|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 5, 2013 10:32:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. Counter Example: Recipes and Instructions. I am a programmer, working on a PhD in the realm of logic programming and domain specific languages. I think I've got thinking like a programmer down. The problem with formalization is that its a restriction on language and provably either incomplete or inconsistent. (Godel) Poetry is an example of meaningful language which can express a truth about existence without having a formal semantics for the words used. My best understanding with what is going on with language processing is scene construction. Each word read in a sentence contributes to a transformation of the mental image being constructed in the mind. The primitives within the scenes are fundamentally sourced from prior experience and prior imagining. When someone utters the word "horse" not only does the image of a prototypical horse come to mind, but so does the prototypical context for the horse in that person's memory banks. The words surrounding the horse may select or deselect features in the scene, applying constraints to the image that emerges. The final image satisfies all the constraints of the sentence or fails to produce a scene within the mind, creating the experience of "this is nonsense". The scientific research is beginning to support this model of language processing.What this says is that human language is highly informal where the meaning of a word within each individual is sourced in experience and not in dictionary definitions or formalized semantics for words. There are several notions of intuition and one particular definition is something I don't think you would have a problem with accepting. It goes back to Intuitionism. Intuition is what selects axioms and decides how to construct formalisms and how to shape models. This intuition is sourced in both experience and in the sense of elegance and mathematical aesthetics. How someone chooses axioms cannot be formalized itself, suffering from the boot-strapping problem. At some point logicians just have to admit they are operating with a heavy sense of intuition when shaping their formalisms. The justification for the rejection of the law of excluded middle in constructive and intuitionist mathematics is fundamentally sourced with modeling human understanding and knowledge. Formal non-monotonic logics are a product of the last 50 years, but they emerged because binary logics could not model human reasoning elegantly or intuitively. If you can agree with this sense of intuition, then it shouldn't be that far to accommodate a intuition in the sense of pattern matching and pattern identification. Within this realm you have the genius which contribute tremendous insights to their disciplines with no explanation of why or how. Srinivasa_Ramanujan, Fermat, Tesla, etc. These people have an intuitive sense of what is true in mathematics but could not prove formally many of their claims. And of course some of their claims were proven not true. But they are not operating within a formalization, they are operating within the realm of feeling with respect to what might be true, i.e. intuition. (As Godel Explains it) If you can accommodate intuition as a function of pattern matching on information that we may not even be consciously aware of, then we can have a means for legitimate "gut feelings". Information processing on overdrive, beyond what the individual is consciously and formally able to follow. This also allows for the emergence of Wisdom and discernment of principles through application of metaphor and simile. I believe that up to this point you might be willing to accommodate these definitions of intuition. What you seem to not want to accommodate is any kind of non-local intuition. Messages being passed at a distance either from others or from God/Spirit or other entities. Perhaps you can clarify whether you will accept intuition in the forms I believe you can accept, or explain what you see as their problem. Very nice topology. I think Einstein operated from intuition (in places he called it imagination, not the make-believe kind). Logic is probably confined to the known. Would you say that intuition is the movement from the known into the unknown? sdp It is my experience that individuated perspective is the vehicle through which the unknown is made known, where intuition and insight are the operational catalysts, and open-mindedness is the on/off control.. Imagination has different qualities, there is often misunderstanding between the qualities of creativity and fantasy, acknowledging that 'fantasy' can become reality through creativity.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 6, 2013 5:28:50 GMT -5
I said there isn't my address. Didn't say I've never been there. Are you "there" now? If not, then you're just imagining things. Plain and simple. Alls I know is that Jed is all about "absolute truth" and fails to provide it. I'm not idiot enough to discuss the details of what Kant thinks, much less what Jaspers thinks about Kant. I will discuss what Jed thinks. I have already given my opinion and it should provide you with more than enough points to attack. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 6, 2013 5:48:34 GMT -5
