Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)

From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:52:07 GMT

Lester Zick wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:11:25 GMT, patty <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net>
> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>
>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>[snip] We (at least i) cannot come to grips
>>>>with what Zick, in particular, is saying because he refuses to connect
>>>>with the body of literature on the subject with which we (at least i)
>>>>are (am) familiar. In that narrow sense i think we agree on what Zick's
>>>>problem is. But then on the other hand what Zick is trying to say (at
>>>>least i think he is trying to say) is a rejection of that very body of
>>>>literature. I think he is grasping for a spiritual world, but not from
>>>>a religious point of view, rather from what he calls a "mechanical"
>>>>point of view. Perhaps he should try to build Neurath's boat. I wish
>>>>you luck, Lester.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, patti, thanks for the comments, which are reasonably accurate on
>>>the whole. The fact is that I find no connection between what I am
>>>saying and the very body of literature you refer to. And it's a little
>>>difficult to put what I have to say into context when there doesn't
>>>appear to be any context. If true it's a problem but not in the sense
>>>of being my problem since anyone with comparable ideas would find it
>>>hard to connect. In other words, I'm not doing this arbitrarily.
>>>
>>
>>Sure it's your problem - if you do not communicate it, then it will die
>>with you.
>
>
> It's not my problem in the sense of being peculiar to me. It would
> apply equally to anyone with any really original concept. There would
> be no way to establish any precedent in terms of context. I've gone
> all the way back to Aristotle in survey terms and apart from Bateson's
> comments on the subject of differences, which by the way don't even
> approach a systematic exposition any aspect of mechanical dualism,
> found nothing but positivistic identity as the hallmark of science.
>

Yes, many have your "problem". Yet original concepts *do* make it into
our culture. You might ask yourself how it is done?

> What I can and have done apart from the demonstration of what I claim
> is point out the errors and consequences of various doctrines.

Ok, that is what you though you have done. But what those who are
steeped in these doctrines have heard is a kind of babbling. If you
want to talk with those people, you must learn their language - if you
want to refute them, you must first understand them. If you have not
learned their language and the way they think about these things, how
can you be so sure that they are in error?

> But
> that is really negative in form and unappealing to people whose
> professional reputations depend on historical commentaries on extant
> doctrines and possibly incremental modifications within that context.
>

These people are talking from the standpoint of centuries of evolved
thought which you obviously have not mastered; yet you claim that you
have knowledge that supersede it. Put yourself in their shoes. Can you
not see your arrogance through their eyes? I must admit that some of
the things you say against Wolf in particular, who explains things
clearly and directly, make my skin crawl ... make me embarrassed to even
talk with you.

>
>>>Let me give you an example. I have repeatedly asked the behaviorist
>>>camp to explain how and why self contradiction can occur in human
>>>behavior, all without response. Clearly it does occur because we see
>>>it happen all the time. And yet everyone wants to explain human
>>>behavior without being able to explain this or even recognizing it.
>>>
>>
>>They cannot respond in a way that is acceptable to you because they have
>>no idea what you mean by "self contradiction". I don't know what you
>>mean. We've discussed it before. Nothing you say about "self
>>contradiction" makes any sense to me according to the body of literature
>>with which i am accustomed. It is hard to play tennis with a football.
>
>
> This is truly remarkable since the doctrine of self contradiction goes
> all the way back to antiquity whatever contemporary representations
> suggest. It's not my doctrine.

Yes logical contradiction - basically the law of the excluded middle
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excluded_middle> - goes way way back. But
that does not appear to be what you are talking about because you do not
follow the rules in which such a law exists. Perhaps you are talking
about what the ancient Chinese called the Tao (see below). It seems to
me that sometimes you use concepts from logic and then other times, when
it suits, you use concepts from the Tao.

> If you want to use self contradiction,
> if you want to prove things universal, if you want to use tautologies
> productively and validly, you really have no choice but to rely on
> self contradiction.
>

Yes, that is your unique blend of something that gets read over here as
babble. I'm sure, in your mind, it is very clear indeed. Can you not
see that we are not understanding your communication?

>
>>>Yet it's impossible to explain self contradiction without recognizing
>>>and acknowledging contradiction to begin with. Thus we can see that
>>>contradiction is a fundamental aspect of human behavior without which
>>>no explanation for self contradiction is possible. Yet to my knowledge
>>>no one has studied contradiction as a basic facet of human behavior.
>>>
>>
>>It might help if you gave a specific example of what you call "self
>>contradiction" in human behavior.
>
>
> Blue is not blue.
>

That seems to me to be straight forward logical contradiction. In a
formal reasoning system there are rules for dealing with it. In natural
language we are allowed to write such sentences and even to contemplate
what they mean and how to use them. We can use natural contradictions
to partition and analyze context - in one context, blue is blue - in
another context that same blue is not the "blue" we find here. It is
alive or not alive - death contradicts life - or does it? But if you
mix formal logical rules of proof with contradictions that can only be
stated in natural language, you end up, imho, with garage. Are you not
mixing concepts from formal logic with concepts that can only be created
with natural language ?

>
>>>This is a legacy of positivism.
>>
>>See that's not fair. I can't take anything you say about positivism
>>seriously, because it's like they are talking in Swahili and you think
>>that they are talking in English - so how can what you say about what
>>they say have any bearing on the truth of the matter?
>
>
> The truth of what matter? I've explained exactly what the problem is
> with positivism, materialism, and behaviorism and very little else. If
> your complaint is that my comments are ad hoc, I can agree. But the
> case in general has been established through threads and posts on
> every occasion that has presented itself.
>
>
>>>I hear and read all kinds of nonsense
>>>written about the will and free will etc. But no one remarks on the
>>>inherently contradictory and self contradictory mechanical basis for
>>>human behavior. They simply run around positing all kinds of fatuous
>>>positivistic bases for human behavior and have done so ever since the
>>>Newtonian revolution in physical science. So, if I fail to connect my
>>>ideas on mechanics in general to the extant body of scientific lore,
>>>you'll just have to excuse my ignorance. There is none in mainstream
>>>contemporary behavioral sciences nor even in the physical sciences.
>>>
>>
>>What indications do you have that it is anything except just your
>>imagination? That is simultaneously the "trouble with" and the "power
>>of" thinking - you can think anything you like. If your thinking is not
>>constrained by empirical testing with reality, then it is just
>>imagination, and as such belongs in a different venue from science or
>>even philosophy.
>
>
> Well, apart from Dan's contribution regarding Bateson's work, I've yet
> to see any evidence whatsoever for differences and differences between
> differences etc. in the history of science. And I'm quite confident
> David looked as hard as he could. And my thinking and imagination are
> always constrained by empirical testing. And I'm always looking for
> empirical ways to test differences and differences between differences
> etc. as the basis of everything, including the absence of differences.
> So far I've only found the tautological appoach to universal proof.
> But please be sure to let me know when you find an empirical test.
>

Maybe you could start by distinguishing your original idea from the Tao,
emphasis mine:

  It "refers to a power which envelops, surrounds
  and flows through all things, living and non-living.
  The Tao regulates natural processes and nourishes
  balance in the Universe. It embodies the harmony of
  *opposites* (i.e. there would be no love without hate,
  no light without dark, no male without female.)"

see: <http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm>

Then i suggest if you need to use logic, that you do not break the rules
- or at least state how by breaking the rules you are following better
rules.

.... ahh but then there is the meta level dialog between us ... that i
dare to suggest that you follow rules when, after all, it is *you* who
have conceived of the secret of the universe ... and it is so clear ...
differences between differences result in organic sentience ... with
that concatenation of words alone it must needs leap into my mind. So
that if i oppose, it must be that i am on the behaviorist side ... on
the grubby materialists side ... or worse some homeless girl mumbeling
in your ear in the public library. Maybe i should show you how it feels
... maybe i should start to babble my thoughts that are so clear to me
... insisting that because i dare to write them here, they must leap
into your head, christal clear, and be instantly connected to the
historical experience that is Zick ... see how you will like such a mind
meld ... or would patty sound like a raving lunatic ? So if you provoke
me, i will force the christal clarity of my wisdom into your ears! But
i would rather not ;) I would rather work to use language in a common
manner and adapt to the rules of the game with respect for the long
history of accomplishments that have preceeded us, that all our thought
must build upon ... not forgetting that we can change the rules - but
knowing that we cannot do it unilaterally.

regards ...

patty

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Godels comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
    ... arbitrary Q. Obviously there is an implied quantification over Q, ... letters of the object language). ... we want to convey that "all" propositions follow from a contradiction. ... refutable in PA and as confirmed by the supposed undecidability of S. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: When insults had class
    ... of irony in it's proper context. ... him that I was juxtaposing the rudeness of it in the medium with the elegant ... Therefore were was a contradiction between what I ...
    (alt.horology)
  • Re: Vestigial subjunctive
    ... of a subjunctive mood is quite precise, quite eloquent, ... comparison context. ... condition is a context of "contradiction" of contextual fact. ... The latter applies for James' passage. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Godels comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
    ... translation into the language of PA are your referring to? ... PA needs to prove a contradiction. ... refute just one instance of it, whereas to prove a schema you need to ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godels comments about the "true reason" for incompleteness
    ... Because all tautologies are theorem schemes, not theorems, ... And every theory has as theorems all sentences of the language ... follow from a contradiction". ... that are true iff. ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading