East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Job Offer: Intelligence Co-Ordinator...

Salary__$1,000,000/yr...

Qualifications: Wise Objective Organizer of Subjects and Objects...

'Naked' Subjectivists Need Not Apply...

'Naked' Subjectivists Have No Intelligence Co-Ordinator Abilities...

Excellent Perks and Benez For Qualified Subjective/Objective Logician...

Goal: Organize Particular Instinctual Reasoning Into
Universal Logical Wisdom...

The Under-Signed:
Plato, I. Kant & C.S. Peirce... rrr

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Knowledge as Computation in vivo: Semantics vs. Pragmatics as Truth vs. Meaning

Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic

Department of Computer Science and Electronics
Mälardalen University
Västerås, Sweden
+46 21 15 17 25
4400 words

gordana.dodig-crnkovic@mdh.se

Abstract.

Following the worldwide increase in communications through computer networking, not only economies, entertainment, and arts but also research and education are transforming into global systems. Attempts to automate knowledge discovery and enable the communication between computerized knowledge bases encounter the problem of the incompatibility of syntactically identical expressions of different semantic and pragmatic provenance. Coming from different universes, terms with the same spelling may have a continuum of meanings. The formalization problem is related to the characteristics of the natural language semantic continuum. The human brain has through its evolution developed the capability to communicate via natural languages. We need computers able to communicate in similar, more flexible ways, which calls for a new and broader understanding far beyond the limits of formal axiomatic reasoning that characterize the Turing machine paradigm. This paper arguments for the need of a new approach to the ideas of truth and meaning based on logical pluralism, as a consequence of the new interactive understanding of computing, that necessitates going far beyond Turing limit.

Background
Leibniz's dream of Mathesis Universalis, a universal science encompassing all existing knowledge, appears today to be a matter of the practical utilization of Informatics. The necessity of conceptualization of global informational space calls for an understanding across the borders of previously independent universes embedded in their local contexts. The construction of a universal knowledge system is clearly a considerably more complex task than was originally imagined and even the much more modest ambition of obtaining a smooth flow of knowledge between sub-fields of a multi-disciplinary area meets significant problems.

Post-modernists deny that we can justify knowledge by reference to either empirical facts (pragmatics) or logical truths (semantics), because of the constructed nature of knowledge, so they endorse an “anything goes” philosophy. However, even recognizing the fact that knowledge always is context-dependent, it is possible to establish epistemology upon a practice (pragmatics) as a criterion of meaningfulness instead of searching for absolute truths in semantics. Wittgenstein’s claim in Philosophical Investigations "Meaning just its use." presents possible grounds for a pragmatic approach to meaning that encompass language as both thought expression and speech act. It may also apply to information processing in physical systems such as living organisms. Acting in the physical world may be seen as a generalization of a language game in which linguistic symbols are replaced by physical objects such as e.g. molecules.

The problem of absolutes has become acute nowadays: no absolute time, space or vacuum, no preferred coordinate system; there is no longer firm ground for absolute truths. What remains however, is scientific truthlikenss - the best truth in given circumstances according to our best knowledge. There is an essential difference between truth and truthlikeness in that truth is absolute, objective and eternal, while truthlikeness is relative, constructed and evolving. The problem of linguistic holism may be resolved by replacing identity with similitude and veracity with verisimilitude. We can learn from biological systems which through evolution have developed semantic metabolism(Maturana, Varela) as a cognitive response to the problem of shifting contexts.

Popper was the first prominent realist philosopher and scientist to adopt a radical fallibilism about science, defending at the same time the epistemic superiority of scientific method. Popper was the first philosopher to abandon the idea that science concerns truth and to take the problem of truthlikeness seriously. In his early work, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Popper implied that the only kind of progress an inquiry can make consists in falsification of theories. (Popper, 1980) Now how can a succession of falsehoods constitute epistemic progress? Epistemic optimism means that if some false hypotheses are closer to the truth than others, if truthlikeness (verisimilitude) admits of degrees, then the history of inquiry may turn out to be one of steady progress towards the goal of truth.

“While truth is the aim of inquiry, some falsehoods seem to realize
this aim better than others. Some truths better realize the aim than
other truths. And perhaps even some falsehoods realize the aim better
than some truths do.”

[SteveA]

There is simply no-one to suffer from Solipsism Syndrome ... for one very good reason.

Gee, don't be so gullible as to believe this crap....It's all lies lies lies.

Mind always fragmentises from the whole, that's what mind does.


The ultimate trick Oneness plays with itself is personalisation/individuality...

Out of that initial trick all other tricks sprout.


And what is personalisation?

It's another word for the illusory state of an embodied sense of appearing to be separate and unfulfilled Oneness/Wholeness assumes Itself to be.



The sensation of being.....Postpartum dis-order.

Longing for order in an otherwise chaotic state.
A sense of being alone.

Unless your a narcissist.

I was thinking along similar lines - I can imagine someone being fearful of being alone, but if ones closet is cleaned and they can at least learn to be self sufficient, then there's really no problem. It could also be a fear of losing something that is depended upon, but you never really leave anything behind ... the focuses shift and things grow, but is that such a bad way for things to be? I don't think it could hardly be better.

I don't see things as entirely a product of oneself, but everything we talk about with words or try to describe appear to be unable to ever describe anything truly "out there" in an objective sense. I do believe there exists something "else", but that description doesn't really describe it ... someone simply has to look at themself and life and emotions, thoughts, dreams, future possibilities, past memories etc. etc. etc. and all that is still "inside the box" ... what's outside the box is indescribable because it's purely creative - that's a target you can't "lead", and there may in an abstract sense be things beyond that, but it becomes pointless as all the good stuff is here already

Here's a slightly more technical description of how I see things fitting together:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post120186

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Visual Thesaurus__ http://www.visualthesaurus.com/index.jsp

Type in Reason and See...
Type in Logic and See...
Type in Any Word and See It's Graphic...

[RascalPuff]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH KANT'S PHILOSOPHY

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgkant.htm

http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm

www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Immanuel-Kant-Philosopher.htm


www.johnreilly.info/cpr.htm

www.examiner.com/x-28944-Albany-Animal-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Why-Kant-Was-Wrong

www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-immanuel-kant.htm

[MJA]

I don't need proof of my existence,
I have no doubt,
I truly just am.
Do you?

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH KANT'S PHILOSOPHY

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgkant.htm

What is wrong with this site...

When we pick and choose, with a great lack of understanding, as the guy who critiqued Kant, in the article link you have posted, we entirely miss the truth of what his entire life's work was truly about. It was about much more of reality, than this mere mis-interpretation portends...

The synthetic a priori judgment may be called the heart of Kant's philosophy. And we may say now in passing that the synthetic a priori judgment is a contradiction in terms and in thought; it is an impossibility.

The synthetic a priori judgment is not the heart of kant's philosophy. The analytic a priori esthetic judgment is... And btw, there are four a priori parts to it, covering all possible thinker styles... This guy just grabbed the solipsist side of the ideas... What Kant did was show their positive and negative inter-actions. Most, as this guy has done, relates to Kant's early work, when it wasn't fully matured...

It is nothing of the kind. It is a simple analytic judgment.

And again, Kant spoke of both the synthetic subjective metaphysics of feelings, and the objective analytic judgment of concepts...

Here is idealism, here is subjectivism with a vengeance.

Kant was an ideal realist, but people confuse the ideas of the times, with the common word meanings of those days, with today. Most of his older days ideas have only recently been published in English, yet this guy, as well as most loose researchers, only read the older earlier published works... And yes, Kant did discuss both the idealism and subjectivism of his day__But, someone who exposes all ideas of subjectivism and objectivism at once, can hardly be classed as a subjectivist... How would he have described objectivism accurately, if he weren't an objectivist...? He couldn't have, just as there's plenty of that type of nonsense on TQ...

So Kant is as subjectivistic as Hume ever dared be.

Wrong again__Only an objectivist is capable of describing both subjective/objective views__It's just the nature of the beast...

Is it not strange that a man of Kant's undoubted intellectual gifts did not notice here an absurd contradiction? Why, he has just finished explaining to us, in great detail, the whole nature of the human mind; and now he concludes that we cannot know the nature of anything!

This is a completely false statement. Kant's statement is "The thing in itself is unknowable" just as Wittgenstein stated about private language; "What is unknown, should not be stated" or close; "What we do not know, we must not speak". It's all about 'Thing in itself'__instincts we can not yet see into. It is a lie to think we can. If this guy thinks he can, where's his discription of 'Instincts'...? Fight or flight is all we know for certain, about em...

"Man can know nothing with certitude."

Absolutely true__We can only know our aims and goals, in the absolute__A vague general direction, into the future__Any more invites trouble...

Despite errors, absurdities, and contradictions, Kant's philosophy -- notably that of The Critique of Pure Reason -- has exercised a tremendous influence upon human thinking for almost two centuries.

Tis his 'Critique of Judgment', especially his 'Esthetics' and his later works where his true objectivity is fully realized. The 'Critique of Pure Reason' he's talking about was Kant's first critique of reason. As anyone knows studying philosophy, only any philosophers' older and more mature works are his true and final foundational ideas, as seeking the truth takes a lifetime for anyone. Look at TQ with all the resources of the web at hand, and no truth yet__and this is 2010...

In all this, and in the examples offered in proof of it, Kant is entirely gratuitous and sophistical. Besides, he stands self-condemned in using logical reasoning to establish the fact that logical reasoning is useless.

So one easily sees the true vain of this posted author__He's clearly an absolute Solipsist and Pure Subjectivist__Now Ain't he...???

'The radical academy' needs more schooling than raw emotions... This poster is purely subjective immature tripe...

Anyone who simply reads all of Kant's own material, and professional secondary literature will easily see all the minds he so clearly described__and fully grounds in objective nature of the real world, through his use of Baumgarten's esthetics of the objective physical world, by the objective side of the mind... The synthetic a priori was simply about those of the metaphysical vein, and the 'background independence' of reason__not logic... He didn't even critique logic__Only reason, as he used objective logic to critique subjective and objective reason... Kant was a thorough scientific logician of the mind, but he's only more easily understood through Peirce's even more thorough scientific logic of the mind...

[Mikal]

2012

The top twenty questions about 2012 answered by one of NASA Senior Scientists. The rest of the article at this link: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/2012-and-counting/



Dr. David Morrison is the Director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute and Senior Scientist in the NASA Astrobiology Institute. Dr. Morrison received his Ph.D. in astronomy from Harvard University (where Carl Sagan was his thesis advisor) and has spent most of his career working in planetary science and astrobiology. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the California Academy of Sciences. He is recipient of the Dryden Medal for research of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Sagan Medal of the American Astronomical Society for public communication. Morrison is a leading skeptic and proponent of improving science education and literacy. Asteroid 2410 Morrison is named in his honor.

It appears Dr. David Morrison is not aware that the original concern for 2012 began with Dr. Johan Calleman who holds a Ph.D in physical biology, and who authored the book The Mayan Calendar and the Transformation of consciousness.

By the sounds of Morrison’s discourse he has certainly never discussed with those military men who after retirement felt a need to openly discuss secrets they were held to concerning Roswell, New Mexico and as for the alien issue which is worldwide across the globe it is truly a human dilemma that has become a complicated problem with confusing answers for many. Some governments, Canada included are releasing what used to be classified documents but in a very cautious protocol so time will tell about the secrecy of government.

The Nibiru story simply comes from the searches of a long-time ancient researcher attempting to unwind a particularly complicated and obscure part of recorded history. Beyond his research which has always given cause to wonder, he is unfortunately not responsible for what others will have a tendency to idealize into a hoax or a human fear.

His claims about the Sumerians are particularly ignorant. Some of the oldest manuscripts still existing clearly reveal knowledge of astronomy that was passed down through ages and ages; many of the ancient stelea and carvings are really star-maps not pictorial images.

He claims there is no planet alignment. Sorry there is a planet alignment which will be happening June 13, 2010.

He speaks pretty clearly about Solar Maximum but I seen no admittance on his part that science has been scientifically tampering with the earth’s magnetic field through the technology of HAARP. Many reputable scientists are speaking out about that program and discussing it very intelligently, based on moral and ethical grounds that the program is not transparent enough as to its capability for destructive means and uses.

It is difficult to say exactly what 2012 is really about but the entire subject matter should be discerned not judged as Dr. Morrison is doing. We are at the end of a World Age, at the end of the Age of Pisces and at the end of 4 civilizational epochs. What that means to us as people on the earth is an unknown but as physics recognizes our global fields we do know that because we are physical, biological, brain/mind and consciousness, energy fields affect us and this is a time of accelerated energy in the universal fields.

The entire subject caught my attention because in all the perspectives growing from the unknown aspect of the date of 2012, consensus is only found amongst those proffering the theory that there is occurring some change or altering in the nature of the human psyche and a widening of the human frame of consciousness.

As I research 2012, I try to understand human fear and how great is the collective imagination of an entire civilization. As I look at most things as energy I am somewhat convinced that we are collectively experiencing an alteration or change in our perception at its social base. I don’t worry so much what that might be or mean but I am mindful that Jung stated “the unconscious is the unwritten history of mankind”—let’s hope nothing too horrible comes erupting out of it.


Regards Mikal

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Great Irrationalistic 'Fear' Conspiracy...

Somebody's stealing my toys...rrr

In conspiracy theory, the term New World Order or NWO refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government.

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through a totalitarian world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and put an end to international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be orchestrated by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes.[2][3][4][5][6]

Prior to the early 1990s, New World Order conspiracism was limited to two American countercultures, primarily the militantly anti-government right, and secondarily fundamentalist Christians concerned with end-time emergence of the Antichrist.[7] Skeptics, such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet, have expressed concern that right-wing conspiracy theories about a New World Order have now not only been embraced by many left-wing conspiracy theorists but have seeped into popular culture, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Political scientists warn that this mass hysteria may not only fuel lone-wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life, such as the far right wooing the far left into joining a revolutionary Third Position movement capable of subverting the established political powers.

I suppose these self-torturers think the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, Muslims and whoever just sincerely love the Americans, well enough to co-operate in a global conspiracy__Which they'd just have to for any fear conspiracies to be true...

Wake-Up__It Ain't Happening...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And anyone can line up a million more in the other direction__What's that prove RP...?

You gotta do the research__The textbook research__The real work...

Where's your scientific method for finding the truth...?

Btw, not one reputable site/link listed...


My goat's on strike...rrr

WHAT IS WRONG WITH KANT'S PHILOSOPHY

http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgkant.htm

http://www.friesian.com/kant.htm

www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Immanuel-Kant-Philosopher.htm


www.johnreilly.info/cpr.htm

www.examiner.com/x-28944-Albany-Animal-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Why-Kant-Was-Wrong

www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-immanuel-kant.htm