Because you are either married or divorced. . .

C'mon. The sentences "I am married" and "I have a daughter" are propositional statements, not inductive arguments. The sentence "World War I was a just war" is not a propositional statement and would require an inductive argument, presenting various historical facts and opinions. By the end, my belief about the justness of WWI may or may not be swayed.

Can you drive? “Depends”. The “depends” is the sense or contextualization where it becomes an absolute. Yes, I have my license. No, it got suspended. Yes, I was trained. No, every time I drive I hit something.

I find that most times when someone asks me "Can you drive?" it is rarely a binary consideration. Perhaps it is pouring rain and the tires on my car are balding. Can I drive? Maybe 50% yes, 50% no. Perhaps I've had a couple of drinks. Can I drive? Maybe 30% yes, 70% no. Perhaps I've driven the last twenty times and I'm resenting feeling like a chauffeur. Can I drive? Maybe 10% yes, 90% no.

Most questions we actually ask are not binary. No one asks "is the chair there or not"? We ask, "What time is it?" or "How are you feeling?" or "What did you think of that great argument Javier made about the justness of WWI?"

 

No, an integer is a named portion of a countable INFINITY. The continuum is ℝ, not ℤ.

Ah, but FFS! There are "weirds" here we are plumbing! Open your mind a sec past the "officiality" of the nomenclature, and see the Core(necker) concept I'm getting at: I'm arguing the integers (ℤ) are RELATED to REALS by a strange-ass quality, that you can create real numbers out of integers and mantissa concatenation of more of them. We DO it in binary computers all day long! A discrete system at the end of the day outputs discrete bits. Relating these bits through output concatenation to create "meaning" of "these bits" vs. "those bits" is part of what I'm getting at here. I'm making the case you are a BINARY BRAIN and you truly DO NOT know the difference of what number sets you are referring to, as any computer does NOT. Computers effectively work with ℤ by using my proposed O, and can represent all the other sets (which as Kronecker said, and I agree, are simply derivative elements).

If x, y, and z are real number lines, then this is not true. The most straightforward proof is Cantor's diagonalization argument. In fact, the situation is much, much more dire than you might expect. The amount of numbers in ℝ that we can label (like 4 or Pi or 74.239484) is essentially zero percent. Almost all numbers in ℝ are uncomputable and unnameable.

Correct! It's why if you named each point as a unique integer, you COULD in fact essentially count them and refer to them as whole points rather than fractionations (not "forever" of course, as you can't with the REALS or anything else, as they in the end they are "effectively" uncountable and unnameable because they become unwieldy and ridiculous).

Lol, I appreciate the attempt, but nah. In the domain of integers, -3 has different properties than 3 -- it's not just a "regular" 3 with the "-" symbol in front of it. Without the negatives, a question such as "What is four minus seven?" is unanswerable. So, unless you believe that "What is four plus seven" is more "real" than "What is four minus seven", ℤ is no more illusory than ℕ.

I will concede this point due to how I worded it.

I would agree they are equal TO A NONDESCRIPT ADDER that can be used to represent subtraction through addition and negation (subtracting number B from A by inverting B, adding 1 to it then adding that sum to A, etc.), since bits are not being "added or subtracted" directly in the sense of real-life quantity, when it comes to humans with minds, it's all Z. And I would say "When God created the integers, he also including negative ones and 0" but they are derivatives of TDS and TAS numbers 0 and 1.

There is no function that generates ℝ, so whatever you think is equating INFINITY to 1 doesn't exist.

You showed some function earlier that was generating real numbers... I can't remember what exactly it was, but it showed a relationship between infinity and the numeric.

 

I do fully understand h. I fully understand your argument, too. I am making the claim that your BRAIN that just “created h” is binary (high and low voltages) and you’re assuming, with a binary brain, that unary is how things work!!

Then you are clearly not understanding my argument, because even if my brain is entirely and strictly a binary computer, that would not in any way preclude me from using or creating a unary or ternary or any n-ary system of computation. Why? Because computation is independent from choice of representation.

Think of it this way: using your binary computer, you could write an emulator for a CPU that only uses unary computations. Likewise, using a unary computer, you could write an emulator for a binary CPU. The entire point is that it doesn't matter whether we use base-1 or base-2 or base-99, the results are ALWAYS the same.

The analog computer’s purpose is to yield discretization.

No, the opposite; at least please read the Wiki entry for analog computers.

Without discretization somewhere, there is no boolean logic.

Quite true, and -- here's the kicker -- there is no discretization in analog computing! In other words, there are no (zero, zilch) boolean functions in an analog computer. Yet, somehow!?!?!, analog computers can compute anything a binary boolean computer can compute. Please explain how that can be.