Counter Example: Recipes and Instructions. No, function and narrative aren't abandoned even in these kinds of statements. Formalization is not at all a restriction. Instead it's actually liberating because it allows us to leave behind restrictions of everyday intuition and write relations which in everyday language doesn't make sense, for example quantum physics is not possible without formalization. Gödel encoded self-referentiality (with a form of liar paradox) into a number theory he created himself, encountered that it's undecidable and determined that it's impossible to prove everything with his particular approach. This has been interpreted to mean that all formal systems must be incomplete and that human intuition trumps non-intuitive formal systems because unlike the computer plagued with the problem of self-reference we can say of the computer that he won't be able to come to a decision. However, we too when faced with the problem of self-referentiality encounter the same problem of undecidability, and this despite being intuitive. Moreover, we can easily construct statements that are structured so that they forbid a decision for intuitive entities alone but not for non-intuitive entities ("Intuitive entities are unable to prove that this sentence is true."). The only way to get out of the paradox is by working with a syntax where self-referentiality does not arise, i.e. by shifting the context and rendering self-reference into hetero-reference. Poetry does require formalizable semantics if it is to express anything meaningful. I challenge you to find me a poem for which this is not the case, i.e. find me a meaningful poem without logical structure. Notice why you will not succeed: I have defined meaning as function, function as relation of parts, and thus formalizable by definition. It may very well be that we are visualizing some of our thoughts, but the mechanism that concludes "this is nonsense" is not found within a picture. Pictures help us to think, but we don't think in pictures. I'm not saying that expressions or meanings are universal. We should be honest here, we can only make mention of an entity that selects/decides/constructs formalisms if the notion itself is already part of the formalism. The notion of an intuitive entity clearly is a logical one, there is relation/function, it's an item meant to fill a gap - this itself is not problematic as long as it is declared for the "if" that it is, but of the entity itself we can say nothing, i.e. if we define how it functions then this function must already have been transposed into the formalism. Sure, but it remains a "gut feeling" until a proof is shown. I'm attacking the claims of "absolute truth" that are based on intuitions, not that we are allowed to act according to intuitions. When, like in the case of Jed, someone speaks of absolute truth and wants to be taken seriously then the proof has to be shown. And if a proof is shown (Jed's book) and it clearly is erroneous then we can reject the idea that his claims are (absolutely) true. If Jed still wants to be taken seriously then he has to formulate a better proof. I don't think there's a qualitative difference, but it's nonetheless a good distinction insofar as it notices the difference between intuitions that are expressed as opinions (gut feeling) and dictates (God said so). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2013 21:34:22 GMT -5
deleted post accidentally duplicated
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2013 21:34:36 GMT -5
Question, back with us again. Ahh, Laughter beat me to it - well spotted. In drag this time. And there's nowt wrong with that. Stick with the forum guidelines this time round and I've no problem with you re-joining us. Post bumped for........Syria........ sdp |
|
|
|
Post by shawntedrow on May 7, 2013 13:05:52 GMT -5
Stardustpilgrim said, "shawntedrow......how did you come about this information on Jed? Please give source".
sdp
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have been away and internet connections were hit and miss.
That is a loaded question sdp.
Similar in experience with many seekers, the books were very impactful to my life. Then after reading them a second time through, I mysteriously slipped onto an unquenchable quest to find out who the author was. I am not too sure what my motives were back then because time has now aged things and I can't remember the thoughts surrounding my initial thrust. What I do remember is that I knew someone wrote the books and I felt very convinced that he could be found out with relentless effort being applied. My business career of over twenty-five years required iron-jawed determination so this was somewhat second nature to me.
There was a uniqueness to Jed's teachings that I thought would be a possible lead to follow. Jed could not have wrote these books and possess this knowledge without he himself experiencing the role of a teacher. The person that wrote these books had to have been involved with spiritual dialogues with people. Jed seemed to be speaking from an experiential position. So I did a people search based upon a profile with Jed's unique teaching style and methods. After weeding out many, this eventually lead to my personal discovery of Richard Rose. There were definite similarities but this clearly wasn't the match I was looking for. Then I became suspicious that possibly a student of Rose wrote these books. So I would put random students I found out about into a profile-filter and one kept staying afloat. I would at times reject him as a possible candidate because of teaching inconsistencies then things would surface that would keep me glued upon him. Things like his spiritual fetish for the book Moby Dick would popup. He read it over fifty times and teaches from it. There were numerous other matches that had me continually scratching my head.
