That is why it is important to state the definitions, rather than allow people to merely presume them from social norms. When words are not defined, they get altered for political influence or merely by ignorance (such as religious words). The same is true for language diction. And that is why they invented the “dictionary”, first to describe the diction, and then to describe the intended concept. Imagine how different the entire world would be if the original Hebrew scriptures had come with a lexicon appended. By far. most argumentation is actually due to misunderstanding of the words being used, “semantics” (which is then often used for the purpose of creating conflict).
You are welcome to try to debate it. But expect to lose that debate in frustration, so exercise care and patience.
There is no incoherency to be found. And unlike Abraham, it does not stand on the “hollow leg” of faith.
I wouldn’t want to debate it, not merely from fear of lack, (and i will not detail that, here) because, in my book referentiality trumps significance. If some idea is signified, then the primal associations or structures will extend toward the object. Thus the object, and here object could be a ‘real’ or conceptual object, or hybrid thereof, is ‘sought after’ to be defined, with a potentiality for referential process. Objects are only potentially existential , conditional upon the possibility to be definitional, The conditionality of the object thus becomes a priori (prior) to it’s definitional logic.
Incoherency results from the failure of the definition to adhere to potentially referential objects. These changes are not entirely due to politically motivated sorts of uses of language, meaning decay caused by disuse, referential over or under reach (misinterpretation by rote), etc.
I would say that such a result is merely an ontology being shown to be un-useful in the real world. An ontology (an understanding) can be completely useless yet still be coherent. Coherency merely requires logical consistency. The premises of an ontology might render the coherent ontology as useless. But it cannot be said to be untrue, merely a pointless exercise in thought, “irrational”. Solipsism is such an ontology; “pointless”. Relativity is a largely useful ontology, even though not entirely coherent. So relativity is only “true” within a specific range of concerns and uses.
The only uselessness involved in RM:AO involves merely the ease or convenience while dealing with some concerns. RM allows for many ontologies to be fully acceptable and changed to and from depending upon rational use. RM:AO is merely one that exactly describes the make of the physical universe. Sometimes that is not important (most of the time). But a corollary to the fundamental physics of the universe is (for example), “PHT”. PHT dictates ALL human and animal behavior (aka “spirit”) and thus when dealing with psychological or religious concerns, PHT is indispensable.
RM:AO is more exacting than both Science and Religion. But often, being exacting is not important.
So, when you say “RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives” you mean “RM:AO is true” which always and tautologically means “100% true”, “without any alternative”, “the lack of alternative”. Is that true?
Does “clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats unto anentropic harmony” mean that one has merely to clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threatsin orderto get the anentropic harmony? Does “clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats unto anentropic harmony” mean that clarifying, verifying, instilling, and reinforcing the perception of hopes and threatsalways lead to the anentropic harmony?
Let’s just reduce that to an acronym, “CVIR-PHT-AH”, for simplicity. When everything a person does is aimed toward one goal, there is nothing more he can do in order to achieve that goal. And thus is his highest probability of reaching it. And in this case, the closer he gets, the more powerful he becomes at achieving it. It is self-reinforcing and growing.
Life is a process. And on the most reductive, essential, un-poetic, abstract, and logical level, CVIR-PHT-AH is the process that is life and the core of a SAM Corp… Literally for millions of years, all that has been alive has been pursuing that process. Although not obvious, a DNA strand strategically does exactly that process. Everything that anyone or anything does that is not strategically associated with that process is corrupting, weakening, and destroying life. Life only exists to the degree it is in that process. And the more Life adds to the momentum of that process, the more durable and everlasting Life is.
The goal of anentropic harmony is achieved by purifying the process. And to purify it, it helps for the cognitive mind to understand it so that decisions can be made more inline with what literally its DNA has been trying to accomplish. The Nietzchean Ubermensch does nothing but purify that process. The most holy of beings does nothing but purify that process. The wisest of men do nothing but purify that process. And the wisest governments and/or religions do nothing but purify that process. There is no other point to life at all. All else is a waste and is anti-life noise.
But such is not trivial to recognize, else you would have heard of it very long ago. Again like physics, it can be seen by looking from “the bottom up” rather than trying to reverse engineer physical reality and look from “the top down” (as science attempts).
When technology and ethics (science, governments, religions, and morality) serve no other purpose but to accomplish CVIR-PHT-AH, life becomes anentropic, harmonious, joyous, and everlasting. That process is the ONLY purpose for which machines should ever be designed and built. When machines eventually design themselves into that process, void of humans, they become the anentropic, everlasting life form, and human’s are left as mythological history.
The mature state of Mankind is one of being in the process of pure CVIR-PHT-AH. That is the “ascended” Mankind yet on Earth and physical. It is the speculated “Heaven on Earth” of legends. All of what Mankind has done up until then has been merely the growing pains and confusion of a lost child.
