about circuits or algorithms).

 

[WWHP]

It really depends on what you're trying to do. Formal logic breaks things down for proofs (traditionally); or more abstractly, entailment (modern logic -- what follows from what). If you can define what you mean precisely, and it makes sense as a system, logic should be able to model it (there are databases implemented in 3-valued logic; electronics designed with 4 values; etc).

ahh, so you have not destroyed my hope, you have just told me where to put it!

I'm not sure. Your examples seemed a bit scattered, so my answers were too, I'm afraid, and oversimplified.

sorry putting these things into a mutually agreeable language can be challenging at times.

Hoo boy. Short answer: Dialectics has a specific meaning in the history of philosophy, where an apparent conflict (contradiction) is resolved by a "truth" that embraces the conflict. It's very much in vogue with one branch of philosophers (post-moderns -- whose writing tends to poetry and/or gibberish); it's pretty much trashed by the branch coming out of formal logic, though. So yeah, the two don't get along well, both logics and disciples.

yes, am familiar with this territory a bit. I believe I have something that unites them. I may also be delusional in this regard, so I tread this very carefully.

False isn't avoided in formal logic, though. It can be very useful in proving its opposite true (proof by contradiction), when a direct approach would have been much harder, or impossible. (A big difference between classic formal and dialectical logic [so-called] is how they treat contradiction).

okay, yes, that is what I mean. False is only appreciated in it's relationship to true. In ternary dialectics (as I define them, not Hegel or Marx) false is appreciated unto itself for it's own nature, regardless of it's value back to true. For this reason, we do not need to resort to defining false as simply that which is either not true or not contradictory. A google search will show you the many results of how it is defined. It's simply that which is not true. Well it's much more than that. So let me use poetry then to share with you what I mean.

A Quote! The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth. - Neils Bohr

Trying to cover a lot of ground, oversimplifying, no doubt screwing some facts up. Don't get too attached to any of these ideas*; it's very broad stroke impression, not a how-to.
*For example, where I've been saying binary is more powerful than ternary, that's for proof and definition, when true and false are values and concerns. If you drain the variables of meaning, so the logic is only meant to work mechanically, then ternary is more 'powerful' (efficient) than binary (it stores and processes data in less time and space). And 4-ary is more powerful than ternary, and so on.
Your examples mentioned true and false, so my answers compared binary and ternary for truth-finding. Data-crunching is another matter.

Thank you for the lucid clarification

How's that for confusing?

welcome to my world

Cool. Obviously at the level of mind (brain systems), the brain must be able to work with any logic we can imagine and implement. As footnoted above, ternary circuits are better data-crunchers than [computer] binary. I'm not sure what -ary brain circuits are, (or if brainache was asking about circuits or algorithms).

oh I have a question about algorithyms and logics - but that wont happen on this thread! thank you so much once again - you are a gentle mushroom emoticon with a dancing banana and a scholar.

 

[Nick227]

I said in a way, Nick.

Sorry, couldn't resist it!

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.

And which philosophy is this?

Immortal?

Scrub immortal!

Unconscious process? So what's the difference between an unconscious process and "thinking"?

To answer that it would need to first be decided if unconscious processing may be considered "thinking", or if this is strictly conscious.

Can "I" communicate with an unconscious process, or it with "me"?

In terms of inner brain dynamics - no. There is no "I" at this level.

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?

Well, if there's a desire to communicate something the mind will need to create "an experience" from what happened. It just makes up a story. Rumi wanted to tell people something. For this task the ego is really the only game in town. You have to couch things in language people can relate to.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

There is pain - sensory reality
I experience pain - mental overlay

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.

As I and Pixy have said, and Dennett and Hofstadter will confirm, it is extremely counter-intuitive. Really, I mean it. It doesn't really matter how big your brain is or how much processing it can do. This is deeper than that, BF. This is why even well-respected brain scientists who've been working with this for years still struggle with the so-called "hard problem." It's not about how clever you are.

Even plenty of those who absolutely profess materialism and refute the HP totally still won't travel in Parfit's "teletransporter" (thought experiment). They talk the talk but can't walk the walk. This is because what materialism says about the self is for most people about 180 deg away from what they intuitively believe.

Although it seems absolutely inconceivable to many, as brain research progresses so we are constantly pushed to deal with the extreme liklihood that consciousness is purely a brain phenomenon, and this means that mental selfhood is simply an emergent, not a tangible "thing." This means that there is no qualitative difference between conscious and unconscious processing at a brain level. It is simply a question of networking.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

And which philosophy is this?

Dunno. Mental monism? The perennial philosophy? New-age woo-woo?

To answer that it would need to first be decided if unconscious processing may be considered "thinking", or if this is strictly conscious.

I don't "think" that an unconscious process can "think" in exactly the same way "I" am "thinking" right now.

In terms of inner brain dynamics - no. There is no "I" at this level.

So if one cannot communicate with an unconscious process, then answer me this. When a pendulum dowser uses the ideomotor effect to communicate with an "unconscious" part of his "mind", exactly what is going on there, in your model?

Well, if there's a desire to communicate something the mind will need to create "an experience" from what happened. It just makes up a story. Rumi wanted to tell people something. For this task the ego is really the only game in town. You have to couch things in language people can relate to.

This makes no sense to me. Why will the mind need to create an experience from what happened? Why not just use what happened?

 

[Nick227]

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.

I'm not saying there isn't a self. I would hardly be communicating with you if this were so. I'm saying that what you "experience" at this level, does not manifest in the way it appears to manifest. There is not an experiencer within the brain. Experience is a story, told by various brain modules, called "thinking." All that exists of "experience" before these modules get hold of it is sensory processing. Nothing witnesses sensory processing. It is simply present and then an assortment of brain modules leap on it and construct from it "an experience" according to how they're programme to do so. Experience is nothing more than a dialectical sound-bite created from raw data.

