Deeper than primes

[Apathia]

Again, OM IS NOT a multivalued logics.

As long as you get OM as a multivalued logics, you don't get it.

OM is "by its nature" at least Non-localit/Locality Linkage.

You're right Doron. It's not those mathematical terms and forms you use in your papers. It is a qualitative, linguistic, and visionary view.
You try to put it into a kind of mathematical of logical framework, but of course it doesn't fit there, and you wind up in denial of the very claims you make in your papers.


[Apathia, I realize that you actually in agreement with The Man or jsfisher that force local-only view on OM.[/QUOTE]

Nope. I see your intentions to have a mathematics that works with qualities as well as qualities, and ought as well as is. I see what your OM intends.
But what you ironically miss again and again is that Mathematics is a different kind of discourse than ethics and spiritual values.
When you try to fuse them together the way you do, you lose the precision of math and the subjectivity of values.

That's why I say you are ironically forcing what is beyond logical language (what you symbolize as "non-local") into a rational only framework.

Your OM is by your intent a symbol of your attempt to integrate Mathematics and Ethics. However it's structure is merely a special non-binary logic.
You don't see in the lest that a linguistic symbol isn't treated the same as a mathematical sign.

Your Non-Locality is there only in the sense that you use those terms to mean something beyond Mathematical significance.
But then the very structure of your OM Logic doesn't actually serve the qualitative intent you have for it (much less the Mathematical intent the math people here point out you are making a wasteland of.)

It's a disconnect that I realize I'll never be able to bring to your awareness.

 

[Apathia]

What enables you Living, Doing, Relating?

Not OM for sure.

You are wanting to advance some linguistic abstractions into ontological principles and an X/Y Complement formulation that you will put before and transform everything I say with.
It's sort of neat. It trips up any discourse.

 

[Apathia]

This ridiculous fight is avoided if we realize that we are all in the same boat as fine and fragile complex systems.

It is good that you come to that no matter the philosophical program you used to get there.
I'd say that we end the fight because why should the left hand struggle against the right. We are of one body.
Metaphysically we are all integral to each other.

Different philosophy, same boat!

Perhaps the Agreement/Disagreement Linkage.

It's been a good dialog this AM, but I need to get some lunch, since I skipped breakfast.


Cheers to you, my shipmate!

 

[doronshadmi]

But what you ironically miss again and again is that Mathematics is a different kind of discourse than ethics and spiritual values.

You ironically miss again and again that Mathematics and Ethics have a common and un-manifested source, which enables their ever developed linkage between them.

Different philosophy, same boat!

In other words Samness(areement)/Difference(disagreement) Linkage, which is exactly OM.

Not OM for sure.

You are wanting to advance some linguistic abstractions into ontological principles and an X/Y Complement formulation that you will put before and transform everything I say with.
It's sort of neat. It trips up any discourse.

You did not show anything that avoids OM, along our last dialog.

Furthermore, you still get OM as local-only thing, and in that case you can't be sure about OM.

That's why I say you are ironically forcing what is beyond logical language (what you symbolize as "non-local") into a rational only framework.

OM is not beyond logical language. OM extends, so called Logics, beyond its local-only view.

Again, Mathematics or Logics are not platonic invariant objects, and can be fundamentally changed by new notions (by using "the mind of the beginner", if you wish).

 

[doronshadmi]

It's been a good dialog this AM, but I need to get some lunch, since I skipped breakfast.

Thank you. Enjoey your breakfast.

 

[Apathia]

In other words Samness(areement)/Difference(disagreement) Linkage, which is exactly OM.

I said:

Different philosophy, same boat!

Perhaps the Agreement/Disagreement Linkage.

I'm glad I said it first!

Furthermore, you still get OM as local-only thing, and in that case you can't be sure about OM.

I get your OM metaphorical extension to qualitative values.
But more I get that you OM is much more than the "mathematical" applications you attempt to make in your papers.

Again, Mathematics or Logics are not platonic invariant objects, and can be fundamentally changed by new notions (by using "the mind of the beginner", if you wish).

I can't but agree!

While I was eating lunch, I thought of a beginner's or childish question to ask you.
Next post.

 

[Apathia]

I'm pretty sure I already know your answer for this, but I'll ask you for elucidation.

I'm surviving the "Great Recession" by working for the largest mail order pharmacy in America.
People gotta have their meds!

I'm in the mailroom, but back beyond that there is a huge room containing a remarkable array of automation.
Spread out over the facility is a very smart machine that sorts pills into bottles.
It "knows" which bottle go with which pills. Which labels to to affix to the right bottles. And how many pills go in a given bottle.
Plus it double checks in a number of internal controls to make sure the process is running correctly.
Thousands of orders are processed and placed in the appropriate mailers with the correct postage everyday.
And there is much more chance a human pharmacist would screw up an order than this machine.

It manipulates objects. It makes calculations. It uses memory.

So does it exhibit the Object/Memory Linkage?
If it does, Is this Object/Memory Linkage indicative of the presence of the non-locality and quality of consciousness?

I'll wait for your reply first before I say what answer I'm expecting you'll give.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm pretty sure I already know your answer for this, but I'll ask you for elucidation.

I'm surviving the "Great Recession" by working for the largest mail order pharmacy in America.
People gotta have their meds!

I'm in the mailroom, but back beyond that there is a huge room containing a remarkable array of automation.
Spread out over the facility is a very smart machine that sorts pills into bottles.
It "knows" which bottle go with which pills. Which labels to to affix to the right bottles. And how many pills go in a given bottle.
Plus it double checks in a number of internal controls to make sure the process is running correctly.
Thousands of orders are processed and placed in the appropriate mailers with the correct postage everyday.
And there is much more chance a human pharmacist would screw up an order than this machine.

It manipulates objects. It makes calculations. It uses memory.

So does it exhibit the Object/Memory Linkage?
If it does, Is this Object/Memory Linkage indicative of the presence of the non-locality and quality of consciousness?

I'll wait for your reply first before I say what answer I'm expecting you'll give.

"Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" is an agent of our memory/object linkage, but it is unaware of itself as a "Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" because it is a local-only system that its functions are totally known. We are memory/object linkage which is not totally known exactly because we are Non-local/Local complex that is aware of its own complexity and directly (without any agents) gets the foundations of its own complexity.


This self-awareness enables to see reality within us and us within reality, where reality is the result of both participation/observation (by using direct perception, reality is not a platonic object, but a changeable environment, and we as participators, has responsibility of some of the changes).

 

[Complexity]

I don't think I'll keep up with this thread any longer.

The word 'primes' attracted me initially, but it is obvious that doronshadmi knows nothing and cares nothing about mathematics.

Whatever he is writing about, it is of no interest to me.

Something about the way he writes makes my skin crawl and makes me feel very uneasy. Very odd.

See the rest of you in other threads.

 

[Apathia]

"Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" is an agent of our memory/object linkage, but it is unaware of itself as a "Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" because it is a local-only system that its functions are totally known. We are memory/object linkage which is not totally known exactly because we are Non-local/Local complex that is aware of its own complexity and directly (without any agents) gets the foundations of its own complexity.
Bolding mine.


This self-awareness enables to see reality within us and us within reality, where reality is the result of both participation/observation (by using direct perception, reality is not a platonic object, but a changeable environment, and we as participators, has responsibility of some of the changes).

One answer I was expecting from you was that computers and smart systems are creations of our Memory/Object Linkage.

The other was that though such a system is a complex operating by its own Memory/Object Linkage, it is not at the level of complexity as a Human Being in which the Non-Local contribution in the complex is much larger.

I was not expecting you to assert that the smart machine is not a complex of Memory/Object or Non-Local/Local Linkage.

Perhaps you are saying it opperates merely with the local/local numbers of traditional mathematics and not the wider Organic Numbers of Redundancy/Uncertainty Bridging.

But if you are saying that calculators and computational systems are simply not of OM, and OM is only a matter of such complex systems that are aware of themselves and aware of that awareness,
That's an interesting qualification.

It suggests that OM is after all a system to account for beings who manipulate symbols and think analogically with qualities.
While the math of the daily technologies we use is merely the old "local only" business.