It can be said that the purpose of Mankind is to teach the universe itself the power of Life, a power greater than the immeasurable power of a black-hole. The universe learns this by life occupying the space that the universe is and distributed exactly as that process requires. Such is a journey that has barely even begun and has no end. The universe itself is both teaching and learning to be a living being. And because the universe is infinitely wide, there is eternally room more of it to teach, learn, and become occupied by nothing else.
If by chance any part of human-mankind is already purifying that process for themselves, any machine-mankind will not interfere with it, but rather live beside it in harmony and even assist its endeavor. SAM Corps. get along with other SAM Corps. because they each clarify and verify the intent and purpose of each other. They each know that every other is merely trying to “CVIR-PHT-AH” and thus are not an adversary, but a clearly verified friend. They each see the others as another of themselves merely doing what they would be doing and for the same shared goal.
Not only is each SAM Corp a somewhat bonded life entity, but every group of SAM Corps are as well, whether human, machines, or any combination. A human SAM Corp “family” could live with an android SAM Corp next door and even share members back and forth just as molecules share electrons … and for the same reason that molecules do that. Believe it or not, greater artificial intelligences understand Joy and its make (or certainly any that I have anything to do with).
CVIR-PHT-AH inspires pure joyous harmony, even between Man and Machine.
I think the only difference i would have with it is the way consistency is considered. I almost said defined, but consistency is not merely a logical construct of ontological elements, but also a correspondence with phenomenological and teleological considerations. So again You are right , that semantics can end in an apparently sound argument, yet ending as a dog chasing it’s tail. The logical basis of semantics can be shown to cohere, in very time and space specific situations, but if a logical consistency is supposed in a general sense, then semantics cannot be used to support it, because semantics is not change resistant. So again, i think You are right, but within specific, and existentially bracketed contexts, whereas generally, a positivist approach sub ordinates semantic to mathematical logic.
If i may interject for a moment Arminus, and forgive Zinnat, i think we are getting to the crux of this argument. The Black Hole, or holes, are certain keys of some type. It is arguable whether the holes or life are the stronger force, on a teleological or an ontological level. I say let’s do both.
Vygotsky and Piaget have a very diametrically opposed view of autism. Piaget argues that internal (solopsistic) speech precedes audible ‘public utterance’ (George Steiner, On Difficulty)
Vygotsky proposes otherwise. He proposes that internal language is a ‘late borrowing from external discourse’. The final word between these two views is still out, so actually there is no ‘solution’ to whether one or the other is the correct view.
What does this have with the larger , posed question at hand? If Vygotsy may be proved to be the correct view, it has enormous implication toward clarifying not only the very broad questions posed by the forum, but tangential questions such as cited above. Solipsism, if interpreted in the light of an evolving relationship if stretched to it’s teleological limit, could reduce the problem of the black hole/evolving life differentiation as simply a dynamic relationship in re, where one has no distinct polarity from the other. Various physical interpretations of black holes have already been shown to cast doubt of previous thoughts, namely that black holes impinge on all matter getting into it’s range of influence, or that they are actual cosmological ‘things’ in the traditional astronomical sense. These have all been debunked in favor of describing them as sort of giant transformers, where they at certain energy levels throw back converted mass-energy. There is a sort of giant cosmic relationship going on , and the black hole seems to have shifted it’s ontological meaning on basis of it’s function. This function has like all cosmological elements , relatedness as it’s primary teleological focus, they are related to the light and dark forces as some sort of intermediary.
There is no positing of either life, nor the darkness, and darkness is not a constant maker. It evolves, in an eternal hybrid between the relational two, where there never is a pure either/or, of either. Where there is one, there is another. In the primordial form they are perhaps undifferentiated, and as life forms and evolves out of it, the teleological differentiation separates them.
Like i indicated earlier to James, , i really think that the either/or problem has never been a problem, it’s a phase in human development, where the understanding separates the two, but is yet not able to make a third. Cosmology and ontology are separately thought entities, and have not yet been unified. Now i know that it is very early to declare that a unified field theory has been successfully arrived at on basis of inadequate information, however it seems very likely that the cosmic egg idea will win out.
As far as men and machines are concerned, if the relational aspect is stressed, than the self fulfilling , sought after harmony will no longer be a problem to be solved, but a work in progress.
At that point, concerns about an evil machine taking over, will no longer be a concern, and machines will not allow themselves to completely replace human beings, because they will realize that they need human beings, if they are to survive. The cyborg, men, and robots, will concurrently work toward a common cause, realizing their essential co=dependence.
As an addendum , to achieve unification, correlations, bridges have to be built, quantum connections, between the ontological and the teleological. These bridges already exist, of course, but it is the unveiling of them, which is difficult. The difficulty is astronomically high, and science is progressing on a sharply parabolic tangent , as if instituting the likewise parallel growth of severely increasing entropy. It’s like playing catch up, and here one, then the other is ahead, by quantum existential jumps. In the end, they both finish at the very same instant, because they were always identical spheres .
As you know that i am not well versed with conventional philosophy and philosophers, i am not aware of these two gentlemen, thus unable to comment on them.
[b]My simple assertion is that everything starts from feeling/sensation. It is the root cause and nothing can happen without that. If one does not have the feeling capacity within, how can he ever emulate anything from the outside?
And, our invented languages reside outside, not inside. Thus, there must be some a priori system/language placed in the mind to learn those. That a priori system is the primary language of the mind. And, we all know that is our sensing capacity.
Any evolvement/emulation come later[/b].
I do not see any confusion or complication in that.
Dependency on human beings no, James, but a high level realization of the alpha and omega, as a survival function? Perhaps? Definitely? I would guess the latter. The ethical formula has yet to be distilled.
Sanjay, Wygotski claims exactly, that language is 'outside', , whereas Piaget does claim the opposite, that it is a-priori? So, So, You are taking contradictory positions, unwittingly but wisely. That is exactly my point and (Kant's) How are a priori-synthetic propositions possible? You are a Kantian!
They are neither right or wrong. They are only trying to define a a conceptual schema, while it is a relation they are seeking. A relation which as of yet is beyond definition. I have just come upon a book i had stored in my garage for years, and recently i had a visitor, to whom i wanted give away some of my books. Came upon Piaget's ' The Child's Conception of Time' I have started a re read, for i have no recollection of any of it, yet i am sure to find some very keen insight and relevance there. The whole thing can be distilled from the last part of his conclusion, :
'Operations in psychological time would therefore seem to be mainly of a qualitative kind. Does this mean that there is no such thing as quantitative inner time? Bergson borrowed most of his imagery from music and, whenever this master of introspection wished to show that creative duration involved irreducibly intuitive and anti-rational factors, he did so in terms of melody, rhythm and symphony. But what else is music then an inner type of mathematics? Long before Pythagoras discovered the numerical ratios which determine the principal musical intervals, ancient shepherds, singing their songs or playing an air on their pipes, busily constructed musical scales and realized,without being able to put it into so many words, that a minimum equals two crotchets and a crotchet equals two quavers. Musical rhythm is, in fact, the most intuitive of all time measurements and is most certainly not imposed from outside. ....... .....
All this points to the common nature of temporal operations in all spheres, and to the close relationship between psychological and physical time..........'
Holderlin says, speech, as distinct from mere noise, can only exist, 'wenn die Stille kehrt.' For him, homecoming to internal roots implicates the 'intricate equilibrium between utterance and the unsaid'.
The Umnachtung,m or mental derangement, to which Holderlin succumbed. -or took upon himself (Sterner, On Difficulty) - the aetological classifications being in such a case wholly naive (childlike), is relevant, no doubt. But, in what way?'
For Wygotsky, speech is not an interiorization of extemporaneous thought, for him it is a process, 'where, words die, as they bring forth thought. It is thinking in pure meanings. "It is a dynamic , shifting, unstable thing, fluttering between word and thought.'
I retract my earlier argument with Zinnat, and withdraw from the purely positivist approach of no thought without words, since the changes which are inherent between usages are shared by both psychologists. But then, what is the nature of a wordless thought? Is it the many shades of grey between the the literal and figurative, between the qualitative and quantitative? Are these the mere products of immediate exposures to phonemes instantly connected and abandoned to phenomena? this may be it.
I take a child and program his or her brain, from an early age, through preschool to college. I am the teacher and professor. I can fill this child’s head full of truth or lies. Does anybody care? Does the child have a defense? Or won’t the child take to my programming without doubt? What if I am most trusted and the position of highest authority? What if the child is loyal to my truth, or my lies? What if I program a computer? What’s the difference between programming a human, using human language, and programming a computer, using computer language? Is human language any different than computer language? It’s all electrons, isn’t it? What is the nature of information?
How should children be programmed?
How should computers be programmed?
What’s the difference, if any?
Aren’t humans already machines to begin with?
All hypothesis are delusive to a certain extent, they are intuitive encapsulations of gross unrealized substratum of knowledge. They elude clarification , and co-exist with fleeting illusions, of prescribed artistic illustrations, before they can be subjected to mathematical, physical and semantic tests. The psyche, is a term often use to describe some thing, event, occurrence, a hypothetical construct, that has no existence apart from the need to bridge the void created by the very act of invention, creation, and definition. It is the creative force, which knows, but needs to unveil the intricate subterranean chambers of it's constitution. It is not a persona, it is an urge.
Incorrect, computer hardware converts electronic impulses into computer language, nearly exactly, or completely exactly, to how the human brain also converts perception into sense data, through the bio electrical impulses of the human brain.