There is only one correct answer: computation is independent of representation.

Now, follow the logic:

1) Computation is independent of representation.
2) Our brains (or the universe, or whatever) compute.

Therefore,

3) Our brains (or the universe, or whatever) are independent of representation.

Thus, the claim that base-2 is ontologically fundamental is unsound. The only reasonable induction is that all bases are ontologically equivalent. There is nothing special about TRUE/FALSE.

 

C'mon. The sentences "I am married" and "I have a daughter" are propositional statements, not inductive arguments. The sentence "World War I was a just war" is not a propositional statement and would require an inductive argument, presenting various historical facts and opinions. By the end, my belief about the justness of WWI may or may not be swayed.

I find that most times when someone asks me "Can you drive?" it is rarely a binary consideration. Perhaps it is pouring rain and the tires on my car are balding. Can I drive? Maybe 50% yes, 50% no. Perhaps I've had a couple of drinks. Can I drive? Maybe 30% yes, 70% no. Perhaps I've driven the last twenty times and I'm resenting feeling like a chauffeur. Can I drive? Maybe 10% yes, 90% no.

Most questions we actually ask are not binary. No one asks "is the chair there or not"? We ask, "What time is it?" or "How are you feeling?" or "What did you think of that great argument Javier made about the justness of WWI?"

C'mon. Why are you, a binary machine, arguing this? Watson works on binaries, as does YOU, and builds abstractions from the binary high and lows behind the scenes. With enough data, the lines of induction and deduction disappear. As a state processor, you DO NOT know the difference, because the difference between induction and induction is how your states are reflecting what's going on in physical space and whether you can deduce immediately or induce to eventually arrive at a real truth.

When you have trillions of if-statements that are evaluating absolutes, you can parse all the grey areas of induction from deduction in seconds. In fact, deduction is used to narrow down the inductive greys to get to something that matters.

Who's sitting in the chair? Let's determine it's a dog with strings of absolutes as a T-800 or Watson would:

Is there chair there or not? Yes.
If yes, is there something sitting in the chair? Yes.
If yes, is there a living creature sitting in the chair? Yes.
If yes, is the living creature a domesticated animal? Yes.
If yes, is the living creature under 2 feet tall? Yes.
If yes, does the creature bark? yes.

FIDO is sitting in the chair. Derived from a string of absolute questions to arrive at an answer as Watson does.

Next:

How are you feeling? Eliminative:

Are you angry? No.
Are you sad? No.
Are you depressed? No.
Are you ambivalent? No.
Are you hopeful? Yes.
... continue with all possible options, including combinations
Are you happy? Yes, as all other options available that make sense are eliminated.

Are you hopeful and happy? yes. Would you classify yourself as more happy than hopeful? yes. You are happy.
But you also might be a bit hopeful.

One or two discrete states are reflecting the reality of your emotion. It may have a strange name, but it can be arrived at through deductive elimination.

Next:

Was World War I just a war? Answer implies yes or no after the deductive facts are presented.

A "war" is defined first with n parameters, all set with specific boundaries.

1) Number of nations
2) Number killed
3) Money lost and made


Does WWII match the parameters or exceed them?

If so, it wasn't "just a war," it was "more."


When you have a conversation with quantum binary-based Siri in 2050, you will not question her inductive vs. deductive skills. With enough data and enough paths, it's indistinguishable. She's found in the movie "Her."

 

Answer me this:

A person uses a Lite-Brite to light up the “image” of the cloud. The light bulbs are not connected. Would you say the “Lite-Brite” knows what a cloud is? And what is the cloud the Lite-Brite’s bulb states are reflecting in “physical reality?”

A Lite-Brite is a an extremely rudimentary information processor, with zero memory, so why would we expect it to know what a cloud is? When a cloud casts a show on a rock, does the rock know what the cloud is? I'd say no, for precisely the same reasons that I'd say the Lite-Brite doesn't know.

The amalgamator I’m referring to is the “meaning behind the concatenations” that allow you as a living person to say the cloud on the Lite-Brite’s discrete bulbs is a “state machine of 85 bulbs lit up” that REPRESENT a REAL cloud that is either “there or not.”

There you go with "meaning" again. What "meaning" does the Lite-Brite convey to a blind person?

When I look at the Lite-Brite, I don't actually see a cloud. There is no cloud in the Lite-Brite. But my brain finds associations that vaguely resemble the pattern of lights presented by the Lite-Brite, and I think to myself "That kind of looks like a cloud".

