I am NOT leveraging that whatsoever. You’re not acknowledging that for those men, the metascience was the SOURCE of the science, they venerated an extra-dimensional infinite source, a la “God” as the basis of their scientific thinking! Even Cantor thought his theories were from God! What does this mean?? I’m simply taking a cue from their starting point. I think it’s quite wise to explore the possibility of a source point that is not perhaps measurable to us.

Naturalistic-only thinking yields brick walls if a “meta” element holds many keys.

Life itself, “spatial thought,” morals, meaning, etc. are things that can speak to these elements.

My original question, “where is the cube as spatially described” is the core driver of the nature of knowledge itself. Every single interrogative we use to inquire about knowledge in the “physical space” implies dimensionality within it.

Who is there?
What is he doing in space?
When is he doing it?
How is he doing it
Where is he doing it?
Why is he doing it?

And what is the “meaning” of the information? “Meaning” is a “worth-ometer” to information. It has an informatic contextual component and an experiential one.

There is zero “knowing” without questioning concerning spatial things, and if information has no dimension, there is a lot of explaining to do concerning this phenomenon of thought-form “conception”.

 

Consider a pet dog that is friendly generally, but then suddenly it bit your hand.

Does it “know” it did that? No. It does not “know” what it did. Did it derive “meaning” from it? Perhaps!

I would characterize the dog as very much knowing it had bitten your hand. In my experience, dogs act differently after they bite than they did before they bite, which suggests that they have memory of the bite. This, to me, is a sufficient criterion of "knowing".

 

So you acknowledge that spatiality is not a necessary condition of meaning?

Knowledge of the spatiality is not. But spatiality itself on some level is, because there has to be some dimension to the thing experiencing whatever it is.

What does "experential" mean precisely? Maybe an easier way to approach it is: What is the minimum criteria for us to say that a thing is experiencing?

Its ability to simply feel good or bad as a function of some stimulus. It may not be able to “report” it, but I’d say it applies to any living thing, as small as an insect or smaller. I would say if it has some kind of intention toward its space.

Old Pythagoras had a very bad feeling when he first understood the meaning of the length of a square's diagonal.

Sure, and this “feeling tied to this meaning” guided his information pursuits to make more sense of it so it felt right.

 

I would characterize the dog as very much knowing it had bitten your hand. In my experience, dogs act differently after they bite than they did before they bite, which suggests that they have memory of the bite. This, to me, is a sufficient criterion of "knowing".

Perhaps “knowing better.” This implies a moral dimension to the term. “Fido! You should have known better than to exact a bad experience upon someone’s hand!” So many people do criminal things and often don’t “know” what they’re doing in terms of what it “means” outside of feeling good to themselves. This might be called “selfish” or “ignorant” thinking at the expense of others. Atrocities are an absence of knowing moral implication, or ignoring the conscience that “knows better” concerning the behavior’s experiential impact on others.

 

I am NOT leveraging that whatsoever. You’re not acknowledging that for those men, the metascience was the SOURCE of the science, they venerated an extra-dimensional infinite source, a la “God” as the basis of their scientific thinking!

How can you possibly know what the "source of their science" was? You're fabricating a narrative that suits your worldview.

Every single interrogative we use to inquire about knowledge in the “physical space” implies dimensionality within it.

Duh? We experience physical space in three dimensions. There's nothing implied about that. Put on red glasses and everything looks red. So what?

There is zero “knowing” without questioning concerning spatial things. . .

I know what a linear operator is. I know that the order of every subgroup of a finite group divides the group. I know that a function cannot have an inverse unless it is injective. I didn't need any spatial questions to arrive at this knowledge.

How can that be?

 

Its ability to simply feel good or bad as a function of some stimulus.

This is pretty much how I'd characterize it, though I'd use "attractive or repulsive" instead of "good or bad". And in this sense, we can say that a plant has experience of sunlight because it is attracted to sunlight. Yes?

Then what's stopping us from saying that a drone is experiencing the world it navigates through? To a drone, running into walls is "bad" -- it avoids such behavior -- while following the mission specs is "good". The drone seeks to meet the mission specs, and if it finds itself veering from them, intentionally makes corrections until it is back in spec. How is that not "experiential"?

It may not be able to “report” it, but I’d say it applies to any living thing, as small as an insect or smaller. I would say if it has some kind of intention toward its space.

A drone seems to have "some kind of intention toward its space", otherwise it would crash!

 

Perhaps “knowing better.”

But the dog "knows", yes? And if the dog knows, then -- by your criteria -- it must have feeling, yes? So the knowledge/feeling phenomena is not limited to humans. Where's the line?

 

How can you possibly know what the "source of their science" was? You're fabricating a narrative that suits your worldview.

I know what they openly ESPOUSED as the source. I am NOT fabricating anything in this regard. It is common knowledge Newton was a Christian-inflected occultist who was obsessed with the Judeo-Christian God of Israel and this God's impact on the physical world, including characterizing gravity as God's hand. Tesla, who was one of the greatest inventors of all time, spoke openly and emphatically about studying metaphysics as the basis of science. Pythagorus was obsessed with the mystical element of "1" and its connection to divinities. Even Einstein spoke of these things. I grok their mindset as a starting point amidst a very closed, modern naturalistic basis, that’s all.

I am fabricating nothing here. It's empirical, historical, verifiable facts. You are fabricating that I'm fabricating!

Duh? We experience physical space in three dimensions. There's nothing implied about that. Put on red glasses and everything looks red. So what?

The implication is vast, man! Again, we do NOT know of "what we talk about" when we discuss "Dogs in the light?" We have nothing to work with but "non-dimensional" information, and we're characterizing "spatiality" with built-in inquiry terms that insist we exist in this dimensional space with referent elements we can't characterize directly??

I know what a linear operator is. I know that the order of every subgroup of a finite group divides the group. I know that a function cannot have an inverse unless it is injective. I didn't need any spatial questions to arrive at this knowledge.

How can that be?

Huh?? Um...did you somehow learn these things with a SCSI cable connected to your cortex?

”Where” were you when you learned it? “Somewhere” in spatiality. “What” did you use to learn it on? Some 3D object.
“What“ questions did you ask about how it works in relation to other things? There is not ONE piece of info that finds its way into your being without the 6 spatial interrogatives. Not one. You read a 3D book or looked at a 2D screen to study a linear operator. You listened to 3D classrooms to do it. You cannot divorce the physical space originating element of ALL information from the informational element itself. ALL we know about ANY knowledge is granted to us through physical space as the starting point. Long before vectors, someone drew the Cartesian plane for you to see it. Those very mathematical rules above speak to built-in elements that you can't even explain where they came from or what they are without referencing them as something in your spatial mind in a spatial space. Then you might translate them to 2D space drawings to further illustrate how they work, as you did the 2D array.

I'm not sure why this is difficult... We are spatial beings in a spatial existence, and everything we “know“ and conceive is based on it. And yet we are going to say "information" has "no dimension itself." Sure, but that has more holes than Hanes has underwear when it comes to really understanding anything, such as meaning, representation, feeling, morals, contextualization, sense, etc.

 

This is pretty much how I'd characterize it, though I'd use "attractive or repulsive" instead of "good or bad". And in this sense, we can say that a plant has experience of sunlight because it is attracted to sunlight. Yes?

Then what's stopping us from saying that a drone is experiencing the world it navigates through? To a drone, running into walls is "bad" -- it avoids such behavior -- while following the mission specs is "good". The drone seeks to meet the mission specs, and if it finds itself veering from them, intentionally makes corrections until it is back in spec. How is that not "experiential"?


A drone seems to have "some kind of intention toward its space", otherwise it would crash!

I think "attractive or repulsive" might be higher abstraction to something more simple though? You want to render it an effect, don’t you. Lol.

If you want to say the drone is "experiencing", I would say the drone would have to feel "good or bad" with respect to hitting the wall. Not just a "calculation," but an experience as a RESULT of the calculation. If it could report on the fact that IT as a whole is "feeling" something with respect to its computations, then sure. But this is precisely one of the elements we'd generally ascribe to something "alive" vs. not. Perhaps "LIFE", then is a superset of this concept of FEELING. Also, assuming the drone could feel good or bad, is it "attracted" to the wall or "repulsed" by it, or just operating as a function of computation?

(incidentally, when I spoke of “love” involving objects, I meant “object of affection” or simply referring to the person‘s visible bodily form as an “object” in physical space)

 

INFORMATION 1. A measurable quantity 2. An innate or ascribed attribute of a spatial element.

Example:
I have 5 apples (quantity). They’re round, green, and sour (quality). The second statement is qualitative information just the same. Yes?

 

> Please read post 1472 before this one...

WTF? I'm not supposed to write 1/3 that way? Did I just do something illegal?!? ROFL.

Hate to break it to ya, but the way I wrote it is exactly how you get the decimal expansion of 1/3. There's no mathematical trickery or sketchy sleight of hand, just an infinite sum of powers of 10. Which is exactly how we get the digits of Pi!

Um... I didn’t say that? I said the repeating mantissa is *one* unit to NOT be truncated, or you lose its definitiom as 1/3. Of course it can be written in decimal form.

I can't? Hold my beer. The third digit of 1/3 is 3/100, the third digit of Pi is 4/100. Get ready for it...
3/100 < 4/100... I just compared them!

Just like modern math compares cardinality of a set of God’s numbers ℕ to the set of man-made arithmetic concatenative processes. Or claim sets of “different size infinities.” Like either are sane. Nope, a repeating decimal doesn’t have sections. The moment you truncate it, you’ve jeopardized its identity as a repeating decimal and now it is not representing 1/3 properly.

LOL. Now you're dictating how a fraction should and should not be seen? Next time you fill up your car with gas, make sure to re-fill it before it hits 1/3 of a tank, because clearly we cannot divide one into three.

Point missed. We don’t divide 1/3 there! We MULTIPLY the man-made measurement algorithm 1/3 by the value, notice? 33 gallons, what is 1/3 of it? 1 TIMES 33 divide by 11. That is 3. And proper reasoning. :—)

No. If you multiply 1/3 by any number other than 1, you will have a different number. There is no "dependent utility"; that's complete nonsense.

1/3 is not a number. It’s a numeric dividing measurement process designed to create another. 1/3 of what? A fractional expression is a utilitarian process to make measuring easier, so we can stay in a given unit, and don’t have to use whole numbers for every measurement and change units (1.5 feet instead of 18 inches). That’s why we invented them.

"No worth" to whom? What does that even mean? Is 1/5 worthless, too? How about 1/2?

See above. Fractions are NOT numbers, they are two-number processes: their purpose is to yield another number or process for convenient measurement purposes... You can say 1.5 feet and remain in feet units instead of having to switch to another label expressed as a number (e.g., 18 inches). Mathematics goes beyond “REAL” in its semantic f*ckery, I tell you.

You really don't get the difference between a number and its base-10 representation. Where's the "dimmer switch" in the base-7 representation of 22/7? Ontologically speaking, how can the same number have a dimmer switch in one representation but not another?

Conversely, I get it at a very deep fringe-grade Kronecker level, and I’m at war with bullsh*t semantics that calls the likes of sqrt(-1) a number and not an arithmetical expression.

I only see base 1 and base 2 as the TRUE expression of numbers, as a computer does, which is an overlap of logic states and quantity metrics, and where the divide between quantitative value and spatial representation effectively disappears by seeing them as amalgamations of logic states.

Pi in this elementary definition is still a “resolving” process, NOT a number. It has a dimmer switch at its basest “representation”. Base-7 is as useless as understanding it as calling it a day with “π”

No, no, no. Neither 3.14 or 3.141592 or the other one are Pi. You'rve very confused if you think that Pi can be "defined" as those other numbers.

Nope, I am not confused one iota. I am at Kronecker-level fringe awareness. Reduce the number to its basest elemental representation and then, and only then, does the truth come out about it. Pi is a PROCESS, and it is application-specific in its resolution level. Some work with a CGA monitor version of pi, some with EGA, and some need 4K (NASA).

Ok, what's spatial about a googolplex? Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000002? Or the tenth Ackerman's number?