I also could sense that within the fictional events and stories in the books, that these happenings were rewritten stories that actually took place. In other words, the author rewrote his life stories using fictional stories. An example to this is in the third book where a character named Brett, out of the blue, and seemingly very time-sensitive, enters into the book and weaves a story throughout the pages. Brett was proxy for Richard Rose. Besides the character resemblances with Brett and Mr. Rose, compare the approximate date of the author writing the third book with when Mr. Rose died. Brett's funeral was Mr. Rose's funeral rewritten. The author of the book was there at Mr. Rose's funeral. Another symbolic personification within the books that represented a relationship the author had with another individual was the LSD advocate named Frank in Jed's Notebook. Frank's real identity is Bill Richards, a well known promoter of LSD consciousness. Yes, this student of Rose has had an intimate friendship and spiritual connection with Bill Richards.
So besides doing a profile search, I put effort into unraveling the fictional stories into possible real events that took place. The weight of the confirmations outweighed the inconsistencies 20 to 1. Yes, there are inconsistencies but to explain these in detail would be quite lengthy.
This is just a small glimpse of my undertaking. My source was a long and thorough investigative process. If I didn't go through this rigorous undertaking, I would have never believed this was the author. First impression, you will pass over him. On the surface, he isn't a match. He's loaded down with belief systems.
In 1998, after a long hard life of seeking truth, the author had a profound spiritual experience. Through this experience, inspiration flowed out of him like an artisan well bursting through the surface of the earth. No doubt, he was able to tap into a channel of great imagination and resourcefulness while writing the books. Though he thinks his experience was the finality and end of his spiritual search, it was far from it. His ego identity was still lurking around in the background, working its way into attaching and identifying itself somehow into this experience. This is what's known as when the ego co-opts (to take or assume for one's own use) with a spiritual experience.
One of the manifestations of the author's ego-identity still running amuck is his arrogance. Just like Jed, the author thinks he has a superior view on life than the people around him. Spiritual narcissism to the nth degree. It was this same arrogance that Mr. Rose couldn't deal with. He tried but was unsuccessful in his attempts. The author was at one time a student and coworker with Rose but problems arose. He was probably the most gifted student Rose had but was constantly full of himself (and still is). Though few know this, this student of RR actually thinks Rose was jealous of him. The author is entangled in his emotionally-wounded child's-mind, trying to prove his worth to the world around him. Little did Rose know to what extent his words entailed when he said to this student, "The world will never love you enough". To this very day this student of Rose is still trying to prove to the world his worth. A good question to ask yourself is; does a person that has encountered the fullness of God and Truth constantly brag about himself? I think not.
Like so many influential gifted and charismatic teachers that are using spirituality as a means to sustain their ego, he too is very convincing and persuasive. Unfortunately, Jed's immature arrogance and false image of what an enlightened person is like has propagated itself to many, guised under the pretense of authentic spirituality. The "be like Jed" effect is running rampant amongst the spiritual subculture.
There is quite enough information from all my posts to figure this out if you care to know. If you do not care to know, that is quite okay too. From my own personal path of seeking, this knowing was quite self-shattering and liberating.
Farewell and good hunting to those who care to hunt.
Shawn
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 7, 2013 13:36:11 GMT -5
Sounds like hunting Jed was your own pursuit of a great white whale.
If he was at the funeral then I've probably met the author, but wouldn't know who they are from the description. When I came onto the scene, Shawn and Bob Cergol had claimed to have their "final" realizations and I was meeting with Art until a little bit after his realization. Some of the best years I've spent, with TAT folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 7, 2013 15:00:59 GMT -5
Syria/SB/Q,  Perhaps we can pin down what we mean to formalize the meaning of language. Would a sufficient formalization allow machines to manipulate and understand language completely, in particular being able to discern appropriate context while encountering en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy ? Or are you leaving the formalization strictly within the human mind? |
|
|
|
Post by gooseone on May 7, 2013 15:35:48 GMT -5
Syria/SB/Q, Perhaps we can pin down what we mean to formalize the meaning of language. Would a sufficient formalization allow machines to manipulate and understand language completely, in particular being able to discern appropriate context while encountering en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy ? Or are you leaving the formalization strictly within the human mind? I thought Noam Chomsky is occupied in the field of linguistics , he has a lot of interesting things to say about many subjects...and if i am correct there is no end all be all consensus on the how and what of linguistics other then it has aided mankind to make sense of it's surroundings and co-operate to manipulate it better. It's a fascinating subject on it's own , and i can see a contradiction to language being bound to, well..language to make sense of it. Similar to reading every book on gravity there is to get a better understanding while you could take the hint that you always weigh what you weigh as complete understanding.So it would seem to me that, for my foreseeable future, machines will be bound to the frame of reference we give them, which in turn is similar to how most of the human species is under the impression they function. Which i would deem "a bit dry". |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 7, 2013 16:57:18 GMT -5
Syria/SB/Q, Perhaps we can pin down what we mean to formalize the meaning of language. Would a sufficient formalization allow machines to manipulate and understand language completely, in particular being able to discern appropriate context while encountering en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy ? Or are you leaving the formalization strictly within the human mind? I thought Noam Chomsky is occupied in the field of linguistics , he has a lot of interesting things to say about many subjects...and if i am correct there is no end all be all consensus on the how and what of linguistics other then it has aided mankind to make sense of it's surroundings and co-operate to manipulate it better. It's a fascinating subject on it's own , and i can see a contradiction to language being bound to, well..language to make sense of it. Similar to reading every book on gravity there is to get a better understanding while you could take the hint that you always weigh what you weigh as complete understanding.So it would seem to me that, for my foreseeable future, machines will be bound to the frame of reference we give them, which in turn is similar to how most of the human species is under the impression they function. Which i would deem "a bit dry". I haven't seen how far Noam goes into semantics and pragmatics, he's been heavily focussed on syntax and grammar. I think the en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room problem is a good one to consider. At what point does the person in the box feel like they understand chinese from a subjective perspective. These are the factors that I see which would give me the sense of understanding: 1) that I was able to develop rich mental models and experience those models in response to reading an utterrance. 2) from the models, being able to render an intelligent response and feeling like the response was intelligent. 3) not receiving negative feed back when others read the utterances, 4) receiving praise and appreciation for being insightful. The fourth touches on learning, in particular that my understanding facilitated learning in another. This is where language is being used skillfully beyond the mere formal definition of terms to manipulate the attention within another to foreground a bit of their experience they had not paid attention to. This refines the mental model within the other. This to me is the true utility of words and why words cannot truly have a formalized semantics. The meanings of words, the mental models, are being perpetually refined. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2013 20:58:16 GMT -5
does a person that has encountered the fullness of God and Truth constantly brag about himself? I think not. You saw constant bragging going on? You mean because he announced he was an enlightened dude? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 8, 2013 5:22:20 GMT -5
does a person that has encountered the fullness of God and Truth constantly brag about himself? I think not. You saw constant bragging going on? You mean because he announced he was an enlightened dude? I remember after reading the first book that there was nothing to indicate that it wasn't a factual account. By the time I read the second book it was known that Jed was a pseudonym (the author very well hidden), and the stories were creations. I'll have to go back and browse the books, but is there a claim that Jed is anything other than just a character in a book, and a pseudonym? ..........IOW, are Jed and the actual author one and the same? IOOW, is this a claim by the author? (I think shawntedrow is talking about the author, not the pseudonym, not the character Jed). sdp |
|
|
|
Post by gooseone on May 8, 2013 9:45:10 GMT -5
I thought Noam Chomsky is occupied in the field of linguistics , he has a lot of interesting things to say about many subjects...and if i am correct there is no end all be all consensus on the how and what of linguistics other then it has aided mankind to make sense of it's surroundings and co-operate to manipulate it better. It's a fascinating subject on it's own , and i can see a contradiction to language being bound to, well..language to make sense of it. Similar to reading every book on gravity there is to get a better understanding while you could take the hint that you always weigh what you weigh as complete understanding.So it would seem to me that, for my foreseeable future, machines will be bound to the frame of reference we give them, which in turn is similar to how most of the human species is under the impression they function. Which i would deem "a bit dry". I haven't seen how far Noam goes into semantics and pragmatics, he's been heavily focussed on syntax and grammar. I think the en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room problem is a good one to consider. At what point does the person in the box feel like they understand chinese from a subjective perspective. These are the factors that I see which would give me the sense of understanding: 1) that I was able to develop rich mental models and experience those models in response to reading an utterrance. 2) from the models, being able to render an intelligent response and feeling like the response was intelligent. 3) not receiving negative feed back when others read the utterances, 4) receiving praise and appreciation for being insightful. The fourth touches on learning, in particular that my understanding facilitated learning in another. This is where language is being used skillfully beyond the mere formal definition of terms to manipulate the attention within another to foreground a bit of their experience they had not paid attention to. This refines the mental model within the other. This to me is the true utility of words and why words cannot truly have a formalized semantics. The meanings of words, the mental models, are being perpetually refined. You know , i don't even know how my own brain works as a computer , sometimes i seem to have put in a request and during the course of a day all sorts of contemplations seem to come rolling out , it still amazes me  . I seem to have contemplated, so forgive me for not only taking into account written words in this instance. I guess Chomsky is under the impression that there is some inherent linguistic base structure hardwired into the human species and such would seem likely. Assuming computers will not become self aware any time soon and create their own intention , if intention could be simulated as a program which would underlay the utterance of language and incoming language could be analysed and compared to those programmed intentions and there is a program to respond in a pre-set "human" way , i guess a lot of people could easily be fooled. Yet it is easily overlooked that in a search for "finding consciousness" we are bound by the linguistic framework we can make sense of to accept any evidence. There could be many things already conscious which we simply cannot interpretate as such. If a very limited drive for self preservation would qualify as atleast awareness and therefore consciousness , i could already propose that our systems of governance , economics and management hierarchies are conscious entities, seeing they have made possible rapid population growth and we have ended up with a major part of the population being depended on them for survival , therefore these systems / entities cannot be easily abandoned. ( This is prominently present in our current economics ). Depending one's outlook, such systems / entities could be seen as "man - made" or natural, working 'through' humans. Autism is also a fascinating subject to consider seeing it is common for some people being deemed "autistic" to not be able to deduct intention or using normal communication to express themselves, this can result in simply parroting their environment and use negative / positive feedback to discern what the preferred way of action is while they do not really understand what they are doing compared to most of the population. And in this sense, i seem to lack interest in quite a lot of people because in a lot of conversations i come across, people are uttering opinions to imply a sense of self holding them, then seeking acknowledgement of those opinions and if agreed upon there can be a sharing of them to create a sense of well being. All the while not being aware of their own intentions. ( not that i am , or that i have a superior outlook , i just have no inclination to go along with this behaviour most of the time. ) Then we can look at scholars being occupied with ancient Egypt , who have access to the earlier written utterances of our species and the only theories we are able to come up with usually involves claiming they just held a bunch of believes of an afterlife and such and that those believes were very important to them. In doing so , they usually fail to contemplate that it might have been their actual reality just because in our current frame of mind , uttering things like that would mean someone is holding a belief. This example seems to be one of many reoccurring "explanatory gaps" throughout human history where we cannot deny the (material)existence of advanced societies but have little clues about what moved them due to a seeming differentiation in consensus reality. Also there is the issue of sound and emotion , which seems to me the way in which we first learn to discern basic meaning before language comes in to make us able to communicate them. And if i would take the guitar as an example for music , how come most western people instantly recognise it when a false note is played when the framework is set due to overemphasising the key in which the notes are played ?. The thought experiment you provide is not that much different from wondering if computers would be able to create an emotionally engaging and musically pleasing guitarsolo. ( In which the individual way of playing the instrument amounts for a great deal of the characteristics of the playing. ) To emphasize the relativity in this in our perception , Indian microtonal music uses another division of the tones of western semi-tonal music, making it usually an unpleasant listening experience for people accustomed to western music. And there is a differentiation between some players who seem to bang out as many correct notes as possible in the least amount of time and players who are more appreciated for their sense of melody. Then, in our current, mostly materialistic / scientific paradigm there is an emphasis on maths, which is used to make sense of our material world. It is applicable in our physical realm , yet it is somewhat of another language which is used to communicate our "understanding" of our environment. We just single stuff out , assign it a number or equation and let it interact with other stuff already assigned numbers or equations and observe how these interactions "talk" to each other. Okay so i will stop contemplating now , seeing i can conclude very little and i am being very longwinded already If anything i would deem it unwise to expect language to be capable of giving any concrete answers and that you must have a very challenging job with a lot of capacity for development  . |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 8, 2013 14:13:22 GMT -5
Syria/SB/Q, Perhaps we can pin down what we mean to formalize the meaning of language. Would a sufficient formalization allow machines to manipulate and understand language completely, in particular being able to discern appropriate context while encountering en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy ? Or are you leaving the formalization strictly within the human mind? It stays in the individual human mind either way. There is no qualitative difference between writing the formalism on a piece of paper or encoding it into an artificial brain. Even when I try to understand an existing formalism, I'm not actually directing attention to something existing external to me, I'm making it all up as I come to understand it. For example when I'm reading a book then to be precise I have to say that I'm actually reading my own thoughts, and I call the activity "reading a book". Androids that walk around and possess consciousness and understand stuff like we do... this is naive thinking. Instead what it is going to be is the formalization of our understanding of our own thoughts, we can write this understanding down or we can also encode it into a robot brain - it's basically the same thing, but understanding comes first and then formalization and then AI. We can only program AI with functions that we understand of ourselves and we only understand of ourselves what we can articulate one way or another. Consciousness/qualia/matter as non-interactive philosophical concepts are of such kind that they by definition sabotage understanding of their function, they are conceptual gap-fillers, nobody actually understands what they are supposed to mean in their philosophical sense, we only know how they function within our conceptual models. Instead the ontology we're actually working with is based solely on function, that's all we know and understand and that's all we can articulate. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 8, 2013 22:20:38 GMT -5
Syria/SB/Q, Perhaps we can pin down what we mean to formalize the meaning of language. Would a sufficient formalization allow machines to manipulate and understand language completely, in particular being able to discern appropriate context while encountering en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy ? Or are you leaving the formalization strictly within the human mind? It stays in the individual human mind either way. There is no qualitative difference between writing the formalism on a piece of paper or encoding it into an artificial brain. Even when I try to understand an existing formalism, I'm not actually directing attention to something existing external to me, I'm making it all up as I come to understand it. For example when I'm reading a book then to be precise I have to say that I'm actually reading my own thoughts, and I call the activity "reading a book". Androids that walk around and possess consciousness and understand stuff like we do... this is naive thinking. Instead what it is going to be is the formalization of our understanding of our own thoughts, we can write this understanding down or we can also encode it into a robot brain - it's basically the same thing, but understanding comes first and then formalization and then AI. We can only program AI with functions that we understand of ourselves and we only understand of ourselves what we can articulate one way or another. Consciousness/qualia/matter as non-interactive philosophical concepts are of such kind that they by definition sabotage understanding of their function, they are conceptual gap-fillers, nobody actually understands what they are supposed to mean in their philosophical sense, we only know how they function within our conceptual models. Instead the ontology we're actually working with is based solely on function, that's all we know and understand and that's all we can articulate. Your vision of AI doesn't account for the potential of an artificial system for self-organization. Take backpropagation for example: the weights at the nodes on convergence of the network aren't pre-coded. The formalization used to express the network is only pragmatic and the resulting functionality (for example, recognition of a pattern set) doesn't map directly back to the expression of it. |
|
Counter Example: Recipes and Instructions. 
.
.