This is precisely what happens when I look at a dog, except the associations with the dog are much stronger. What's the difference between the light from the dog and the light from the Lite-Brite? The light from the dog has some trillion times more information than the light from Lite-Brite. That allows me to strengthen my belief that the light from the dog is probably associated with a physical dog, which is a complex source of information.

There is no meaning until a 2D screen lights up pixels in sufficient proximity to reconstruct the 1D to the discernible 2D second order (First order being the 3D object).

No idea what you're trying to say. Maybe it would help to just call everything 2D, since that's how we sense the world visually.

 

THIS right here. Run with this or die! (Jk)

But you still insist the dog exists independent of your states that reflect its existence, correct???

No, I assume the dog exists independent of my states. I can't know for sure, because there is no absolute reference!

 

Then you are clearly not understanding my argument, because even if my brain is entirely and strictly a binary computer, that would not in any way preclude me from using or creating a unary or ternary or any n-ary system of computation. Why? Because computation is independent from choice of representation.

Think of it this way: using your binary computer, you could write an emulator for a CPU that only uses unary computations. Likewise, using a unary computer, you could write an emulator for a binary CPU. The entire point is that it doesn't matter whether we use base-1 or base-2 or base-99, the results are ALWAYS the same.

No, the opposite; at least please read the Wiki entry for analog computers.

I did. If its purpose is to compute, its purpose is to yield meaningful, calculable numbers to a human being. Whether analog or digital, continuous or discrete (measurable) bits are being yielded. Even if one is solving differential equations. In the end, it's outputting something that is bounded. They work with continuous phenomena for the purpose of yielding outputs that are workable.

Quite true, and -- here's the kicker -- there is no discretization in analog computing! In other words, there are no (zero, zilch) boolean functions in an analog computer. Yet, somehow!?!?!, analog computers can compute anything a binary boolean computer can compute. Please explain how that can be.

Boolean logic is being done implicitly. Rather than diodes and transistors, non-linearities and amplification can emulate boolean logic. Hydraulic pumps, can emulate diodes and transistors.

There is only one correct answer: computation is independent of representation.

Agreed. But when it comes to ontologically reflecting what "matters" or "what things mean" one's computations that don't involve things in reality are worthless. What good are all the computations if they don't involve existence?

439 28's are 19931's and 4991 011101! Got it? Good!

Computation is about RESULTS that turn BACK to 2D or 3D to have MEANING. No one knows a computation was made in the same way he doesn't know the dog is in the light, because to get a read-out of the computation where the DISCRETE bits "have meaning," he needs light to go back to his eyes to know he made the computation from a screen that has yielded the 2D or 3D output.

Thus, the claim that base-2 is ontologically fundamental is unsound. The only reasonable induction is that all bases are ontologically equivalent. There is nothing special about TRUE/FALSE.

No, all bases are computationally equivalent. Your brain is a binary computer that can only know what a unary one is because it's first binary, and does NOT know what "unary" means!! Again, the telegraphing poles that are spread out on every single planet by light-year wires are high or low or flip-flopped. There is no KNOWLEDGE or MEANING in these things. They are not "COALESCED" in between computation stages. There outputs remain DISCRETE until a human being takes their outputs and makes them into *meaningful* 2D or 3D continuous forms!! Q. E. D.

 

Then you must assume every referent is carrying a reality/non-reality bit flag, yes? And that is not connected to “what”’s ability to file it? Dog on screen is carrying a non-real bit-flag? One in reality is real? Where’s the flag stored?

You're the one who's trying to pigeonhole language tokens to data structures. In my model, "referent" is a CONCEPT, an internal state that is associated with other states that are assumed to be external (or, at least, externally influenced). An "exists" flag would serve no purpose.

I think of Superman. Superman is a CONCEPT in my brain that includes many associations to other CONCEPTs. At least one of these includes the CONCEPT of "fictional character". I don't need to check an "exists" flag, lol.

 

A Lite-Brite is a an extremely rudimentary information processor, with zero memory, so why would we expect it to know what a cloud is? When a cloud casts a show on a rock, does the rock know what the cloud is? I'd say no, for precisely the same reasons that I'd say the Lite-Brite doesn't know.

Wait, so if there were "more bits" representing the cloud in the LITE-Brite, and you hooked it up to a hard drive, the "cloud" is "known?" ...By other states that are “high or low“ and don’t “know” they're reflecting the cloud's states?!?

There you go with "meaning" again. What "meaning" does the Lite-Brite convey to a blind person?

None, because that gate of meaning is closed. You use the term meaning all the time. "Let's not use this set of numbers, they're not meaningful to us. Let's not use these symbols, they're meaningless."

When I look at the Lite-Brite, I don't actually see a cloud. There is no cloud in the Lite-Brite. But my brain finds associations that vaguely resemble the pattern of lights presented by the Lite-Brite, and I think to myself "That kind of looks like a cloud".