Again, they are NOT numbers. They are fractional arithmetic expressions invented for measurement conveniences using the integers with operator concatenations. And even THEN, they were learned by cutting apples in half, measurements on ruler. They represent fractionations of THINGS in space. “And all else is the work of man, period.”

Love is about objects? I have a very different conception of love.

Per our other discussion on feeling, when a physical object is classified as merely a machine that computes, I would not say the T-800 “loved” John Connor. There is no direct knowledge of space in a machine, just programmatic, numerical triangulation. Dead machines have no affection or feeling, and this is bit-amount and function-level agnostic.

Uh, so is Bb maj7 dimensional or not?

To write the chord out using 2D glyphs is dimensional, #1. No awareness of the chord without such.
Secondly, no chord without 3D objects (strings) making it. Thirdly, the wave itself is dimensional.

Nope. We use vector spaces to define Euclidean geometry, not the other way around. We can make a vector space with any number of basis vectors. So, what is spatial about a 0D vector space or a 1024D vector space?

Fallacious notion! Euclid‘s definitions are entirely geometric first, as you learned them first! they were taught drawing on a 2D chalkboard! You can’t even discuss vectors and spaces (spatial any one??) until you discuss lines and points. And vectors are also written as 2D arrows and arrays!

 

God created the Integers: All else is a derivative invention for convenience
AKA: Objects in mirror understand numbers, representations, and theory wayyy the f*ck more than thought; please kindly read carefully. ;--)

As toddlers, we learn what a number means.

When we’re born, we begin to make conscious, sensory observations upon reality immediately. We begin playing with 3D objects, and we start to understand what space means without any words to describe it. We develop a framework of reference for “feeling” as “knowing,” the basis of all knowledge and scientific inquiry.

We have a built-in, congenital, innate intelligence which permits the capacity to grok size and shape before we describe these things numerically. With a combination of tactile, visual and audio sense, we begin forming a framework for what a number even is.

The basis of knowledge is first in describing the presence of something spatially there.

”Mama” is there. She is the first word we utter typically, in recognition that her presence is there. The truth value, or logic value of her presence registers, or is known to the being without describing it yet.

This presence ALSO doubles as a fundamental quantity. She is THERE (true) and there is ONE of her.

This is the basis of what the number 1 means to a human. 1 is first even cognized as a spatial mapper to objects in physical space as the basis of all meaning. It is why we go on to use the number, once we spatially map its meaning, to other things. We hand the child a block and say, “1 block” repeatedly, until the number’s cognizance registers as meaning.

After the baby registers “1” with the block, and can say “1 block” confidently, we hand it another block, and say “2 blocks.” It then registers and spatially maps the innate “2“ to the second block as both another presence that it can ordinally label as the “2nd block” in the set, and also the cardinal value of “2 blocks.” We continue with 3, 4, 5 etc. The child groks counting, ordinality and cardinality via repetitive mappings to spatial elements.

Note that we do this typically in base 10 for convenience only, most likely because we have 10 fingers, and we can map a unique vocal utterance to each.

But if we had base 1 only to work with, we’d only use ”1“ as our presence mapper. We’d tell the baby “one block” and then “one-one block” and then “one-one-one block.” This is the identical fundamental value as using base n, and most commonly base 10, because the base n numbers are unique vocal utterances for groupings of successive copies of ”1” in disguise. “One“ is logic “presence of blocks” “Two” is short-hand for logic “presence presence” and “three” is “presence presence presence”.

The most important takeaway to the above is that numbers are first learned as spatial presence mappers, and that they double as logic states for this purpose. If I have “1” block, it is logic TRUE that a block is there. No block? No number. No block we attribute “0” to, which also doubles as a logic state. It is TRUE that no block is present, which is also understood as FALSE that a block is present.

This is the beginning of numerical reasoning. All numbers therefore get their identity and meaning as presence-mappers to 2D and 3D objects.

Therefore, numbers have innate connections to qualities within physical spatiality, or we wouldn’t know what they mean. They are unique tokens that confer logic presence as well as quantity as well as weight, which are all qualia of experiential FEELING independent of the number itself.

