"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.

[WWHP]

Caffeine? Nicotine? Opium? Coca? Betel?

Or how about alcohol?

DOH!

Pixy Mesa! Yes you are correct and I appreciate the correction. Don't know what I was thinking! See that's what happens when you post late at night after a few beers.

 

[WWHP]

Steve Beyer does such a wonderful job of approaching these things with far more brevity than I can muster. To those interested - and are confused by my communications on 'spirits', here is Steve Beyer's take, which addresses many points I was making but with an ease that did not afford mine.

'What are Spirits?'

http://www.singingtotheplants.com/2008/02/what-are-spirits/

 

[blobru]

Ok. I should point out here that Godel was a logician; so talking about Godel in terms of systems theory is speculation. It makes sense if the universe can be described as a computer (you had a link to a couple of physicists who argue that). If it can, then Godel (via Turing, who used his theorems to define computability) becomes relevant to discussions of how simple systems might create complexity in the physical world, not just the logical world. Because logic is about creating axiomatic systems; physics is about finding the one that fits reality.

First off, I want to say how nice it is to have to spend time with a comment so I can digest it. A real treat. Your an excellent communicator and I appreciate how comprehensive you appear to conceptualize and frame things. Respect. [Bubblefish does an Ali G]

Okay, I follow that, but a question I have, and the answer to this question to me is my big unknown. Does it matter the system of logic? Does this apply to ternary logical systems? That's where I am intrigued by Godel. What happens when Godel meets ternary? Anything interesting happen or is it the same old news?

When I get this answer, I may need to grill you on it a bit if you do not mind. Wiling to offer special prizes for ideas that assist my own transcendence

His Incompleteness Theorems apply to all axiomatic systems. Including ternary (three-valued) logics. Why? Well, the classic Godel proof uses a version of the liar paradox: "this sentence is false". When you evaluate a paradox, you get a contradiction: if "this sentence is false" is false, it's true; if "this sentence is false" is true, it's false. Let's say we add a third sentence value: true, false, and unknown. What does this do to the liar paradox? If "this sentence is false" is unknown, it's false (claiming to be false when it's really unknown); but if it's false, then it's true; and if it's true, it's false; and so on. So ternary axiomatic systems are as vulnerable as binary to Godel.

According to Godel, a [sufficiently complex axiomatic] system generates many statements that are provable within the system; however, it also generates some statements that are true (evaluated outside the system), but not provable (within the system).

Okay, this is directly what I am referring to in my model. To me, this is how I understand the relationship between bivalent and ternary logical systems.

To humanize this meaning a bit, to me it's summarized in a very old Hebrew saying, which I will paraphrase since I forget it's original incarnation; "Telling the truth to someone who is unable to comprehend it is the same thing as lying to them."

Does any of this make any sense what so ever to you?

Sure. In this case your middle value would be something like the "unknown" discussed above. The hearer doesn't know whether your proposition is true or false because he can't understand it (and if nobody, even the teller, understands it, it really is unknown; though that's no guarantee of deep truth: it may be wrong, or nonsense).

Now, as long as it's consistent (free of contradiction), one statement the system generates will say that it's consistent, but it won't be able to prove it (if it's inconsistent, otoh, it will be able to prove both that it's inconsistent and consistent). So, systems that tell the truth can't tell the truth (or lie) about themselves; whereas systems that lie can both tell the truth (admit they lie) and lie (swear they don't) about themselves! (Hardly seems fair, but that's logic). It's thanks to Godel's theorems we can see this paradox from outside the system, even distinguish true systems from false (inconsistent); we just can't evaluate it within the system (because to do so yields a contradiction).

Again, this rings true to me when I evaluate bivalent and ternary systems interacting with each other.

I hope I'm not completely lost here because how can I explain that your making such sense to me?

Logic is pretty dry stuff, but some of the results, like Godel Incompleteness, are handy metaphors that we can shape to our own sense and taste. Mindful we're doing poetry, and not logic, of course.

It may be implicit in the axioms (rules for generating statements) of the system if it's sufficiently complex (can number its statements). Not sure if that's what you mean.

I'm gonna phrase the question in my own language, you tell me how you roll with it?

You have a bivalent system [0/1] and a ternary system [0/1/2]. Does one emerge from the other and how can you tell which?