Where is the cloud? Is it near the dog?

This is precisely what happens when I look at a dog, except the associations with the dog are much stronger. What's the difference between the light from the dog and the light from the Lite-Brite? The light from the dog has some trillion times more information than the light from Lite-Brite. That allows me to strengthen my belief that the light from the dog is probably associated with a physical dog, which is a complex source of information.

So the DOG ITSELF is just more information??

No idea what you're trying to say. Maybe it would help to just call everything 2D, since that's how we sense the world visually.

All the computations done with a computer are discrete-to-the-end 1D bits. Would you agree those 1D resultant bits have no "significance" to a human — or even the computer (as in "your case!") — until they are put on a screen or printed out on a 2D grid of lights or dots on paper, where the bits are spatially representing something?

(Incidentally, I believe it's either 1D or 3D. There is no true 2D in physical reality. The thinnest of cardboard cut-outs of a person still have a z thickness of some measurable kind. If there is measurable z, there is 3D.)

 

You're the one who's trying to pigeonhole language tokens to data structures. In my model, "referent" is a CONCEPT, an internal state that is associated with other states that are assumed to be external (or, at least, externally influenced). An "exists" flag would serve no purpose.

I think of Superman. Superman is a CONCEPT in my brain that includes many associations to other CONCEPTs. At least one of these includes the CONCEPT of "fictional character". I don't need to check an "exists" flag, lol.

Sure, referent is a concept first — let's role with that.

But I have serious issues with your CONCEPT element, being you're a discrete brain. You can say for example, that 3 million bits in your system is storing the "concept of 2D dog." The problem is, there is no "concept" there any more than any other nondescript bag of bits until the bits are transposed back to 2D where the image of the dog originated in physical space (pan to the basis of "meaning" that we're getting closer to). You must remember all the "bits" in your concepts are on separate telegraph poles on separate planets. Their illusory proximity means nothing until the bits that represent the "concepts" are rendered as 2D or 3D on some kind of 2D or 3D grid.

So what business do you as a brain have in calling one group a "concept" until such a time? At no time do the potentially millions of "concepts" in a computer get differentiated to it other than storing them in contiguous 1D discrete(!) registers, perhaps.

 

Ah, but FFS! There are "weirds" here we are plumbing! Open your mind a sec past the "officiality" of the nomenclature, and see the Core(necker) concept I'm getting at: I'm arguing the integers (ℤ) are RELATED to REALS by a strange-ass quality, that you can create real numbers out of integers and mantissa concatenation of more of them. We DO it in binary computers all day long!

No, no, no. Though "Core(necker)" made me laugh, you've got this entirely wrong. The integers are real numbers. So are the rationals. There are a countable infinity of other real numbers that we can name -- Pi, e, square root of 2, square root of 3, etc. -- but that's it. Done, period, full stop. We can neither compute nor name almost all real numbers. Pick a real number out of a hat and you have 100% chance of pulling out a number that cannot be expressed as any combination or form of integers. Full stop.

This isn't about me being close-minded. We are talking about numbers here, and though we don't know everything, we do know a few things. These things are not negotiable.

A discrete system at the end of the day outputs discrete bits. Relating these bits through output concatenation to create "meaning" of "these its" vs. "those bits" is part of what I'm getting at here. I'm making the case you are a BINARY BRAIN and you truly DO NOT know the difference of what number sets you are referring to, as any computer does NOT.

Let me get this straight: you are claiming that I don't know the difference between, say, ℕ and ℝ? So, everything I've said about these numbers is wrong? Prove it.

If you are trying to say that if I am a binary brain, then I could not know the difference between number sets, then I disagree. Wolfram Alpha is a "binary brain" and it knows the difference. How do I know? Because I can ask it questions that demonstrates that it knows. Unless, again, you truly believe that I myself do not know the differences, in which case, I don't know what to say.

 

With enough data, the lines of induction and deduction disappear.

Ugh, no. Deductions only occur within formal systems, and most of our experiences do not come from formal systems. A deductive conclusion is necessarily true. No amount of data will make an inductive conclusion necessarily true.

Was World War just a war?

I asked if WWI was a just war?" -- as in served justice, was backed by a moral imperative -- not if WWI was "just a war".

The point is, you can ask as many questions as you like, but the vast majority of the conclusions we hold -- our opinions about ourselves and the world -- are not deductively arrived.

I don't even know why you're arguing this.

 

If its purpose is to compute, its purpose is to yield meaningful, calculable numbers to a human being.

Not necessarily. We can build analog computers to control the machinery in a chemical plant, for instance, where a human never sees the results of the various computations. Computation does not require human beings to watch the results.

Whether analog or digital, continuous or discrete (measurable) bits are being yielded.

"Measurable bits are being yielded". I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but if you are saying that an analog process can be sampled and digitized, then yes, of course they can. That's the output, though. You're not addressing the very juicy fact that the computation is happening in the analog domain with nary a 1 or 0 to be found.

Indeed, we can design an analog circuit that performs intermediate calculations of some larger problem. The output of these intermediate calculations is never seen by human eyes or discretized in any form whatsoever. Yet these calculations happen, a fact we can verify by confirming the final result. So, tell me, where are the bits in the calculation?

 

Wait, so if there were "more bits" representing the cloud in the LITE-Brite, and you hooked it up to a hard drive, the "cloud" is "known?" By other states that are high or low and dno't know they're reflecting the cloud's states?!?

More bits and RAM is necessary, though not sufficient, for the association of CONCEPTS that we call "knowledge". Siri knows the weather; she was told the weather by another computer that measured it. That computer also knows the weather. But you refuse to acknowledge these forms of knowledge because, I guess, they're not "human enough".

None, because that gate of meaning is closed.

So, if the Lite-Brite is meaningless to one person and meaningful to another, what does that say about meaning? It says that it's relative to each person. There is no absolute meaning.

You use the term meaning all the time. "Let's not use this set of numbers, they're not meaningful to us. Let's not use these symbols, they're meaningless."

Note that my use of "meaning" is extra-model, i.e., I use it when talking about the model. I never complain when you use it similarly. I complain when you use it within the model, as in, "What MEANING do the bits have?"

Where is the cloud? Is it near the dog?

Both the CONCEPT of cloud and the image of the Lite-Brite are in my brain. Where else would they be?

So the DOG ITSELF is just more information??

No one knows what the DOG ITSELF "is". All we know is what we experience. Based on these experiences, I hypothesize that the dog is made of the same kind of fundamental stuff that I am. What the fundamental stuff "is" I don't know. But I know I can characterize it with INFORMATION.

All the computations done with a computer are discrete-to-the-end 1D bits.

A single bit is 1D, but a thousand bits are 1000D. This is not a geometrical notion -- bits don't have a geometry -- these are informational degrees of freedom.

Would you agree those 1D resultant bits have no "significance" to a human — or even the computer (as in "your case!") — until they are put on a screen or printed out on a 2D grid of lights or dots on paper, where the bits are spatially representing something?

No, I would completely disagree. If you've never inspected memory or a binary file with a hex editor, I highly recommend it.

(Incidentally, I believe it's either 1D or 3D. There is no true 2D in physical reality. The thinnest of cardboard cut-outs of a person still have a z thickness of some measurable kind. If there is measurable z, there is 3D.)

"Reality" again. I'm sure I'm as annoyed by your use of it as you are by my calling you out on it. In any case, I believe that -- whatever space is -- it most likely has far more than three independent dimensions. Three spatial dimensions seems to be the minimum necessary for the model our brain uses to orient itself in its environment. I'd bet that if we were the size of electrons, we'd need a lot more than three dimensions to orient ourselves.

 

But I have serious issues with your CONCEPT element, being you're a discrete brain. You can say for example, that 3 million bits in your system is storing the "concept of 2D dog." The problem is, there is no "concept" there any more than any other nondescript bag of bits until the bits are transposed back to 2D where the image of the dog originated in physical space (pan to the basis of "meaning" that we're getting closer to).

Very few of the states associated with my CONCEPT of dog are visual. Most of the "dog states" in my brain are associations to other CONCEPTs. When I physically see a dog, that visual state brings in a bunch of the other associations, which comprise the experience I have. I'm not just seeing it, I'm having some kind of reaction to it. Maybe I want to pet it, maybe I think it's dangerous, maybe I'm worried it will get hit by a car, etc.

Each CONCEPT, by itself, is just a set of states. As such, each CONCEPT is meaningless. But the CONCEPTs don't exist in isolation -- they're associated with myriad other states. These associations are the "meaning" of a CONCEPT.

What is "meaning" to you other than the thoughts and feelings that come up when presented with a stimulus?

You must remember all the "bits" in your concepts are on separate telegraph poles on separate planets. Their illusory proximity means nothing until the bits that represent the "concepts" are rendered as 2D or 3D on some kind of 2D or 3D grid.

What does proximity have to do with anything? Who cares how the bits in a RAM chip are physically arrayed?

So what business do you as a brain have in calling one group a "concept" until such a time? At no time do the potentially millions of "concepts" in a computer get differentiated to it other than storing them in contiguous 1D discrete(!) registers, perhaps.

