Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[questor]

DD, your quotes:
'' This is why many students can not understand a purpose to learning mathematics. Actually they are quite right, neither math nor logic serve much of a purpose to important problems. I have known very successful people who have never made a logical decision in their entire life.''

and the second quote:
'' the definition of an explanation and the essential ground support of that great vein of gold called mathematics.''

why do i think these statements are contradictory? where in your rating of incontrovertible truths would you place mathematics?

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

DD, I am in awe of your expertise with words, with the gold nuggets.

And flattery is a powerful tool. I am pretty lucky in that I am pretty immune to it.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I might be starting to understand what you're talking about but I have to make sure that I'm using my nuggets the same way you're using yours.

The same way? Or for the same purpose? Those nuggets are nuggets and can be used for many reasons; but always in the same way.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Existence and Universe are synonymous to me. The mountain range to which you refer is that part of existence we have been exposed to and takes shape via our fundamental capabilities, sight, hearing, etc. Direct perception is the landscaper of the mountain range. We assume it to be correct.

Yes, and it is that very assumption which I want to examine with you.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Now I need feedback.

I read all of your posts in order to get a decent picture of your thoughts and am disappointed in only one component: that would be your knowledge of mathematics and physics. In reading your posts, I was delighted by many of your comments. I have selected a dozen for comment (I could have commented on a lot more but it would make this post excessively long).

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

"Taught" is not the correct term, I suppose.

I would agree. Educational institutions are mere opportunities to learn; experiences with phenomena not found in ordinary day to day life. As you said, the most noticeable effect is to douse that spark of interest. Their real purpose in society is to hone skills important to that society; to create those complex mental machines we need to manage our creations. Their most significant benefit to society is that people with those skills are needed and supported and thus pose little danger to society: i.e., "idle hands are the devils plaything". Their major flaw is that, due to the fact that testing intelligence (what one can do with what one knows) is almost impossible, thus they are reduced to testing memorization of information. For this reason, a lot of people in the high offices of "intellectual authority" turn out to be idiot savants. Why do you think most scientific breakthroughs are made by youngsters barely familiar with the current state of science and not by those seeped in "knowledge".

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Our goal is to bring that model in line with the natural world.

Or, more to the purpose, make our "expectations" (that terrain of gray rock we believe in) more consistent with what actually happens. (See my definition of "an explanation".)

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

we're talking about a snowflake in a blizzard.

Exactly, that is why our expectations of "exact logic" should be somewhat muted. By the way, belief is not really necessary to success at anything; that is, you need not believe your gut instinct is correct to follow its instructions. I certainly never did.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

It doesn't matter if I am totally wrong some of the time, I still must attempt to seek the truth.

I wish everyone felt that way. I have noticed that most humans cannot operate from the perspective of being wrong. It is an emotionally difficult constraint to accommodate one's life to. It is much easier to just ignore the issue; i.e., not really worry about knowing the "truth".

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

removing the filters of belief

They cannot be entirely removed or we have nothing. We need those golden nuggets and just enough gray rock to support them. It is interesting to note that there is one and only one basic truth which can be considered absolute: that which is true by definition is absolutely true. The issue of truth by definition rests on two very straight forward points: (1.) we either agree on our definitions or communication is impossible and (2.) no acceptable definition can contain internal contradictions. If we agree, a definition must be regarded as true. (Definition of agreement???? )

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

we can still - all of us - be wrong.

We "can be" a lot of things! For the moment, what can we do to avoid being wrong? We should first step outside of belief itself. Beyond that, I have some very rational suggestions but it all involves understanding mathematics (right or wrong).

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I suppose if he's correct we could just ignore him.

That seems to be the most common reaction to new ideas of any kind.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Because to build an entire structure, an entire life and career on a foundation of straw would be rather discomfiting.

And that is exactly why most everyone seems to avoid thinking about that possibility; they would rather just assume they are right. Their big difficulty is not thinking they can function if they are in error; actually it is quite simple and, actually, they seldom have any real problems with it.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

both parties in a disagreement can be wrong.

