Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 16:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self-reference logics. Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were stable illusions does not account for the experienced presence of sensory-motor participation. The arithmetic systems are not the stable illusions. They only support the person who has such stable illusions. Why would a person have 'illusions'? What are they made of? They are the internal view of person when supported by infinities of computations, which exists arithmetically. They are not made of something, they are computer semantical fixed points, to be short. I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could be interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority avoidance value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an experienced 'feeling'. The explanation is provided by the difference of logic between Bp and Bp p. It works very well, including the non communicability of the qualia, the feeling that our soul is related to our body and bodies in general, etc. I'm not talking about the 'feeling *that* (anything)' - I am talking about feeling period, and its primordial influence independent of all B, Bp, or p. They are independent of the theories of course, like both matter and energy does not depend on the string E = mc^2. But it is not because we theorize something that it disappears. The relation between p, Bp, Bp p, Bp Dt p (feeling) are just unavoidable arithmetical truth. The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant quality of the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it. In fact, there are techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted by subcutaneous microwave stimulation which does not substantially damage tissue. The torture is achieved through manipulation of the 'stable illusion' of experienced pain alone. *that* should be illegal. I agree, although that will probably make it only more exciting for them to use it. The frontier of freedom is when you harm the freedom of the others. My point though is that this pain is not logical. There's nothing Doxastic about it. It just hurts so much that you'll do anything to make it stop. There is no programmatic equivalent. There is. Do anything to survive. Nothing that I do to a robot will make it jump out of a window in order to avoid, unless I specifically instruct it to jump out of the window for no logical reason. Because it is not (yet) in our interest to have a robot doing anything for surviving, but Mars Rover is a good respectable logical ancestors. While the function of torture to elicit information can be mapped out logically, the logic is built upon an unexamined assumption that pain and feeling simply arise as some kind of useless decoration. Why? Torturers know very well how the effect is unpleasant for the victim. That's what I'm saying - you assume that there is a such thing as 'unpleasant'. Yes. In the theory, losing self-referential correctness is a good candidate for being unpleasant for a machine programmed to survive by all means. At least in the short term. Pain is body's protection. There is no such thing as unpleasant for a computer, there is only off and on, and off, off, on, and off, on, off... Arithmetical relation are full of chaos and critical states. You can't reduce it to some level, from inside. It only
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Friday, January 25, 2013 3:45:35 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jan 2013, at 18:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 16:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bewrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self-reference logics. Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were stable illusions does not account for the experienced presence of sensory-motor participation. The arithmetic systems are not the stable illusions. They only support the person who has such stable illusions. Why would a person have 'illusions'? What are they made of? They are the internal view of person when supported by infinities of computations, which exists arithmetically. They are not made of something, they are computer semantical fixed points, to be short. Why would semantical fixed points have an 'experience' associated with them, and why would that experience have a 'personal' quality? I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could be interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority avoidance value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an experienced 'feeling'. The explanation is provided by the difference of logic between Bp and Bp p. It works very well, including the non communicability of the qualia, the feeling that our soul is related to our body and bodies in general, etc. I'm not talking about the 'feeling *that* (anything)' - I am talking about feeling period, and its primordial influence independent of all B, Bp, or p. They are independent of the theories of course, like both matter and energy does not depend on the string E = mc^2. But it is not because we theorize something that it disappears. The relation between p, Bp, Bp p, Bp Dt p (feeling) are just unavoidable arithmetical truth. But these relations don't refer to feelings, they refer only to information states associated with one facet of the tip of the iceberg of feeling. B, D, t, p are a doxastic extraction not of feeling or experience on their actual terms but a grammatical schema of a depersonalized behaviorism. It is the formalized absence of feeling inferred logically as engine of potential programmatic outcomes. Calling it feeling is the very embodiment of the pathetic fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant quality of the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it. In fact, there are techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted by subcutaneous microwave stimulation which does not substantially damage tissue. The torture is achieved through manipulation of the 'stable illusion' of experienced pain alone. *that* should be illegal. I agree, although that will probably make it only more exciting for them to use it. The frontier of freedom is when you harm the freedom of the others. Mathematically interesting actually. My point though is that this pain is not logical. There's nothing Doxastic about it. It just hurts so much that you'll do anything to make it stop. There is no programmatic equivalent. There is. Do anything to survive. But that can be generated in many ways other than pain, or no way at all. Simply script it. 'Do anything to digest'. 'Do anything to grow'. Nothing that I do to a robot will make it jump out of a window in order to avoid, unless I specifically instruct it to jump out of the window for no logical reason. Because it is not (yet) in our interest