Mmm... not out of classical logic systems. Make them programs, throw in a genetic algorithm, you might see ternary logic evolved as a variation on binary. Not sure it would be superior, though. Ternary has one more value than binary logic, but fewer axioms. In a way, it's more flexible (about truth), but less powerful (for proof).

Umm, well... even as I may be stretching Godel's wings a little [a lot?] too far with the systems theory talk, you may be trying to fit him into too narrow a pigeonhole (re your idea of dialectical, transcendent truth). I think that's my fault for using similar language to engage the concepts and make the grand argument. So warning: they may sound similar, but they're not necessarily the same.

Oh, I definitely see that they are not the same, and I definitely see now that they are similar (was insecure about that). Now that they are similar, I want to know or define what they share in common for them to be similar. That is the question!

I don't have much of an answer, I'm afraid. Maybe a joke?

Godel Incompleteness shows, among other things, that there is meaning in the system that can only be evaluated outside the system. I think that's a nice metaphor for transcendence. Zen teaches a third value between yes and no: mu. A student who always expects complete answers, gets a mu answer. Or a bamboo stick to the head (same thing). In theory, by finally accepting incompleteness he transcends it. But in practice, he often just ends up with a sore head.

Maybe a cat.

How about a gecko? (where is the appropriate smiley when you need it?)

He'd freeze his geck off.

 

[AvalonXQ]

His Incompleteness Theorems apply to all axiomatic systems. Including ternary (three-valued) logics. Why? Well, the classic Godel proof uses a version of the liar paradox: "this sentence is false". When you evaluate a paradox, you get a contradiction: if "this sentence is false" is false, it's true; if "this sentence is false" is true, it's false. Let's say we add a third sentence value: true, false, and unknown. What does this do to the liar paradox? If "this sentence is false" is unknown, it's false (claiming to be false when it's really unknown); but if it's false, then it's true; and if it's true, it's false; and so on. So ternary axiomatic systems are as vulnerable as binary to Godel.

Wait, so the ternary logical system assumes that (X is unknown) --> ~(X is false) AND ~(X is true)? Why is this required? Can't we have a system where (X is unknown) doesn't imply this?

 

[blobru]

Wait, so the ternary logical system assumes that (X is unknown) --> ~(X is false) AND ~(X is true)? Why is this required? Can't we have a system where (X is unknown) doesn't imply this?

Well, if "X is unknown" can take on the values true or false, then it's really just a variable. Whenever we encounter "X is unknown", we work it out twice: once assuming X is true, once assuming X is false. So there's no real difference from binary logic, unless we make the ternary value exclusive of true and false.

However, the "unknown" label's kind of confusing (as if the "unknown" state were temporary). It's more like "unknowable" (but you could call it "mu", or "cow", "mr. myxlplyx", whatever). And there are so-called paraconsistent logics (sort of workarounds for Godel Incompleteness) which allow for overlap between true and false: statements that are both true and false having a distinct truth value, for example.

 

[WWHP]

@blubro - this is great stuff. Don't have much time right now, but just sent you a PM.

 

[WWHP]

And there are so-called paraconsistent logics (sort of workarounds for Godel Incompleteness) which allow for overlap between true and false: statements that are both true and false having a distinct truth value, for example.

this is more aligned with what I am getting at More later.

 

[WWHP]

Ahem....Pixy Mesa and co

Our ability to think has long been considered central to what makes us human. Now research suggests that our bodies and their relationship with the environment govern even our most abstract thoughts. This includes thinking up random numbers or deciding whether to recount positive or negative experiences.

"Advocates of traditional accounts of cognition would be surprised," says Tobias Loetscher at the University of Melbourne in Parkville, Australia. "They generally consider human reasoning to involve abstract cognitive processes devoid of any connection to body or space."

Until recently, the assumption has been that our bodies contribute only to our most basic interactions with the environment, namely sensory and motor processes. The new results suggest that our bodies are also exploited to produce abstract thought, and that even seemingly inconsequential activities have the power to influence our thinking.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-thinking.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

 

[Brainache]

Ahem....Pixy Mesa and co



http://www.newscientist.com/article...-thinking.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Doesn't seem too different to Cognitive Behaviour Therapy to me. They don't appear to be saying that the body is thinking independently of the brain, just that the brain and body are part of an integrated system.

I thought this bit was interesting:

Lakoff says that if intelligent aliens exist, they may have very different bodies and therefore have developed very different abstract thought - even perhaps a different mathematical system. "People assume that mathematics is objective and that everybody will have the same math," says Lakoff. "But there is no reason to believe that."

I'd start a thread in the science and maths forum, but those guys scare me...

 

[Nick227]

Ahem....Pixy Mesa and co



http://www.newscientist.com/article...-thinking.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

The article is reinforcing materialism. Thinking is a physical process.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

It's George Lakoff, so take it with a pound of salt. And what he said about mathematics is simply retarded.

But the basic idea that we construct connections between the abstract and the concrete? Well, duh.

 

[WWHP]

Can I suggest something, BF? Maybe if you didn't try to categorise me and others so much and just stayed with what we're saying. What do you think?

My apologies then sir - it was meant as bar stool chatter, and I do try to stay with the ideas as you present them as well. No more references to your person in that regard in this discussion, promise.

Something I feel I have been trying to point out to you pretty much throughout this thread is that the whole shamanic perspective is flawed. Believing yourself to be a self in need of healing is only one of the perspectives materialism affords. If you understand the true nature of the self, on a personal level, the truth about "healing" is laid bare. But because you can't grasp materialism, at least to the point where you can see the so-called "hard problem" for what it truly is, you can't grasp just what I'm talking about. With all your judgments and categorising, BF, you completely overlook what is right in front of you.

Nick

again Nick, I can only evaluate 'materialism' as you present it, not as you believe it to be.

 

[WWHP]

Sure. In this case your middle value would be something like the "unknown" discussed above. The hearer doesn't know whether your proposition is true or false because he can't understand it (and if nobody, even the teller, understands it, it really is unknown; though that's no guarantee of deep truth: it may be wrong, or nonsense).

this is a little more complex than that. It's not that the hearer does not just understand it, it's that he thinks he understands it but rather is analyzing his own truth value, his own projection, his own concept - of what it means. As a short example, someone says 'Health Care" and another hears "Nazi Party".

Logic is pretty dry stuff, but some of the results, like Godel Incompleteness, are handy metaphors that we can shape to our own sense and taste. Mindful we're doing poetry, and not logic, of course.

Okay, well this is helpful, I guess what I was doing was using Godel metaphorically, and hoping or assuming there was some proof that would cement what I was talking about. I won't do that any more!

Mmm... not out of classical logic systems. Make them programs, throw in a genetic algorithm, you might see ternary logic evolved as a variation on binary. Not sure it would be superior, though. Ternary has one more value than binary logic, but fewer axioms. In a way, it's more flexible (about truth), but less powerful (for proof).

My interest and work is not in logical systems proper, but conceptual and behaviorial systems (involving social media, like wikis) amongst people. Most of us frame things in bivalency and dualism to conceptualize something - and when a 'ternary' concept comes into the 'picture' - well refer to that Hebrew saying I was referring to. It seems marvelously analogous to Godel to my point of view.

So, some but not alls bivalent concepts cannot frame a ternary concept, but a ternary concept can frame a bivalent one. Ternary is 'outside' the bivalent framework so this makes sense to me. Any corrections you have here are helpful.

I don't have much of an answer, I'm afraid. Maybe a joke?

hah! hoping you mean they share a joke in common, not that you have a joke about where they are similar!

Godel Incompleteness shows, among other things, that there is meaning in the system that can only be evaluated outside the system.

ternary concepts can allow for bivalent operations and meaning, where as bivalent concepts can't return the favor to ternary, and produce contradictions in discussion - that's how this translates in my world.

I think that's a nice metaphor for transcendence. Zen teaches a third value between yes and no: mu. A student who always expects complete answers, gets a mu answer. Or a bamboo stick to the head (same thing). In theory, by finally accepting incompleteness he transcends it. But in practice, he often just ends up with a sore head.

Douglas Hofstadter, is that you? (personal categorization meant for tickles,not evaluations

Which reminds me, Douglas Hofstadter I can understand, not sure how his ideas about consciousness fit into other views here. He seems very skeptical about the many things that I seem skeptical about. Plus he's not a futurist and I am, so I am hoping to bridge this gap. I love Douglas's ideas, and reading his books are like getting advanced math tutorials from a zen master to me.

He'd freeze his geck off.

where are you getting these emoticons!?!?!

 

[WWHP]

The article is reinforcing materialism. Thinking is a physical process.