Once the baby can count blocks using numbers, we can then have it map basic arithmetic to them using typically base 10, to map the sounds and feel of numbers to spatial quantity, which yields the framework of meaning for information acquisition using the congenital tokens of “who/what/when/how/where/why” which have their basis in physical space as meaning.

Example: Who has the blocks? Mama. 1 mama. What are the blocks? Here, look at it and feel one to KNOW one. When are we talking about blocks? At 9am on Tuesday, a block on the calendar. How are we discussing them? By attributing presence values and quantity to them. Where are we discussing them? In a physical, spatial classroom. Why? Because it’s GOOD to know and learn on some experiential level. Every event stores this spatial information in context to these questions. (A side-note: numeric qualia value of feeling or experience can be assigned to the event, and each reason could have their own number, and the “experiential” magnitude on a scale can be compared to other experiences numerically)

We then divorce numbers from their original spatial mapping, and consider them as independent phenomena. But their original sense of meaning is how they map to spatial things. So we start having the baby using the same numbers to count apples, puppies, kittens, etc.

Later we take the counting integers and create numeric expressions based in the number 1 to denote easier measurement.

If we have 1 apple and we divide it in half, we can say we have 2 elements now. Both are apple-borne objects, and there are now 2 things numerically. But to denote it as a function of the same apple, we create a short-cut expression called “division” or ratio. We have 1 apple, and we now two parts of that 1. We call it 1/2. If we did it in 3 cuts, it would be 1/3, 4 is 1/4, etc. These are using integers to create measurement expressions based on 1 thing divided.

When you divide something, you have more numbers of things, but if you divide it and want to reference the new elements as a function of the original element, you place the original element as the numerator, and the denominator reflects how many new elements out of that parent one. Therefore, fractions are derivative number relationships COMPOSED of numbers, but they are not numbers (integers) themselves. We call them numbers out of convenience. But they are expressions of utility designed to confer fractions of another whole.

The decimal system is simply fractions based on 10ths, 100ths, 1000ths, etc. and have NOTHING to do with any other number until we artificially concatenate them to any given integer to the left of an artificial decimal point. A floating point number is therefore a manufactured expression. 5.4 is two concepts in one. The integer number 5, and the added concept of 4 1/10ths. “If we divide 1 into 10 parts, we want 4 of those 10 parts to be considered an “add on” to 5.” .4 is not a number. It is a fraction of 1 into 4 1/10th parts.

As shown above, all numbers in reference to counting are fundamentally built on the number one as a presence and quantity indicator, and zero as an absence and quantity indicator. Base 1 (unary) is therefore the most elementary base that all other bases are derived from for counting. Unary represents BOTH logic of presence AND singular quantity, therefore it is the only system where representation IS effectively value(!) and is transparent, and can employ any symbol or sound as “groupings.” Its “representation” IS an elementary truth state. This is incredibly important. Because outside of this (in higher bases) is where the representation/value issue becomes relevant as value and representation become separate from their constituent/conglomerative values!

All bases above unary permit more efficient counting by grouping 1 into implicit logic strings. If I have 1 block, and it’s TRUE (T), I can have a second block (2) and it’s unary TT, a third (3) and it’s unary TTT, etc.

Base 2 is base 1 in disguise, by permitting the number and logic state of 1 to reflect the logic truth of the ABSENCE of a block. We term this logical “false“ or “zero,” the “absence of a block.“

If I have one block or “TRUE that I have a block‘s presence there,“ denoted as “1”, and FALSE that I have another block also denoted as 0, we can add one block (or its truth value) to the absence of another block (denotes as false) and yield a result of 1 block (True). In the end, we are saying we have 1 block OR (not exclusive) we don’t have another block, and that leaves us with one block in both quantity and logic!

1 block + 0 block = 1 block
also written as
1 block OR 0 block = 1 block
also written as
“Is it TRUE I have a block OR (not XOR) I don’t have another block, then it’s true I have a block“
T + F = T​

If we have 1 block, and we add another block to have 2 blocks (11 or TT in unary), then we have a spatial issue only to represent this in binary. In base 2, where we have two numbers and logic states (0 and 1) to work with, we have to fill up one column with one of two values before going on to the next column.

