What Exists? No, Really.

[Symbology]

Other examples of differing maps:

 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

- Arthur C. Clarke

 

Any sufficiently low technology is indistinguishable from corporate policy.

- unknown brilliant person

 

Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

- unknown

 

It is an accomplishment to make something foolproof

because fools are so ingenious

- N. Kohn

[Pyrotex]

My absence is not an indicator of lack of interest.

 

I have been thinking about this topic every day. Deep thinking. Visual imagery thinking.

 

I believe I may be on to something. Mapping functions... complex plane... semantic structures... hierarchies... holographic storage... smoked Jarlsburg cheese... interupt functions... dynamic loop memory... algorithmic introspection... recursion... temporal gradients...

 

I'll be back.

[Symbology]

Smoking Jarlsburg Cheese? What?!?

 

You know that stuff takes a minimum of a year to age! We could be here a while!! :)

[Symbology]

On a serious note - your "algorithmic introspection" reminded me of a key point of a pet project I was working on. It was when it recognized it had "play time" or "dream time" to fabricate new rules based on other knowledge it had. Basically what genes do when they mix and match cassettes in the chromisome. In fact now that I think about it - that is what they do in genetic programming.

 

But anyway, the key is that they system needs to be able to recognize when nothing else it has tried has succeeded sufficiently, and now it is time to "get creative". Then it builds a new blank IF and THEN structure and fills them in based on the metaphors of other successful rules (but possibly based on other concretes).

 

For example:

If you need to share [an apple] with [a friend], take [a knife] and cut it into equal segments, primarily for [sanitary] reasons (vs just [biting out your share])

 

Can map to:

 

If you need to share [the work load] with [a coworker], take [a project plan] and cut it into equal segments, primarily for [team morale] reason (vs just [picking it out yourself])

 

Or from the example above:

If I [offer] you [a gift] and you refuse to accept it, to whom does it still belong?

 

If I [deliver] you [an insult] and you refuse to accept it, to whom does it still belong?

 

 

The trick to being able to do that, is to have seen enough cases of the pattern, that the system can identify the consistent parts of the template, and turn the variable components into ... well... variables.

 

Of course to do that in the real world, the first challenge is the ability to identify where an "event" starts, and where it ends. In some real world cases I have done in the past, it took 15 rules to identify the possible start and end of a given event.

 

I'm betting there is a metaphor in gene sequencing relative to the start and end of a gene.

[Symbology]

Also if you are going to do any more simulations, I just today learned about a modeling package from an Economics professor up here at Michigan State (Going to a UU Church has its advantages :) ) called Stella. (Sorry if this is already common knowledge for some).

 

Here is an example of a similar process to your Kelp/Fish/Sharks simulation system.

 

Here is an example of the math behind the model.

[Pyrotex]

On a serious note - your "algorithmic introspection" reminded me of a key point of a pet project I was working. ...fabricate new rules based on other knowledge...

The trick to being able to do that, is to have seen enough cases of the pattern, that the system can identify the consistent parts of the template, and turn the variable components into...

I'm betting there is a metaphor in gene sequencing relative to the start and end of a gene.

Good.

Triggers ideas over here.

Be careful though, we're discussing processes in the Mind, not gene sequencing. Though it is almost certain the Mind uses "genetic algorithms" or "genetic programming", which I take care to warn all readers, has NOTHING to do with our DNA and GENES.

 

What you made me think of is climbing the Ladder of Abstraction. One needs a new Rule for dealing with an "unsolvable" problem.

One begins with an old rule that works.

One identifies the "objects" in the rule.

One identifies the "classes" that the "objects" belong to. (Going up one level of abstraction)

One selects an alternate "object" that has some direct or metaphorical relationship with the Problem. If this fails, then one selects an alternate "class#2" that is closely related to "class#1" and selects an object from it.

One replaces an old "object" in the old Rule with the new "object".

One executes the New Rule and see what happens.

If the New Rule solves the Problem, then you get to brag how smart you are. :)

 

Note: Can you see that this all occurs with Semantic Structures?

Humans can do this because WE build flexible linkages between Mapped Objects in our "Map" -- and the Semantic Objects our Mind constructs in our Semantic Representation of our "Map.

[Symbology]

The point on the start and end of an event, is that we live in a continuous stream of sound and visual experience. Figuring out WHEN breakfast begins and where it ends is based on visual and audial queues.

 

Generally silence is one of the best indicators that one event is ending and a new event is beginning. "The Quiet Before The Storm" for example. The downbeat of the baton given by the conductor. The low growl of predator before it strikes.