But would that apply to the insect brain as well? It not being a Complex because it really isn't complex enough?
Then there would be two kind of nature: Local Only and OM.
I kinda think you want all of reality to be complexes of OM.
It seems contradictory for you to not include the all natural operations in your system.

But again, if you are making that qualification for your views, then your specialized, metaphorical use of mathematic language for the special circumstance of self-consciouness is not a suprise.

I think I should ask for clarification:
Is our clever machine in its operation exhibiting the various X/Y Linkages that
generate numbers and arithmatic that are themselves derived from a Local/Non-Local Linkage?
Or is it less than and not an example of Complex, being only a tool created by a Complex?
And would that not imply that arithmatic is not a complex?

(Sorry for spelling errors. I'm on break, and this computer has no spell checker.)

 

[The Man]

Another example of The Man’s fixed-only reasoning, which ignores the way (the tool) to get sum result, and focused only on the result. By this fixed approach there are no several alternatives to get some goal, and we are closed under a single step-by-step reasoning that leads to some goal, and as a result the gaol itself is understood by a very narrow view. On the other hand, if some method is taken as a tool, then an open mind is used all along the way that enables to understand some goal beyond a single path.

What “method” isn’t a tool? Obviously you are simply confusing your own "fixed-only reasoning" for mine. It is you who has determined some goal (avoiding that ‘L value outcome’) and construction your whole "OM" and "EEM" contrivance around that while failing to realize that your own contrivance contravenes your stated goal.

Furthermore, by this open minded approach one can find more goals that are also considered along the way, and we get richer and more profound understanding of the researched subject.

So try taking an “open minded approach” when you are considering what you call “standard math”.

Defining a linkage is not limited to your step-by-step deductive reasoning.

Definition by OM also researches the fundamantal conditions that enable, for example, the linkage between opposites, where your step-by-step deductive reasoning gets this linkage as an axiom.

As I said opposites are linked in that they are, well, opposites.

By their common source. for example: the local aspect of the atomic self-state is the opposite of the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state.

Again an “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into two aspects (even opposites) is not “atomic” by your own “indivisible” meaning of “atomic”

Yet the atomic self-state is their common source that enables the non-destructive linkage (communication) between them.

You seem rather preoccupied with ‘destruction’.

The included middle universe between them.

So just including a “middle universe between them” infers some “communication”? Again as you state above “linkage (communication)” so a “linkage”, even as binary opposites, is your “(communication)”.

Excluded middle framework is not limited to Logics or Ethics. The same holds about included middle framework.

That still does not show where have I said binary logic "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.". As agian It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to.

OM deals with both frameworks by OR connective between them.

By “both frameworks” you must mean self-consistent and your self-contradictory frameworks. Sorry Doron no one needs your "OM" to put an OR between them. It is your consideration of self-consistent and self-contradictory as both being valid that that gives your "OM" its, well, self-contradictory defining aspect.

Transcendental Meditation (or other scientifically researched mind training techniques) is an example of “technology of the consciousness”.

That’s it, some meditation technique? That’s your “technology of the consciousness”?

Opposites are simply the extreme manifestations of a one atomic self-state.

Oh you mean that indivisible “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into ‘opposing’ “aspects” just so you can combine them again into your “complex”. That’s only ‘extremely’ self-contradictory and contrived
Doron.

Direct perception is not a thought, but it is the foundation of thoughts, you are the one who needs a shrink here because your awareness is disconnected from its source, and gets only the differential state of thoughts, without their integral state. An extreme differential state between thought is known as Schizophrenia, where different groups of thoughts have their own personality. Excluded-Middle reasoning as one and only one thinking styles, actually base on extreme differentiation between opposites (where the middle is excluded).

So you think. That these thoughts might have occurred to you during some meditative technique does not make them any more than just your thoughts.

“resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty” is done under finite terms. Infinite terms are valued by fogs.

Again your “fog” has no value, other than to just your own thoughts and fantasies.

You do not understand the meaning of being an agent of ...

You do not understand the meaning of “ethical skills”.