So we have to say it’s false we have 1 block and now true we have two, which means we need to denote the first column as the presence or absence of a single block, and the next left column as the logical presence or absence of 2 blocks!

1 block + 1 block = 10 blocks
also written as
1 block OR 1 block = 0 “truth presences” for 1 block and 1 truth presence for 2 blocks
also written as
“Is it TRUE I have a block OR (not XOR) I have another block, then it’s FALSE I have 1 block and TRUE I have 2 blocks“
also written as
T or T = TF (False that 1 block is present, and true 2 blocks now is)​

when we add another block, we do the exact same evaluation to determine the truth value of whether or not we have 2 blocks and evaluate against and each column grows exponentially in unary truth value groupings, with a presence of absence of each so that, for example:

101
TFT
Or, reduced further from right to left:
“True we have 1, false we have 2, true we have 4”
or in unary counting from left to right
”true + (false + false) + (true + true + true + true)”
or 5 (which is higher representative, amalgamative decimal notation that stands for 5 truth states)
​

For each column, we are doubling the truth value comparisons from the prior column. To add two binary numbers together, we use the same approach.

All additional arithmetic operators such as multiplication, division, subtraction, square roots, exponents, etc. are born from variations of the elementary concept above.

All logic evaluations can be performed using compounded OR operations and the NOT operator (which inverts a value from 0 to 1 and vice versa) which yields XOR, and therefore NAND operators.

We can now see why both logic and quantity are intersecting concepts, from early-age spatial meaning mapping to the number 1, and why propositional logic is born in TRUE/FALSE elemental dichotomy, and why we can build binary computers as fundamental adding and logic evaluation devices based solely on contrasting states of voltage to denote such.

All numbers and number sets can therefore be represented by 0 and 1 as fundamental logic states and also as numbers. All sets are derivative of a 1-to-1 bijection between proposed logic set L {0, 1} and a proposed new number set called O {0, 1}. O stands for ontological, and is based on the empirical observation of how humans understand numbers first as spatial mapping concepts. It is from O that we derive a more efficient set ℕ for counting, and all other sets are numerical processes on elements of ℕ.

This is proven every day in Boolean-based digital computers. QED.

From a fundamental binary or unary representation, where numbers and expressions are logic states, all irrational expressions involving two parts (integer and fraction), such as pi, are in a state of perpetual escalating finitude, and every term adds greater resolution to an unattainable state of integer wholeness (which is a natural number). All “fractions” can be seen as dimmer switches of added finitude to the integer in question. Irrational numeric expressions have “infinite” resolution potential.

 

But the dog "knows", yes? And if the dog knows, then -- by your criteria -- it must have feeling, yes? So the knowledge/feeling phenomena is not limited to humans. Where's the line?

Absolutely. Dog == human, except a dog uses monotonic elements and is not reporting on any spatial “thought“ using the likes of words, advanced gesticulations, chalkboards, chalk, and videos. It’s more much ...unary? Lol. Dog can “know” someone’s there, maintains memory of its relationship to that someone, can signal basic needs from that someone, show affection etc. But there’s insufficient variety of communication to characterize any higher spatiality in it its being.

 

I know what they openly ESPOUSED as the source. I am NOT fabricating anything in this regard. It is common knowledge Newton was a Christian-inflected occultist who was obsessed with the Judeo-Christian God of Israel and this God's impact on the physical world, including characterizing gravity as God's hand.

Sigh. It is a historical fact that Newton was a Christian and very interested in numerology and the occult. But it is not a historical fact that any of that was the "source" of Newton's scientific work. His Principia is a science book, not a religious book. He literally says the opposite of what you attribute to him. Quoting from one of the most famous passages of Principia:

"I have not as yet been able to deduce from phenomena the reason for these properties of gravity, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy."

"I do not feign hypotheses" means "I make no guess" as to what causes gravity's action-at-a-distance behavior. It certainly does not mean "God's hand" causes gravity. Whatever metaphysical thoughts Newton harbored, he was sober and disciplined enough in his scientific work to leave them out of it.

