Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

ooppss ...

 

[doronshadmi]

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")

Why do you think that empathy and compassion have nothing to do with complementation between opposites?

Why do you thing that developing natural responsibility ( as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 , by reducing self-interference that eliminate each others' manifestations ) have nothing to do with empathy and compassion?

 

[Apathia]

Why do you think that empathy and compassion have nothing to do with complementation between opposites?'

I don't think that empathy and compassion don't often involve a complementation of what would otherwise be opposing ideals.
I'm just asserting that they aren't generated by such or some kind of intellectual juggling of such.
And the way we describe our relations and intimacy with each other is a far more complex use of language than x/y linkage.

Why do you thing that developing natural responsibility ( as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 ) have nothing to do with empathy and compassion?

Fortunately our natural ability to respond to each other and to take care in our communal actions is not dependent upon the idealized construct you have presented.

Certainly I agree that one should bring awareness to hir (his or her) cogitations. It's so easy and so human to stop at a characterization that seems to embrace so much but ignores so much more than it embraces.

 

[Complexity]

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).

A clever programmer would cause it to make mistakes on occasion, just the way that people would.

This programmer outclevered him/herself. The silliness parameter must have been left at 1.0 after debugging, rather than around 0.07, where it should be.

 

[Complexity]

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.

I've been immoralized!

I'm fairly certain that the universe is derived from the ignorance of Complexity.

He's finally using my name properly.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ethics ain’t pretty, simple or ‘black/white’ Doron nor is it your “EMM” coloring book.

My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.

Again you do not distinguish between sums and fogs.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm just asserting that they aren't generated by such or some kind of intellectual juggling of such.

Why to you think that there is a clear cut between empathy and compassion and intelligence?

And the way we describe our relations and intimacy with each other is a far more complex use of language than x/y linkage.

Have you noticed that Fogs, Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity, Non-locality, Memory/Object Linkage, etc. are main principles of OM?

Fortunately our natural ability to respond to each other and to take care in our communal actions is not dependent upon the idealized construct you have presented.

These idealizations are the fabric of a complex realm. The Simple and the Complex plays on the same realm.

It's so easy and so human to stop at a characterization that seems to embrace so much but ignores so much more than it embraces

How about a realm which is the result of Simple\Complex Embrace.

 

[Apathia]

Why to you think that there is a clear cut between empathy and compassion and intelligence?

I don't. Those are concept words. The reality is not clear cut.

Have you noticed that Fogs, Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity, Non-locality, Memory/Object Linkage, etc. are main principles of OM?

Indeed I have. I'm probably the person in this thread who understands most your intentions with those terms.
But the rigid structure you make of them doesn't really serve your ethical intentions.
What's more, when applied to Mathematics, it may seem you are introducing more flexibility, but the cost to utility.
After all one can use a very dull axe as a hammer.

Again these lingustic concept words. The reality is very very not so clear cut
(as Atom X mutually independent of Atom Y).

These idealizations are the fabric of a complex realm. The Simple and the Complex plays on the same realm.



How about a realm which is the result of Simple\Complex Embrace.

Oh there is a Complex but it's much more suble and complex than the X/Y Interaction construct accounts for. And its of the essence of Non-Locality that it transcends all philosophical cartoon characterizations.


Famous unfortunate example:
Hegel thought he had it all figured out in a formalized system of thought that included logic and ethics.
His logos was "Thesis/Athithesis yields a Synthesis which becomes the next Thesis to go up against an Antitheisis.
But it was just a simplistic idealized construction that fails the realities of emperical science and morality.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is some example of The Man's abilities to grasp his own words:

Had you actually studied history you would have found (as I have told you already) that the imposition of a singular (generally binary) logical (with us XOR against us) and particularly ethical (good XOR bad) framework has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.

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?

Most of oue technology is based on a framework that "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."

And The Man calls me paranoid.

"Nice", isn't it?

Another misunderstanding of The Man about OM:

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.

Here The Man misses two things:

1) OM is a framework that is based on Ethics/Logics Linkage where in both aspect people's activity is involved (actually a measurement tool like Number is based on Memory/Object Linkage http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503).

2) The Man does not understand that computers our some agents of us, where we are complex systems that have to do their best in order to understand and develop Complexity (abstract or not).

 

[doronshadmi]

mutually independent

Mutual independency is not characterized only be clear cur results.

Oh there is a Complex but it's much more suble and complex than the X/Y Interaction construct accounts for.

If you totally ignore Simplicity you can't really understand Complexity because they "embrace" each other.

Famous unfortunate example:
Hegel thought he had it all figured out in a formalized system of thought that included logic and ethics.
His logos was "Thesis/Athithesis yields a Synthesis which becomes the next Thesis to go up against an Antitheisis.
But it was just a simplistic idealized construction that fails the realities of emperical science and morality.

So Hegel continued to be focused on the confrontation of opposites, where synthesis was actually a thesis of a higher confrontation of opposites.

OM's Complementary Logics is focused on the Complexity that is developed among opposites, where the opposites are the simple building-blocks of an ever developed Complexity.

But the rigid structure you make of them doesn't really serve your ethical intentions.

Rigid structure? please show it.

Also do you think that Ethics is only flexible?

 

[doronshadmi]

I've been immoralized!

I'm fairly certain that the universe is derived from the ignorance of Complexity.

He's finally using my name properly.

At least you are fairly certain

 

[zooterkin]

By spaces linkage.

Of lines conception.

 

[Apathia]

Rigid structure? please show it.[?QUOTE]

Those two concrete ontological poles and their poleA|poleb arrangements.

Also do you think that Ethics is only flexible?

I'm not a proponent of an Ethic of fixed absolutes.
People are more important than Ethics.

 

[The Man]

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.

So you're saying that your EMM would consider such action ethical, why how genocidal of you and your EEM.

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.

So you are simply claiming that you would like politics to be logical and ethical not that it in fact is.

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.

Where did I claim “Politics as non self-made Force-majeure”, you do understand that people are often not logical or ethical (as considered by others), don’t you?

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.

No you simply continue to miss the point that even with all your blustering and lofty dreams your “OM” remains without and utility other then to simply feed your imagination.

This is good enough for my conclusion about your claim:

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.

My suggestion is that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics.

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)

Well thank you from demonstrating the validity of the statement you quoted from me.

Here is some example of The Man's abilities to grasp his own words:



Most of oue technology is based on a framework that "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."

It is still only you confusing binary logic with ethics Doron.

And The Man calls me paranoid.

"Nice", isn't it?

If the shoe fits…

Another misunderstanding of The Man about OM:


Here The Man misses two things:

1) OM is a framework that is based on Ethics/Logics Linkage where in both aspect people's activity is involved (actually a measurement tool like Number is based on Memory/Object Linkage http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503).

So your intent with your OM is (at least in part) to control peoples activities? Good luck with that.

2) The Man does not understand that computers our some agents of us, where we are complex systems that have to do their best in order to understand and develop Complexity (abstract or not).

So you simply don’t understand why computers even as “some agents of us” are not tasked with making ethical determinations?

My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.

Again you do not distinguish between sums and fogs.

Yes I do, your "fog" sums up nothing, but your own deliberate ignorance.

 

[doronshadmi]

Rigid structure? please show it.

Those two concrete ontological poles and their poleA|poleb arrangements.

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

In that case what is your view about this subject?

I'm not a proponent of an Ethic of fixed absolutes.
People are more important than Ethics.

I am talking about EEM (Evolutionary Ethics Model) where people are
some complex manifestation of a given realm.

In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.

 

[The Man]

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

In that case what is your view about this subject?



I am talking about EEM (Evolutionary Ethics Model) where people are
some complex manifestation of a given realm.

In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.

Yet this…

...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.

…namely us, is specifically at the center of your “EMM“. So in your opinion such a “model” centered on us as is your “EMM” is “unreal”. Glad we could clear that up.

 

[doronshadmi]

So your intent with your OM is (at least in part) to control peoples activities?

No, OM is not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system. What I say is exactly the opposite:

Numbers are Memory/Object Linkage so they are not totally independent of us.

In that case OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use.

Now I see that you have some paranoia about OM as some kind of control system on human minds.

Well, don't you worry, the notion of a control system on human minds is derived exactly from your mechanic school of thought, who does not understand Complexity and the meaningful influence of the players on the show, that need responsibility development in order to not play their final act of this show (to determine the value of L because of self-destruction).

So you simply don’t understand why computers even as “some agents of us” are not tasked with making ethical determinations?

Computers are nothing but some tools that reflect us, including our ethical behaviors.

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

My suggestion is that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics.

Again you deal with me and do not deal with the question, shell we conclude that you actually have no answer?

 

[Apathia]

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

Yes.

In that case what is your view about this subject?

You mean the relatoionship between science and ethics?
Most recently I touched on it in these posts:
9496, 9507, 9508, 9523.

Science merely describes the way things work. It provides discriptive information. But it's not, and cannot be proscriptive. It doesn't tell us what we morally ought to do with that information.
For that we must see beyond objects to be manipulated in a sysytem.
We must regard ourselves as subjects, as persons. We must be empathetic and compassionate, values that are born of Heart, not "Head."

In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.

I'm actually with you there. Concepts of "Man" and "Earth" are not the core of my personal ethic. At the moment you are.

...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.

Yes, as a result of encountering others with an open heart, I will respect and care about all sentient beings above any catagories they happen to belong to.

 

[doronshadmi]

…namely us, is specifically at the center of your “EMM“. So in your opinion such a “model” centered on us as is your “EMM” is “unreal”. Glad we could clear that up.

No, EEM is about developing complexity (abstract or not) wherever it can be found ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ), and we are some complex forms.

In other words, you don't get EEM.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

Yes.

Shall we take "yes" as "there is no simplicity, there is only complexity"?

Science merely describes the way things work. It provides discriptive information.

Apathia, Science is not some object out there, but it is the reflection of Human\Environment Interaction, where what you call "Head"-only paradigm, is no more than 600 years old.

This "Head"-only paradigm gave us the ability to understand that we are not the center of everything by opening our eyes to Macro/Micro, so called, physical realm, where deduction is some abstract "Head"-only realm.

But it's not, and cannot be proscriptive. It doesn't tell us what we morally ought to do with that information.

I am talking about a scientific method that can do that, because it works from the common foundation of every phenomenon, whether it is recognized as "Heart" or "Head".

This common foundation is called direct perception, and it is the basis of any kind of mental activity, including the physical realm.

OM is a way to act from the level of direct perception, and my work is nothing but a very preliminary stage of OM's development.

For that we must see beyond objects to be manipulated in a sysytem.
We must regard ourselves as subjects, as persons. We must be empathetic and compassionate, values that are born of Heart, not "Head."

Direct perception ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ) is the natural foundation of both Heart AND Head, such that they complement each other into a one complex form.