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:50:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 16:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bewrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self-reference logics. Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were stable illusions does not account for the experienced presence of sensory-motor participation. The arithmetic systems are not the stable illusions. They only support the person who has such stable illusions. Why would a person have 'illusions'? What are they made of? I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could be interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority avoidance value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an experienced 'feeling'. The explanation is provided by the difference of logic between Bp and Bp p. It works very well, including the non communicability of the qualia, the feeling that our soul is related to our body and bodies in general, etc. I'm not talking about the 'feeling *that* (anything)' - I am talking about feeling period, and its primordial influence independent of all B, Bp, or p. The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant quality of the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it. In fact, there are techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted by subcutaneous microwave stimulation which does not substantially damage tissue. The torture is achieved through manipulation of the 'stable illusion' of experienced pain alone. *that* should be illegal. I agree, although that will probably make it only more exciting for them to use it. My point though is that this pain is not logical. There's nothing Doxastic about it. It just hurts so much that you'll do anything to make it stop. There is no programmatic equivalent. Nothing that I do to a robot will make it jump out of a window in order to avoid, unless I specifically instruct it to jump out of the window for no logical reason. While the function of torture to elicit information can be mapped out logically, the logic is built upon an unexamined assumption that pain and feeling simply arise as some kind of useless decoration. Why? Torturers know very well how the effect is unpleasant for the victim. That's what I'm saying - you assume that there is a such thing as 'unpleasant'. There is no such thing as unpleasant for a computer, there is only off and on, and off, off, on, and off, on, off... It only seems to work retrospectively when we take perception and participation for granted. If we look at it prospectively instead, we see that a universe founded on logic has no possibility of developing perception or participation, Universe are not founded on logics. Even arithmetic is not founded on logic. You talk like a 19th century logician. Logicism has failed since, even for numbers and machines. The fact that you seem unaware of this might explain your prejudices on machines and numbers. Ok, what is arithmetic founded on? as it already includes in its axioms an assumption of quantitative sense. Comp is mainly an assumption that some quantitative relation can support qualitative relations locally. But you cannot indentify them, as they obey different logic, like Bp and Bp p, for example. The quality appears thanks to the reference to truth (a non formalizable notion). I don't disagree that quality likely relates to truth association, but truth association is not necessary or sufficient to explain its appearance. I would say that even truth is incorrect - qualia is experience of
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 23 Jan 2013, at 23:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. OK. You might still look a little bit like assuming some physical reality, which cannot be done if we want extract a theory of both quanta and qualia. It can be done in the meta-theory, but not in the theory itself. The terming quantum mind has (bad, imo) connotations related to the misuse (I think) of QM in cognition, like assuming consciousness reduces the wave packet. Although there is arguably a first person indeterminacy in QM (without collapse), it should be recovered from the arithmetical (or comp) first person indeterminacy (if my UDA point is without flaw). Bruno Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 23:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. OK. You might still look a little bit like assuming some physical reality, which cannot be done if we want extract a theory of both quanta and qualia. It can be done in the meta-theory, but not in the theory itself. The terming quantum mind has (bad, imo) connotations related to the misuse (I think) of QM in cognition, like assuming consciousness reduces the wave packet. Although there is arguably a first person indeterminacy in QM (without collapse), it should be recovered from the arithmetical (or comp) first person indeterminacy (if my UDA point is without flaw). Bruno Well now that gets us back to my original question, is it possible that arithmetics created matter in the beginning, whatever that means, and that matter evolved according to arithmetic predictions since then (so to speak as time may not exist)? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:31:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 23:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. OK. You might still look a little bit like assuming some physical reality, which cannot be done if we want extract a theory of both quanta and qualia. It can be done in the meta-theory, but not in the theory itself. The terming quantum mind has (bad, imo) connotations related to the misuse (I think) of QM in cognition, like assuming consciousness reduces the wave packet. Although there is arguably a first person indeterminacy in QM (without collapse), it should be recovered from the arithmetical (or comp) first person indeterminacy (if my UDA point is without flaw). Bruno Well now that gets us back to my original question, is it possible that arithmetics created matter in the beginning, whatever that means, and that matter evolved according to arithmetic predictions since then (so to speak as time may not exist)? Couldn't we substitute anything for matter? How is it falsifiable? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bTcZo_xh380J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:31:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Jan 2013, at 23:50, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. OK. You might still look a little bit like assuming some physical reality, which cannot be done if we want extract a theory of both quanta and qualia. It can be done in the meta-theory, but not in the theory itself. The terming quantum mind has (bad, imo) connotations related to the misuse (I think) of QM in cognition, like assuming consciousness reduces the wave packet. Although there is arguably a first person indeterminacy in QM (without collapse), it should be recovered from the arithmetical (or comp) first person indeterminacy (if my UDA point is without flaw). Bruno Well now that gets us back to my original question, is it possible that arithmetics created matter in the beginning, whatever that means, and that matter evolved according to arithmetic predictions since then (so to speak as time may not exist)? Couldn't we substitute anything for matter? How is it falsifiable? Of course, but we know that matter exists. Perhaps force and energy or even consciousness should be included along with the original creation of matter. I do not think it is falsifiable, that arithmetics created matter. But Bruno seems to think that it is. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/bTcZo_xh380J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:44, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? I am still unsure what you mean by quantum mind. If by quantum you mean the usual quantum mechanics, it should appear as the natural view of arithmetic (numberland, computerland) seen from inside. You can say that mind and matter exist as a view of the (totally atemporal and aspatial) number reality. It is time itself which appears, in a non tempral sense, but a logical sense, from the elementary number relation. As amazing it might seem, comp makes really a theory like x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x or like ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) into authentical (and equivalent) theories of everything (mind, force and stuff). The rest are definition and theorems. Those theories are complete and even non completeable. If string theory is the correct physics, then it has to be derived from the relation above. And I can explain that we get more, as we will get the non communicable part of truth too (the qualia). Normally we will go through some steps of this on FOAR. On this list, I have explained many things, but the list is too voluminous to search. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:44, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? I am still unsure what you mean by quantum mind. If by quantum you mean the usual quantum mechanics, it should appear as the natural view of arithmetic (numberland, computerland) seen from inside. You can say that mind and matter exist as a view of the (totally atemporal and aspatial) number reality. It is time itself which appears, in a non tempral sense, but a logical sense, from the elementary number relation. As amazing it might seem, comp makes really a theory like x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x or like ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) into authentical (and equivalent) theories of everything (mind, force and stuff). The rest are definition and theorems. Those theories are complete and even non completeable. If string theory is the correct physics, then it has to be derived from the relation above. And I can explain that we get more, as we will get the non communicable part of truth too (the qualia). Normally we will go through some steps of this on FOAR. On this list, I have explained many things, but the list is too voluminous to search. Bruno It seems that you have avoided my question by questioning what I mean by quantum mind. So let me rephrase it. Could arithmetics produce matter once and for all a long time ago? Or must the illusion of matter be constantly reinforced by arithmetics? Richard http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:54:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, This video lecture series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjABUhyu6dwdoes a good job showing how a psychiatrist, Niall McLaren, argues toward a dual aspect theory. I recomend his books: http://www.niallmclaren.com/bibliography Nice. I watched the series and took some notes (and sent them off to him also). I like that he clearly sees the limitations of the other approaches, but he does not yet see the problems with 'information' and the 'semantic realm'. He is modeling experience in space rather than through time. I would dispute that and say that nothing emerges from neuronal function except more neuronal function. Personal meaning is instead recovered as an experiential recapitulation of higher and lower levels (super-personal and sub-personal) of experience since experience is primitive and personal. His view mistakes the difference between one level of impersonal phenomena (form, matter) and another impersonal level (function, logic) for the difference between personal [presentations (representations)] and impersonal [representations (presentations)]* He overlooks the same issue all the way down the line: 2. Logic gates, he says, coopt the mechanical function to acquit the semantic function of defining relationships. I suggest pivoting that assumption. It is we, the human end user or programmer who coopts both the a-signifying mechanical forms and a-signifying semiotic functions of the logic gate for our personal agendas. The logic gate has no semantic agenda, it is, like a marionette or cartoon character, a mindless machine with two mindless aspects - a spatially extended form and a temporally inferred function. There is no temporally intended motive, except the one which has been co-opted by the third and primary influence - participatory awareness . We are exploiting the public physics of the logic gate's form to generate a more subtle level of public physics which we read as signs. In other words, we exploit the public facing forms and functions of the gate to exploit our own public facing forms and functions (optical patterns to tease the eye, acoustic patterns to call to the ear), allowing a sharing and communication of experience *in spite of* forms and functions, which are completely hidden from the conscious spectacle. In fact no 'information' is exchanged, except metaphorically. What is exchanged is concretely real and physical, although physics and realism of course, should only be thought of as a range of scaled or scoped experience based on time-like frequencies on space-like obstructions. 3. He focuses on the logic of the mind rather than the richness of qualia. I suggest instead that the mind tries to be logical only when focusing on public interactions. Private fantasy would be the more raw presentation of mind; dreams, visions, delusions, etc. Logic is born out of necessity, not innate to consciousness. Left to our own devices, a brain in a nutritionally rich vat would wallow in a paradise of illogical raptures forever. 4. He conflates grammatical structure for meaning, missing the point that communication is a skill learned expressly for public interaction, not for private understanding. The true meaning itself is not assembled internally from parts using logic and grammar, but rather 'insists' as a narrative gestalt. 'The boy is eating some cake' is only an experience of verbal syntax through which we recover a deeper perceptual understanding of the referent, based on our experiences with or about boys, eating, and cake. The order of words is no longer important within the private range of experience. While it is important to model thought backwards through communication like he does for purposes of AI development, it is a mistake to apply the model the ontology that way. The horse is not an assembly of carts, so to speak. The cart without the horse is useless. The words and sentences are empty carts without the personal experience of semiosis, which is not included in physics or information theory. Experience is the key. 5. His assumptions about personality and mental disorder are the weakest parts in my opinion. They are normative and nakedly behaviorist, mistaking again public behaviors for private realities. What he sees as simply a collection of habits, I see as a vast interiority of identity and influence rooted in the sub-personal, super-personal and super-signifying bands of sensory-motive experience. 6. I disagree too that neurons pass information mindlessly. I would say that the same could be said of our own mass production systems. All mechanism is mindless, but that doesn't mean that sub-personal organisms like neurons are devoid of intention or participatory experience. It is that sub-personal experience which our experience is made of; not the motions of structures within cells, but the private
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self- reference logics. let us compare with nature, and so we can progress. You seem to start from the answers. You can do that if the goal is just contemplation, but then you become a poet. That is nice, but is not the goal of the scientists. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:31:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? You have the stable illusions, whose working is described by the self-reference logics. Describing that some arithmetic systems function as if they were stable illusions does not account for the experienced presence of sensory-motor participation. I can explain how torturing someone on the rack would function to dislocate their limbs, and the fact *that* this bodily change could be interpreted by the victim as an outcome with a high priority avoidance value, but it cannot be explained how or why there is an experienced 'feeling'. The indisputable reality is that it is the deeply unpleasant quality of the feeling of this torture is the motivation behind it. In fact, there are techniques now where hideous pain is inflicted by subcutaneous microwave stimulation which does not substantially damage tissue. The torture is achieved through manipulation of the 'stable illusion' of experienced pain alone. While the function of torture to elicit information can be mapped out logically, the logic is built upon an unexamined assumption that pain and feeling simply arise as some kind of useless decoration. It only seems to work retrospectively when we take perception and participation for granted. If we look at it prospectively instead, we see that a universe founded on logic has no possibility of developing perception or participation, as it already includes in its axioms an assumption of quantitative sense. Machines, as conceived by comp, are already sentient without any kind of tangible, experiential, or even geometric presentation. If you have discrete data, why would you add some superfluous layer of blur? let us compare with nature, and so we can progress. You seem to start from the answers. You can do that if the goal is just contemplation, but then you become a poet. That is nice, but is not the goal of the scientists. My only goal is to make the most sense that can be made. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CY9Meb6MC6kJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 23 Jan 2013, at 14:03, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 22 Jan 2013, at 18:44, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? I am still unsure what you mean by quantum mind. If by quantum you mean the usual quantum mechanics, it should appear as the natural view of arithmetic (numberland, computerland) seen from inside. You can say that mind and matter exist as a view of the (totally atemporal and aspatial) number reality. It is time itself which appears, in a non tempral sense, but a logical sense, from the elementary number relation. As amazing it might seem, comp makes really a theory like x + 0 = x x + s(y) = s(x + y) x *0 = 0 x*s(y) = x*y + x or like ((K, x), y) = x (((S, x), y), z) = ((x, z), (y, z)) into authentical (and equivalent) theories of everything (mind, force and stuff). The rest are definition and theorems. Those theories are complete and even non completeable. If string theory is the correct physics, then it has to be derived from the relation above. And I can explain that we get more, as we will get the non communicable part of truth too (the qualia). Normally we will go through some steps of this on FOAR. On this list, I have explained many things, but the list is too voluminous to search. Bruno It seems that you have avoided my question by questioning what I mean by quantum mind. It seems you avoid my question of what you mean by quantum mind. Don't quantum mind too much :) So let me rephrase it. Could arithmetics produce matter once and for all a long time ago? The question does not make a clear sense. Arithmetical truth is out of time and space. Arithmetics is responsible for our own (atemporal existence), and we create time in it. (making time is the favorite pastime of the universal numbers). So in a larger sense I could have answer yes, in some metaphorical way. Arithmetic contains all the computations, but only the numbers/ machines are making sense of it, by virtue of their relations with the others numbers. Or must the illusion of matter be constantly reinforced by arithmetics? Not by arithmetic, which is out of time. But matter can be considered as being reinforced by the winning stable and sharable machines' histories/dreams. Normally if you get the UDA1-7, you could already figure out how this happens. Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat. For each possible brain states, there is an infinity, in arithmetic, of universal machine/number' computations going through that state. Whatever you predict that you will live is given by a probability- calculus on all those histories, making physics a relative probability calculus on the computations, but only a seen by the (locally self-referentially correct) numbers. Church thesis makes all computations something well defined, and the incompleteness phenomenon makes those computations terribly redundant, and this introduces the deepness and the bottom linearity making consciousness differentiating on long and rich 'normal' (gaussian, boolean) histories. This predicts/explains that once we look below our substitution level, the physical reality get blurred, as we have to see, somehow, the trace of the infinity of universal numbers competing to build you a consistent extensions. Seen is defined in arithmetic by []p t, and variants. You see a city, if there is a city in all relative consistent extensions ([]p), and there is such a consistent extension (t). This provides an arithmetical quantization, and I conjecture we can program a quantum computer in it. If we can't, then the concrete existence of a quantum computer would refute comp + the arithmetical interpretation of the classical theory of knowledge). Arithmetic produces mind and matter/time, atemporally. The existence of times and matters in the stable deep dreams of the universal machines, is a theorem of arithmetic, or of some consistent extension of arithmetic (made by creature living in arithmetic). Arithmetic from inside is vastly bigger than arithmetic seen from inside. It is a Löwenheim-Skolem-like phenomenon. Well, that happens also in Alice in Wonderland and in yellow Submarine
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Arithmetical truth is a sort of block-brains-in-a-vat This is what I mean by the term Quantum Mind I think of the Quantum Mind as a Block Metaverse containing all possible universes which is timeless since everything in the MWI Metaverse is known to first order like the trajectories of the galacies, stars and planets. and probably all cosmic events like supernovae. As you say, I think, it is first person uncertainty that forces what I call the Quantum Mind to recalculate the future and therefore time is introduced. Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Robot reading vs human reading
Hi Bruno Marchal I'm having trouble understanding you today. You say: Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines. Wikipedia says: Epistemology (i/??p?st?'m?l?d?i/ from Greek ?p?st?ľ? - episteme, meaning knowledge, understanding, and ? - logos, meaning study of) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.[1][2] It questions what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent a given subject or entity can be known. How can matter be epistemological ? It's just nondescriptive stuff. It cannot be knowledge, for knowledge can be defined as a true belief. But there's nothing to believe. It's just nondescriptive stuff. As to truth not being epistemological, consider this. If knowledge is a true belief, and epistemology provides you with knowledge, then that knowledge must be true by definition. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-21, 09:38:01 Subject: Re: Robot reading vs human reading On 20 Jan 2013, at 21:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand how the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and how it was affected by the interprent. It's just wham bam ! that's a cat I see ! Van Quine made this criticism of conventional epistemology and gave it up to examine instead how we know something that is perceived through physiological explanations. And all epistemoblogy would be robot reading, with no account to the personality, memory, training, or linguistic knowledge of the reader. Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 07:01:56 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 18 Jan 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. This can make sense. We can relate this with the common notion of subjectivity. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Hmm... Why not, but I don't see this as fundamental. It can be distracting. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. OK. Then with comp thirdness is arithmetic (and physics is, counter- intuitively, still 1p, hopefully plural). The physical is a mode of being which is *not* such as it is. Bruno I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/j-kbHm3ANDIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 1/22/2013 3:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? Craig Hi Craig, This video lecture series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjABUhyu6dw does a good job showing how a psychiatrist, Niall McLaren, argues toward a dual aspect theory. I recomend his books: http://www.niallmclaren.com/bibliography -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:54:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 1/22/2013 3:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:44:41 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You seem to not having yet realize that with comp, not only materialism is wrong, but also weak materialism, that is, the doctrine asserting the primary existence of matter, or the existence of primary matter. We are, well, not in the matrix, but in infinities of purely arithmetical matrices. matter is an appearance from inside. My point is not that this is true, but that it follows from comp, and that computer science makes this enough precise so that we can test it. Bruno, Is it possible that the existence of matter from comp as a dream of the Quantum Mind happened once and for all time way back in time? Richard Quantum Deism. Cool. It still doesn't make sense that there could be any presentation of anything at all under comp. If you can have 'infinities of purely arithmetical matrices' which can simulate all possibilities and relations... why have anything else? Why have anything except purely arithmetical matrices? Craig Hi Craig, This video lecture series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjABUhyu6dwdoes a good job showing how a psychiatrist, Niall McLaren, argues toward a dual aspect theory. I recomend his books: http://www.niallmclaren.com/bibliography Thanks Stephen, I'll check out the video! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iQtaEET0eE4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Robot reading vs human reading
On 20 Jan 2013, at 21:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand how the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and how it was affected by the interprent. It's just wham bam ! that's a cat I see ! Van Quine made this criticism of conventional epistemology and gave it up to examine instead how we know something that is perceived through physiological explanations. And all epistemoblogy would be robot reading, with no account to the personality, memory, training, or linguistic knowledge of the reader. Truth is not epistemological. Only matter, and the other internal modalities, some of which are not communicable/justifiable, yet guessable by machines. Bruno - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 07:01:56 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 18 Jan 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. This can make sense. We can relate this with the common notion of subjectivity. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Hmm... Why not, but I don't see this as fundamental. It can be distracting. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. OK. Then with comp thirdness is arithmetic (and physics is, counter- intuitively, still 1p, hopefully plural). The physical is a mode of being which is *not* such as it is. Bruno I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/ objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New
Robot reading vs human reading
Hi Bruno Marchal The triads are based on epistemology. Without Secondness everything is impersonal. Without Secondness you cannot understand how the final expression was obtained (what it means to YOU, and how it was affected by the interprent. It's just wham bam ! that's a cat I see ! Van Quine made this criticism of conventional epistemology and gave it up to examine instead how we know something that is perceived through physiological explanations. And all epistemoblogy would be robot reading, with no account to the personality, memory, training, or linguistic knowledge of the reader. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-20, 07:01:56 Subject: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland On 18 Jan 2013, at 13:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. This can make sense. We can relate this with the common notion of subjectivity. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Hmm... Why not, but I don't see this as fundamental. It can be distracting. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. OK. Then with comp thirdness is arithmetic (and physics is, counter- intuitively, still 1p, hopefully plural). The physical is a mode of being which is *not* such as it is. Bruno I believe 1p is Firstness (raw experience of cat) + Secondness (identification of the image cat with the word cast to oneself) and 3p = Thirdness (expression of cat to others) [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] Peirce Peirce, being a pragmatist, described perception according to what happened at each stage,1/18/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-17, 17:17:11 Subject: Re: Re: Escaping from the world of 3p Flatland Hi John, My suspicion is that Roger is so keen to impose a Piercean triadic view on things that he has omitted to make the necessary connection with the normal meaning of 1p/3p as standing for subjective/objective. Cheers On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 04:55:17PM -0500, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I reflect after a long-long time to your post. I had a war on my hand about objective and subjective, fighting for the latter, since we are 'us' and cannot be 'them'. I never elevated to the mindset of Lady Welby 1904, who - maybe? - got it what 2p was. My vocabulary allows me to consider what I consider (=1p) and I may communicat it (still 1p) to anybody else, who receives it as a 3p communication and acknowledges it into HIS 1p way adjusted and reformed into it. There is no other situation I can figure. Whatever I 'read' or 'hear' is 3p for me and I do the above to it to get it into my 1p mindset. No 2p to my knowledge. Could you improve upon my ignorance? John Mikes On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish 2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic. It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however. The following equivalences should hold between comp and Peirce's logical categories: 3p = Thirdness or III 2p = Secondness or II 1p = Firstness or I. Comp seems to only use analytic or deductive logic, while Peirce's categories are epistemological (synthetic logic) categories, in which secondness is an integral part. So . Here's what Peirce has to say about his categorioes: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/secondness.html Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and third into relation to each other. (A Letter to Lady Welby, CP 8.328, 1904) Thanks for the definition, but how does that relate to 1p and 3p? I cannot see anything in the definitions of firstness and thirdness that relate to subjectivity and objectivity. As I said before, I do not even know what 2p could be. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