Huh? My computer has arranged the contents stored on RAM in a very precise and specific set of groupings. My computer's CONCEPT of "browser" is perfectly distinct from its CONCEPT of "ssh terminal". If my computer can do it, why can't my brain?

It's weird how you argue that the brain is more than a computer, yet don't believe that the brain can do computer-like things.

 

No, no, no. Though "Core(necker)" made me laugh, you've got this entirely wrong. The integers are real numbers. So are the rationals. There are a countable infinity of other real numbers that we can name -- Pi, e, square root of 2, square root of 3, etc. -- but that's it. Done, period, full stop. We can neither compute nor name almost all real numbers. Pick a real number out of a hat and you have 100% chance of pulling out a number that cannot be expressed as any combination or form of integers. Full stop.

Look, I know we have established sets with rules, etc. And I agree with the above. But I'm saying, take real number:

5.1454424

What is it? 2 parts. Integer 5. What is the mantissa on the right? It's actually another integer in disguise — the integer 1454424. The magic amalgamater is piecing them together and seeing them as connected. Though integers are REAL, of course, floating points are concatenated inventions.

The 100% proof is that machines working with binary integers/logic states 0 and 1 are able to represent all of them.

I'm trying to get to a very deep truth here. Humor me and tabula rasa by uninstalling NumberSet® v4.3259952239212 for a minute?

Let me get this straight: you are claiming that I don't know the difference between, say, ℕ and ℝ? So, everything I've said about these numbers is wrong? Prove it.

Actually, as you describe yourself, you don't. 100% full stop. You have no idea what anything is, because I don't consider telegraph pole 3001084 to know what something is, nor telegraph pole 3919301, nor any discrete "combination" of telegraph poles any more than the fuse box switches in my basement "knows" what my piano is. What is the dog in the light vs. the "concept" in your mind that you magically coalesce. Yes, magically. You think that somehow if you have enough telegraph pole flip-flops flipped high, that you can somehow "know" qualitative conscious elements of "fur" and "saliva" of the dog are in the poles! No, you really do!!

If you are trying to say that if I am a binary brain, then I could not know the difference between number sets, then I disagree. Wolfram Alpha is a "binary brain" and it knows the difference. How do I know? Because I can ask it questions that demonstrates that it knows. Unless, again, you truly believe that I myself do not know the differences, in which case, I don't know what to say.

Nope, neither you, nor a T-800, nor Wolfram Alpha truly "know" anything — you "represent the knowledge" of it, because I see bits as different than continuous mathematical forms as the uncalculated basis of knowledge in the mind, not brain. Because discrete processors are discrete because they're discrete, and discrete means each bit is discrete and no one logic gate or flip flop gives an F what each discrete bit is representing or doing at any discrete time because the discrete bits don't know what the dog is when the CCD chip has discrete portions to its discrete sensor where each discrete portion is taking discrete electrons down discrete wires and discrete flip-flops are storing their discrete independence from every other discrete bit. How about your urinary computer that has one line of piss to line up with 9 billion more lines of piss that equate to "Six Flags Park" vs. "Mona Lisa's Smile"? Why 9 billion lines of piss vs. 400 million? Because a certain number of lines equate to Mona vs. Six Flags? C'mon!! Where *IS* Six Flags and Mona LIsa?? They are NOT the lines of piss. The piss representeth the ORDER that is IN THE LIGHT that is Six Flags vs. Mona Lisa!

How I wish you would make the leap so we can get this show on the road!!

 

Very few of the states associated with my CONCEPT of dog are visual. Most of the "dog states" in my brain are associations to other CONCEPTs. When I physically see a dog, that visual state brings in a bunch of the other associations, which comprise the experience I have. I'm not just seeing it, I'm having some kind of reaction to it. Maybe I want to pet it, maybe I think it's dangerous, maybe I'm worried it will get hit by a car, etc.

Each CONCEPT, by itself, is just a set of states. As such, each CONCEPT is meaningless. But the CONCEPTs don't exist in isolation -- they're associated with myriad other states. These associations are the "meaning" of a CONCEPT.

What is "meaning" to you other than the thoughts and feelings that come up when presented with a stimulus?

No, no, no.

Again, what you call concepts is literally as connected to the dog as Hillary Clinton is to Donald Trump. You make it sound like "one bank" has more partiality than another, when they're just nondescript switches flicked high or low! Your "concept" representation of the dog is nothing more than different quantities of switches flicked! The TV, the car, the dog, the horse, the rabbi! NONE of those switches actually carry the discriminatory QUALIA of the information, and I don't care how many of the switches you have, vs. any other bank. BITS of data do NOT have QUALIA, or qualitative elements that the Hard Problem of Consciousness is talking about!

"Meaning" is FIRST associated with matching the actual inner thought form in my mind with the 3D thing in "physical space". Then there are magnitudes of experiential dopamine and serotonin, etc. connected to computations involving those things. One laughs at one particular computation differently than another, WHY? Because the ORDER is different! The ORDER is NOT just banks of switches!

What does proximity have to do with anything? Who cares how the bits in a RAM chip are physically arrayed?

Just to illustrate the unreality that is this "concept" situation you have going on!

Huh? My computer has arranged the contents stored on RAM in a very precise and specific set of groupings. My computer's CONCEPT of "browser" is perfectly distinct from its CONCEPT of "ssh terminal". If my computer can do it, why can't my brain?

See above.

It's weird how you argue that the brain is more than a computer, yet don't believe that the brain can do computer-like things.

NO NO NO!!! I don't argue the brain is more than a computer!! I say it is ONLY a computer! You have a 5D MIND processor colocated WITH the brain that contains the 5D forms that are the basis of the recognition and AMALGAMATION of bits to create meaning from "real continuous form"

 

More bits and RAM is necessary, though not sufficient, for the association of CONCEPTS that we call "knowledge". Siri knows the weather; she was told the weather by another computer that measured it. That computer also knows the weather. But you refuse to acknowledge these forms of knowledge because, I guess, they're not "human enough".

You know how you are anal about terms? Well, you've met your match in this area. The term "know" I believe is about THINGS in physical space, TRUTH to see FACTS concerning them, which is that the dog exists as a stand-alone element. I see 3D reality as having its basis in a 3D processor in the non-grey-matter mind. I am not at all alone in this, it is is the prevailing intuition of some of the greatest scientists who ever lived, including Newton. I believe the immutable mathematical objects are found in this "fabric."

So, if the Lite-Brite is meaningless to one person and meaningful to another, what does that say about meaning? It says that it's relative to each person. There is no absolute meaning.

Everyone agrees what a turkey sandwich is at its core. Some might say, "well, that's not a REAL one" — it needs lettuce and tomatoes, cheese. Someone else might say, it needs bacon, avocado and crushed potato chips. Some might say "no mayo" some may say "mayo and mustard."

There's a baseline of meaning when you say "I want a turkey sandwich" to someone at a deli. That's the starting point of the meaning. It registers as "experientially valid" data, why? Because it is objective truth. Turkey and bread exist in reality as a sandwich. Everyone knows "drive a car to get the sandwich." I defy you to live in a reality where there is no objective baseline to work subjectivities from. You'd never have a relationship, and you'd never connect with anyone else about anything else, because there'd be no shared baseline of the most basic of value. It's the definition of isolation and madness to deny the objectivity.

Note that my use of "meaning" is extra-model, i.e., I use it when talking about the model. I never complain when you use it similarly. I complain when you use it within the model, as in, "What MEANING do the bits have?"

Both the CONCEPT of cloud and the image of the Lite-Brite are in my brain. Where else would they be?

What Newton might call the extra-physical (5D) mind that is co-located with the brain. It's why you feel music in your chest region and not your head. It's where infinite wave forms are stored, etc. I'm trying to triangulate its existence, like the dog in the light that it "knows" about, rather than just saying "well, I believe in a soul/spirit." I conjecture these things' existence can be triangulated.

No one knows what the DOG ITSELF "is".

Hello ToE. What makes you think we can't "get" to this by honing down the semantic system to triangulate its existence? if the dog ITSELF exists, then it is a PHENOMENON that is extra-dimensional! I say it is a continuous, infinite form that exists in three primary states: a thought-form state, a "real" state, and a digitized state.

All we know is what we experience. Based on these experiences, I hypothesize that the dog is made of the same kind of fundamental stuff that I am. What the fundamental stuff "is" I don't know. But I know I can characterize it with INFORMATION.

Yes, you can characterize it. Imagine a dog in your mind having the characteristics of a flame on a match. you can take another match to the flame and "spawn" another dog, theoretically more and more dogs instantiated in the mind that you did NOT see. "NEW" dogs from "the existing" repository that is dog 1. Then give all the dogs a polyphonic cartoon voice where they can "sing" with their own unique timbres and play instruments. Give them all sorts of abstract qualia. Your mind will continue to add things on its own. Zoom in on one of the voices you or IT gave it, pull apart the waves, transpose just one of the wavelings to a lampshade and have it talk with just that waveling's timbre. Tell me, where is all that in the telegraph poles? NO WHERE.

A single bit is 1D, but a thousand bits are 1000D. This is not a geometrical notion -- bits don't have a geometry -- these are informational degrees of freedom.

I'm talking shape and form, so 3D, Euclid, etc.

No, I would completely disagree. If you've never inspected memory or a binary file with a hex editor, I highly recommend it.

"Reality" again. I'm sure I'm as annoyed by your use of it as you are by my calling you out on it. In any case, I believe that -- whatever space is -- it most likely has far more than three independent dimensions. Three spatial dimensions seems to be the minimum necessary for the model our brain uses to orient itself in its environment. I'd bet that if we were the size of electrons, we'd need a lot more than three dimensions to orient ourselves.

Meh, I don't even grok anything observable beyond 3. It's x, y, z... everything else is non-observable, and we can graph anything in 3 dimensions.

Why do you hate REALITY so much if it is truly describing everything outside of us, the light, the dog, the street, the lamp post, everything observable and even unobservable? Why is "physical space" different?

 

"Measurable bits are being yielded". I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but if you are saying that an analog process can be sampled and digitized, then yes, of course they can. That's the output, though. You're not addressing the very juicy fact that the computation is happening in the analog domain with nary a 1 or 0 to be found.

Indeed, we can design an analog circuit that performs intermediate calculations of some larger problem. The output of these intermediate calculations is never seen by human eyes or discretized in any form whatsoever. Yet these calculations happen, a fact we can verify by confirming the final result. So, tell me, where are the bits in the calculation?

It's really good you brought this up. What's happening here? I'd say quite a few bits are found. As in, unbounded, infinite per unit of time. Continuous computation, or infinite-bit is what an analog processor is, and its output is bounded quantities.

And consider a moment, that these "discrete brains" create continuous analog computers!?? Again,



Consider our use of words. Each word is a discrete vibration, and our voice is a unique timbre vocalizing it. Where is the word stored for "dog?" You say have a "concept" called "dog" in your switches, but then you have a bunch of switches representing the "sound" of dog, when it comes to your concept and the actual frigging dog in the light that is the origin of the term?

You have a FORM in you that is connected to the REAL dog in the light, with its own VOICE.

Consider the amount of ANALOG processing in a person with respect to words ALONE, let alone all the sounds and visuals that go back and forth from 1D to 3D and back. Not to mention a "meaning" system that attributes value to basically infinite combinations of notes vs. other visual elements.

There is an analog processor in the being that is not the discrete processor of the brain. I argue it is actually 2D and 3D, as in geometric. Brain-only concept is:



Now, get that thing propositioned as axioms, lemmas and theorems and on my desk by tomorrow 11am. Thanks!

 

Ugh, no. Deductions only occur within formal systems, and most of our experiences do not come from formal systems. A deductive conclusion is necessarily true. No amount of data will make an inductive conclusion necessarily true.

For crying out loud!! I'm using the term as basic outer-model use:

Deductive
All philosophers have a brain.
Bob is a philosopher.
Therefore, Bob has a brain.

Inductive
Most philosophers have a brain.
Sam is a philosopher.
So, Sam probably has a brain.

Find out which philosophers have a brain, and what kind of philosopher Sam is, and you can turn your "belief" into a deductive fact. Induction is as worthless as endless pontification of philosophy. Deductive facts turn inductive beliefs into actual truths with sufficient info.

I asked if WWI was a just war?" -- as in served justice, was backed by a moral imperative -- not if WWI was "just a war".

I read that too fast. In the end, the point was being made through my miscalc all the same.

The point is, you can ask as many questions as you like, but the vast majority of the conclusions we hold -- our opinions about ourselves and the world -- are not deductively arrived.

Right, and most of our thoughts, BECAUSE they're not deductively arrived, are worthless opinion for dopamine release, and not objective balanced, unbiased reckoning of what's going on. Whether WWI was a just war has an optimal moral opinion that is based on real facts that can create the most balanced view on it. It involves a holistic balance of facts and figures. Just because it appears "fuzzy" doesn't mean it isn't based in real, hard mathematical symmetry and form at its core(nicker).

I don't even know why you're arguing this.

Because you're drawing some strange partiality between your telegraph poles.

And I'm also trying to show that you can give a machine moral weights to derive conclusions based on hard numbers to do so. A "balanced" and "objective" opinion involves equational elements that are integrated via a holistic combination of facts and figures.

Your poles don't even know where the data is coming from. It takes something to intentionally PROGRAM instructions into a system, that you claim came from millions of years of "evolution" based in observations in "physical space," elements of which you can't even define, and physics of which are mysterious beyond belief. Nature is a programmer, light seems intelligent, man is a discrete and analog processor, and RandomOS 4.9 was used to “make it all happen.”