Existence as the referent of true statements...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Existence as the referent of true statements...

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Existence as the referent of true statements...

Author

Message

mrdilligent...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:08 am

Guest

Date: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 4:27 pm
From: James Burns

<<Are we even speaking the same language? You completely
deny my analogy above, and then in /the very next sentence/
explain why it is true>>

Yes, we are speaking the same language---perfectly good words in the
English language, delivered (excepting typos) in good grammar.

What differs is mental sets; yours and mine are wholly different from
one another. I now can see much of yours, but you don't "read" mine
at all.

Which brings me back to (human verbal) statements are not true or
false or any mixture of the two; they are the EXPRESSIONS of the mind
(s) from which they come (as translated into words). When one can
"read" another's mental set---THROUGH, but not as---the words used to
express the mental content, he has an advantage. Your mental set seems
to conflate many distinctively different issues, like using politics
as an "analogy." That was no analogy; it was a nonsequitur. My
mental set deconflates specific issues from one another. Like
statements can be made only by LIVING ORGANISMS, humans being but one
species of living organism. Pure matter can make no statement, except
as used by a living organism. (I am thinking of computers here, but
any nonliving matter can be used as an example.)

mrdilligent...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:11 am

Guest

Date: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 4:27 pm
From: James Burns

<<I see where I could have expressed myself better.>>

Me too. For example, I should have said that circles do not exist in
COSMOTERRESTRIAL REALITY. The surely do in artificial reality. But
before civilization happened to the human condition, there were NO
circles whatsoever, and there continue to be no circles on earth or
beyond it other than those drawn or made by technological man.

mrdilligent...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:13 am

Guest

Date: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 4:27 pm
From: James Burns

<<Surely you have updated your assumptions
by now?>>

I try very hard to make NO assumptions, at least no unexamined ones
(like implicit assumptions). Of course I do, but when one pops up to
my conscious attention, I examine it.

While I am at it, I should tell you that everything I know, and
everything I think I know, and, indeed, every "conclusion" or
assertion I make, I hold to be no firmer than a working hypothesis.
Will the sun be there tomorrow morning? It is a working hypothesis
that it will. Are there really no circles other than those wrought by
civilized man? It is a working hypothesis that there are not. Etc.
Until the sun does NOT come up in the morning, or until something
really circlular (or spherical) shows up, I will contine to keep these
as working hypotheses.

One never knows when, just around the corner, some little detail will
pop up that throws one's entire view of something awry. I have a
pretty good batting average for being right, but I can be wrong, so I
know from experience that this is the case.

Which is one of the reasons I like to discuss; I find, and use,
discussions dialectically, for learning and thinking,.

mrdilligent...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:16 am

Guest

Date: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 4:27 pm
From: James Burns

<<Perhaps part of the explanation for our difficulties
communicating is that I regard self-evident facts as a mine-field,
while you apparently see them as true in some inarguable
fashion. It is a standard joke that when someone is
presenting a long, complicated argument, you should look at
the place where he says "... and so, X is obviously true."
That is where the error will be.>>

It is true, especially these days, that people can insist on the "self-
evidence" of something where there is not the least hint of any
evidence at all. Just a stong subjective ideology. So yes, this sort
of thing can be a "mine field."

On the other hand, there CAN be circumstances which really are self-
evident. To illustrate safely, you go outside and find that it is
raining (you go get your raincoat or umbrella); now, that really is
self-evident.

Here again, I deconflate.

mrdilligent...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:25 am

Guest

Date: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 4:27 pm
From: James Burns

<<In my world, Sherlock Holmes exists within Sir Conan Doyle's stories
(as well as other places, movies, television, imaginations).
It is not the same kind of existence that you or I have, but it
allows me to answer questions like "Did Sherlock Holmes have a
mother?" or "Do unicorns have five legs?" Can you do as much?>>

Yes, I see that now---your world, that is. But it would not occur to
me whether or not Sherlock Holmes had a mother, or whether unicorns
have more than four legs. All real living organisms have mothers
(even mitosizing cells are "mothers" to the two resulting cells), so
IF one really wanted to know if the fictional character of Holmes had
a mother, he just has to THINK (emphasis on mind work) that Holmes is
a fictional---imaginary---human and that, as such, he had a fictional
mom. But that kind of thinking is a colossal waste of cognition, IMO;
if Doyle wanted to bring a mother into the story in some way, perhaps
just by allusion, he would have done so. One could with more reason
spend his mental time speculating what kind of parents would raise a
son to become the compulsively detailed, yet arrogantly impatient and
rude, Holmes, I suppose, but is that even worth it?

In any case, it doesn't alter the fact that Sherlock Holmes is a
fictional character---the invention of one real man's mind---and
simply does not exist. The author existed; his novels exist, but the
characters and events in each fictional story do not. They become
figments of our own imaginations if we read the novels, but that
doesn't make the events and characters in the novel existant.

WHY? you ask; well, Sherlock Holmes never lived (existed), and the
events in any story featuring him never happened (existed). An animal
such as the unicorn is not now and never was a real, living (existant)
animal. Thus, to say that these "exist in our imagination" is a
linguistically (and cognitively) lazy statement, and a most inaccurate
use of the word _exist_. In a serious discussion, at any rate.

Nor does Holmes exist in a "restrictive" way. For the most part, the
fictional character Holmes is restricted to Doyle's novels, and to
screen and stage plays of the novels, but that STILL doesn't mean he
exists.

And what REAL animal has five or more legs? A unicorn was conceived
as a horse with a single horn in the middle of its forehead. Do
horses have more than 4 legs? Do dogs, cats, cows, . . . ? So the
EXAMINED assumption, given that "art imitates life," would be that the
fictional and nonexistent unicorn has four legs.

All of the above goes for such as Heaven with pearly gates, movies,
television fare, and all vain imaginings. It even goes for pink
elephants and little green men!

This is not to say that imagination itself does not exist. It is an
important subfaculty of natural cognition, and ALL living organisms
have an imagination. As such, it is a metaphysical entity, not a
material thing. (Do you agree? If you want to talk about that we can
talk about that.) Imagination helps an organism to solve problems,
to think "outside the box." And that is what it should be used
for. The gal who wrote the Harry Potter books solved a major problem
with her first Potter novel---she was broker than broke, and now she
is a multimillionaire. Without imagination, Babbage would not have
conceived a mechanical contraption that helped expedite weaving---and
we would not have the computer today.

But imagination can be misused and abused. Paranoia is one case in
point, seeing a religious figure in a stale toasted cheese sandwich is
another, and seeing pink elephants another. I would put wondering
about Sherlock Holmes' mother and the number of legs a unicorn has in
this category.

I hope you don't require more explanatory details than these!!!

mrdilligent...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:26 am

Guest

chazwin...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:33 am

Guest

On Oct 17, 5:50 pm, George Dance <georgedanc... at (no spam) yahoo.ca> wrote:
[quote]I've been recently thinking about one possible criterion of
ontological existence:
[/quote]
"Ontological existence" is a tautology

[quote]
(T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of a true statement.

In the process, I wrote an argument against that as a criterion, on
which I'd appreciate any constructive feedback.

1. The square circle does not exist.
2. Assume that T is true. Then:
2a. The square circle is not a triangle.
[/quote]
i. e. a thing which does not exist is not a thing that does. This is
not symmetrical.

[quote] 2b. Therefore, "The square circle is not a triangle." is a true
statement. (Def. "true statement")
[/quote]
No - the impossible is not the same as another thing that it does not
compare to.

[quote] 2c. Therefore, a true statement can be made about the square
circle.
[/quote]
Only that a square is not a circle.

[quote] 2d. Therefore, the square circle is the referent of a true
statement. (Def. T)
[/quote]
Only in denial.

[quote] 2e, Therefore, the square circle exists.
[/quote]
Therefore go back to step one and think again.

[quote]3. If T is true, then the square circle exists. (2)
4. T is not true. (1,3)
[/quote]
no

Jim Burns...

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:32 pm

Guest

mrdilligent wrote:
[quote]Date: Thurs, Oct 22 2009 4:27 pm
From: James Burns

In any case, it doesn't alter the fact that Sherlock
Holmes is a fictional character---the invention of one
real man's mind---and simply does not exist.
[/quote]
Here, in a nutshell, is the logical step that I would like
spelled out: how do you get from "is a fictional character"
to "simply does not exist"?

It seems like I've asked this before, but, for whatever
reason, it is clear that we are not communicating.

I will try to explain myself another way.

(1) Suppose I create a completely new word: "hinkle".
If you were trying to understand what "hinkle" means,
you could ask me for a definition, but it is much more
common to listen to how I use the word and to try to
get a sense of its meaning from that.

Here are some samples:
"I hinkle. You hinkle. Trees hinkle. Sherlock Holmes and
unicorns do not hinkle."

After enough of these, let's assume you develop a
strong sense that "hinkle" means something very like
your use of the word "exist".

(2) Here's another new word: "churble". After listening
to me use it for a while ("Sherlock Holmes and unicorns
churble."), let's assume that you get a sense that
"churble" means something very like my own use of the
word "exist" (which, by the way, is as near to the most
widespread use as I can manage).

(3) My understanding of your position is that the
way you use "exist" is correct and the way I use
"exist" is incorrect. In terms of my new vocabulary,
"hinkle" is correct and "churble" is incorrect.

Of course, there is nothing in their meanings as
meanings that could be either correct or incorrect.
They are entirely my words; there is nothing to
have stopped me from defining me from defining
"hinkle" to mean "having two left arms and painted
blue."

Therefore, my best estimate of what you mean is
that Bad Things Happen when someone uses "churble"
and that these things fail to happen when "hinkle"
is used instead. What are these Bad Things? I
still hope that you will tell me.

(4) I will translate your argument into our new
vocabulary, in hopes that you will see how your
arguments sound to me:

[quote]In any case, it doesn't alter the fact that Sherlock
Holmes is a fictional character---the invention of one
real man's mind---and simply does not exist.

The author existed; his novels exist, but the
characters and events in each fictional story do not.
They become figments of our own imaginations if we
read the novels, but that doesn't make the events
and characters in the novel existant.
[/quote]
# In any case, it doesn't alter the fact that Sherlock
# Holmes is a fictional character---the invention of one
# real man's mind---and simply does not hinkle.

# The author hinkled; his novels hinkle, but the
# characters and events in each fictional story do not.
# They become figments of our own imaginations if we
# read the novels, but that doesn't make the events
# and characters in the novel hinkling.

These are excellent demonstrative uses of "hinkle"
(and "exist" -- your version), but notice that you
do not even address /my/ use of "exist" (or "churble")
much less tell me what is wrong with it.

[quote]WHY? you ask; well, Sherlock Holmes never lived
(existed), and the events in any story featuring
him never happened (existed). An animal such as
the unicorn is not now and never was a real, living
(existant) animal. Thus, to say that these
"exist in our imagination" is a linguistically
(and cognitively) lazy statement, and a most
inaccurate use of the word _exist_.
In a serious discussion, at any rate.
[/quote]
# WHY? you ask; well, Sherlock Holmes never lived
# (hinkled), and the events in any story featuring
# him never happened (hinkled). An animal such as
# the unicorn is not now and never was a real, living
# (hinkling) animal. Thus, to say that these
# "churble in our imagination" is a linguistically
# (and cognitively) lazy statement, and a most
# inaccurate use of the word _hinkle_.
# In a serious discussion, at any rate.

I changed one example here of "exist" to "churble" because
that was a quote of mine wherein I was very clear that
I was using "exist" /my/ way.

And you still have not told me what is wrong with "churble".

[quote]Nor does Holmes exist in a "restrictive" way. For the most
part, the fictional character Holmes is restricted to Doyle's
novels, and to screen and stage plays of the novels, but
that STILL doesn't mean he exists.
[/quote]
# Nor does Holmes hinkle in a "restrictive" way. For the most
# part, the fictional character Holmes is restricted to Doyle's
# novels, and to screen and stage plays of the novels, but
# that STILL doesn't mean he hinkles.

Of course not -- and I have tried to avoid suggesting that he
does hinkle. You have told me he does not hinkle, and I believe
you.

However, that does not begin to address whether or not he
churbles. And, in the matter of the meaning of "churble", unlike
"hinkle", you cannot settle questions based solely on your own
authority as word-creator.

(I am a little confused by your use of "restrictive" above.
When I used it in my previous post, I meant that the circumstances
under which you would judge something to exist are narrower,
fewer -- more restricted, if you please -- than the circumstances
I would judge something to exist. Surely, you don't disagree
with that?)

[quote]And what REAL animal has five or more legs? A unicorn was
conceived as a horse with a single horn in the middle of
its forehead. Do horses have more than 4 legs? Do dogs,
cats, cows, . . . ? So the EXAMINED assumption, given
that "art imitates life," would be that the fictional and
nonexistent unicorn has four legs.

All of the above goes for such as Heaven with pearly gates,
movies, television fare, and all vain imaginings. It even
goes for pink elephants and little green men!

This is not to say that imagination itself does not exist.
It is an important subfaculty of natural cognition, and ALL
living organisms have an imagination. As such, it is a
metaphysical entity, not a material thing. (Do you agree?
If you want to talk about that we can talk about that.)
Imagination helps an organism to solve problems, to think
"outside the box." And that is what it should be used for.
The gal who wrote the Harry Potter books solved a major
problem with her first Potter novel---she was broker than
broke, and now she is a multimillionaire. Without
imagination, Babbage would not have conceived a mechanical
contraption that helped expedite weaving---and we would not
have the computer today.

But imagination can be misused and abused. Paranoia is one
case in point, seeing a religious figure in a stale toasted
cheese sandwich is another, and seeing pink elephants another.
I would put wondering about Sherlock Holmes' mother and the
number of legs a unicorn has in this category.
[/quote]
# And what REAL animal has five or more legs? A unicorn was
# conceived as a horse with a single horn in the middle of
# its forehead. Do horses have more than 4 legs? Do dogs,
# cats, cows, . . . ? So the EXAMINED assumption, given
# that "art imitates life," would be that the fictional and
# non-hinkling unicorn has four legs.
#
# All of the above goes for such as Heaven with pearly gates,
# movies, television fare, and all vain imaginings. It even
# goes for pink elephants and little green men!
#
# This is not to say that imagination itself does not hinkle.
# It is an important subfaculty of natural cognition, and ALL
# living organisms have an imagination. As such, it is a
# metaphysical entity, not a material thing. (Do you agree?
# If you want to talk about that we can talk about that.)
# Imagination helps an organism to solve problems, to think
# "outside the box." And that is what it should be used for.
# The gal who wrote the Harry Potter books solved a major
# problem with her first Potter novel---she was broker than
# broke, and now she is a multimillionaire. Without
# imagination, Babbage would not have conceived a mechanical
# contraption that helped expedite weaving---and we would not
# have the computer today.
#
# But imagination can be misused and abused. Paranoia is one
# case in point, seeing a religious figure in a stale toasted
# cheese sandwich is another, and seeing pink elephants another.
# I would put wondering about Sherlock Holmes' mother and the
# number of legs a unicorn has in this category.

By now, it should be very clear what you mean by "hinkle"
-- errr, excuse me: what you mean when you use "exist".

Also, it is crystal clear to me that, if I intend to
use "exist" your way and not my way, then all the things
that you pointed to as errors would indeed be errors.

However, where do you tell me WHY we should use "hinkle"
in preference to "churble"?

(Before we move on to metaphysical entities, I would
like to feel I understand you when you write about
existing or not existing.)

[quote]I hope you don't require more explanatory details than
these!!!
[/quote]
I would be overjoyed even to have a good many fewer details
if only those details told me why "hinkle" is so much
better than "churble".

Jim Burns

mrdilligent...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:23 pm

Guest

Date: Fri, Oct 23 2009
From: James Burns

<<There are many differences [to organismic v material things], some
important, some unimportant. Which one or ones are you referring to?
[quote]
[/quote]
This is going to be an ATTEMPT to deliver an explanation to you,
because you have asked for a finer explanationan than that I have
already delivered. But I have no illusions that it is going to be
successful, because, for one thing, each reality set---the
cosmoterrestrial and the artificial; also the living organism and
matter alone--is so utterly complex. Not difficult; just multi-,
multi-faceted. I have not yet developed a succinct vocabulary and
logical sequence of statements by which I could impart such involved
explanations in a way that is both comprehensive and comprehendable,
and even if I had, I doubt if many today would comprehend.

Nevertheless, I am going to try. In that effort, I am going to make
a brief statement---a declarative statement which you will be tempted
to call an assertion. Perhaps it is for me, I have been at this topic
for a very long time, and understand it, now, pretty well. At one
time a few decades ago, there would have been few who did not
understand. But common and academic experience for people have
altered greatly since then, and experience and background are
everything to understanding a subject through words alone. So I ask
you to accept the declarative statement---as a hypothesis, only, of
course, and you can, should, also carry the equal and opposite null
hypothesis side by side with it until you have reached your own
views. This declarative statement deals with the organismic mind part
of the explanation, so that I might next try to focus on the non-
minded aspect of reality---artificial or technological reality. By
understanding more of the material side, with which you are more
familiar, you can then use it to compare the organismic mind side, and
eventually come to your own conclusions.

There is only one, very important, difference beween a living organism
and inanimate matter , from which all other differences flow: Animate
matter (living organisms) have the property of COGNITION, while
inanimate (just plain ol') matter does not.

THIS definition is, today, squelched by contemporary culture, which
sees mind epiphenomenally. Well, ok; even if mind originates in the
brain (which I don't agree with), the brain still originates something
metaphysical; just point out to me what *matter* the mind, and its
thought products, is made of. Not the brain; rather, its main
cognitive product, the mind.

Things which are made of only matter lack this property; yes, even
the computer.

To avoid getting into the sticky wicket that mind has become, just
tell me this: What is the difference between a statement on a road
sign, and one on the output device of a computer? Is the road sign
(or any other written message) making the statement? If not, then
neither is the computer.

The road sign is not making a statement; only minded humans are making
the statement by printing the message on the road sign. Well, the
same is true of a computer.

A computer is more complex than a road sign, and automated, but the
principle is the same. (I assume you know something about how
computers work.)

An intermediary question might be, what is the difference between a
card file and a computer database? The card file does the same job by
humans manually filling out and filing the cards, and sorting them for
retrieval, that the computer database does automatedly.

The statements of information on each of the index cards are HUMAN
statements; so also the statements on the electronic database. The
computer makes no statements of its own. In most cases, its output is
comprehended only by HUMANS; not by the computer itself.

A complex sort of human statement that is made for computers is the
program. A program is made out by humans according to what the humans
want the computer to do for them in an automated way rather than in a
humanly manual way. There is virtually no limit to what humans can do
by the automated processes of the computer. One computer designed and
programmed by humans can pass off to another computer designed and
programmed by humans what the humans want the second computer---or
third, fourth, . .. computer(s)--- to do. Say, design a tool
(according to human original design), and then send it to a computer-
operated robot to manufacture. (Best to leave the Internet out of it,
as it is a different variable, and, in any case, is just the result of
a network of individual computers.)

It is true that possibly no human has ever seen, or even clearly
imagined, the particular tool that is finally made, but that is
misleading. The humans want the tool to be able to be used for a
specific purpose, so the humans start out with CRITERIA (or statements
of same) for the tool. Then they program these criteria as a set of
parameters, expressed in numerals, and these numerals then cause the
electronic or photonic flow of the computer to flow through or around
certain "gates." The particular configuration of "gates" that the
purely material flow ends up passing through is what ends up as the
design of tool, and then this design is sent electronically to the
computer-run robot that is to manufacture the tool. None of the
computers or robots know what it is doing; none understands anything
at all.; these computers don't talk to one another; electronic flow
from one computer to another is the medium of TRANSPORT, not of
communication. The magic is all in the current flow and the
configuration of "gates" it flows through, and is no different in
principle from the lighted lamp in your livingroom which receives the
energy to illuminate from the electricity available in that room.

The program that controls the flow of photons through whichever
"gates" is also called "software," which starts out as a diagrammatic
statement on a piece of paper (perhaps electronic paper), which is
then etched materially into some material medium, such as mylar, and
these material etchings materially affect the photonic flow through
these and those "gates." The final output can ONLY be understood by
humans, which have minds. (Assuming they are using them.)

In short, every step of a computer process is material; only the
origin and final outcome is grasped by the human mind. A computer---
or a whole bank of computers and computer-run robots---is nothing more
than a fancy shovel or other simple tool. The advantage of the
computer is that it saves on human grunt work.

The computer is also very, very fast. Photonic current flows at
nearly the speed of light, and even a flow of electrons is superfast.
The current can thus pass through any configuation of "gates" lickety
split, before a human can say "Jack Robinson."

Did you know that a computer keyboard, which LOOKS a lot like a
typewriter keyboard, is actually just a set of circuit breakers? Just
like, in principle, a household fuse box or circuit panel? But we are
fooled, these circuit breakers (which also mediate the "gates" through
which the current does or doesn't pass) are surfacely imprinted with
our oh-so-familiar alphanumeric characters, so we ASSUME that by
typing "B" and getting "B" on our output device that the computer
*knows* alphanumerics, and words, and therefore is intelligent. This,
combined with our SOO anthropocentric language, like _language_ that a
computer _understands_, convinces us that they are the latest state of
evolution, equivalent to man, only *smarter.*

But be assured, there can NEVER be a H.A.L. unless a computer's
current flow can be (humanly) programmed with the criteria of paranoid
schizophrenia and other-controling performance. This would require
humans to study intensely and accurately every detail of linguistic
and other behavior of the paranoid schizophrenic (not his brain), and
then turn these into numerically coded criteria for programming the
computer. This MIGHT produce a convincing version of H.A.L., but I am
skeptical.

You mentioned Alan Turin; his analogy of a living duck to a computer
"playing" Chess. Well, I ask you, a plastic, battery-operated toy
might look like a living duck, quack like a living duck, waddle like a
living duck---but would it BE a living duck?

By confusing the mechanical with a living organism, Turin was mixing
his apples and oranges. (If anything, it works the other way around,
the mechanical mimmicking the natural, not the reverse.)

Computers don't *play* chess; computers don't *play* anything,
period. To play, something has to have a mind. In "Chess," a
computer is merely calculating statistical probabilities. Computers
are excellent tools for calculating numbers, even long and
sophisticated calculus equations, and and were used for this before
they were applied to text and graphics applications, because the
programmers had to figure out how to numeralize text and pictorial
types of data.

The real game of Chess, invented a long time ago in the Orient, is not
a statistical-probabiliities challenge. It was invented as a
streamlined metaphor of living life. A young person by making a
choice---consciously and deliberately or unconsciously and
implicitly---set in motion a set of activities for which there were
consequences. These consequences were not set in stone, so the
person, seeing through experience what the consequences of his chosen
actions were, could learn from them. There is no learning from mere
statistical probabilities. If he did not like what his mind-chosen
actions led to, he could, by mind action, change his actions the next
time a similar opportunity arose, and thereby change the
consequences. Something like, "Be careful of what you pray/wish for;
it might come true."

But the true game of Chess also reveals that, eventually, one runs out
of opportunities to change his choices of action, and thereby seals
his fate: "Check mate." So one should learn from his experience, and
from the experienced consequences of his choices of action, before it
is too late.

There is none of this in computerized "chess." Mind-possessing humans
rarely beat the computer in probability calculations; the computer is,
as mentioned, too fast because of the material current used in it.
The human "player" of computerized Chess is not involved in playing a
real game of Chess, but only in trying to beat the computer in
probability calculations.

That is my PRELIMINARY attempt at pointing out the difference between
living organisms and inanimate matter. It will have to do for now.

Jim Burns...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:55 pm

Guest

Thank you.

I have only glanced at your post as yet, but
it looks like it may be the sort of thing I
was hoping for. I will have to think about
things before I can make any meaningful response,
of course.

And whether this latest post is or is not
something that addresses the questions I have,
I appreciate the efforts you have put into
trying to answer them.

Jim Burns

mrdilligent wrote:
[quote]Date: Fri, Oct 23 2009
From: James Burns

There are many differences [to organismic v material things], some
important, some unimportant. Which one or ones are you referring to?

This is going to be an ATTEMPT to deliver an explanation to you,
because you have asked for a finer explanationan than that I have
already delivered. But I have no illusions that it is going to be
successful, because, for one thing, each reality set---the
cosmoterrestrial and the artificial; also the living organism and
matter alone--is so utterly complex. Not difficult; just multi-,
multi-faceted. I have not yet developed a succinct vocabulary and
logical sequence of statements by which I could impart such involved
explanations in a way that is both comprehensive and comprehendable,
and even if I had, I doubt if many today would comprehend.

Nevertheless, I am going to try. In that effort, I am going to make
a brief statement---a declarative statement which you will be tempted
to call an assertion. Perhaps it is for me, I have been at this topic
for a very long time, and understand it, now, pretty well. At one
time a few decades ago, there would have been few who did not
understand. But common and academic experience for people have
altered greatly since then, and experience and background are
everything to understanding a subject through words alone. So I ask
you to accept the declarative statement---as a hypothesis, only, of
course, and you can, should, also carry the equal and opposite null
hypothesis side by side with it until you have reached your own
views. This declarative statement deals with the organismic mind part
of the explanation, so that I might next try to focus on the non-
minded aspect of reality---artificial or technological reality. By
understanding more of the material side, with which you are more
familiar, you can then use it to compare the organismic mind side, and
eventually come to your own conclusions.

There is only one, very important, difference beween a living organism
and inanimate matter , from which all other differences flow: Animate
matter (living organisms) have the property of COGNITION, while
inanimate (just plain ol') matter does not.

THIS definition is, today, squelched by contemporary culture, which
sees mind epiphenomenally. Well, ok; even if mind originates in the
brain (which I don't agree with), the brain still originates something
metaphysical; just point out to me what *matter* the mind, and its
thought products, is made of. Not the brain; rather, its main
cognitive product, the mind.

Things which are made of only matter lack this property; yes, even
the computer.

To avoid getting into the sticky wicket that mind has become, just
tell me this: What is the difference between a statement on a road
sign, and one on the output device of a computer? Is the road sign
(or any other written message) making the statement? If not, then
neither is the computer.

The road sign is not making a statement; only minded humans are making
the statement by printing the message on the road sign. Well, the
same is true of a computer.

A computer is more complex than a road sign, and automated, but the
principle is the same. (I assume you know something about how
computers work.)

An intermediary question might be, what is the difference between a
card file and a computer database? The card file does the same job by
humans manually filling out and filing the cards, and sorting them for
retrieval, that the computer database does automatedly.

The statements of information on each of the index cards are HUMAN
statements; so also the statements on the electronic database. The
computer makes no statements of its own. In most cases, its output is
comprehended only by HUMANS; not by the computer itself.

A complex sort of human statement that is made for computers is the
program. A program is made out by humans according to what the humans
want the computer to do for them in an automated way rather than in a
humanly manual way. There is virtually no limit to what humans can do
by the automated processes of the computer. One computer designed and
programmed by humans can pass off to another computer designed and
programmed by humans what the humans want the second computer---or
third, fourth, . .. computer(s)--- to do. Say, design a tool
(according to human original design), and then send it to a computer-
operated robot to manufacture. (Best to leave the Internet out of it,
as it is a different variable, and, in any case, is just the result of
a network of individual computers.)

It is true that possibly no human has ever seen, or even clearly
imagined, the particular tool that is finally made, but that is
misleading. The humans want the tool to be able to be used for a
specific purpose, so the humans start out with CRITERIA (or statements
of same) for the tool. Then they program these criteria as a set of
parameters, expressed in numerals, and these numerals then cause the
electronic or photonic flow of the computer to flow through or around
certain "gates." The particular configuration of "gates" that the
purely material flow ends up passing through is what ends up as the
design of tool, and then this design is sent electronically to the
computer-run robot that is to manufacture the tool. None of the
computers or robots know what it is doing; none understands anything
at all.; these computers don't talk to one another; electronic flow
from one computer to another is the medium of TRANSPORT, not of
communication. The magic is all in the current flow and the
configuration of "gates" it flows through, and is no different in
principle from the lighted lamp in your livingroom which receives the
energy to illuminate from the electricity available in that room.

The program that controls the flow of photons through whichever
"gates" is also called "software," which starts out as a diagrammatic
statement on a piece of paper (perhaps electronic paper), which is
then etched materially into some material medium, such as mylar, and
these material etchings materially affect the photonic flow through
these and those "gates." The final output can ONLY be understood by
humans, which have minds. (Assuming they are using them.)

In short, every step of a computer process is material; only the
origin and final outcome is grasped by the human mind. A computer---
or a whole bank of computers and computer-run robots---is nothing more
than a fancy shovel or other simple tool. The advantage of the
computer is that it saves on human grunt work.

The computer is also very, very fast. Photonic current flows at
nearly the speed of light, and even a flow of electrons is superfast.
The current can thus pass through any configuation of "gates" lickety
split, before a human can say "Jack Robinson."

Did you know that a computer keyboard, which LOOKS a lot like a
typewriter keyboard, is actually just a set of circuit breakers? Just
like, in principle, a household fuse box or circuit panel? But we are
fooled, these circuit breakers (which also mediate the "gates" through
which the current does or doesn't pass) are surfacely imprinted with
our oh-so-familiar alphanumeric characters, so we ASSUME that by
typing "B" and getting "B" on our output device that the computer
*knows* alphanumerics, and words, and therefore is intelligent. This,
combined with our SOO anthropocentric language, like _language_ that a
computer _understands_, convinces us that they are the latest state of
evolution, equivalent to man, only *smarter.*

But be assured, there can NEVER be a H.A.L. unless a computer's
current flow can be (humanly) programmed with the criteria of paranoid
schizophrenia and other-controling performance. This would require
humans to study intensely and accurately every detail of linguistic
and other behavior of the paranoid schizophrenic (not his brain), and
then turn these into numerically coded criteria for programming the
computer. This MIGHT produce a convincing version of H.A.L., but I am
skeptical.

You mentioned Alan Turin; his analogy of a living duck to a computer
"playing" Chess. Well, I ask you, a plastic, battery-operated toy
might look like a living duck, quack like a living duck, waddle like a
living duck---but would it BE a living duck?

By confusing the mechanical with a living organism, Turin was mixing
his apples and oranges. (If anything, it works the other way around,
the mechanical mimmicking the natural, not the reverse.)

Computers don't *play* chess; computers don't *play* anything,
period. To play, something has to have a mind. In "Chess," a
computer is merely calculating statistical probabilities. Computers
are excellent tools for calculating numbers, even long and
sophisticated calculus equations, and and were used for this before
they were applied to text and graphics applications, because the
programmers had to figure out how to numeralize text and pictorial
types of data.

The real game of Chess, invented a long time ago in the Orient, is not
a statistical-probabiliities challenge. It was invented as a
streamlined metaphor of living life. A young person by making a
choice---consciously and deliberately or unconsciously and
implicitly---set in motion a set of activities for which there were
consequences. These consequences were not set in stone, so the
person, seeing through experience what the consequences of his chosen
actions were, could learn from them. There is no learning from mere
statistical probabilities. If he did not like what his mind-chosen
actions led to, he could, by mind action, change his actions the next
time a similar opportunity arose, and thereby change the
consequences. Something like, "Be careful of what you pray/wish for;
it might come true."

But the true game of Chess also reveals that, eventually, one runs out
of opportunities to change his choices of action, and thereby seals
his fate: "Check mate." So one should learn from his experience, and
from the experienced consequences of his choices of action, before it
is too late.

There is none of this in computerized "chess." Mind-possessing humans
rarely beat the computer in probability calculations; the computer is,
as mentioned, too fast because of the material current used in it.
The human "player" of computerized Chess is not involved in playing a
real game of Chess, but only in trying to beat the computer in
probability calculations.

That is my PRELIMINARY attempt at pointing out the difference between
living organisms and inanimate matter. It will have to do for now.

[/quote]

Nam Nguyen...

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:13 pm

Guest

mrdilligent wrote:

[quote]But be assured, there can NEVER be a H.A.L. unless a computer's
current flow can be (humanly) programmed with the criteria of paranoid
schizophrenia and other-controling performance. This would require
humans to study intensely and accurately every detail of linguistic
and other behavior of the paranoid schizophrenic (not his brain), and
then turn these into numerically coded criteria for programming the
computer. This MIGHT produce a convincing version of H.A.L., but I am
skeptical.
[/quote]
Imho, this isn't quite true. _In principle_, computers could be used
to simulate a "universe" with certain laws and in which intelligent
"beings" could arise. We have to create the "laws" and there's no
guarantee that any intelligence would emerge. But neither could we
exclude any possibility.

mrdilligent...

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:46 pm

Guest

Date: Fri, Oct 23 2009
From: James Burns

<<There are many differences [to organismic v material things], some
important, some unimportant. Which one or ones are you referring to?
[quote]
[/quote]
This is the second phase of my attempt to explain the difference
between a living organism and mindless matter. Of course, the
statement I made in phase 1 still applies for the living organism----
which you have taken as a hypothesis, complete with your own null
hupothesis, rather than as an assertion---while I here conntinue to
focus on the mindless matter, as evinced through human material
technology.

I said that the modern computer is superfast, and too multifaceted for
any human to understand, so, without this understanding, humans tend
to conflate unlike with unlike. This was not always so.

The first gizmo to be called a "computer" officially was the abacus.
It was not a computer, but a calcululator, invented long ago to
facilitate human counting. It was a rectangular frame, with strings
or wires stretching horizontally between the right and left sides of
the frame. Strung through these threads were beads, which were moved
from right to left to arrive at a sum. Of course no one at any time
believed that an abacus had any intelligence of its own; if it was
"AI," it was because the intelligent HUMAN used it as an artifice to
aid the human intelligence in counting. And the abacus was not too
complex to be grasped by human intelligence.

The second, and far more recent, contraption to be called a "computer"
was the Babbage weaving aid. Intelligent humans would arrange the
spools of yarn in such and such a way, and a gadget with spindles
would be moved toward these spools and pluck out threads of the right
color of yarn, "right" having been decided by the HUMANS who operated
this contraption.

Observing this, some humans said to themselves, "If such a machine can
be used to pick out thread colors, why can't one be developed to pick
out human statements that have been expressed on papers?" (Sort the
material papers, and you sort "information.") Eventually this
wondering led to the punch-card computer, by this time run by
electricity, by which individual cards represented, say, answers to a
survey (human statements), and employees would be hired to punch holes
in these cards in certain predetermined places on the cards. Then the
spindled machine would run through the cards picking them up through
their holes, and the results were then tallied: So-many people had
said they bought this brand of coffee (say, just to keep the
illustration simple); so-many other peoople had said they bought
another brand of coffee . . . and some people had had no answer
(statement).

No one then (or now if the punch-card computer is remembered)
believed that such machines might someday take over the world, or even
that they had minds or were intelligent. And such machines were easy
to understand. There had been a play produced called "R.U.R." that
came out, but it was just a science-fiction piece, not to be
considered here. But such punch-card machines were *artificial*
intelligence because cognitive, thus intelligent, HUMANS could
expedite the increasing loads of human statements by these artificial,
mechanical, means.

Meanwhile, during WWII, information-processing "machines" were used to
send materially coded statements by way of giant boards loaded with
lightbulbs that screwed in, and lighted, and screwed out, and were
darkened. Electrical wires running to each of these bulb sockets were
behind these boards. Hordes of housewives were employed to screw in
or out each of these light bulbs according to a set of papers---quite
literally instructions in those days---which were individualized for
each worker. The housewife would look at her instructions and screw
this or that bulb in, and this other and that other bulb out,
alternatively at different times according to the instructions stated
on her bunch of papers. The coded message output was based on so-
many lightbulbs that were "ON" and so-many that were "OFF" at a given
point---this binary system being the basis for assigning codes of on
and off to individual messages. The *messages" to be encoded were
decided by the military brass---cognitive human beings, and the
messges that were encoded by this means and dispatched were read by
cognitive human beings. The advantage to coding these messages was to
keep them from being understood by the enemy, comprised of cognitive
human beings.

As dramatically large (as well as simple) as these lightbulb
"machines" were, I think few who really thought about it believed that
such machines were themselves intelligent, and would someday take over
the world, but, by his time, the stage-presented fiction called
"R.U.R." was having an effect on portions of the populace. The same
populace that was producing and raising the next generation of
computer-interested people.

But these giant lightbulb "machines" were too huge and costly, despite
their simplicty, so a look-see around for alternative ways to
accomplish the same kind of task took place. This alternative way
was, first, the vacuum tube, the same as was used to receive radio
waves carrying sound to, of all things, the "radio." The vacuum tube
led to the production of huffing and puffing behemouths, such as the
Univac, which could do very little in the way of receiving and sorting
human statements, and which therefore had to be electrically hooked
together to make for any useful output. So much electricity and so
many vacuum tubes produce a whole lot of heat, so the giant buildings
which housed them had to be cooled.

But even by now, people no longer could understand computer
technology---it was already too multifaceted---and then, influences
from fiction such as "R.U.R" and the "Buck Rogers" comic strip were
taking their toll of the human populace. More and more computers were
looking threateningly like humans who could think, and eventually,
even more rapidly than humans can. Maybe "R.U.R." was right, and
computerized robots *could* rebel against their human masters and take
over the world.

This is the cultural legacy of those who are adults in the
contemporary world.

Meanwhile this growing belief---untrue ideology---was further aided
and abetted by the advent, first, of the transistor, and then of the
printed circuit, so that more and more statements from more and more
minds of cognitive humans could be fed into, sorted by, and outputted
by smaller and smaller machines. This made these machines MUCH too
multifaceted to be understood by humans, even by computer "experts,"
and bonafide knowledge began to be lost from the collective human
mind, not gained as would be expected. At the same time, more and
more---astronomical amounts of---pure nonsense disguised to look like
real information was being propogated by these shrinking, and still
very dumb, machines. Proopogated en masse by computers on the
intelligent (if lazy and clueless) decisions made by ccognitive human
beings.

But the fundamental principle in the abacus has not changed; only the
material technology has. Computers, even supercomputers, even QUANTUM
computers, are and always will be mindless and routine number-
crunchers, made entirely of mindless matter.

mrdilligent...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:31 pm

Guest

Date: Fri, Oct 23 2009
From: James Burns

<<There are many differences [to organismic v material things], some
important, some unimportant. Which one or ones are you referring to?
[quote]
[/quote]
Now we come to phase 3 of my attempt to explain to you the difference
between living organisms, in which I will focus, not on computers per
se, but on other artificial devices of mindless matter.

1. Let's consider the astronomical telescope, and we shall use for our
example the most sophisticated telescope ever made by man, the Hubble
Space Telescope.

We are led to believe that this mindless, senseless gizmo sees and
communicates, and that it teaches us Well, it doesn't see and it
doesn't communicate, and if we learn from it, it is really from what
WE see as a consequence of the HST. It works like this: The "lenses"
of the HST include materials which are impressed by wavelengths of
emf, some of it from the visible band, some of it from other bands.
Whatever photons of emf come through one of these "lenses" and are
impressed on the material is tallied by a sorting computer and sent to
one or another of certain pixel-addresses in the computer, which have
been assigned numbers. All of this has been prearranged by the HUMAN
scientists and engineers back on earth. Then the computer(s) on the
HST automatedly transmit, again by frequencies of emf, these pixel
numbers down to receiving computers on earth. These latter computers,
in turn, have been programmed to translate a number into a color, and
the pixels on the screen gradually fill in a "picture" of colors. It
is the same principle as painting by numbers. For that matter, it is
the same principle implemented through the old Brownie camera.

2. Now let us turn to the mindless matter of the universe, that which
is detected by HST cameras, for example.

Such as the HST are truly technological extensions of man's natural
senses, and thus work for man's natural intelligent mind, but we are
really kidding ourselves when we say that telescopes (and computers)
see. WE see---what is right in front of us, or what is lightyears
away from our eyes---through OUR OWN eyes, and as always (or it used
to be), we learn from what we see with our own eyes.

Part of what we see with our own eyes, with the aid of technological
extensions, is that suns and their solar systems come into existence,
stay that way for a while, and then change form, possibly exploding,
or possibly shrinking into a "brown dwarf" or "pulsar." But we never
see a sun or its remnants disappearing altogether. Yet we are
constantly TOLD that suns are born, and that they die! DO THEY???

I contend that only living organisms can be born and can die; i.e.,
the paricular way a living organism comes into existence is through
what we have been calling birth since early Anglo-Saxon days, and the
particular way a living organism goes out of existence is through
death. Moreover, in the case of the latter, the body that has died
more than merely changes form; it eventually disappears virtually
altogether! Maybe some skeletal parts, bones, don't easily
disappear---and can, if fact, remain extant for thousands of years.
But in the main, the mindless matter left by organismic death
entropizes, its constituent parts being randomly strewn around the
earth, solar system, and even the entire universe.

We are also told that galaxies often canabalize one another. I
contend that only living organisms can devour the metabolizing flesh
of their own kind. Galaxies can "collide"---I call it
crosspartition---and when they do, usually much hydrogen gas is
released---which is turned into more suns and solar systems. New sets
frrom the crosspartitioning of old or previously existant ones. That
is logic.

All of this born, die, and canabolize nonsense is anthropomorphizing
at its rockbottom worst; yet we are also constantly told not to
"anthropomorphize." Not even if it is a personification, merely a a
form of metaphor!

Patricia Aldoraz...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:56 pm

Guest

On Oct 18, 3:50 am, George Dance <georgedanc... at (no spam) yahoo.ca> wrote:
[quote]I've been recently thinking about one possible criterion of
ontological existence:

[/quote]
There are other kinds of existence?

[quote](T) Something exists iff it can be the referent of a true statement.

In the process, I wrote an argument against that as a criterion, on
which I'd appreciate any constructive feedback.
... [snip unnecessarily artificial and convoluted argument]
[/quote]
Essentially, you are trying for

1. 'The square circle does not exist' is true.
2. The 'square circle' is the referent of 1.
3. Therefore, the square circle exists.

But the trouble is that no one would really assert T and mean to
include negative existential claims. 2 is false in the above because
'The square circle does not exist' is really more the statement 'There
is nothing that fits the bill for being a square circle'. The last
form is a better reflection of what is being said and there is no
referent.

James Burns...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:36 pm

Guest

You may not be finished with your exposition. Nonetheless, I will
make some sort of preliminary answer to the three posts noted below.

mrdilligent wrote:
[quote]Date: Fri, Oct 23 2009
From: James Burns
[/quote]
Message-ID:
<788d6464-c3d6-43f2-908a-8ea1f372f97d at (no spam) o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
[...]
[quote]There is only one, very important, difference beween a living organism
and inanimate matter , from which all other differences flow: Animate
matter (living organisms) have the property of COGNITION, while
inanimate (just plain ol') matter does not.
[...][/quote]

Message-ID:
<91f7febe-de57-48cd-b5f5-88eaef41291b at (no spam) v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
[...]
[quote]I said that the modern computer is superfast, and too multifaceted for
any human to understand, so, without this understanding, humans tend
to conflate unlike with unlike. This was not always so.
[...][/quote]

Message-ID:
<88b9d8d7-188f-466f-a2f4-880bd03054ae at (no spam) s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
[...]
[quote]1. Let's consider the astronomical telescope, and we shall use for our
example the most sophisticated telescope ever made by man, the Hubble
Space Telescope.
[...][/quote]

Let us consider, then, the differences between Natural
and Artificial.

I find this to be a very porous boundary. As our knowledge
advances, things that once were "natural" -- /because/
they were mysterious to us, and so had to be accepted
whole or not at all -- slide over the line into ...
maybe not artificial exactly, but technological.

An excellent example is life, and living things. /Elan
vital/ was supposed by some to be a mysterious substance
that living matter had and non-living matter did not have.
We have learned enough about living things that we no
longer have to suppose mysterious substances.

Today, we are not very far away from living cells
constructed in a laboratory -- months. (I had a news
reference and perhaps I'll find it again later.)
I am reminded of a recent comment of yours about,
if an artificial duck walked like a duck and quacked
like a duck -- then it would still be an /artificial/
duck. But what if the duck ate and metabolized as well?
What if it pecked its way out of a small ovoid of
calcium carbonate, ate and grew and, eventually,
stopped "working"? What if it successfully interbred
with "real" ducks? The point is, no matter what
objections you have, concrete objections, I mean,
not just declaring the "duck" not to be a duck,
I can suppose a better "duck" that avoids that
objection. Isn't there some point at which
walking and quacking and /everything else/ adds
up to a duck, a /real/ duck (whatever that may mean)?

A similar argument can be made for "artificial
minds". Can there be human-level intelligence
from machines? Perhaps you will say no, that machines
cannot have cognition, just as a plastic duck
cannot be alive. Except that many amazing things
are happening in AI labs right now. Your argument
would be much harder to make using examples
from today's technology instead of from
the 1950's. And much, much harder in the future.
Back around the turn of the millenium,
Scientific American had a special issue on
computers. One article claimed that the improvements
in AI were limited by the power of the computers
available, but that this was increasing
exponentially (Moore's Law). The writer's
prediction was that we would simulate a human mind
around 2020 -- not so far from now.

(If you want more examples of experiments
that are coming amazingly close to human-like
behavior right now, I will follow up.)

That's beside the point, though. Can there be
human-level intelligence from machines? I
think we have to say we don't know -- yet.

You may have to correct me, but it looks as
though you are trying to cement in place a
linguisitic distinction, between humans and machines,
that may have looked correct at one point in time,
but is looking more and more incorrect as
time goes on.

Jim Burns

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:13 pm Science Forum Index