 

I would also contend that if the correct thing can be measured, that generally an event beginning or ending is where it's first derivative has gone to zero. ie it is either at the top or bottom of a hill.

 

Another good way is to take a video and subtract the last frame from the current frame. As long as nothing is happening then the difference is all gray. If something moves then it creates a color difference against the gray areas that are still identical to the former video frame.

 

Living animals are masters at identifying the difference between things. That is what "draws" our attention. [i love the wisdom of our ancestors who figured out proper colloquialisms for things. We just take them for granted.]

[Pyrotex]

I was not sure if I should reply to this thread or not, because it has proven to be such a hard issue to communicate clearly enough. It's far too easy to misinterpret what is being said, and I see a lot of "groping among mere concepts" already... Decided to give it a go anyway, especially as this is critically related to what Doctordick is talking about. I think if you can wrap your head around what Korzybski was really saying, you can understand what DD is doing....

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread and read your post again, AnssiH. But so far, you appear to have the best understanding of Korzybski's theory of the "semantic mind". Your post is a damned fine piece of exposition!

Rat own! Rat own! Great job! :)

 

And Symbology -- excellent contributions! Much food for thought.

You are hereby declared, "Master of Metaphors".

 

It's getting to where I have to read the whole thread from the beginning before I can see where my next post should be directed. I feel I'm at a threshold.

 

Threshold...

 

Metaphor Alert!

[lawcat]

Pyrotex,

You provided better explanation of Korzybski than he himself.

[Pyrotex]

Have you read any Korzybski?

[lawcat]

Yes, and your explanation is a better and more sufficient synthesis of his ideas, which are first and foremost criticism and break from classical philosophy and a call for scientific rigour in ethics. The distinction between map and territory is a great starting point to understanding. The logical extension of Your Korzybski is that we are only a set of beliefs, since the territory includes everything outside the map, and our physical body is outside the map.

 

Nonethless, the question was what exists.

 

I would say that the only thing we can be certain about is that uncertainty exists. Nontheless, we can predict to a high degree of certainty that something exists, and will exist, because it existed not too relatively-long ago. If we perceive it or can measure it, and if our measurement and perception is limited by velocity of information, then we receive information about existence in delay. If information is delayed, then the only thing we can be certain about is the past.

I'd like to combine Descartes, Sartre and today's science and say: "I perceive or measure it, threfore it was." To the extent that I must imply about the existence of something from past information, I am uncertain to some degree about its present state. Therefore, in time, only uncertainty is certain to exist.

[watcher]

Therefore, in time, only uncertanty is certain to exists.

 

thanks for clarity, lawcat.

given my low level of comprehension, now i can reply to this thread.

 

given the uncertainty to know for sure what exists not only due to delayed info but also to the way it presents itself to us, i think the word unknowable is more fitting to describe what exists really. the end of ontology is to know for certain that it is unknowable. there lies the peace of the philosopher.:)

 

the ancient called it spirit. don't be alarmed by the use of the word in a science thread. it is only the religious way of saying i don't know but we have to call it something. hehe

[lawcat]

I apologize if I offended your intelligence. I certainly did not intend to.

 

The question was what exists. I simply stated that we can only talk about degrees of certainty in existence; and degrees of certainty imply existence of uncertainty.

[watcher]

I appologize if I offended your intelligence. I certainly did not intend to.

 

haha don't be. i always admire those who post with minimum connotations.

ya know, like you can't pass one sentence without clicking wikipedia, :)

 

The question was what exists. I simply stated that we can only talk about degrees of certainty in existence; and degrees of certainty imply existence of uncertainty.

 

i was agreeing with you. i merely stretched the implication of uncertainty in existence.

[lawcat]

Our knowledge of existence is only limited by time, and since time effects movement, decay, state of all objects, then we can not be certain of anything which time effects. But, if we can be certain of something, then time has no effect on it. Once we find that which time has no effect on, we can compare it to the most similar thing which we observe that time has effect on. Then, we can comparatively deduce what effects of time are and what time is.

[watcher]

Our knowledge of existence is only limited by time, and since time effects movement, decay, state of all objects, then we can not be certain of anything which time effects. But, if we can be certain of something, then time has no effect on it. Once we find that which time has no effect on, we can compare it to the most similar thing which we observe that time has effect on. Then, we can comparatively deduce what effects of time are and what time is.

 

i can run with that.:)

[lawcat]

Then, would you say that we are certain about coordinates x, y, z, in space? These are arbitrary, static, references that are always there regardless of what is occuring there.