• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

Organism is both whole AND parts (individuals).
Click to expand...
:confused:

That was Kawasaki and not Organism.

Philosophy of Organism or Organic Realism is how Alfred North Whitehead
described his metaphysics. It is now known as process philosophy.

Central to this school is the idea of concrescence. Concrescence means
growing together (com/con from Latin for "together", crescence from Latin
crescere/cret- grow), the present is given by a consense of subjective
forms. We are multiple individuals, but there are also multiple individual
agents of consciousness operant in the construction of the given. Marvin
Minsky calls this the "society of mind" in his book Society of Mind.

Whitehead's "subjective forms" complement "eternal objects" in his
metaphysical system; eternal objects being entities not unlike Plato's
archetypal Forms. In Process and Reality, Whitehead proposes that his 'organic realism' be used in place of classical materialism.
Click to expand...
Shadmi proposes that his "Organic Mathematics" be used in place of
classical abacus.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
As a result he can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7261813&postcount=15615 because he has a problem with sharp vertices.
Click to expand...
If I had any problem with sharp vertices I wouldn't have designed the sharp-wheeled Kawasaki. The problem lies elsewhere, kinda below.
If organic awareness is fully developed, any given expression is actually an organ of a one organism, where this actuality expresses itself by reinforcing the expressions as a one simple AND non-trivial ever developed realm.
Click to expand...
You argue organs but are unwilling to rearrange your name from DORON to DONOR. Do some changing and then I do some grasping.

Btw, you never get a flat with that Kawasaki, coz the wheels are sharp objects by themselves.

dull mind is to O as sharp mind is to V
one and one is two and one in one is three
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man, I can air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics by totally ignore your "understanding of robotics and control systems".
Click to expand...

I suspect you can "air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics" by totally ignoring "Cybernetic and Robotics" as well (if your history has shown us anything). By all means, please, show my suspicion (and your history) to be wrong.

doronshadmi said:
Instead of doing it in the easy way, I prefer to do it by not ignore your understanding of this subject.

I thing that your view is important exactly because you actually work in that field of science.
Click to expand...

"easy way"? I think you will find it is not as easy as you might like to perceive. Now me laying out a road map for you, that would be an easier way for you. Not to worry I certainly won't ignore my "understanding of this subject", so have at it and "air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics". If you can and actually want to.


doronshadmi said:
So please share with the posters of this thread your view about the current and future development of Robotics.
Click to expand...

Nope, again “Please share with the posters of this thread” any real results you’ve obtained using your “OM”.

If you think relevance to robotics can do that for you, then by all means, please, be my guest.

doronshadmi said:
I gave exact answers to these subjects. You insisted to use a reasoning (context-dependent-only reasoning) that is not sufficient in order to understand my answers that are derived from the association of both cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning, which provide a one organic framework, where both cross-contexts AND context-dependent reasoning reinforce each other, in order to provide non-destructive results.
Click to expand...

So you're claiming that your "exact answers to these subjects" are not understandable even just in the context of those "subjects"? That would make them "anything but" "exact answers to these subjects". Please try again, your prattling above only demonstrates that you do not understand "these subjects" let alone your professed " exact answers". Evidently you just don't know this or you would not be trying to claim some other context(s) non-destructively reinforces your demonstrably wrong answers (you see that would just make them even more wrong). Apparently what you also don't understand is the subject of reinforcement (destructive reinforcement of a negative makes it more positive and constrictive reinforcement of a negative just makes it more negative).

doronshadmi said:
I do not think that you get yourself as a weak poster, that easily influenced by "common tactic of cold readers and huckster".
Click to expand...

Which is why I won't fall for it, no matter how long you keep trying. It's your "OM" Doron and your claim of relevance to "Cybernetic and Robotics" so the onus is entirely upon you to demonstrate that relevance and it is not incumbent on anyone to give you the "easy way" you evidently so desperately want.

doronshadmi said:
But maybe I make a mistake about this issue, and you actually afraid to air your view about a given subject, in order to not be exposed to other notions that do not fit to your current notions of a given subject.

Do I make such a mistake about you?
Click to expand...

Well you've obviously made a serious mistake about me if you think suggesting I might be "afraid" is going to get you anything or anywhere.

doronshadmi said:
Do you actually claim that the fact that Robotics "holds" your "current employment" do not give you any privilege to air your view about the current and future development of Robotics?
Click to expand...

Nope, again the claim was made quite clear and here it is again...

"...what I'm saying, as I and many have before, is that the encumbrance is specifically upon you and you alone to display your professed relevance of your "OM" to that or any topic. A task you have consistently failed at. Got that bijection of a set with its power set yet or a definition of your predecessor and successor without ordering? How about that definition of your “magnitude of existence” independent of cardinality or the difference between increasing and decreasing with “no past (before) and no future (after)”?"

Again simply claiming that your "exact answers to these subjects" can't be understood just in the context of those subjects means that they are irrelevant to "these subjects" and that context making them in no way "exact answers to these subjects" and directly attesting to the fact that they are not " answers to these subjects".



And once again you have obviously made a serious mistake about me if you think appealing to me having some kind of " privilege" is going to work for you.
 
A circle is a set of points which are all a certain distance from a fixed point known as the centre.
Click to expand...
( http://www.mathsrevision.net/gcse/pages.php?page=13 )

A circle is a closed 1-dimensional element which is curved w.r.t a given 0-dimensional element according to a certain distance > 0.

If there are points along a circle, then they are located w.r.t a given 0-dimensional element according to a certain distance > 0.
 
The Man said:
Again simply claiming that your "exact answers to these subjects" can't be understood just in the context of those subjects means that they are irrelevant to "these subjects" and that context making them in no way "exact answers to these subjects" and directly attesting to the fact that they are not " answers to these subjects".
Click to expand...
Well again, your context-dependent-only reasoning airs it blind view about a reasoning that is both Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent reasoning, simply because you get everything (including Cross-contexts reasoning) only in terms of Context-dependent reasoning.

I made a serious mistake by giving you the credit of being afraid to air your view about current and future development of Robotics. A person that has no view about a given subject is simply blind to that subject.

Being afraid of X needs at least some awareness of X which helps to avoid destructive use of X, but in your case this awareness does not exist.

So please forgive me by giving you a credit that you don't deserve.

-----------------------------------------------------

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of Robotics.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of Robotics has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of Robotics, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594
 
doronshadmi said:
( http://www.mathsrevision.net/gcse/pages.php?page=13 )

A circle is a closed 1-dimensional element which is curved w.r.t a given 0-dimensional element according to a certain distance > 0.

If there are points along a circle, then they are located w.r.t a given 0-dimensional element according to a certain distance > 0.
Click to expand...

The circle has other property . . .

reshape.png
 
doronshadmi said:
I made a serious mistake by giving you the credit of being afraid to air your view about current and future development of Robotics. A person that has no view about a given subject is simply blind to that subject.
Click to expand...
You start your sermon with a guesswork regarding the reason for The Man not complying with your request that concerns robotics, but then you conclude that he doesn't actually have any view -- not that he is "afraid" to voice it. :confused:

So you are saying that parts are inseparable from the whole right? Well, let's see...
SNOOOOOOPYYYYY! Com'ere, boy!
 
epix said:
The circle has other property . . .
Click to expand...

In this case you demonstrate homeomorphism between forms, which are based on the co-existence of 0-dimensional spaces, 1-dimensional spaces and 2-dimensional space.

But still the organic notion is used in order to avoid such forms as components of destructive technology.
 
epix said:
You start your sermon with a guesswork regarding the reason for The Man not complying with your request that concerns robotics, but then you conclude that he doesn't actually have any view -- not that he is "afraid" to voice it. :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes, this is my conclusion, and it is opened to criticism by The Man or any other poster.

epix said:
So you are saying that parts are inseparable from the whole right?
Click to expand...

I claim that the whole is not a sum of parts under whole/parts co-existence.

My claim is demonstrated by the open-space version of Hilbert's Hotel: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7205990&postcount=15478 .
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes, this is my conclusion, and it is opened to criticism by The Man or any other poster.



I claim that the whole is not a sum of parts under whole/parts co-existence.

