Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

I'll take that as an admission that you knowingly, deliberately lied. I'm not sure what sort of world you live in, Doronshadmi, but in mine, deliberate liars have the ethics of pond scum.

Your world jsfisher is based on stings of symbols. As a result you can't get abstractions that are represented by diagrams, exactly because for you rigorous abstraction must be done by string of symbols (diagrams are nothing but some limited and non-rigorous tool that is limited to metric-space, isn't it The Man?)

 

[jsfisher]

Your world jsfisher is based on stings of symbols. As a result you can't get abstractions that are represented by diagrams, exactly because for you rigorous abstraction must be done by string of symbols (diagrams are nothing but some limited and non-rigorous tool that is limited to metric-space, isn't it The Man?)

What has this to do with your unethical lying behavior?

 

[doronshadmi]

 

[doronshadmi]

What has this to do with your unethical lying behavior?

Proof by crude drawing? Care to add any rigor to this hand-waving?

Setting aside for a moment your bogus attempt at using AutoCAD as an automated theorem generator, what is it you think you actually proved? Can you give a concise statement of your theorem?

Your world jsfisher is based on stings of symbols. As a result you can't get abstractions that are represented by diagrams, exactly because for you rigorous abstraction must be done by string of symbols (diagrams are nothing but some limited and non-rigorous tool that is limited to metric-space, isn't it The Man?)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446

Who is the liar here jsfisher?

 

[jsfisher]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446

Who is the liar here jsfisher?

Still you.

You claimed I stated something I did not. You have even admitted I did not. So, you are now and continue to be the only liar present.

This is not the first time you have done this. We can all scroll back through this very thread to find other examples. It seems to be one of your talents. You make stuff up. Some you claim as Mathematics. Some you claim as statements by, points of views of, etc., etc. of others posting in this thread. One good lie deserves another, eh?

At least in this country, we teach our kindergarten kids not to lie. Since you identify so readily with 5-year-old thinking, I can only assume the schools you hang about don't have the same sense of decency we do here.

 

[The Man]

I forgot that's as good as it gets.
There is no application of number as quality. The value for ethics is simply that we are to recognize that a numbers are born of
Local/Non-Local,
QualityQuantity,
Memory/Object Interaction (or Linkage)
And there for realize the world is not merely objects set appart from our selves.

I confess the CK diagrams do nothing for me.
I understand that they are another graphic of Something/Something Else Linkage.
As such they are simply a repeat of the whole complements linkage structure thingy and not the example I was wrongfully asking for.

On a number of a occaisons I've spoken of the Buddhist perspective regarding the Non-Local.
I have to get to work now
but in brief, there are no "Atomic" (Doron's Atomic) entities.
There are just images.
And Non-Locality is as reflection in a mirror.
The mirror reflects a changing panorama of images, but none are of the mitrror or the reflecting itself.
Reflection is free of any content. Not a single rflected image sullies or taints it.

But reflection doesn't exist without the reflections and reflected.
Its all reflections of reflections, images of images.
So that there is no reflection without the reflections or reflections without reflection.
(I realize this is a crude analogy.)

Non-Locality is not without Locality,
Locality is not without Non-Locality.
They have no "Atomic" independence.
To advance them into Atomic independence is to posit a metaphysical ideology. (But anyone is free to get metaphysical if they like.)
(The Taoist perspective on this is interdependence.)

Warning another very crude analogy:
You cannot capture the mirror in a mirrior, much less itself.
There are only relfected images.
Set one mirror before another, and you get the celebrated infinite hall of mirrors. All just an unbounded image.

Yet the mirrors have only a finite space between them.

The Infinite is just an image.
And there is not infinite without the finite, no finite without the infinite.And they can be found within each other, because both aren't "Atoms" but ideological images of a reality that is truly Complex.

Another excellent post Apathia, sorry I missed it when I posted before. Although I would argue that a reflection without content reflects nothing. It is inversion (much like negation, although more just a change in, or reversal of, perspective) that is the central aspect of reflection. Though I did like your finite/infinite “linkage” in reflection, even though the apparent effect still requires some skewing in the perspective so you see the multiple reflections. Also as we had discussed before the “Taoist perspective” accuracy asserted as “interdependence”. An aspect I think Doron misses when considering eastern philosophies. Again you come to the rub of it Apathia, Doron’s independent “atoms” that even he claims can not be “researched” independently. It is local and (addition not a logical connective, a distinction between math and logic that Doron also seems to miss) non-local that generally comprise some space. Although you can consider an entire space as local (that one might refer to as a globel perspective) you can only consider some subspace (less any intersections) as non-local with regard to some local sub-space in some encompassing ‘global’ space.

 

[Apathia]

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4390093906_6c3ae0ab88_o.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4389327007_f968923c21_o.jpg[/qimg]

Ah, Doron. I get the Memory/Object Interaction presentation and your intention to move from it to a mathematical-symbological language that expresses not only objects in quantity but stages in awareness.
But I don't get the Cybernetic Kernals thing at all.
Is it some kind of feedback learning loop running between whatever two conceptual poles until the skill or state of consciousness is consolidated?

It's not the way my personal ethical life operates.
Mine is one where people are more important than concepts, principles, and ideologies. My decisions in that regard have more to do with empathy and compassion than a playing out between two contributing moral principles ("Atoms")

I personally find more resonance with the Buddhist perceptive because it asserts the interdependence and integration of all we experience and sweeps away all potential attachments emotional and intellectual.
It dismisses all fundamentals.

Of course if I were to be dogmatic about Buddhism's minimalist metaphysic and insist others must follow "The Middle Way," I'd undo the intention of it all in a pathological attachment.
Hence the Zen saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

We are all still here because compassionate people who connect with others from their hearts always find ways to work around whatever their belief systems or logical-ethical languages.

Acting in responsibility entails awareness and an ability to respond; respond from the heart.
That's where I find the ground of Ethics.

As for Mathematics, it's a tool and language that can be used ethically, but is ethically neutral itself.
It's like an axe. Of course it's use is upon objects, not the wielder of the axe.
And the likes of Raskolnikov can objectify and demonize a person he intends to use it upon.
But there's no way to build an axe that tells its user, "your neighbor isn't firewood."
(I take that back. There's a good chance that many appliances in the later part of this century will have interactive computer processors.)
It's up to us to act responsibly with our tools and languages.

I know the intention of OM is to create a language of science in which awareness and compassion are integral to its methodology, so it cannot make and do evil and exploitive things.
But awareness isn't an equation. It isn't denotable by a sign, as is a number.
We express it in mytho-poetic metaphors.

So your program uses the language of mathematics and number metaphorically while every mathematician who participates in this thread finds a mishmash of math terms that don't cohere and compute in a system of signs.

I think your symbology works for you. You bring your self awareness into the picture when you use that X/Y Interactive framework because of the transcendental meaning you have ascribed to that language.

But alas it doesn't have the same affect on us.
The sight of those CKs doesn't draw me into a state of heightened awareness.
They just confuse me.
While my morning meditation in which I use a single Sanskrit alphabetical syllable as a mantra and yantra, serves me well to open my heart, but would leave you and most anyone else in the thread cold.

I don't see how we could all have the same all purpose scientific-religious-ethical language, even though there are always zealots who want to impose theirs on everyone.
The direction of spirituality is always to transcend, even and especially in the midst of its use, any religious tongue and dwell in the Heart.
Otherwise you get people hawking varieties of golden calves and stone tablets without ever listening to each other.

 

[Apathia]

Another excellent post Apathia,

Admittedly the mirror analogy is clumsy and crude.
But I remember now my original point of use for it.
The mirror has nothing in it but the images it reflects.
It has no special content to impose upon and structure them (aside from as you say to reverse the images.), not X/Y apparatus.
It is empty of itself, period.
The X/Y Linkage is a linguistic, ideological construct that has no fundamental, inherent reality.

It may be of linguistic, metaphorical use in an individual's (In this case Doron's) intellectual culture (His very own. And I should say it's a somewhat admirable thing for an individual to create hir (his or her) own culture.)
But awareness itself doesn't get captured as a symbol object in a language.
It always transcends its symbols and certainly transcends the attempt to make it a sign, precisely because it has no self nature and is inherently nothing of its own.

Infinity is an image, not a fixed metaphysical entity (or "Atom").
So it does not object to being found in paradoxical places.

Perhaps the matter that Ethics does have in common with Logic is that paradox (when we try to completely formalize) is inescapable.

 

[Complexity]

Plain nude is the best.

I was thinking more along the lines of blue cheese or sesame ginger.

(He really doesn't get anything, does he?)

 

[Complexity]

I think doronshadmi is an attempt at a program that might pass the Turing test.

Sort of a deranged Eliza.

Not a very successful attempt, since no one seems to think they are interacting with a human being. Interesting, none the less.

It reminds me of a random-insult generator that I used to have students write.

Fun to read its output at first, but it got old pretty quickly.

 

[The Man]

No The Man, again you demonstrate how your local-only reasoning leads you to see "facts" that are exactly the result of your local-only reasoning.

Actually you do not understand your own reseach project ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5829316&postcount=9480 ).

Again with your loco-only labeling Doron.

Yes I know The Man, this "profound" statement is a demonstration of your best ability to grasp notions, exactly as shown about your ability to grasp OM.

Again you confuse (I think deliberately) the trivial for the “profound”.

No
Sorry The Man, did you forget so quickly that "a label is simply a label"? (as we see above).

Nope, when are you going to start considering a label as just a label?

Since all you get can't be developed beyond "a label is simply a label" you have missed the notion that a definition of some space is not the labels that are used to measure it. But we can't expect much from a person that uses "a label is simply a label"-reasoning.

Since you can not understand what is written, that labels can represent some particular aspect, but do not have to, you end up with this ridiculous “labels that are used to measure” nonsense.

Another example of the inability of The Man (which uses only "a label is simply a label"-reasoning) to grasp the difference between the atomic self-state (which is not local AND not non-local) and some aspect of that state (which is Local OR Non-local).

Oh so once again you divide your indivisible “atomic self-state” into ‘aspects’ of “that state” that you label as “Local OR Non-local”. Yes we got that before and I have specifically pointed out that “atomic” failure of yours before.

Such a person can't distinguish, for example, between "silence" and silence itself, which is not the word (or the label) "silence".

You fail once again Doron, is this going to be a litany of your failures, a stroll down memory lane if you will, or do you have something new? Has that "can't distinguish, for example, between silence" and silence itself, which is not the word (or the label) "silence"” claim ever work for anyone but you Doron? Perhaps it’s time to give it up.

You can drive a car without any understanding of the technology and/or physical laws that enables to do that.

I understand the “technology and/or physical laws” involved in a car and driving a car. Also as I have told you before the electrical connectors that might be bringing electricity to wherever you are now, and if I did not design those connectors (or was involved in their design, production and development) I might have tested that design or perchance written the criteria that they were tested to. What was it that you have done or understand with your OM, other than your fantasies?

I am talking about driving and understanding a car.

Again you are talking about things you do not understand, which could well include “driving and understanding a car”.

Now The Man's step-by-step thinking style airs its view. How "lovely".

So I guess you do want to forget about your own assertions concerning “foundations” particularly when applied to, well, you.

At last something new from The Man's shop. Instead of "a label is simply a label"-reasoning, we have the "new" product known as "a collection is simply a collection"-reasoning.

Doesn’t sound like anything new to me. Exactly where did I say “a collection is simply a collection” that you quote? If you are going to paraphrase you should do it like ‘this’.

So you are able know the conclusion (the result) of such an experiment, otherwise you can't recommend not doing such experimentation. So your mind plays a main role in your experiment, which claims that the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion.

Where did I say I “know the conclusion (the result) of such an experiment”. Certainly I can “recommend not doing such experimentation” since its futility is the whole point.

Well, OM's reasoning is more optimistic than your "the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion"-reasoning.

I still do not recommend such experimentation even with your purportedly “optimistic” “OM's reasoning”, do not attempt it!!!!

Call it naïve-reasoning, but I prefer it over your "the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion"-reasoning.

Your preference in that rearguard is already well known.

Yes, why not The Man? We really must not interfere when some politicians intend to do some genocide by using only Logics. After all we have to save also those conditions where “Ethics and Logics” do not “reinforce each other”, isn't it The Man?

Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme and your own consideration of “the goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.” does not exclude that genocidal extreme. Perhaps you are claiming that there are ethical considerations against genocide that might not be logically consistent with your “goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.”? Your goal is to save our civilization from the “L value of the drake equation”, but if it took killing half the world’s population right now to achieve that goal, would you consider that ethical? Such are the ethical conundrums not evident in your “naïve-reasoning”. Ethics ain’t pretty, simple or ‘black/white’ Doron nor is it your “EMM” coloring book.

So, once again, how do you develop a non-naïve framework that can help us to survive a technology that currently is mostly derived from binary logic?

So is it just a fear of technology employing binary logic that makes you so paranoid? You do understand that matters of ethics are still determined by people (boards, committees, judges and juries), don’t you (and why that is)? What you apparently want is ethics that can or simply will be decided by calculators and computers. Study ethics and you will find non-naïve (not black/white) frameworks for dealing with ethical issues almost everywhere (particularly in a modern technological society).

Are you going to write about me again instead of at least try to answer to that question?

Unlike you I always try to answer questions.

 

[The Man]

Admittedly the mirror analogy is clumsy and crude.
But I remember now my original point of use for it.
The mirror has nothing in it but the images it reflects.
It has no special content to impose upon and structure them (aside from as you say to reverse the images.), not X/Y apparatus.
It is empty of itself, period.
The X/Y Linkage is a linguistic, ideological construct that has no fundamental, inherent reality.

It may be of linguistic, metaphorical use in an individual's (In this case Doron's) intellectual culture (His very own. And I should say it's a somewhat admirable thing for an individual to create hir (his or her) own culture.)
But awareness itself doesn't get captured as a symbol object in a language.
It always transcends its symbols and certainly transcends the attempt to make it a sign, precisely because it has no self nature and is inherently nothing of its own.