This is not to diminish the value of "experience" or the social functions it achieves. It is simply to make a clear statement of how it happens.

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).

Yes.

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.

These things are good feelings. They don't need anyone for them to exist. Just as your body does not need a sense of self to react to pain, so it doesn't need one to feel happy. Endorphins flow and produce a bodily reaction whether or not there is mental selfhood.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Dunno. Mental monism? The perennial philosophy? New-age woo-woo?

The perennial woo-woo?!

So if one cannot communicate with an unconscious process, then answer me this. When a pendulum dowser uses the ideomotor effect to communicate with an "unconscious" part of his "mind", exactly what is going on there, in your model?

I don't know what this ideomotor effect is. But unconsciousness networks aren't necessarily totally unconscious. They can still feed into conscious ones, maybe via what is sensed as intuition. To be honest, this is more conjecture because scientists are still only uncovering this stuff, but it seems reasonable to me.

This makes no sense to me. Why will the mind need to create an experience from what happened? Why not just use what happened?

Because it ain't a very mystical "experience" if thinking is still going on, Limbo. If you're in a state of divine union with the source of existence, or whatev, then chances are that there isn't a great deal of inner dialogue going on. Without that dialogue there is no mental self to be the recipient of this "experience." It is just happening. With Rumi, he just wrote stuff to people of his time to try and get them to look at life differently. He got into altered states, afterwards came to understand stuff about the nature of the ego, and tried to communicate what he'd come to understand to people in the way that suited him - writing poems.

Did you do meditation, Limbo? Hung out in satsang? Followed Osho or Papaji or something like this? I ask because your style seems to me like you might have, yet what you write implies to me you haven't. I'm intrigued.

Nick

 

[Limbo]

The perennial woo-woo?!

Ha-ha, I like that. Seriously though I was referring to Huxley.

I don't know what this ideomotor effect is.

Well then you are in for some fun! Ideomotor movement is unconscious movement of your body. Dowsing and Ouija boards are attributed to the ideomotor effect.

So here is somewhat of a philosophy experiment you can do at home. You can construct a simple little pendulum and use it to communicate with your unconscious mind through the ideomotor effect. It's really very simple. People have been doing it for thousands of years. It's usually called divination.

Because it ain't a very mystical "experience" if thinking is still going on, Limbo. If you're in a state of divine union with the source of existence, or whatever, then chances are that there isn't a great deal of inner dialogue going on. Without that dialogue there is no mental self to be the recipient of this "experience." It is just happening. With Rumi, he just wrote stuff to people of his time to try and get them to look at life differently. He got into altered states, afterwards came to understand stuff about the nature of the ego, and tried to communicate what he'd come to understand to people in the way that suited him - writing poems.

I see what you're saying, but I think there is still an experiencer. It is, however, an undifferentiated experiencer. Maybe it is Jungs 'objective psyche'. It "is" everything and nothing and therefore you are right, there "is" no "inner dialog" going on, because all is inner and outer (omnijective), and dialog needs words and words create differentiation. In that unitive state, there can be no differentiation and so no words. No subject-object dichotomy.

But there is One thing that can be said in that state. "I am..."

...and that's all it takes.

 

[Nick227]

So here is somewhat of a philosophy experiment you can do at home. You can construct a simple little pendulum and use it to communicate with your unconscious mind through the ideomotor effect. It's really very simple. People have been doing it for thousands of years. It's usually called divination.

Well, the brain and body are carrying out bucketloads of processing constantly, much of it well away from conscious networking, so I guess it could work. Though there's a thing called kinesiology which would seem simpler and more direct.

I see what you're saying, but I think there is still an experiencer.

If you think about it, you will!

It is, however, an undifferentiated experiencer. Maybe it is Jungs 'objective psyche'. It "is" everything and nothing and therefore you are right, there "is" no "inner dialog" going on, because all is inner and outer (omnijective), and dialog needs words and words create differentiation. In that unitive state, there can be no differentiation and so no words. No subject-object dichotomy.

You know, you don't really need so-called unitive states. When thinking reduces things look totally the same but there is no longer anyone there. Personally, I think most mystical writing comes out of this, rather than some kind of samadhi state. This is what tends to get overlooked by many. They imagine themselves a self seeking a unitive experience. This is just how things appear on the surface.

But there is One thing that can be said in that state. "I am..."

...and that's all it takes.

Maybe, Limbo. Maybe.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Nick - you are avoiding some of my questions

I think you know which one I am referring too. You know. The one that suggests materialism transcended itself like an eternity ago

 

[Nick227]

Nick - you are avoiding some of my questions

I think you know which one I am referring too. You know. The one that suggests materialism transcended itself like an eternity ago

Well, you do write quite a lot, BF. I hate these threads where it becomes like 15 points being concurrently discussed each post. My brain can't remember enough for it, to start with, and then you have to also cut and paste all over the place to have any sense of continuity. Hey, sounds like Multiple Drafts Theory!

I'm not avoiding any of your questions, afai'ma. At least not through any fear of the thunderous rebuttal of my position they might provide. Though possibly because I suspect they might lead to some long-winded dialogue about some utterly tangential issue that would leave me thinking oh god just shoot me now.

Nick

 

[WWHP]

Though possibly because I suspect they might lead to some long-winded dialogue about some utterly tangential issue that would leave me thinking oh god just shoot me now.

Nick

lol - well you asked for it! I tried to gently give you a way out of this discussion pages back. You can't expect to tackle a topic such as consciousness and not receive multiple drafts - sheesh, look how long Consciousness Explained is!