Nick

You're not considering my ideas fully. I am not, nor have I ever said or suggested, that thinking was not a physical process. It's the experience of thinking, and the experience of the ideas that arise (maybe from?) thinking - that I am referring to.

And this article was posted to highlight more what I was suggesting to Pixy Mesa, that 'attention' happens NOT just in the brain, but in the whole body. Our entire being is computational, not just the brain. Or that is my suggestion and what makes sense to me based on over 15 years experience and study on the matter.

 

[WWHP]

I thought this bit was interesting: Lakoff says that if intelligent aliens exist, they may have very different bodies and therefore have developed very different abstract thought - even perhaps a different mathematical system. "People assume that mathematics is objective and that everybody will have the same math," says Lakoff. "But there is no reason to believe that."
.

lol...Plants perhaps?

 

[WWHP]

And there are so-called paraconsistent logics (sort of workarounds for Godel Incompleteness) which allow for overlap between true and false: statements that are both true and false having a distinct truth value, for example.

What I believe based on my work on the matter (and my rock star neuro scientist friend suggested to me that it's supported in brain research) is that these values, true, false, and (any) third value are implanted in our minds, brains at very deep structures. We have no choice but to view the world in these three frameworks, they are meta structures. Our frameworks are ternary in nature.

True and False then take on very concrete meanings (false can actually be defined without referring to it's opposite, True), but the third value is, and I repeat IS with a capitol IS - is BOTH of them AT ONCE. Analytically, this can be called 'unknown' - but I think 'MYSTERY' is a better term. There exists a dynamic that simply is BOTH true and false at once and simultaneously, with neither of them dominant.

 

[WWHP]

I'll continue to lurk a little and comment here and there if that's all-right BF. I've noticed you kind of like saying, "I want to continue talking to this person, but not that person," and I can respect that.

Hey trent - it's really just a time thing (sometimes it's a thread organization thing) - running a business and being a poppa means I don't have time for these sorts of things like I used to. It's been a few years since I had one of these online discussions, and the last one took 9 months! (someone linked to it in this thread)

But please keep commenting and posting by all means.

 

[WWHP]

Heh, I have two leopard geckos and two cats. I ain't got me no fish tho, bubble or otherwise.

I got a leopard gecko myself, 1 lizard and 1 cat - my son loves reptiles and wants to be a 'reptile' man when he grows up (as well as a teacher and a daddy

 

[WWHP]

Er. maybe not such a great idea. However, Topamax is by far the best anticonvulsant for severe childhood epilepsy, so a lot of children HAVE been exposed for long periods of time to a medication that has at least one of the same major effects as ayahuasca (serotonin agonism as the 5HT2A receptor.) Actually, topiramate is the best all-around AE drug, hands down. Nothing works as well. But the side effects can be appalling (kidney functioning-related,mostly) so it's not a first-line med.

not sure if that would be the same thing? there's more to the mixture so to speak I would imagine than an isolated compound.

Want to hear a funny story? I read this in the book 'The Jaguar that Roams the Mind'. Forget some of the exact details, but here it goes. There was a western chemist (or someone like that) who was in the Amazon, and a curandero showed him a plant medicine that had profound healing effects. The man asked him if he could take samples back to his country to analyze, and the shaman agreed. The man took the plant back, had it analyzed and isolated - but the medicine did not work! He went back to the curandero and grilled him why it didn't work, and the curandero said "You have to sing to it."

I read some of those weird ayahuasca experiences... not exactly what I'd call controlled studies, but I will say, for whatever it's worth, that in this anecdotal context, at least, the people who had psychological problems after taking it certainly seemed as if they would have had them anyway.

thank you for considering that!

 

[Nick227]

You're not considering my ideas fully. I am not, nor have I ever said or suggested, that thinking was not a physical process. It's the experience of thinking, and the experience of the ideas that arise (maybe from?) thinking - that I am referring to.

OK. With the caveat that it's actually thinking that creates experience.

And this article was posted to highlight more what I was suggesting to Pixy Mesa, that 'attention' happens NOT just in the brain, but in the whole body. Our entire being is computational, not just the brain. Or that is my suggestion and what makes sense to me based on over 15 years experience and study on the matter.

I agree in one sense, but disagree in another. Conscious attention does appear to only take place in a region of the brain, though of course what is attended to, including the body, is not in the brain. I would agree that our entire body is computational.

Nick