Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Am I right that you are making some kind of one to one correspondence for each CK and a particular "parallel"-"serial" bridging?

We are simply complex systems that are able to get the origins of their complexity from "first hand" (we are not agents, but direct self aware things of our realm in any given level, by using both parallel AND serial participation/observation on the same time).

One to one correspondence is a serial-only observation-only non self-awarness view of the re-searched.

 

[Apathia]

We are simply complex systems that are able to get the origins of their complexity from "first hand" (we are not agents, but direct self aware things of our realm in any given level, by using both parallel AND serial participation/observation on the same time).

One to one correspondence is a serial-only observation-only non self-awarness view of the re-searched.

Nevermind, I don't know enough about cybernetic kernals and what they mean in AI and much less whatever you are making of them.
I thought there was some realtion to those pretty diagrams and the generation of Organic numbers.
But I guess as far as it goes is that they are both complex.

 

[Apathia]

Originally Posted by Apthia's signature

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown

Doron's reply:

Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.

Apathia:

My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.

Doron's reply?

By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them

.

 

[The Man]

Do you understand that by your local-only view of anything is resulted by particular context-dependent frameworks?

Your loco-only labels do not remove the dependence upon context or your particular ethics as “universal principles” as your own stated context for such ethics.

The fear is not because of OM and EMM, but exactly because of the lack of OM and EEM, as demonstrated by your fragmented context-dependent view of anything.

Again your “OM” and “EEM” not only permit exactly what you fear (that “L value outcome”) but also make it both logically and ethically acceptable (perhaps even required) to enact such an outcome that you fear.

Difference is only a particular aspect of Complexity , which is not less than Sameness/Difference Linkage.
Again you narrow view of the considered subjects is shown.

Doron you simply claim everything is “only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than” some dichotomy “Linkage”. The “narrow view of the considered subjects is” entirely yours.

It is your narrow local-only and context-dependent view, which gets OM as self-contradictory.

Nope, just the fact that your “non-local” “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription contradicts itself. Your loco-only labels don’t change that fact.

It does not mean that the development behind some useful result, is a clear cut single path, which is limited by clear amount of time.

Since I did not say that, then yes, what I said does not mean that. Yet by your own assertions your “EEM” is a singular “framework” “a clear cut single path” if you will for combining your notion of ethics with your notion of logic.

Devomplent (as currently understood) is an infinite Complexity that has finite usful resutls.

‘Development’ “(as currently understood)” is just the result of changes. As your notions have not changed to any discernable degree (certainly how you try to describe them has) they have not developed and remain without ‘useful results’, finite or otherwise (except for feeding your fantasies).














Patiently awaiting the subsequent claim that ‘change is only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than Remain/Change Linkage‘.

 

[doronshadmi]

‘Development’ “(as currently understood)” is just the result of changes. As your notions have not changed to any discernable degree (certainly how you try to describe them has) they have not developed and remain without ‘useful results’, finite or otherwise (except for feeding your fantasies).

Again your “OM” and “EEM” not only permit exactly what you fear (that “L value outcome”) but also make it both logically and ethically acceptable (perhaps even required) to enact such an outcome that you fear.

This is another example of a person that insists to use a partial view of X in order to get general conclusions of X.

There is no chance to communicate with a person, which insists to use a cyclopean view of a considered subject.

Patiently awaiting the subsequent claim that ‘change is only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than Remain/Change Linkage‘.

Save your time, your Remain-only view is exactly the best you get (your WYSIWYG).

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us return to the proof without words of S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X:

Some direct perception notions:

1) S or X are sizes > 0.

2) X is a constant size > 0, which is not changed by any amount of bends along it (exactly because each bend is an 0 size).

3) S is the result of the added projected sizes of the bended forms of X upon the non-bended form of X.

4) The added end-points or the infinitely many points that are located along the infinitely many bended versions of X, contribute exactly 0 size to S value, so S value is the result of the infinitely many convergent sizes (where each size > 0) 2a+2b+2c+2d+… such that for any 0 size (that does not contribute anything to the result) there is a size > 0, that contributes to the result of S.

5) Since there are infinitely many convergent sizes > 0, then S < X exactly by 0.000…3/4, which is the invariant ratio among the infinitely many projected (and convergent) bended versions of X upon the non-bended version of X, where S is a fog (the result of infinitely many different sizes, where each size > 0) exactly as the infinitely added points along the infinitely many bended versions of X, are a sum (=0).

(Please pay attention that this direct perception is truth for any absolute value of X or S.)

6) (5) can't be understood by a cyclopean view local-only reasoning (see The Man's case).

 

[doronshadmi]

Nevermind, I don't know enough about cybernetic kernals and what they mean in AI and much less whatever you are making of them.

In that case you have no basis for

Not OM for sure.

 

[doronshadmi]

My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.

By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them

Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.

 

[The Man]

Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.

In that case you have no basis for

By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them.

..

 

[The Man]

Let us return to the proof without words of S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]


Some direct perception notions:

1) S or X are sizes > 0.

2) X is a constant size > 0, which is not changed by any amount of bends along it.

3) S is the result of the added projected sizes of the bended forms of X upon the non-bended form of X.

4) The added end-points or the infinitely many points that are located along the infinitely many bended versions of X, contribute exactly 0 size to S value, so S value is the result of the infinitely many convergent sizes (where each size > 0) 2a+2b+2c+2d+… such that for any 0 size (that does not contribute anything to the result) there is a size > 0, that does contribute to the result of S.

5) Since there are infinitely many convergent sizes > 0, then S < X exactly by 0.000…3/4, which is the invariant ratio among the infinitely many projected (and convergent) bended versions of X upon the non-bended version of X, where S is a fog exactly as the infinitely add points along the infinitely many bended versions of X, are a sum (=0).

(Please pay attention that this direct perception is truth for any absolute value of X or S.)

6) (5) can't be understood by a cyclopean view local-only reasoning (see The Man's case).

Your “can't be known by thoughts” “direct perception” fails you again.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your “can't be known by thoughts” “direct perception” fails you again.

Your "thought about thoughts about direct perception" fails you again, because you can't distinguish between a thought as a manifestation of direct perception, and direct perception as the foundation of thoughts.

It is similar to your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form.

 

[The Man]

Your "thought about thoughts about direct perception" fails you again, because you can't distinguish between a thought as a manifestation of direct perception, and direct perception as the foundation of thoughts.

It is similar to your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form.

No Doron you simply enjoy claiming your own thoughts “as the foundation of thoughts” while also claiming your “foundation of thoughts” “can't be known by thoughts”. Which of course would include your own thoughts about your “direct perception” as the “foundation of thoughts”. So not only are you claiming that you can not know what you are talking about (when it comes to your “foundation of thoughts”) you are claiming that you can‘t even think about what you are thinking (when it comes to your “foundation of thoughts”) as that would make your “direct perception” “foundation of thoughts” known by your, well, thoughts.

 

[doronshadmi]

you are claiming that you can‘t even think about what you are thinking

Agian we see your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form, where a branch of Y is a thought and the trunk of Y is the foundation of any branch (any thought), which is not itself a branch (a thought).

You can't get that The Man like any one that his reasoning is at best "label is lablel", "thought is thought", etc ...


You simply can't get 0.000…3/4 > 0

 

[Apathia]

Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.

Amen!
That's one of the things I agree with you about.

Perhaps it's just an language barrier. You aren't aquainted with the meaning of the word "rationalization" as an error in argument and rational discourse.
It's when an idividual makes up reasons for an idea that isn't supported by the emperical facts.

We humans do it a lot, and it takes vigilance and cooperation for us to see when we are deluding ourselves.

And yes, a return to Direct Perception.

 

[The Man]

Agian we see your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form, where a branch of Y is a thought and the trunk of Y is the foundation of any branch (any thought), which is not itself a branch (a thought).

You can't get that The Man like any one that his reasoning is at best "label is lablel", "thought is thought", etc …

You simply can't get 0.000…3/4 > 0

Again Just your own thoughts about what you like to claim and think of “as the foundation of thoughts”, which by you own assertion “can't be known by” even your own “Y” and “0.000…3/4 > 0” “thoughts”.

 

[Apathia]

In that case you have no basis for

I'm not read on the meaning of cybernetc kernals in AI research.
I'm not getting for sure just how you are using this for your ends.

But overall I do get what you want your Organic Mathmatics to mean and agree with your ethical intent.

But investing a language of quantites of objects with the transcendence of subjectivity just doesn't work.
it's oil and water.
And shaking it up and calling it an Oil/Water Linkage doesn't make it the Solution.

You do start with a certain perspective of a "direct perception," but then you race into a loose collection of linguistic abstractions as if they were concrete experience or intuitive to all.

Of course I should return to the "beginner's mind."
But honestly, Doron, when I do I don't find X/y Linkage or a an Ontological Locality/Non-Locality structure as a given dictim.
It is a linguistic device you have created.

 

[Apathia]

Given your last post, I wouldn't be surpried if you now told me, "If you can't see it, you have no business commenting on it."

Howard: Jonathan, Godzilla's outside. He says if you don't move your car, he's going to melt it with his atomic breath.

Jonathan: I don't see Godzilla outside, and I'm not going to move my car.

Howard: If you can't see Godzilla standing out there, you don't have any argument about the matter. Move your car!


Actually yes, there is an impasse to any discussion if I can't see what you do.
But that's a real thread killer, because no one else participating in this thread does either.

But I can see a hint of why you believe you see what you do, and that keeps me here working toward understanding you.
So I'll still be asking you questions.

However for now, I'll not interupt you inverted triangle.

 

[doronshadmi]

But investing a language of quantites of objects with the transcendence of subjectivity just doesn't work.
it's oil and water.

It works. Trunk AND branches are a one organic form (Y) where the branches are the manifestation of the trunk and the trunk is the foundation of the branches.

Your Oil/Water notion simply do not get Y as an organic form.

It is a linguistic device you have created.

Again linguistic device is not only the level of manifestation of that device, but also the foundation that enables its manifestation.

OM is trunk AND branches organic Yform device, where silence is inseparable of that device, and is the common base ground of any labeled manifestation.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again Just your own thoughts about what you like to claim and think of “as the foundation of thoughts”, which by you own assertion “can't be known by” even your own “Y” and “0.000…3/4 > 0” “thoughts”.

"bla bla bla ..." is "bla bla bla ..." by "bla bla bla ..."

Indeed "profound reasoning" you have The Man.

 

[Skeptic]

Actually, Doron, your math is totally wrong. Here's my proof:

X^2--4rr*Z^i -- g5 > fog(0.0000000000000000000000 .... 3/4).

I will only allow people who see it to comment and say what a genius I am. Finally a man had arisen in mathematics who is even a greater genius than Doron -- me! It's a new Copernican revolution, as big as the one Doron himself did to previous mathematics, much like Einstein replace Newton after Newton replaced Aristotle in physics.

Everybody else, who thinks it's gibberish, well, they're just jealous I am a greater math genius than them, or else just don't understand it, and therefore have no business commenting on it.