23 Feb 12
If I write down a random number 47, does that particular instance of the universal truth denoted by 'forty-seven' have its own absolute truth?
We are duty-bound to inquire, too, whether an absolute truth does not conceal - an absolute truth.
That is the secret of the Aleph, and the secret's secret.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Feb 12
Originally posted by black beetle"What do you think, JS357? Think! Where exactly lays the "absolute truth" and how is it related with the differ sentient beings?"
Edit: “It... ...are?”
twhitehead and bb have a different evaluation of the mind as regards the essence of a specific science and the essence of the necessity of inventing products for our convenience and of the act of becoming ourselves products of our products; at the same time we examine the way we actually exploit our learning process. The differ ...[text shortened]... e exactly lays the "absolute truth" and how is it related with the differ sentient beings?
😵
"Where it lays" question alludes to a location metaphor. "Related" apparently alludes to a carrying from place to place metaphor in its Latin derivation. So the question suggests the scope of answers.
I suggest our hunter-gatherer brains supply the explanatory frameworks for such questions and their answers.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by JS357This previous reply of mine might be considered evasive.
"What do you think, JS357? Think! Where exactly lays the "absolute truth" and how is it related with the differ sentient beings?"
"Where it lays" question alludes to a location metaphor. "Related" apparently alludes to a carrying from place to place metaphor in its Latin derivation. So the question suggests the scope of answers.
I suggest our hunter-gatherer brains supply the explanatory frameworks for such questions and their answers.
Absolute truth is to be found in statements whose negation entails logical contradiction. An absolute truth may or may not meet the criteria of a given theory of truth that relates the truth to a fact (a fact being that which is the case). If an absolute truth fails to meet the criteria of a given theory of truth that relates the truth to a fact, that is an indication that the given theory of truth is inapplicable to the case at hand.
I am not sure there are any interesting absolute truths.
An absolute truth is, in a way, a true Scotsman.
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOh I used the word “essence” as synonymous to the Aristotlean “ousia” (the basic characteristics of an epistemic object). In this context, the potential existence of the epistemic objects (in my example, earlier over here: a dog and a human being) is related mainly to their ousia and furthermore to their symvevikota (their secondary, symptomatic properties: a dog is still a dog regardless of its age, its gender etc.). Aristotle discards Plato’s conception of Ideas (Plato insists that they exist out there on their own as if they had inherent existence, as is the case with our twhitehead who believes the same about the triangles) arguing that Reality would be impossible without the existence of the physical epistemic objects we perceive. Ousia to him is not a given, it does not exist beforehand but it is a product of the following five specific process: by means of evaluating the matter, the form, the energy, the reason for the very existence of the epistemic object and the specific target on which the epistemic object is focused, we can pass from the potential to the factual and thus from the potentiality to the reality. We can well tell a dog from a human being not because of evaluating their individual symvevikota, but by evaluating their ousia. It is clear that essence/ ousia is the basic property that is answered when we ask the Aristotlean “what it is to be” in order to come up with Our evaluation (accurate or non-accurate) and Our definition (ie what exact characteristics make a dog to be defined by us as a dog and a human being to be defined by us as a human being) and when we imply the evaluation of the five factors I just mentioned.
'Epiontic'. Where would English be without Greek?
What do you mean by 'essence of a dog'? Either you are using the wrong word or twhitehead's dire accusation of incoherence is correct.
Of course, Aristotle believed that everything exists because there is a reason for its existence (telos). And he argued that one cannot offer explanations as regards an epistemic object if one ignores the reason of its existence.
Back to our triangles, our pi and our numbers: they are mind-only constructions out of the World of our Ideas, they exist because we create them and thus they are empty. Of course, this does not turn them into unreal epistemic objects, as you too pointed out earlier at this thread😵
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: “Yet… …computers.”
Yet you do separate them and assign DNA a special place as a special input, just as you assign programming a special place in computers.
[b]The species boundary is not "magical", it is simply a product of the essence of each species that helps us to define them. The essence that makes a dog a dog and a human being a human being, that is
😵
It is ...[text shortened]... t people? Is it bigger for men than for women? Our brains work quite differently you know.[/b]
I just told you I attributed two inputs at once merely because I thought it is obvious that the environment and the organism cannot be separated. It follows that I do not separate them, so your assumption does not hold.
Edit: “It… …life.”
I do not deny the existence of the triangles. The triangles are real because we create them. I deny their Inherent Existence and I also deny your unjustified assumption that the triangles exist out there in the observer universe on their own.
As regards the essence, kindly please check my reply to Bosse just above;
Edit: “Are… …like?”
How did you came to this conclusion?! I told you repeatedly that Math is a human invention equal to a language and, as such, as a man-made mapping of the reality we perceive, it is understood strictly by human beings who are fluent in that “language”. Math is existent solely for the human beings, and the products of our Math are not some kind of the so called “absolute truth”.
Edit: “So… …know.”
For the time being, the value of pi is not different for different human beings fluent in Math. However, on one hand this does not turn pi, an algorithm, a number or an equation etc into an “absolute truth”. On the other hand, pi does not exist out there on its own.
And, just a note: IQ, environment and heredity are related. The factors of the total IQ and of the environment affect the (observable and statistical characteristic known as) heredity. Heredity usually takes a value between 0 and 1 in the context of the analysis and the explanation of the percentage of the diversity that is triggered due to genetic causes. According to researches, the heredity of the IQ is valued between 0,4 and 0,8, on an average valued at 0,5. The conclusion is that IQ is basically hereditary. For the human beings, according to the current bibliography, IQ is related to the gene SNAP25.
In analogy, methinks that, for a computer based AI, its “IQ” is related to its program at least as much as the IQ of the human beings is related to the gene SNAP25; and the agent of "heredity" would be also validated as regards the programs that they will be used in the future for the design and the construction of more advanced computer based AI units
😵
24 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleYou apparently cant remember where this particular issue started.
I just told you I attributed two inputs at once merely because I thought it is obvious that the environment and the organism cannot be separated. It follows that I do not separate them, so your assumption does not hold.
You said:
If we develop computer AI, all they would do is to run according to the program we implied.
and
The solutions that it will deploy would be impossible without its prior man-made programming, therefore they would be entirely a product based on its man-made programming
and
Your ability to learn whatever ..... is entirely a result of the potential of your DNA
Clearly you were claiming that the only important input was the programming and the environment was irrelevant. It was not an assumption on my part, it is what you claimed.
You think like a creationist. You think there are 'kinds' of programming and that each 'kind' has its own mathematics. The problem is you, like creationists, are having trouble explaining what constitutes a 'kind' and why you think there are boundaries. Interestingly you think computers are 'human kind'.
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by JS357I reject the idea of a world that exists independently of the mind, a world who has a particular structure that our sciences and all the rest of our structured languages can set out to reflect. Nothing bears a structure that is intrinsic to it, instead everything has something ascribed to it from outside, from Us. To claim that the truth of a statement is based in a similarity of structure between a statement of ours and the bit of the world that it refers to, it does not hold. Our languages (sciences, beliefs, arts, philosophic systems, ideas&hellip😉 cannot provide sentences that they can be connected with the observer universe by means of a set of objectively existent structural similarities. We simply cannot find yet any sufficient substantial relation that could allow us to bind together the epiontic universe to the most fundamental level due to the fact that we cannot keep up being constantly in the state of the superposition.
This previous reply of mine might be considered evasive.
Absolute truth is to be found in statements whose negation entails logical contradiction. An absolute truth may or may not meet the criteria of a given theory of truth that relates the truth to a fact (a fact being that which is the case). If an absolute truth fails to meet the criteria of a given the ...[text shortened]... e there are any interesting absolute truths.
An absolute truth is, in a way, a true Scotsman.
So methinks with our conceptually constructed causal relations we remain, and this means that the causation we attribute it cannot be seen as a relation that functions objectively and independent of the concepts we employ. It follows that even causation can hardly be evaluated as a mind-independent way of founding the relation between our sciences, our languages, our religions, our concepts etc. and the world😵
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: “Clearly… …claimed.”
You apparently cant remember where this particular issue started.
You said:If we develop computer AI, all they would do is to run according to the program we implied.
and
[quote]The solutions that it will deploy would be impossible without its prior man-made programming, therefore they would be entirely a product based on its man-made ...[text shortened]... why you think there are boundaries. Interestingly you think computers are 'human kind'.
After all the explanations I offered you, the fact that you still insist repeating that I claim that the sole important input was the programming and that the environment is irrelevant, does not hold.
Edit: “You… …kind'.”
You don’t have the slightest clue as regards the way I ‘m thinking. I do not think that there are “kinds” of programming and that each “kind” has its own Math. I think that Math is strictly a man-made invention, equal to any other of the languages that we have at our disposal. I think that each sentient being lives its own reality the way it perceives it according to its nature and its species. I think that the computers (PCs, computer based AI etc; I remember that you give a different definition to the word “computer” than this) are multipliers of the calculating ability of the human beings and that are used by us in order to ease us during the conduct of differ information
😵
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by black beetleYes it does. Unless you are retracting all those earlier statements.
After all the explanations I offered you, the fact that you still insist repeating that I claim that the sole important input was the programming and that the environment is irrelevant, does not hold.
You don’t have the slightest clue as regards the way I ‘m thinking.
And I think that has to do with your communication skills more than my ability to comprehend.
I think that Math is strictly a man-made invention,
What exactly is 'man'?
equal to any other of the languages that we have at our disposal.
Yet we have multiple languages, but only one math.
I think that each sentient being lives its own reality the way it perceives it according to its nature and its species.
Again with the species boundary. You do know that 'species' is a somewhat arbitrary classification invented by man? If dolphins have a different classification system, then will our realities suddenly be perceived according to our dolfin-groups?
I think that the computers (PCs, computer based AI etc; I remember that you give a different definition to the word “computer” than this) are multipliers of the calculating ability of the human beings and that are used by us in order to ease us during the conduct of differ information
What they are used for now, is not what I was talking about. I was talking about AI specifically. But even so, your arguments with regards to computers make no sense. What happens when a dolphin uses a computer? Whose math comes out the other end? The dolphins, or mans programming?
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadEdit: “Yes… …statements.”
Yes it does. Unless you are retracting all those earlier statements.
[b]You don’t have the slightest clue as regards the way I ‘m thinking.
And I think that has to do with your communication skills more than my ability to comprehend.
I think that Math is strictly a man-made invention,
What exactly is 'man'?
equal to any other of ...[text shortened]... phin uses a computer? Whose math comes out the other end? The dolphins, or mans programming?
I am retractring none of my earlier statements; I gave you further details as regards the reason why I did not mention the environment. Since all organisms exist in their given environment and they do not exist in separation from it, it was needless to point it down. I clarified it again and again, but you still insist. I can’t help it.
Edit: “And… …comprehend.”
It has to do with your ability to pay attention.
Edit: “What exactly is 'man'?”
I define the human being as Homo sapiens, anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, with a resultant capacity for constant perception, analysis and evaluation of the Physical World that surrounds him, of his Inner World and of the World of his Ideas.
Edit: "Yet we have multiple languages, but only one math."
Yet we have multiple languages, but only one French.
Edit: “Again… …dolfin-groups?
The species boundary is given. If dolphins have a different classification system, it follows that their reality is different than ours. Isn’t it?
Edit: “What… …programming?”
What happens when a dolphin uses an Aprilia RSR250 and runs against Rossi in Laguna Seca ? Whose driving skills comes out the other end? The dolphin’s or Rossi’s?
😵
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by black beetleIt wasn't a case of you failing to mention the environment. It was a case of you specifically stating that the environment was not a factor.
I am retractring none of my earlier statements; I gave you further details as regards the reason why I did not mention the environment. Since all organisms exist in their given environment and they do not exist in separation from it, it was needless to point it down. I clarified it again and again, but you still insist. I can’t help it.
Note that you have never suggested that a human, or dolphin or computer AI if put in a different environment would have a different math. Instead you claim that math is dependant on species. Species is not dependant on environment.
Yet we have multiple languages, but only one French.
Deliberately avoiding the point I see.
The species boundary is given. If dolphins have a different classification system, it follows that their reality is different than ours. Isn’t it?
Deliberately avoiding the point I see.
What happens when a dolphin uses an Aprilia RSR250 and runs against Rossi in Laguna Seca ? Whose driving skills comes out the other end? The dolphin’s or Rossi’s?
You tell me. Its your ridiculous argument. I would say a combination of both, but you seem to think it is entirely the Rossi's.
24 Feb 12
Brouwer, in 1913:
On what grounds the conviction of the unassailable exactness of mathematical
laws is based has for centuries been an object of philosophical research, and two
points of view may here be distinguished, intuitionism (largely French) and formalism (largely German). In many respects these two viewpoints have become
more and more definitely opposed to each other; but during recent years they have
reached agreement as to this, that the exact validity of mathematical laws as laws
of nature is out of the question. The question where mathematical exactness does
exist, is answered differently by the two sides; the intuitionist says: in the human
intellect, the formalist says: on paper.
(You can read the whole thing, in all its bizarre dry Dutch humour, here: http://www.math.uga.edu/~schang/math/formal.pdf)
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadEnvironment (an ecosystem) consists of biotic (populations of organisms and the living resources they use) and abiotic components (space, elevation, temperature, humidity).
It wasn't a case of you failing to mention the environment. It was a case of you specifically stating that the environment was not a factor.
Note that you have never suggested that a human, or dolphin or computer AI if put in a different environment would have a different math. Instead you claim that math is dependant on species. Species is not dependa ...[text shortened]... argument. I would say a combination of both, but you seem to think it is entirely the Rossi's.
The organisms living in almost any ecosystem on Earth are not identical individuals. They are categorized into species. Each species has a unique set of morphological, physiological and behavioral attributes that determine how each individual functions within the whole. The species provide ways of considering their contribution to the observed ecosystem’s structure, and so we describe the species richness, the biomass of individuals of each species and so we draw conclusions about the species diversity, and we can also observe their distribution across the physical space of the ecosystem.
The organisms utilize biotic and abiotic, inorganic and organic components that comprise the resources (the materials cycled by the inhabitants of an ecosystem as they carry on with life processes) of the ecosystem, due to the fact that they are exchanged between organisms and between organisms and the environment.
It is clear that the environment implies the factors that are the conditions under which the organisms of each species of a given ecosystem live. Think about a forest and a coral reef, two quite different ecosystems hosting different species: the trees of a forest and the coral heads are both living organisms, a resource used by many other species and a physical structure that determines the uniqueness of its particular ecosystem compared to the environment that would occupy the same space in the absence of either trees or corals. So we don’t have to do solely with the dynamics of the ecosystem per se (the division of the components between abiotic, biotic, inorganic and organic) and the species. There are other sets of categories, independent of the structural ones.
The complexity of an ecosystem will increase as the species diversity present in the ecosystem increases. Barren ecosystems are physically and functionally complex. Despite few species living in the environment, each barren ecosystem is functionally complex because it includes species with biochemical specializations that allow them to survive in unfavorable environments.
In a barren ecosystem with high species diversity, each species fights in order to promote the unique way that it will enter with a single aim: to find a vital space that it will be then used from the species as its environment. It ‘s a huge chain. In a lake ecosystem the sun hits the water helping the algae grow, algae use carbon dioxide and water to make sugars and oxygen, the oxygen is useful for the eukaryote organisms and the sugars provide food for the algae and the organism that they eat them, small fish eat the microscopic animals, absorb oxygen with their gills and expel carbon dioxide, which plants then use to grow. Cut off the algae and you end up with everything else severely impacted because the microscopic animals wouldn't have enough food, fish wouldn't have enough oxygen and plants would lose some of the carbon dioxide they need to grow.
Soil is also an important part of an ecosystem, for it provides important nutrients for the plants that live there. It helps the plants to keep themselves in place, it absorbs and holds water for plants and animals to use, it offers a home for lots of living organisms. And the atmosphere, the provider of oxygen and carbon dioxide for the plants and the animals, is also part of the water cycle. Without the interactions among organisms and elements in the atmosphere, there would be no life at all.
But you claim “species is not dependent on environment” oh the horror😵
24 Feb 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThank you for this😵
Brouwer, in 1913:
On what grounds the conviction of the unassailable exactness of mathematical
laws is based has for centuries been an object of philosophical research, and two
points of view may here be distinguished, intuitionism (largely French) and formalism (largely German). In many respects these two viewpoints have become
more and more def ...[text shortened]... ing, in all its bizarre dry Dutch humour, here: http://www.math.uga.edu/~schang/math/formal.pdf)