That is the impression I get from most all the threads I have looked at on every forum I have taken the trouble to examine. For the most part, the only ones which violate that "rule of thumb" are cases where the solid science behind the winning side is well known: i.e., absurd ignorance plays a big role here.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know the exact nature of anything and neither does any of you.

I agree 100%. Which brings up a serious observation about human explanations: it is not necessary to know the nature of a thing to explain it. And that comment is really worth thinking about.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Someday we might stand eye to eye with God and say, "I see. You were lonely."

There is a perspective that we are all Gods in our own way and are all indeed quite lonely.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Contradictions don't exist in nature (I'm assuming this to be true), only in our models of it.

And this is the very essence of my attack. That is, does there exist a way of representing all of our experiences which is capable of representing absolutely any possibility and, at the same time, guaranteed not to contradict itself? The answer is "Yes" and I have discovered one. I am sorry but it is not possible to comprehend it without a minimum understanding of mathematics and a little facility with abstract logic.

After reading your posts, I think you are certainly capable of a basic understanding my work though some of the mathematics might be outside your current knowledge; however, 35 is not really old at all and none of the math I use is really that far astray of what you could easily become familiar with. Meanwhile, if you are really interested, you might take a look at "An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself". If you are interested in going through that paper, we should go through it line by line, making sure you understand exactly what is being said in each line and why that line is necessary.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Yes, and the consequences are that we have to go back and purify the gold, clarify the sight, expand the range of perception. This is the fundamental problem you are trying to address: Our self induced blindness.

Ah, the gold itself is actually rather pure already. The problem with a lot of self proclaimed intellectuals is that they lack the abstract logic to actually see the gold but instead see logic as nothing than more ordinary gray rock to be learned and memorized.

The real trick here is to judicially pick the pieces of gray rock absolutely required to frame that gold. The mathematicians have already done quite a good job at supporting their share of the problem and I am asserting that "explanation" itself is the rock upon which understanding of the universe is to be built.

I hope you find my paper interesting.

Have fun -- Dick

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous

[Doctordick]

Sorry about that! -- Dick

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I am sorry I have not been quick in responding to this thread but Christmas/ New Years is a busy time...
Human beings are unique in their ability to examine that mountain range of information and think about the situation they find themselves in. The great majority of what they find are the gray rocks of intuitive knowledge; the well established foundation on which everything they think and do is based. (It is reasonable to presume the animals also find themselves in a similar circumstance.) Most of which they are so sure of that there is absolutely no doubt as to its veracity. I suspect animals in general lack doubt entirely, (as do some humans by the way). But it should be clear that this terrain is not reality, it is actually no more than what we think reality is. It is a mental construct; something quite different from reality itself. It is very different from "reality" in that it can be wrong whereas "reality" cannot possibility be wrong (note that animal concepts of reality can also be wrong; in fact, we use their proclivity for certain errors to trap and kill them)....

Yes, things have become busy for me too. I hate writing proposals.

When I have time, I intend to read through all the posts in this thread. You are saying something that (I think) I agree with. And I also read the Piranha article in Science News and had that flash of "you are close to a great insight".

My stance begins with a science fiction story, "The Players of Null-A" by A.E. vanVogt, published around 1945. He paid tribute to a philosopher, Alfred Korzybski in his introduction. Years later, I tracked down Korzybski, who had been quite influential in the 1920's 30's.

It was Korzybski who coined the phrase, "The map is not the territory", and created the academic field of General Semantics. His collected seminars from the 30's are incredibly dense with understanding about the workings of the human mind.

There IS squirrel logic and there IS golden logic, if I may paraphrase. Korzybski insists that all animals operate by comparing sensory inputs to an INTERNAL MODEL of reality. This is the "map". The external Reality is his "territory". Squirrels use squirrel modeling language to build that map. One might say that different brain cell engrams represent certain elements in the map, say a cat or an acorn. Bacteria have a much simpler map, its only elements being certain chemical gradients and light and maybe certain kinds of touch.

Korzybski concludes that at some point in our evolution, these engrams or patterns of brain cell chemistry (elements of the Map), became identified with smaller and smaller elements of the Territory, until they started being identified with specific sounds made by other Humans. Fast forward, and you have Humans whose Maps are now constructed of (ta da!) linguistic elements.

The Map element for a "tree" is no longer an engram for a "tree" -- but is constructed of a myriad of linguistic symbols that are arranged in a certain order to represent the "tree" in the Territory, and a different way to represent a "shrub" and a different way to represent an abstract "tree" representing trees in general.

We do squirrel logic when we bang together the engrams for "tree" and "rock" and "jump".

We do golden logic when we go down a symbolic meta-level to the elements -- not of Reality -- but of our linguistic structures, themselves. Symbols. Language. Logic. Math. Negation. Proof. Induction.

so..... have I missed your point?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

I am asserting that "explanation" itself is the rock upon which understanding of the universe is to be built.

I think I agree with that completely. It will take me a while to read the link but I will and I'll simply make observations as I go through it and periodically send you what I have.
By the way, I read the paper on Einstein's mistaken use of time and how you too think that gravity is an effect. You are correct, I'm not very knowledgeable with that level of math although the gist seemed to leave some yellowish pebbles on my mole-hill.
I like the way you use 'now' to separate events into the past and the future. Just one thing: What if 'time' doesn't exist outside of ourselves, outside of our concept of past and future, outside of our mountain range? What if there is only 'now'? What would be the implications of that? What if there was no 'true time' to be measured? That would mean that time exists only in our heads.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

This was a duplicate post too. There is a bug. It comes back and says "Page not found". I go back and resubmit it and now I have two.

[Doctordick]

To questor: sorry I missed your post of 1/1. I swear it wasn't there when I made my last post. I have a suspicion there is some kind of delay in the software on this site. Both Pyrotex and I have been having trouble seeing our own posts. But, laying that aside, I think you find my statements contradictory because you are putting an implied significance of "value" to my use of the word "gold" when my original purpose in using the term was because of the qualities "rarity" and "beauty" usually associated with gold. When it comes to survival, logic and/or mathematics are about as important as gold jewelry but it is also as delightful.

But more important, my second comment had to do with the minimum of belief required to perform the deductions I want to carry you through. Any and all other "intuitive" constructs can be laid aside as possibly being erroneous. That fact (that they are possibly erroneous) in no way implies that they don't serve a very serious purpose. Survival is our very first concern and proof that our actions are correct is very much second in importance.

Originally Posted by questor

...where in your rating of incontrovertible truths would you place mathematics?

I don't know that you mean the same thing as I do when I use the word "mathematics". I have a strong suspicion that you don't have a good understanding of mathematics and see it as a collection of facts rather than as I define it: "the invention and study of internally self consistent systems" or a direct tautological extension of logic. That would make it solid gold!

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

so..... have I missed your point?

Well, yes and no! That's a pretty good answer to any question isn't it? Seriously, I think you have picked up the sense of a lot of things I have said in support of my perspective, but have focused on those issues themselves rather than the issue I am trying to convey. Since you do have a background in mathematics, take a good look at "An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself". As an aside, I might point out the three references given there (I suspect they are easily overlooked). These are links to proofs that the statements made in the sentences superscripted are correct.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

We do golden logic when we go down a symbolic meta-level to the elements -- not of Reality -- but of our linguistic structures, themselves. Symbols. Language. Logic. Math. Negation. Proof. Induction.

That's about it except for the issue of actually doing it. Many people don't actually do such things; rather they regurgitate learned sequences of steps without actually thinking about the abstract connections they are making. You know they even have computer programs which can perform mathematical deduction and I wouldn't exactly see that as really being aware of logic. (Perhaps that is no more than prejudice on my part.)