The Man your posts become more and more pathetic. You can simply say that you have no answer to my question.

Well you do set a very low bar to try to crawl under. My suggestions still stand though.

You never re-searched your axioms. It is a good idea to that from time to time. Maybe if you really do that you will find that they have simpler foundations. But this re-reach is not for lazy or coward persons.

You still don’t understand the meaning and application of axioms, though those two words (“lazy" and "coward”) do seem to accurately describe your own inclinations towards research and, well, axioms.

 

[The Man]

And what are your consequences about develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms, by using your pragmatic approach?

My “consequences about develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms, by using" a "pragmatic approach”? Not sure that I have any, since the questions just doesn’t make any sense. In general, though, the consequences of something useful are often simply a result of its use.

Here:

Where? That quote says nothing about “Politics) as non self-made” let alone a “Force-majeure”.

Where extreme means that Politics is some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it.

The actual non-truncated quote…

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.

The “extreme” was yours Doron and specifically referred to your own genocidal extreme being both logically and ethically acceptable by your own “EEM”. If you want to consider politics “as non self-made” or a “Force-majeure”, well that is up to you, but if you try to pawn it off as something I have said or inferred you will simply fail, as usual.

EEM is about developing Ethics according universal principles that are not limited to any particular context.

You do understand that your particular ethics as “universal principles” would be your intended context, don’t you?

No, it reduces as much as possible results that derived from fears, exactly because it is not based on fragmented contexts that do not understand each other, and this misunderstanding is the habitat of fears.

Your “OM” and “EEM” certainly have not reduced your fears, nor do they exclude what it is that you fear (that ‘L value outcome’).

You simply understand Complexity only by your narrow context that is limited to Humankind. As a result you do not get Complexity by Ethics that is not limited to any particular context like Humankind, for example. Again The Man by your context dependent view, What You Is What You Get (WYIWYG), which is exactly your fragmented and context dependent view about Ethics.

Where have I said that “Complexity” is limited to “Humankind”? Ok so clearly “context” is another word Doron simply does not understand. Curious though as his assertions generally depend more upon what he does not say or write (his direct perception) than what he does.

"Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) and you The Man are tend to be pragmatist:

So after my cautioning against addressing some particular “philosophical stance” as opposed the persons own particular stance, you waste your time quoting some aspect of pragmatism?

People don’t often fit into neat categories exactly because Complexity is not limited to particular persons or context dependent frameworks.

No, just because they are different.

Your view about usefulness is limited to the current knowledge of a given notion, which has the tendency to reject any notion that can’t immediately valued by your current knowledge.

In other words, you have a very limited understanding of real Complexity, which does not obey to your immediate usefulness demands.

Nope, just self-consistency demands. It is that lack of self-consistency that makes your notions useless to anyone but you and your fantasies. Your own notions can’t even be “valued” by your own notions since you only get some “fog” by your own notions.

Again try doing some actual research and you will find history replete with self-consistent notions considered useless originally. Fractals are a good example. Considered a mere geometrical curiosity at first, but now used to design the antennas that make up and make useful a lot of the technology of our modern society.

 

[The Man]

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

Indeed, Apathia.

 

[doronshadmi]

It seems contradictory for you to not include the all natural operations in your system.

OM includes local-only agents as one of the natural operations of Complexity, that is based on fragmented cybernetic kernel, which are closed under automatic repetition of closed loops that are not aware of themselves, as clearly demonstrated by the representation of cybernetic kernels in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 .

Or is it less than and not an example of Complex, being only a tool created by a Complex?

The current mathematical science is a deductive-only and local-only use of real Complexity, which is not less that Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

As a result Technology is understood mostly in terms of automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves, but this is only a narrow view the concept of Technology, which by real Complexity is not only closed under automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves.

And would that not imply that arithmatic is not a complex?

Arithmetic at its local-only view is a limited state of real Complexity.
For example, only sums are valid under this limited framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

avoiding that ‘L value outcome’

avoiding that accurate ‘L value outcome’ is achieved only if the way to this avoidance is inseparable and ever developed, which actually prevents the summed value of L (by your limited framework The Man, also infinite added values has a final and accurate sum, where one of that sums is the final value of L).