Infinity is an image, not a fixed metaphysical entity (or "Atom").
So it does not object to being found in paradoxical places.

Perhaps the matter that Ethics does have in common with Logic is that paradox (when we try to completely formalize) is inescapable.

Well again it is Doron’s label oriented reasoning that can not deal with his labels being reversed. While the normal ascriptions of local and non-local are reversible. Much as you assert I do believe that it is a cultural aspect of semantics that is the dividing factor here. Also as you note it is the preoccupation with the consideration of “natural” or “organic” ‘definitions’ and ‘math’ that makes Doron think his assertions should be obtained by what he calls “direct perception”. Certainly binary logic has only two values, true/false right/wrong, while ethics is a multi-valued generally normative system being of a prominently subjective, well, nature. Expounding not perhaps as things are, but how they should be, again based on that subjective interpretation.

 

[The Man]

I think doronshadmi is an attempt at a program that might pass the Turing test.

Sort of a deranged Eliza.

Not a very successful attempt, since no one seems to think they are interacting with a human being. Interesting, none the less.

It reminds me of a random-insult generator that I used to have students write.

Fun to read its output at first, but it got old pretty quickly.

I do think we are interacting with a human being, unfortunately one that apparently can not resolve or has not even considered the Frame Problem. Ok, so maybe he is just a turning machince.

 

[zooterkin]

I think doronshadmi is an attempt at a program that might pass the Turing test.

Sort of a deranged Eliza.

Not a very successful attempt, since no one seems to think they are interacting with a human being. Interesting, none the less.

No, I think a program would not make the silly spelling errors, and would spot the difference between 'hammer' and 'hummer' (I don't think he's yet spotted that, let alone worked out what 'hummer' means).

 

[sympathic]

No, I think a program would not make the silly spelling errors, and would spot the difference between 'hammer' and 'hummer' (I don't think he's yet spotted that, let alone worked out what 'hummer' means).

It looks silly only because we use string/word reasoning in our local only limited world. Doron only get's things through graphic representation so here it is:

 

[doronshadmi]

Still you.

You claimed I stated something I did not.

I did not claim that you stated that.

According to what you wrote (seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832266&postcount=9504) I wrote:

jsfisher thinks that the proof without words that S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X is Geometry:

Do you get the difference between my conclusion (you can say that it is wrong) about what you wrote, and your reaction to call me a liar?

Your aggressive attitude is unethical.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your goal is to save our civilization from the “L value of the drake equation”, but if it took killing half the world’s population right now to achieve that goal, would you consider that ethical?

EMM development is a way to do our best in order to avoid L as a resultof self made-destruction, which is derived from the ignorance of Complexity, exactly because the current understanding about Ethics is not developed beyond local understanding of that concept.

Here you are speaking about a situation, which is beyond our abilities to change it, and under this condition we have to decide to choose between total elimination and partial survival. EEM's principles clearly choose the second option.

Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme…

Politics is not one some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it. Politics is definitely one of the areas that can be developed by EEM, exactly because it is one of our self-made mirrors of our civilization.

The Man, your fundamental problem is that you do not distinguish between self-made conditions and non self-made conditions that are derived from conditions that are beyond our abilities to change them (non self-made Force-majeure). In this extreme situation EEM will choose to save as much as possible, in order to avoid the final value of L.

Again your naïve understanding of EEM is exposed.

Furthermore, your understanding of Politics as non self-made Force-majeure clearly demonstrates how misleading and dangerous is your notion's ability about this crucial and fine subject.

I understand the “technology and/or physical laws” involved in a car and driving a car.

The "Car case" is an analogy. You have missed the analogy because of your naïve understanding of the considered subject. The non-analogy aspect is the needed activity (abstract or not) that has to be done in order to develop our understanding of Complexity, exactly because we are some of its actual manifestations.

Exactly where did I say “a collection is simply a collection” that you quote?

This is good enough for my conclusion about your claim:

The involvement of collections is intentional when considering, well, collections.

Unlike you I always try to answer questions.

Again you attack me instead of answering the question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction.

 

[doronshadmi]

It looks silly only because we use string/word reasoning in our local only limited world. Doron only get's things through graphic representation so here it is:

[/qimg]

Wrong, as clearly shown by http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446 .

 

[doronshadmi]

An aspect I think Doron misses when considering eastern philosophies. Again you come to the rub of it Apathia, Doron’s independent “atoms” that even he claims can not be “researched” independently.

They are independent simply because they are not sub-elements of each others.

Actually the accurate statement is "mutually independent of each other", where
Mutuality is:

D=Domain

(not belong AND not not belong to D)

And independency is:

(belongs XOR does not belong to D) OR (belongs AND does not belong to D)

 

[doronshadmi]

You do know what the unit circle is, right?

By spaces linkage.