Essentially, all I wanted to do is divide what we are aware of into two components: that we can depend upon as absolutely correct and that which could be wrong. (So that I could get around a lot of philosophical garbage ordinarily thrown at my work.)

Meanwhile, as I was unaware of Alfred Korzybski and his work, I googled him and did a little reading. Though his interests are essentially outside the subject I am trying to communicate, they are still interesting. In fact, I think one comment he made amounts to a clue to how "squirrel thought" is accomplished and thus an important aspect of AI.

"Korzybski noted that we have fewer words and ideas than experiences". Since our words are essentially symbolic labels for concepts essential to our understanding of that mass of gray rock I talk about, his statement is equivalent to saying that the totality of our ideas and experiences can be expressed via a lesser body of information. Essentially, that implies that our world view amounts to a data compressed representation of our experiences. I firmly believe that a universal data compression mechanism would be a fundamental solution to the problem of creating a "world view" and thus a fundamental component of AI. And I have some ideas about how the issue should be attacked.

If I were still young, I think it would be a very interesting project. I think we are close to having the hardware required.

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

Essentially, that implies that our world view amounts to a data compressed representation of our experiences. I firmly believe that a universal data compression mechanism would be a fundamental solution to the problem of creating a "world view" and thus a fundamental component of AI. And I have some ideas about how the issue should be attacked.

Isn't that one of the functions of an abstraction, of a concept? We think in terms of the concept rather than all of the elements in the set which it subsumes. So we need a machine that can take input and perform the abstractions and drop it on the mountain in the right place. That's where you're going in the link I'm working on. I'm trying to figure out how to implement it. But first I have to understand it. I can't make all the necessary leaps and keep falling into the gorges, even though they are of my own making.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

And that is exactly why most everyone seems to avoid thinking about that possibility; they would rather just assume they are right. Their big difficulty is not thinking they can function if they are in error; actually it is quite simple and, actually, they seldom have any real problems with it.

That really is quite funny.

I wish everyone felt that way. I have noticed that most humans cannot operate from the perspective of being wrong. It is an emotionally difficult constraint to accommodate one's life to. It is much easier to just ignore the issue; i.e., not really worry about knowing the "truth".

Self actualization is not a goal many have attained. Knowing that it's ok to be wrong and that one can function in spite of it (as you have so humorously pointed out - we do! ) because the truth is they are and they do!

There is a perspective that we are all Gods in our own way and are all indeed quite lonely.

And the only alleviation of that is to be 'visible' to another person, to achieve actual communication - to see inside the other and know what makes them who they are and in turn have them see you. Loneliness is profoundly absolute. We come in that way and we leave that way.
By the way, I'm actually 58. I hope that doesn't affect your willingness to discuss the link.
Should I post your paper and my questions here or should I send them in a private post?

[TIDUSGIYA]

If Anything Is Completly Rational It Is The Word Itself.......

Words Hold A Firm Grip On Our Personality...the Big Fat Lie Is That Words Dont Control The Way We Think Or Act....and Words Dont Control Our Emotions Do They....

Lies Lies...and So-on... Rationality Is In Its Own Right For Being Just A Word, It Only Makes Sence When Someone Is Trying To Fit In With It, To Be Being Rational With It.

Fact...you Call Someone That Doesnt Know You In A Pub When The Drunk A Nasty Name And You'll See Why Words Do Control Our Emotions Also....even In School, Words Conrtol Our Emotions.

We Let It Happen To Us Because Knowone Can Allow Them Selves To Be Rational Every Single Minute Of Evey Day Can They......

My Advise Is To Just Sit There Being The Quiet One Or Done Be There At All, Be In A Forest And Meditate....????

The Truth Is I Enjoy The Idea Of Being Rational.....

I Dont Know It All, And If I Believed That I Wouldnt Be Able To Learn To Know It All.

?????