So try taking an “open minded approach” when you are considering what you call “standard math”.

The notion of an accurate sum as a result if infinitely many added values, is an excellent example of a “closed minded approach”.

As I said opposites are linked in that they are, well, opposites.

In what way? What enables this Linkage?

Again an “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into two aspects (even opposites) is not “atomic” by your own “indivisible” meaning of “atomic”

You simply can’t understand Y (trunk/branches form), and force your branch-only notion on Y.

You seem rather preoccupied with ‘destruction’.

You are using ‘contradiction’ instead of ‘destruction’, but both have the same meaning in this case. You are a very poor shrink because you are not aware of your own use of concepts.

Again as you state above “linkage (communication)” so a “linkage”, even as binary opposites, is your “(communication)”.

The result of the linkage does not end at opposites-only linkage, as its done by your limited excluded middle black/white framework, that currently is the main tool of our developed (and therefore trivial) technologies.

As agian It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to.

Another example of your generalization problems. Excluded middle framework is not limited to Logics or Ethics.

It is your consideration of self-consistent and self-contradictory as both being valid that that gives your "OM" its, well, self-contradictory defining aspect.

The Man, your local-only reasoning is a exactly the reason of why OM is understood by you as self-contradictory.

That’s it, some meditation technique? That’s your “technology of the consciousness”?

One of the practical aspects that are researched by scientific methods. East and west are linked into a one comprehensive and useful framework, in order to develop the technology of the consciousness, where direct perception is a main property of this technology.

So you think. That these thoughts might have occurred to you during some meditative technique does not make them any more than just your thoughts.

The Man you are simply ignorant of direct perception.

Again your “fog” has no value, other than to just your own thoughts and fantasies.

You sum-only is a limited value.

You do not understand the meaning of “ethical skills”.

Your narrow view prevents from you to understand Ethics.

Well you do set a very low bar to try to crawl under. My suggestions still stand though.

The Man, you have no answer.

You still don’t understand the meaning and application of axioms,

You do not have the guts to re-search already agreed terms, like any dogmatic person.

 

[doronshadmi]

You do understand that your particular ethics as “universal principles” would be your intended context, don’t you?

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

Your “OM” and “EEM” certainly have not reduced your fears,

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.

No, just because they are different.

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.

Nope, just self-consistency demands.

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

In general, though, the consequences of something useful are often simply a result of its use.

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.

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

 

[doronshadmi]

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

Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.

 

[Apathia]

OM includes local-only agents as one of the natural operations of Complexity, that is based on fragmented cybernetic kernel, which are closed under automatic repetition of closed loops that are not aware of themselves, as clearly demonstrated by the representation of cybernetic kernels in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 .


The current mathematical science is a deductive-only and local-only use of real Complexity, which is not less that Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

As a result Technology is understood mostly in terms of automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves, but this is only a narrow view the concept of Technology, which by real Complexity is not only closed under automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves.


Arithmetic at its local-only view is a limited state of real Complexity.
For example, only sums are valid under this limited framework.

So bugs and smart appliances are the result of Non-Local/Local Linkage but operate mostly within the local only aspects of Complexity.
While we self-aware beings are of a complexity beyond any traditional, binary logic.

That's more what I thought I'd hear from you.

I still don't get the application of the cybernetic kernels.
I'm not well read in the field of Artificial Intelligence, but I do know that heuristic learning systems based on cybernetic loops have been created.
Some of which take on chess masters.
And all kinds of smart appliances based on "Fuzzy Logic" are in the market.
But none of these exhibit the kind of Non-Local Complexity of beings who carry around a self image they call "I" and can ponder what the heck that means.

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

I wonder if that really takes in the whole of human complex thinking, or just makes up a clever device that may be aware but not aware that it is aware.

 

[Apathia]

Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.

I agree with you that we are a part of an integrated whole in which observation and participation aren't separable.

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.

 

[doronshadmi]

I agree with you that we are a part of an integrated whole in which observation and participation aren't separable.

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.