You are fabricating a narrative. Please stop invoking the name of Newton and all the rest.

The implication is vast, man! Again, we do NOT know of "what we talk about" when we discuss "Dogs in the light?" We have nothing to work with but "non-dimensional" information, and we're characterizing "spatiality" with built-in inquiry terms that insist we exist in this dimensional space with referent elements we can't characterize directly??

I don't understand your problem with this. You agree that we can program a computer to interpret the data it receives in any form of dimensionality we wish, right? The computer takes non-dimensional information and, depending on how we tell it to interpret it, the computer can treat it as being non-dimensional, zero-dimensional, 1-dimensional, n-dimensional. Do you disagree with any of that? If not, then why can't you apply the same reasoning to humans? Our brains interpret physical information in three dimensions. Can you not see the possibility of us being "programmed" to interpret it that way?

Alternative way of looking at this. The vestibular system in our inner ear allows us to orient in space. Fluid flows through the semi-circular canals, which our brains interpret as physical rotation; fluid flowing through the otolithic organs is interpreted as linear acceleration. Now, it is a fair question to ask: did the vestibular system come to be the way it did because the world is three-dimensional, or did a three-dimensional perspective of the world come to be because of the way the vestibular system works?

I'm asking that you be open to the possibilities of that question.

”Where” were you when you learned it? “Somewhere” in spatiality. “What” did you use to learn it on? Some 3D object.

This is called begging the question. You presume that the world is 3D, therefore I must have learned non-spatial concepts from interacting with 3D things. But I'm questioning that very premise. Your argument to my question is that everything that we can conceive of is referenced to spatialness. I offer a counterargument of pure mathematics. You counter by saying that I have learned the mathematics from 3D books and blackboards. !!! This is a faulty counter argument! You're assuming the thing we're arguing.

I'm not sure why this is difficult... We are spatial beings in a spatial existence, and everything we “know“ and conceive is based on it.

This is the premise -- "we are spatial beings in spatial existence" -- that I cannot take as given. It might be true, but it also might not be true. We have to recognize that possibility.

 

I think "attractive or repulsive" might be higher abstraction to something more simple though?

"Good vs bad" seems far more loaded than "attraction vs repulsion". Good/bad implies moral and/or aesthetic values, which hardly seems fundamental.

If you want to say the drone is "experiencing", I would say the drone would have to feel "good or bad" with respect to hitting the wall. Not just a "calculation," but an experience as a RESULT of the calculation.

That seems do-able. For instance, a drone may have a very complex set of goals that may not all be achievable at the same time. A sophisticated drone would have an entire subsystem dedicated to prioritizing its goals. Priorities would change dynamically, based on the current circumstances the drone found itself in. If near an obstacle, obstacle-avoidance takes priority, and navigation/performance/communications goals would be re-ordered.

With sufficient complexity, there is a sense in which the various subsystems would be competing with each other (like the voices in our head) during certain regimes of flight. I can imagine some level of complexity where the prioritization subsystem could be said to experience "pain" as it tried to find the optimal way to minimally impact all of its competing goals.

If it could report on the fact that IT as a whole is "feeling" something with respect to its computations, then sure.

Being able to report experience is an entirely different level of consciousness, yes? Most animals cannot report their experience.

But this is precisely one of the elements we'd generally ascribe to something "alive" vs. not.

I'd have no problem calling anything -- whether carbon based or not -- that had consciousness alive.

Also, assuming the drone could feel good or bad, is it "attracted" to the wall or "repulsed" by it, or just operating as a function of computation?

How do we whether a plant is attracted to or repulsed by sunlight? If a thing changes itself such that the change causes it to get closer to an object, and this behavior continues as long as it can, then the thing is attracted to the object. Repulsion is the exact opposite.

(incidentally, when I spoke of “love” involving objects, I meant “object of affection” or simply referring to the person‘s visible bodily form as an “object” in physical space)

There are notions of love that include no object or person of affection.

 

INFORMATION 1. A measurable quantity 2. An innate or ascribed attribute of a spatial element.

Example:
I have 5 apples (quantity). They’re round, green, and sour (quality). The second statement is qualitative information just the same. Yes?

No, I'm using information only in the sense of 1. Colloquially, we say that an empirical fact, such as "apples are round", is "information". In this usage, the "information" of the sentence is the result of reading and parsing the message. But the information I'm talking about is more general. The information I'm talking about is independent from the meaning of the message. The information in the string "apples are round" depends on the specified language (it need not be English) and the probability of the symbols within that language. In other words, the meaning of the message doesn't matter; the degrees of freedom in the string are what determines how much information it conveys.

In my usage, information is simply a physical quantity with no inherent "meaning". It characterizes the number of different configurations that a state can take. We say that an n bits of RAM can store n bits of information. It doesn't matter if the RAM is storing pictures, music, or sentences about apples.

 

God created the Integers: All else is a derivative invention for convenience
AKA: Objects in mirror understand numbers, representations, and theory wayyy the f*ck more than thought; please kindly read carefully. ;--)

Disagree with all of your conclusions. I feel bad that you spent time writing it all out so carefully, and I can write a long retort spelling out preicsely how number systems and logic systems are entirely different things, but I've already done that. So, yeah, I disagree. :--)

I can, however, add new material to the baby stuff. You say that human babies learn through spatiality, which I completely agree with, but you don't seem able to entertain the possibility that human babies were programmed to be this way.

Let's take it further. What about the baby in the womb? Its experience of spatiality is surely different than that of its future 1-year old self, yes? What about the 24-week old fetus? What's going on in its brain?

If we keep taking this back, all the way to the moment when the lucky sperm fertilized the egg, is there a point -- an exact instant of time -- at which consciousness comes online? Or is it a gradual thing? What is spatiality to a 1-week old fetus?

 

Yeah, no. I spin ZERO narrative. 100% historical observation. I could say “you’re arguing from a place of profound ignorance,” but I won’t. You take one quote from Newton to make your point out of context to tons of others.

What’a hilarious(!) is the very guy of GREATEST controversy here is the guy with the most explicit words to this end!!

Check out none other than Professor Georg Cantor’s words:

“...his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications – he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[72] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[5]

“Dauben, Joseph (2004) [1993], "Georg Cantor and the Battle for Transfinite Set Theory" (PDF), Proceedings of the 9th ACMS Conference (Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA), pp. 1–22. In


There are tons of quotes from Newton alone on the topic about God being a personal source of everything, including knowledge of nature:

“From this fountain (the free will of God) it is those laws, which we call the laws of nature, have flowed, in which there appear many traces of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experimental. He who is presumptuous enough to think that he can find the true principles of physics and the laws of natural things by the force alone of his own mind, and the internal light of his reason, must either suppose the world exists by necessity, and by the same necessity follows the law proposed; or if the order of Nature was established by the will of God, the [man] himself, a miserable reptile, can tell what was fittest to be done.”

“He rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator. For 'god' is a relative word and has reference to servants, and godhood is the lordship of God, not over his own body as is supposed by those for whom God is the world soul, but over servants. The supreme God is an eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect being; but a being, however perfect, without dominion is not the Lord God.”

https://todayinsci.com/N/Newton_Isaac/NewtonIsaac-God-Quotations.htm

No “narrative“ being fabricated here, my friend. It is only in more recent times that the concept of an infinite source God has been divorced from starting principles, which itself has become a bias.

 

Disagree with all of your conclusions. I feel bad that you spent time writing it all out so carefully, and I can write a long retort spelling out preicsely how number systems and logic systems are entirely different things, but I've already done that. So, yeah, I disagree. :--)

They are only different things because we’ve been TAUGHT that. If you read it again with an open mind, tabula rasa, without all predispositions, it makes hella sense, I’m sorry. You make it sound like things can‘t come from a unified conceptual source! It’s incensing you can’t disabuse all frameworks to make basic observational sense. I start from a place that is WAY different from normal, using spatial meaning and logic on a bare plane. You claimed you would do that when you agreed to base inference, arithmetic. Instead, you say “no can do” due to prior “framework” knowledge. NONE is necessary to understand that.

 

Djsfantasi! I would love your opinion on post #1272!