My claim is demonstrated by the open-space version of Hilbert's Hotel: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7205990&postcount=15478 .
Click to expand...
This version of Hilbert's hotel is the precise description of any arbitrary part of the real-line, which is not less than co-existence of infinity many 0-dim spaces that can't fully fill (or completely cover) Hilbert's hotel 1-dim space room.
Click to expand...
You used insufficient comparatives to express your dim idea but called your description "precise."

You just ignore whatever can be ignored. Cantor proved the uncountability of R in such a way that a normal person cannot ask for further explanation. You don't measure points -- they don't have any dimension -- but you can count some of them when they become visible as a location where two lines intersect, for example. That's essential in geometry.

Hilbert's hotel is an outdated paradox.
 
epix said:
Cantor proved the uncountability of R in such a way that a normal person cannot ask for further explanation.
Click to expand...
No he didn't simply because there is no such a thing like a complete infinite collection, which is a fact that your context-dependent-only reasoning can't comprehend.

epix said:
You don't measure points -- they don't have any dimension -- but you can count some of them when they become visible as a location where two lines intersect, for example. That's essential in geometry.
Click to expand...
It is essential that no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of 1-dimensional space under co-existence.

epix said:
Hilbert's hotel is an outdated paradox.
Click to expand...
Hilbert's hotel open space version is not a paradox, it is the simple fact that no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of 1-dimensional space under co-existence.

epix, your context-dependent-only reasoning can't deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No he didn't simply because there is no such a thing like a complete infinite collection, which is a fact that your context-dependent-only reasoning can't comprehend.
Click to expand...
Cantor never mentioned any "complete infinite collection." That's your term that can thank for its existence to your inability to grasp the concept of infinite sets.

It is essential that no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of 1-dimensional space under co-existence.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between measurement and counting.

Hilbert's hotel open space version is not a paradox, it is the simple fact that no amount of 0-dimensional spaces has the magnitude of 1-dimensional space under co-existence.
Click to expand...

Look once again at what I wrote
Hilbert's hotel is an outdated paradox.
Click to expand...
and tell me where you see any reference to an "open space version."

epix, your context-dependent-only reasoning can't deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207963&postcount=15484 .
Click to expand...
Your context-independent-only reasoning causes you to consider infinity also in terms of MPH, which delivers your phantasmagorical conclusions later.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
For The Man and other posters:

A = (that has no predecessor) AND (that has no successor)

B = (that has no successor) AND (that has no predecessor)

((A AND B) is the same as (B AND A)) is unordered.

((A AND B) is different than (B AND A)) is ordered.
 
doronshadmi said:
Well again, your context-dependent-only reasoning airs it blind view about a reasoning that is both Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent reasoning, simply because you get everything (including Cross-contexts reasoning) only in terms of Context-dependent reasoning.

I made a serious mistake by giving you the credit of being afraid to air your view about current and future development of Robotics. A person that has no view about a given subject is simply blind to that subject.

Being afraid of X needs at least some awareness of X which helps to avoid destructive use of X, but in your case this awareness does not exist.

So please forgive me by giving you a credit that you don't deserve.
Click to expand...

Nope, since you have been advised many times before to stop simply tying just to posit some aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others, your continuation of such is entirely deliberate. So just keep your “credit” to yourself and you won’t have to ask for forgiveness form anyone but yourself.






doronshadmi said:
-----------------------------------------------------

Let us start by at least two aspects that, in my opinion, are important to current and future development of Robotics.

In my opinion a responsible current and future development of Robotics has to carefully define the non-trivial dynamic balance between greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them.

Responsibility is developed only if we express our awareness abilities by non-destructive ways, such that any scientific development is derived from
the non-subjective state of mind, which is the natural source of any possible expression, including our mental and physical realm.

So in order to wisely use Cybernetics responsibly in the field of Robotics, we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects.

This is exactly the aim of Organic Mathematics, as briefly illustrated, for example, in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594
Click to expand...

See, I as I suspected, you could "air OM's view about Cybernetic and Robotics" by totally ignoring "Cybernetic and Robotics".

So no real results, just some esoteric goals, after, what, 20 years at it now, how unfortunate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom