Post Reply
Page 7 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2010 - 8:12AM #61
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,491

Feb 16, 2010 -- 8:32AM, Kwinters wrote:


What, exactly, does 'our inner world' consist of, and if nothing in it is 'us' then what are we really 'looking' - not empirically, of course - at?



You are looking at personal character, emotional understanding and intelligence as pathways for reason thinking.  These can be be viewed objectively as information objects.


And these objects - like all good science can be modeled as computer programs.  Hence their status as predicting future events researched, tested and evaluated.


Kwinters, in your version - it is a "magic" property of brain matter that secretes these items. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 20, 2010 - 9:46AM #62
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,277

Feb 18, 2010 -- 8:07AM, newchurchguy wrote:


Feb 16, 2010 -- 8:03AM, Don't_Be_Captious wrote:


Feb 15, 2010 -- 9:01AM, newchurchguy wrote:


If you think that Taoism is just a fluffy, artsy worldview - you have terribly disrespected its history and effects on world culture. Let alone science.


In debate with MdS -- I posted that the ying/yang was a functional logical operator and after seeing his dismissal of same - I was able to back it up, with recent papers on the subject(surprise - by a well known Chinese Information Theory researcher.)



First, I must admit I'm at least a bit ambivalent. I don't give Tao any ontological, metaphysical credence; yet I have to admit that as a metaphor, and heuristic "rule of thumb" device, it's really, really good. But, then, all art & poetry can give valuable lessons that aren't the same as those of science. (Which is probably something people like 2bme or you want to hear from "us." Perhaps unlike some others, I don't pretend at all that there isn't anything valuable in art, though I cannot agree that there's anything scientifically important in it beyond cultural or perhaps phenomenological.)


Third, you didn't give any more information than a bald assertion that yin/yang is a functional logic operator. Based on 2 & 3, it's a bit hard to take your assertion seriously.


4th, yin/yang & Taoism are just other names for Hegel's Dialectic, as well as Postmodernism. It's the same thing, and to the extent that people want to apply it rigorously to everything in reality, they are dead wrong. At best, Kant had it right (and Hegel had it completely wrong, with his superstitious, non-scientific, illogical miscomprehension of Kant) when he said that reasoning can have limits, and where either not enough information is available, or in some cases at the the limits of logic itself, paradoxes (per Kant, "antinomies") can arise.



DBC,


The exchange was between MdS and I on the Religion and Human Mind Forum - Thread name Tao vs Physics.  I posted this link there.  I will bump it to be on top.


www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bayesian_Yi...


Bayesian Ying-Yang learning is a statistical learning theory for a two pathway featured intelligent system via a Ying representation and a Yang representation, i.e., two complementary Bayesianrepresentations of the joint distribution on the external observation and its inner representation. The system architecture is built under three general designing principles and all the rest unknowns in the system are learned from a set of samples under a Ying-Yang best harmony principle.


Firstly proposed in 1995 and systematically developed over a decade, Bayesian Ying-Yang learning provides not only a general framework that accommodates several typical learning theories and approaches under a unified perspective but also a new theory that leads to bothimproved model selection criteria and learning algorithms with automatic model selection. Moreover, it is able to implement best harmony by Ying-Yang alternative maximization and to cooperate model selection via Ying representation and learning regularization via Yang representation.



At least MdS addressed that he may be fixed in a Western view.  Your comments reducing Taoism to - Hegel and Postmodernism - are pretty outrageous and without depth, while claiming to be "into" the its subject matter.


How we learn and how we process information ARE a quasi-empirical scientificapproach to the issue of our first person accounts both as a report - and as pragmatic and measurableexperience.  That scientist with an approach outside of a Western view has gotten hearing and support should not be surprising. 


If you give the Tao - "no credence" - you can understand that since I do consider it a deeply considered world view - it may behoove you to read and learn about its modern applications before dismissing its relevance. 


I do think that western worldviews come up dramatically short when considering the exploration of the mind, because of a tacit belief in a "magic" property of matter.


Matter is defined ell by material sceince and when we deal with mind - the magic just becomes the laws and priciples of information science.  




This brings to mind a work by G. Spencer Brown called Laws of Form (1969, The Julian Press edition, 1972). I stumbled upon it by reading another book by him called Only Two Can Play This Game under the name James Keys. I link Laws of Form to Taoism because Taoism plays a significant part in the Only Two book (which is sort of an autobiographical mushy love story, guy meets girl, they fall in love, they part, both unhappy...ya-da,ya-da,ya-da, with commentary on life in general in relation to the Taoist structure of the universe, no wonder he used a pseudonym, but, actually, a very good read).


Laws of Form first published in 1969 was praised by Bertrand Russell: "In this book G. Spencer Brown has succeeded in doing what, in mathematics, is very rare indeed. He has invented a new calculus, of great power and simplicity......". Lancelot Law Whyte calls it a work of genius.


Knowing that Boolean algebra, 'the algebra of logic', had been without a known arithmetic, and that that arithmetic must be non-numerical, Brown set out to find what it was. ....Brown shows that the introduction of imaginary values into a Boolean calculus renders the Whitehead-Russell theory of types superfulous, and has repercussions on the interpretation of Godel's theorem and the possibility of proving Fermat's last theorem (which if I recall correctly, was proved several years ago, sdp). ......from the front inner dust jacket.


Do I understand any of that? No. But Brown says "I have assumed on the part of the reader no more than a knowledge of the English language, of counting, and of how numbers are commonly represented". pg XV


On the page adjacent to chapter one are six chinese characters, not translated. (edit: I just came back from eating chinese where I took the book and asked for a translation, as follows.


In the beginning, somewhere else, before man existed, in a place with no name, sky and land, heaven and earth, were nameless).


Brown begins page 1: "We take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indication, and that we cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction. We take, therefore, the form of distinction for the form.


A distinction is drawn by arranging a boundary with separate sides so that a point on one side cannot reach the other side without crossing the boundary".


Brown then goes on to state and prove eighteen theorems. 


.................


I think if he did not specifically have Taoism in mind here, it was at least an aid to forming his Laws of Form. The distinction is between yin and yang. In the words of Lao Tzu, One (Tao) became two (yin and yang), two became three and three became the ten thousand things (IOW, all that is, sdp).


Brown the fills 75 daunting pages with words and symbols. I never had the interest, maybe some day, but he does have thirty pages of notes explaining what all this has to do with reality.


..............................


quoting Brown:


"Now the physicist himself, who describes all this, is, in his own account, himself constructed of it. He is, in short, made of a conglomeration of the very particulars he describes, no more, no less, bound together by and obeying such general laws as he himself has managed to find and to record.


Thus we cannot escape the fact that the world we know is constructed in order (and thus in such a way as to be able) to see itself.


This is indeed amazing.


Not so much inview of what it sees, although this may appear fantastic enough, but in respect of the fact that it can see at all.


But in order to do so, evidently it must first cut itself up into at least one state which sees, and at least one other state which is seen. In this severed and mutilated condition, whatever it sees is only partially itself".   notes on chapter 12, page 105 


........................


This distinction between what sees and what is seen is the basis for what 2bme calls inner empiricism.


sdpilgrim  




The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

A map is not the territory.                                                                 Alfred Korzybski

God is that function in the world by reason of which our purposes are directed to ends which in our own consciousness are impartial as to our own interests. He is that element in life in virtue of which judgment stretches beyond facts of existence to values of existence.      Alfred North Whitehead
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 21, 2010 - 9:55AM #63
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,491

SDP,


Thanks for the reference to G. Spenser Brown.  I just read the two Wiki articles on him and on the LoF's and its references are a who is who, of the ideas and people pioneering logic and mathematical representation.


His view of abstract computational objects appears similair to Floridi's information objects.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 6:05AM #64
Don't_Be_Captious
Posts: 1,035

Feb 18, 2010 -- 8:07AM, newchurchguy wrote:


At least MdS addressed that he may be fixed in a Western view.  Your comments reducing Taoism to - Hegel and Postmodernism - are pretty outrageous and without depth, while claiming to be "into" the its subject matter.



Jesus H. Christ, almost all you do is very poorly comprehend anything you read, and then proceed to make idiotic strawmen out of your interlocutor's arguments.   Yeah, you're a really credible source for philosophical & scientific arguments.


I said, here, that Taoism (and all the things like it - Hegelianism, Postmodernism, etc.), work at an epistemological level, NOT at an ontological level.  In theory, even you should understand what this means.  Yin/yang works at a level of knowledge, particularly when information is incomplete or fuzzy, etc.  To assert that yin/yang definitively operates at the level of physical reality -- that reality is literally, and always or overwhelmingly often, self-contradictory, and utterly indeterminant -- goes against pretty much everything that is known in science.


Afai can tell from reading the excerpt you gave re: Bayesian yin/yang learning, this basically conforms EXACTLY with what I just said.  YOU are the one who clearly doesn't grasp this.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 6:08AM #65
Don't_Be_Captious
Posts: 1,035

Feb 18, 2010 -- 8:07AM, newchurchguy wrote:


How we learn and how we process information ARE a quasi-empirical scientific approach to the issue of our first person accounts both as a report - and as pragmatic and measurable experience.  That scientist with an approach outside of a Western view has gotten hearing and support should not be surprising. 


If you give the Tao - "no credence" - you can understand that since I do consider it a deeply considered world view - it may behoove you to read and learn about its modern applications before dismissing its relevance. 


I do think that western worldviews come up dramatically short when considering the exploration of the mind, because of a tacit belief in a "magic" property of matter.


Matter is defined ell by material sceince and when we deal with mind - the magic just becomes the laws and priciples of information science.  




Bah.  You're babbling.  For the umpteenth time, I wish you'd use proper grammar & syntax, stop trying to cram 15 million thoughts into single sentences, stop wandering your train of thought 16 thousand places within one sentence, and state explicitly & clearly what the fuck you're trying to say.


 


I am more & more convinced the only reason your "reasoning" bewitches & beguiles you, and so many others around here, is that you are profoundly inept in grammar, producing profoundly sloppy thinking (or profoundly inept in thinking, producing profoundly sloppy grammar, whatever, same difference), with just enough of a veneer of professionalism to fool many other stupid people.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 12:58PM #66
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,491

Feb 25, 2010 -- 6:05AM, Don't_Be_Captious wrote:

I said, here, that Taoism (and all the things like it - Hegelianism, Postmodernism, etc.), work at an epistemological level, NOT at an ontological level.  In theory, even you should understand what this means.  Yin/yang works at a level of knowledge, particularly when information is incomplete or fuzzy, etc. 


Afai can tell from reading the excerpt you gave re: Bayesian yin/yang learning, this basically conforms EXACTLY with what I just said. 



DBC,


You have defined exactly where we disagree.  Yes, I think you made considered comments about the application of yin/yang harmony as applied to AI.  In this forum, of useful practice surely it is in an epistemological context.


But, I clearly want to reiterate that I see yin/yang and its character of being an integration (harmony),  as if, it is an operator (like nand or equals) and like other Boolean terms - it has a natural ontological status.


Bo Mou is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at San Jose State University, California. He obtained his PhD at University of Rochester, USA, in 1997. He holds an B.S. in Mathematics (1982) from The PLA Institute of Technology, China, an M.A. in Philosophy (1987) from Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China, where he was Assistant Professor in Philosophy from 1987-89, and another M.A. in Philosophy from University of Rochester.




  The Yin-Yang metaphysical vision of the Yijing is sometimes or typically identified with one single metaphysical perspective, which highlights and celebrates the changing or becoming aspect of things. The Yin-Yang metaphysical vision is thus often identified with the becoming-concerned metaphysical perspective. Nevertheless, I argue that the Yin-Yang metaphysical vision of the Yijingis not a mono-simplex as the becoming-concerned metaphysical perspective alone but instead a multi-layer metaphysical complex in three senses. First, the Yin-Yang metaphysical vision in the Yijing consists of both its perspective-dimension and its guiding-principle dimension. Second, different from a single-perspective metaphysical view that turns on only one perspective simplex, the perspective dimension of the Yin-Yang metaphysical vision consists of both the becoming-concerned perspective and the being-concerned perspective. Third, accordingly, the guiding-principle dimension of the Yin-Yang metaphysical vision consists in a reflective guiding polymerization of becoming-concerned and being-concerned perspectives which takes neither priority of becoming over being nor priority of being over becoming but regards becoming-changing and being-unchanging as complementary Yin-Yang opposites in an organic unity.



http://them.polylog.org/3/amb-en.htm



DBC, I am a Westerner and don't want to pretend to have the insight needed to detail the subject.  Leave it open to say, I grasp opposites in unity as, ontological, evidenced by the neutral monism of Kenneth Sayre and in Gestalt concepts of mental perception.  IMHO yin/yang is as fundamental as it gets.



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 1:20PM #67
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,491

Feb 25, 2010 -- 6:08AM, Don't_Be_Captious wrote:


Bah.  You're babbling.  For the umpteenth time, I wish you'd use proper grammar & syntax, stop trying to cram 15 million thoughts into single sentences, stop wandering your train of thought 16 thousand places within one sentence, and state explicitly & clearly what the (m)uck you're trying to say.


I am more & more convinced the only reason your "reasoning" bewitches & beguiles you, and so many others around here, is that you are profoundly inept in grammar, producing profoundly sloppy thinking (or profoundly inept in thinking, producing profoundly sloppy grammar, whatever, same difference), with just enough of a veneer of professionalism to fool many other stupid people.



I don't deny any of what you assert - other than I am not looking to fool anybody - just to practice writing to improve and to share my "outside the box" thinking.
 ncg

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook