[Merged] Deeper than primes [Archive] - Page 39

The Man

15th April 2010, 05:48 PM

I forgot that's as good as it gets.
There is no application of number as quality. The value for ethics is simply that we are to recognize that a numbers are born of
Local/Non-Local,
QualityQuantity,
Memory/Object Interaction (or Linkage)
And there for realize the world is not merely objects set appart from our selves.

I confess the CK diagrams do nothing for me.
I understand that they are another graphic of Something/Something Else Linkage.
As such they are simply a repeat of the whole complements linkage structure thingy and not the example I was wrongfully asking for.

On a number of a occaisons I've spoken of the Buddhist perspective regarding the Non-Local.
I have to get to work now
but in brief, there are no "Atomic" (Doron's Atomic) entities.
There are just images.
And Non-Locality is as reflection in a mirror.
The mirror reflects a changing panorama of images, but none are of the mitrror or the reflecting itself.
Reflection is free of any content. Not a single rflected image sullies or taints it.

But reflection doesn't exist without the reflections and reflected.
Its all reflections of reflections, images of images.
So that there is no reflection without the reflections or reflections without reflection.
(I realize this is a crude analogy.)

Non-Locality is not without Locality,
Locality is not without Non-Locality.
They have no "Atomic" independence.
To advance them into Atomic independence is to posit a metaphysical ideology. (But anyone is free to get metaphysical if they like.)
(The Taoist perspective on this is interdependence.)

Warning another very crude analogy:
You cannot capture the mirror in a mirrior, much less itself.
There are only relfected images.
Set one mirror before another, and you get the celebrated infinite hall of mirrors. All just an unbounded image.

Yet the mirrors have only a finite space between them.

The Infinite is just an image.
And there is not infinite without the finite, no finite without the infinite.And they can be found within each other, because both aren't "Atoms" but ideological images of a reality that is truly Complex.

Another excellent post Apathia, sorry I missed it when I posted before. Although I would argue that a reflection without content reflects nothing. It is inversion (much like negation, although more just a change in, or reversal of, perspective) that is the central aspect of reflection. Though I did like your finite/infinite “linkage” in reflection, even though the apparent effect still requires some skewing in the perspective so you see the multiple reflections. Also as we had discussed before the “Taoist perspective” accuracy asserted as “interdependence”. An aspect I think Doron misses when considering eastern philosophies. Again you come to the rub of it Apathia, Doron’s independent “atoms” that even he claims can not be “researched” independently. It is local and (addition not a logical connective, a distinction between math and logic that Doron also seems to miss) non-local that generally comprise some space. Although you can consider an entire space as local (that one might refer to as a globel perspective) you can only consider some subspace (less any intersections) as non-local with regard to some local sub-space in some encompassing ‘global’ space.

Apathia

15th April 2010, 06:50 PM

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4390093906_6c3ae0ab88_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4389327007_f968923c21_o.jpg

Ah, Doron. I get the Memory/Object Interaction presentation and your intention to move from it to a mathematical-symbological language that expresses not only objects in quantity but stages in awareness.
But I don't get the Cybernetic Kernals thing at all.
Is it some kind of feedback learning loop running between whatever two conceptual poles until the skill or state of consciousness is consolidated?

It's not the way my personal ethical life operates.
Mine is one where people are more important than concepts, principles, and ideologies. My decisions in that regard have more to do with empathy and compassion than a playing out between two contributing moral principles ("Atoms")

I personally find more resonance with the Buddhist perceptive because it asserts the interdependence and integration of all we experience and sweeps away all potential attachments emotional and intellectual.
It dismisses all fundamentals.

Of course if I were to be dogmatic about Buddhism's minimalist metaphysic and insist others must follow "The Middle Way," I'd undo the intention of it all in a pathological attachment.
Hence the Zen saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

We are all still here because compassionate people who connect with others from their hearts always find ways to work around whatever their belief systems or logical-ethical languages.

Acting in responsibility entails awareness and an ability to respond; respond from the heart.
That's where I find the ground of Ethics.

As for Mathematics, it's a tool and language that can be used ethically, but is ethically neutral itself.
It's like an axe. Of course it's use is upon objects, not the wielder of the axe.
And the likes of Raskolnikov can objectify and demonize a person he intends to use it upon.
But there's no way to build an axe that tells its user, "your neighbor isn't firewood."
(I take that back. There's a good chance that many appliances in the later part of this century will have interactive computer processors.)
It's up to us to act responsibly with our tools and languages.

I know the intention of OM is to create a language of science in which awareness and compassion are integral to its methodology, so it cannot make and do evil and exploitive things.
But awareness isn't an equation. It isn't denotable by a sign, as is a number.
We express it in mytho-poetic metaphors.

So your program uses the language of mathematics and number metaphorically while every mathematician who participates in this thread finds a mishmash of math terms that don't cohere and compute in a system of signs.

I think your symbology works for you. You bring your self awareness into the picture when you use that X/Y Interactive framework because of the transcendental meaning you have ascribed to that language.

But alas it doesn't have the same affect on us.
The sight of those CKs doesn't draw me into a state of heightened awareness.
They just confuse me.
While my morning meditation in which I use a single Sanskrit alphabetical syllable as a mantra and yantra, serves me well to open my heart, but would leave you and most anyone else in the thread cold.

I don't see how we could all have the same all purpose scientific-religious-ethical language, even though there are always zealots who want to impose theirs on everyone.
The direction of spirituality is always to transcend, even and especially in the midst of its use, any religious tongue and dwell in the Heart.
Otherwise you get people hawking varieties of golden calves and stone tablets without ever listening to each other.

Apathia

15th April 2010, 07:17 PM

Another excellent post Apathia,

Admittedly the mirror analogy is clumsy and crude.
But I remember now my original point of use for it.
The mirror has nothing in it but the images it reflects.
It has no special content to impose upon and structure them (aside from as you say to reverse the images.), not X/Y apparatus.
It is empty of itself, period.
The X/Y Linkage is a linguistic, ideological construct that has no fundamental, inherent reality.

It may be of linguistic, metaphorical use in an individual's (In this case Doron's) intellectual culture (His very own. And I should say it's a somewhat admirable thing for an individual to create hir (his or her) own culture.)
But awareness itself doesn't get captured as a symbol object in a language.
It always transcends its symbols and certainly transcends the attempt to make it a sign, precisely because it has no self nature and is inherently nothing of its own.

Infinity is an image, not a fixed metaphysical entity (or "Atom").
So it does not object to being found in paradoxical places.

Perhaps the matter that Ethics does have in common with Logic is that paradox (when we try to completely formalize) is inescapable.

Complexity

15th April 2010, 08:02 PM

Plain nude is the best.

I was thinking more along the lines of blue cheese or sesame ginger.

(He really doesn't get anything, does he?)

Complexity

15th April 2010, 08:07 PM

The Man

15th April 2010, 08:49 PM

No The Man, again you demonstrate how your local-only reasoning leads you to see "facts" that are exactly the result of your local-only reasoning.

Actually you do not understand your own reseach project ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5829316&postcount=9480 ).

Again with your loco-only labeling Doron.

Yes I know The Man, this "profound" statement is a demonstration of your best ability to grasp notions, exactly as shown about your ability to grasp OM.

Again you confuse (I think deliberately) the trivial for the “profound”.

No
Sorry The Man, did you forget so quickly that "a label is simply a label"? (as we see above).

Nope, when are you going to start considering a label as just a label?

Since all you get can't be developed beyond "a label is simply a label" you have missed the notion that a definition of some space is not the labels that are used to measure it. But we can't expect much from a person that uses "a label is simply a label"-reasoning.

Since you can not understand what is written, that labels can represent some particular aspect, but do not have to, you end up with this ridiculous “labels that are used to measure” nonsense.

Another example of the inability of The Man (which uses only "a label is simply a label"-reasoning) to grasp the difference between the atomic self-state (which is not local AND not non-local) and some aspect of that state (which is Local OR Non-local).

Oh so once again you divide your indivisible “atomic self-state” into ‘aspects’ of “that state” that you label as “Local OR Non-local”. Yes we got that before and I have specifically pointed out that “atomic” failure of yours before.

Such a person can't distinguish, for example, between "silence" and silence itself, which is not the word (or the label) "silence".

You fail once again Doron, is this going to be a litany of your failures, a stroll down memory lane if you will, or do you have something new? Has that "can't distinguish, for example, between silence" and silence itself, which is not the word (or the label) "silence"” claim ever work for anyone but you Doron? Perhaps it’s time to give it up.

You can drive a car without any understanding of the technology and/or physical laws that enables to do that.

I understand the “technology and/or physical laws” involved in a car and driving a car. Also as I have told you before the electrical connectors that might be bringing electricity to wherever you are now, and if I did not design those connectors (or was involved in their design, production and development) I might have tested that design or perchance written the criteria that they were tested to. What was it that you have done or understand with your OM, other than your fantasies?

I am talking about driving and understanding a car.

Again you are talking about things you do not understand, which could well include “driving and understanding a car”.

Now The Man's step-by-step thinking style airs its view. How "lovely".

So I guess you do want to forget about your own assertions concerning “foundations” particularly when applied to, well, you.

At last something new from The Man's shop. Instead of "a label is simply a label"-reasoning, we have the "new" product known as "a collection is simply a collection"-reasoning.

Doesn’t sound like anything new to me. Exactly where did I say “a collection is simply a collection” that you quote? If you are going to paraphrase you should do it like ‘this’.

So you are able know the conclusion (the result) of such an experiment, otherwise you can't recommend not doing such experimentation. So your mind plays a main role in your experiment, which claims that the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion.

Where did I say I “know the conclusion (the result) of such an experiment”. Certainly I can “recommend not doing such experimentation” since its futility is the whole point.

Well, OM's reasoning is more optimistic than your "the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion"-reasoning.

I still do not recommend such experimentation even with your purportedly “optimistic” “OM's reasoning”, do not attempt it!!!!

Call it naïve-reasoning, but I prefer it over your "the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion"-reasoning.

Your preference in that rearguard is already well known.

Yes, why not The Man? We really must not interfere when some politicians intend to do some genocide by using only Logics. After all we have to save also those conditions where “Ethics and Logics” do not “reinforce each other”, isn't it The Man?

Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme and your own consideration of “the goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.” does not exclude that genocidal extreme. Perhaps you are claiming that there are ethical considerations against genocide that might not be logically consistent with your “goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.”? Your goal is to save our civilization from the “L value of the drake equation”, but if it took killing half the world’s population right now to achieve that goal, would you consider that ethical? Such are the ethical conundrums not evident in your “naïve-reasoning”. Ethics ain’t pretty, simple or ‘black/white’ Doron nor is it your “EMM” coloring book.

So, once again, how do you develop a non-naïve framework that can help us to survive a technology that currently is mostly derived from binary logic?

So is it just a fear of technology employing binary logic that makes you so paranoid? You do understand that matters of ethics are still determined by people (boards, committees, judges and juries), don’t you (and why that is)? What you apparently want is ethics that can or simply will be decided by calculators and computers. Study ethics and you will find non-naïve (not black/white) frameworks for dealing with ethical issues almost everywhere (particularly in a modern technological society).

Are you going to write about me again instead of at least try to answer to that question?

Unlike you I always try to answer questions.

The Man

15th April 2010, 09:23 PM

Admittedly the mirror analogy is clumsy and crude.
But I remember now my original point of use for it.
The mirror has nothing in it but the images it reflects.
It has no special content to impose upon and structure them (aside from as you say to reverse the images.), not X/Y apparatus.
It is empty of itself, period.
The X/Y Linkage is a linguistic, ideological construct that has no fundamental, inherent reality.

It may be of linguistic, metaphorical use in an individual's (In this case Doron's) intellectual culture (His very own. And I should say it's a somewhat admirable thing for an individual to create hir (his or her) own culture.)
But awareness itself doesn't get captured as a symbol object in a language.
It always transcends its symbols and certainly transcends the attempt to make it a sign, precisely because it has no self nature and is inherently nothing of its own.

Infinity is an image, not a fixed metaphysical entity (or "Atom").
So it does not object to being found in paradoxical places.

Perhaps the matter that Ethics does have in common with Logic is that paradox (when we try to completely formalize) is inescapable.

Well again it is Doron’s label oriented reasoning that can not deal with his labels being reversed. While the normal ascriptions of local and non-local are reversible. Much as you assert I do believe that it is a cultural aspect of semantics that is the dividing factor here. Also as you note it is the preoccupation with the consideration of “natural” or “organic” ‘definitions’ and ‘math’ that makes Doron think his assertions should be obtained by what he calls “direct perception”. Certainly binary logic has only two values, true/false right/wrong, while ethics is a multi-valued generally normative system being of a prominently subjective, well, nature. Expounding not perhaps as things are, but how they should be, again based on that subjective interpretation.

The Man

15th April 2010, 10:20 PM

I think doronshadmi is an attempt at a program that might pass the Turing test.

Sort of a deranged Eliza.

Not a very successful attempt, since no one seems to think they are interacting with a human being. Interesting, none the less.

It reminds me of a random-insult generator that I used to have students write.

Fun to read its output at first, but it got old pretty quickly.

I do think we are interacting with a human being, unfortunately one that apparently can not resolve or has not even considered the Frame Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_problem). Ok, so maybe he is just a turning machince.

zooterkin

15th April 2010, 11:40 PM

I think doronshadmi is an attempt at a program that might pass the Turing test.

Sort of a deranged Eliza.

Not a very successful attempt, since no one seems to think they are interacting with a human being. Interesting, none the less.

No, I think a program would not make the silly spelling errors, and would spot the difference between 'hammer' and 'hummer' (I don't think he's yet spotted that, let alone worked out what 'hummer' means).

sympathic

16th April 2010, 01:42 AM

No, I think a program would not make the silly spelling errors, and would spot the difference between 'hammer' and 'hummer' (I don't think he's yet spotted that, let alone worked out what 'hummer' means).

It looks silly only because we use string/word reasoning in our local only limited world. Doron only get's things through graphic representation so here it is:

http://wallpapers.free-review.net/wallpapers/17/Hummer_H2_Geiger.jpg

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 03:55 AM

Still you.

You claimed I stated something I did not.

I did not claim that you stated that.

According to what you wrote (seen in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5832266&postcount=9504) I wrote:

jsfisher thinks that the proof without words that S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X is Geometry:
Do you get the difference between my conclusion (you can say that it is wrong) about what you wrote, and your reaction to call me a liar?

Your aggressive attitude is unethical.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 04:43 AM

Your goal is to save our civilization from the “L value of the drake equation”, but if it took killing half the world’s population right now to achieve that goal, would you consider that ethical?
EMM development is a way to do our best in order to avoid L as a resultof self made-destruction, which is derived from the ignorance of Complexity, exactly because the current understanding about Ethics is not developed beyond local understanding of that concept.

Here you are speaking about a situation, which is beyond our abilities to change it, and under this condition we have to decide to choose between total elimination and partial survival. EEM's principles clearly choose the second option.

Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme…
Politics is not one some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it. Politics is definitely one of the areas that can be developed by EEM, exactly because it is one of our self-made mirrors of our civilization.

The Man, your fundamental problem is that you do not distinguish between self-made conditions and non self-made conditions that are derived from conditions that are beyond our abilities to change them (non self-made Force-majeure). In this extreme situation EEM will choose to save as much as possible, in order to avoid the final value of L.

Again your naïve understanding of EEM is exposed.

Furthermore, your understanding of Politics as non self-made Force-majeure clearly demonstrates how misleading and dangerous is your notion's ability about this crucial and fine subject.

I understand the “technology and/or physical laws” involved in a car and driving a car.
The "Car case" is an analogy. You have missed the analogy because of your naïve understanding of the considered subject. The non-analogy aspect is the needed activity (abstract or not) that has to be done in order to develop our understanding of Complexity, exactly because we are some of its actual manifestations.

Exactly where did I say “a collection is simply a collection” that you quote?
This is good enough for my conclusion about your claim:

The involvement of collections is intentional when considering, well, collections.

Unlike you I always try to answer questions.
Again you attack me instead of answering the question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 05:24 AM

It looks silly only because we use string/word reasoning in our local only limited world. Doron only get's things through graphic representation so here it is:

[/qimg]

Wrong, as clearly shown by http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446 .

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 05:40 AM

An aspect I think Doron misses when considering eastern philosophies. Again you come to the rub of it Apathia, Doron’s independent “atoms” that even he claims can not be “researched” independently.

They are independent simply because they are not sub-elements of each others.

Actually the accurate statement is "mutually independent of each other", where
Mutuality is:

D=Domain

(not belong AND not not belong to D)

And independency is:

(belongs XOR does not belong to D) OR (belongs AND does not belong to D)

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 05:48 AM

You do know what the unit circle is, right?
By spaces linkage.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 05:57 AM

ooppss ...

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 06:03 AM

Mine is one where people are more important than concepts, principles, and ideologies. My decisions in that regard have more to do with empathy and compassion than a playing out between two contributing moral principles ("Atoms")
Why do you think that empathy and compassion have nothing to do with complementation between opposites?

Why do you thing that developing natural responsibility ( as shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 , by reducing self-interference that eliminate each others' manifestations ) have nothing to do with empathy and compassion?

Apathia

16th April 2010, 06:23 AM

Why do you think that empathy and compassion have nothing to do with complementation between opposites?'

I don't think that empathy and compassion don't often involve a complementation of what would otherwise be opposing ideals.
I'm just asserting that they aren't generated by such or some kind of intellectual juggling of such.
And the way we describe our relations and intimacy with each other is a far more complex use of language than x/y linkage.

Why do you thing that developing natural responsibility ( as shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 ) have nothing to do with empathy and compassion?

Fortunately our natural ability to respond to each other and to take care in our communal actions is not dependent upon the idealized construct you have presented.

Certainly I agree that one should bring awareness to hir (his or her) cogitations. It's so easy and so human to stop at a characterization that seems to embrace so much but ignores so much more than it embraces.

Complexity

16th April 2010, 06:24 AM

No, I think a program would not make the silly spelling errors, and would spot the difference between 'hammer' and 'hummer' (I don't think he's yet spotted that, let alone worked out what 'hummer' means).

A clever programmer would cause it to make mistakes on occasion, just the way that people would.

This programmer outclevered him/herself. The silliness parameter must have been left at 1.0 after debugging, rather than around 0.07, where it should be.

Complexity

16th April 2010, 06:28 AM

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 06:48 AM

Ethics ain’t pretty, simple or ‘black/white’ Doron nor is it your “EMM” coloring book.
My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.

Again you do not distinguish between sums and fogs.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 06:59 AM

I'm just asserting that they aren't generated by such or some kind of intellectual juggling of such.
Why to you think that there is a clear cut between empathy and compassion and intelligence?

And the way we describe our relations and intimacy with each other is a far more complex use of language than x/y linkage.
Have you noticed that Fogs, Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity, Non-locality, Memory/Object Linkage, etc. are main principles of OM?

Fortunately our natural ability to respond to each other and to take care in our communal actions is not dependent upon the idealized construct you have presented.
These idealizations are the fabric of a complex realm. The Simple and the Complex plays on the same realm.

It's so easy and so human to stop at a characterization that seems to embrace so much but ignores so much more than it embraces

How about a realm which is the result of Simple\Complex Embrace.

Apathia

16th April 2010, 08:02 AM

Why to you think that there is a clear cut between empathy and compassion and intelligence?

I don't. Those are concept words. The reality is not clear cut.

Have you noticed that Fogs, Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity, Non-locality, Memory/Object Linkage, etc. are main principles of OM?

Indeed I have. I'm probably the person in this thread who understands most your intentions with those terms.
But the rigid structure you make of them doesn't really serve your ethical intentions.
What's more, when applied to Mathematics, it may seem you are introducing more flexibility, but the cost to utility.
After all one can use a very dull axe as a hammer.

Again these lingustic concept words. The reality is very very not so clear cut
(as Atom X mutually independent of Atom Y).

These idealizations are the fabric of a complex realm. The Simple and the Complex plays on the same realm.

How about a realm which is the result of Simple\Complex Embrace.

Oh there is a Complex but it's much more suble and complex than the X/Y Interaction construct accounts for. And its of the essence of Non-Locality that it transcends all philosophical cartoon characterizations.

Famous unfortunate example:
Hegel thought he had it all figured out in a formalized system of thought that included logic and ethics.
His logos was "Thesis/Athithesis yields a Synthesis which becomes the next Thesis to go up against an Antitheisis.
But it was just a simplistic idealized construction that fails the realities of emperical science and morality.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 08:23 AM

Here is some example of The Man's abilities to grasp his own words:

Had you actually studied history you would have found (as I have told you already) that the imposition of a singular (generally binary) logical (with us XOR against us) and particularly ethical (good XOR bad) framework has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.

So, once again, how do you develop a non-naïve framework that can help us to survive a technology that currently is mostly derived from binary logic?
So is it just a fear of technology employing binary logic that makes you so paranoid?
Most of oue technology is based on a framework that "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."

And The Man calls me paranoid.

"Nice", isn't it?

Another misunderstanding of The Man about OM:

You do understand that matters of ethics are still determined by people (boards, committees, judges and juries), don’t you (and why that is)? What you apparently want is ethics that can or simply will be decided by calculators and computers.

Here The Man misses two things:

1) OM is a framework that is based on Ethics/Logics Linkage where in both aspect people's activity is involved (actually a measurement tool like Number is based on Memory/Object Linkage http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503).

2) The Man does not understand that computers our some agents of us, where we are complex systems that have to do their best in order to understand and develop Complexity (abstract or not).

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 08:46 AM

mutually independent
Mutual independency is not characterized only be clear cur results.

Oh there is a Complex but it's much more suble and complex than the X/Y Interaction construct accounts for.
If you totally ignore Simplicity you can't really understand Complexity because they "embrace" each other.

Famous unfortunate example:
Hegel thought he had it all figured out in a formalized system of thought that included logic and ethics.
His logos was "Thesis/Athithesis yields a Synthesis which becomes the next Thesis to go up against an Antitheisis.
But it was just a simplistic idealized construction that fails the realities of emperical science and morality.

So Hegel continued to be focused on the confrontation of opposites, where synthesis was actually a thesis of a higher confrontation of opposites.

OM's Complementary Logics is focused on the Complexity that is developed among opposites, where the opposites are the simple building-blocks of an ever developed Complexity.

But the rigid structure you make of them doesn't really serve your ethical intentions.
Rigid structure? please show it.

Also do you think that Ethics is only flexible?

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 09:00 AM

I've been immoralized!

I'm fairly certain that the universe is derived from the ignorance of Complexity.

He's finally using my name properly.

At least you are fairly certain :)

zooterkin

16th April 2010, 10:35 AM

By spaces linkage.

Of lines conception.

Apathia

16th April 2010, 10:52 AM

Rigid structure? please show it.[?QUOTE]

Those two concrete ontological poles and their poleA|poleb arrangements.

[QUOTE]Also do you think that Ethics is only flexible?

I'm not a proponent of an Ethic of fixed absolutes.
People are more important than Ethics.

The Man

16th April 2010, 11:42 AM

EMM development is a way to do our best in order to avoid L as a resultof self made-destruction, which is derived from the ignorance of Complexity, exactly because the current understanding about Ethics is not developed beyond local understanding of that concept.

Here you are speaking about a situation, which is beyond our abilities to change it, and under this condition we have to decide to choose between total elimination and partial survival. EEM's principles clearly choose the second option.

So you're saying that your EMM would consider such action ethical, why how genocidal of you and your EEM.

Politics is not one some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it. Politics is definitely one of the areas that can be developed by EEM, exactly because it is one of our self-made mirrors of our civilization.

So you are simply claiming that you would like politics to be logical and ethical not that it in fact is.

The Man, your fundamental problem is that you do not distinguish between self-made conditions and non self-made conditions that are derived from conditions that are beyond our abilities to change them (non self-made Force-majeure). In this extreme situation EEM will choose to save as much as possible, in order to avoid the final value of L.

Again your naïve understanding of EEM is exposed.

Furthermore, your understanding of Politics as non self-made Force-majeure clearly demonstrates how misleading and dangerous is your notion's ability about this crucial and fine subject.

Where did I claim “Politics as non self-made Force-majeure”, you do understand that people are often not logical or ethical (as considered by others), don’t you?

The "Car case" is an analogy. You have missed the analogy because of your naïve understanding of the considered subject. The non-analogy aspect is the needed activity (abstract or not) that has to be done in order to develop our understanding of Complexity, exactly because we are some of its actual manifestations.

No you simply continue to miss the point that even with all your blustering and lofty dreams your “OM” remains without and utility other then to simply feed your imagination.

This is good enough for my conclusion about your claim:

Again you attack me instead of answering the question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction.

My suggestion is that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics.

They are independent simply because they are not sub-elements of each others.

Actually the accurate statement is "mutually independent of each other", where
Mutuality is:

D=Domain

(not belong AND not not belong to D)

And independency is:

(belongs XOR does not belong to D) OR (belongs AND does not belong to D)

Well thank you from demonstrating the validity of the statement you quoted from me.

Here is some example of The Man's abilities to grasp his own words:

Most of oue technology is based on a framework that "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."

It is still only you confusing binary logic with ethics Doron.

And The Man calls me paranoid.

"Nice", isn't it?

If the shoe fits…

Another misunderstanding of The Man about OM:

Here The Man misses two things:

1) OM is a framework that is based on Ethics/Logics Linkage where in both aspect people's activity is involved (actually a measurement tool like Number is based on Memory/Object Linkage http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503).

So your intent with your OM is (at least in part) to control peoples activities? Good luck with that.

2) The Man does not understand that computers our some agents of us, where we are complex systems that have to do their best in order to understand and develop Complexity (abstract or not).

So you simply don’t understand why computers even as “some agents of us” are not tasked with making ethical determinations?

My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.

Again you do not distinguish between sums and fogs.

Yes I do, your "fog" sums up nothing, but your own deliberate ignorance.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 11:54 AM

Rigid structure? please show it.

Those two concrete ontological poles and their poleA|poleb arrangements.

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

In that case what is your view about this subject?

I'm not a proponent of an Ethic of fixed absolutes.
People are more important than Ethics.
I am talking about EEM (Evolutionary Ethics Model) where people are
some complex manifestation of a given realm.

In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.

The Man

16th April 2010, 12:02 PM

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

In that case what is your view about this subject?

I am talking about EEM (Evolutionary Ethics Model) where people are
some complex manifestation of a given realm.

In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.

Yet this…

...goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.

…namely us, is specifically at the center of your “EMM“. So in your opinion such a “model” centered on us as is your “EMM” is “unreal”. Glad we could clear that up.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 12:57 PM

So your intent with your OM is (at least in part) to control peoples activities?
No, OM is not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system. What I say is exactly the opposite:

Numbers are Memory/Object Linkage so they are not totally independent of us.

In that case OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use.

Now I see that you have some paranoia about OM as some kind of control system on human minds.

Well, don't you worry, the notion of a control system on human minds is derived exactly from your mechanic school of thought, who does not understand Complexity and the meaningful influence of the players on the show, that need responsibility development in order to not play their final act of this show (to determine the value of L because of self-destruction).

So you simply don’t understand why computers even as “some agents of us” are not tasked with making ethical determinations?
Computers are nothing but some tools that reflect us, including our ethical behaviors.

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction.
My suggestion is that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics.
Again you deal with me and do not deal with the question, shell we conclude that you actually have no answer?

Apathia

16th April 2010, 01:05 PM

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.

Yes.

In that case what is your view about this subject?

You mean the relatoionship between science and ethics?
Most recently I touched on it in these posts:
9496, 9507, 9508, 9523.

Science merely describes the way things work. It provides discriptive information. But it's not, and cannot be proscriptive. It doesn't tell us what we morally ought to do with that information.
For that we must see beyond objects to be manipulated in a sysytem.
We must regard ourselves as subjects, as persons. We must be empathetic and compassionate, values that are born of Heart, not "Head."

In that case there is disagreement between us, because in my opinion the model of Man and Earth as the center of a given realm is unreal.

I'm actually with you there. Concepts of "Man" and "Earth" are not the core of my personal ethic. At the moment you are.

...goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.

Yes, as a result of encountering others with an open heart, I will respect and care about all sentient beings above any catagories they happen to belong to.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 01:13 PM

…namely us, is specifically at the center of your “EMM“. So in your opinion such a “model” centered on us as is your “EMM” is “unreal”. Glad we could clear that up.
No, EEM is about developing complexity (abstract or not) wherever it can be found ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ), and we are some complex forms.

In other words, you don't get EEM.

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 01:38 PM

So you disagree with the notion of Simplicity/Complexity Linkage.
Yes.
Shall we take "yes" as "there is no simplicity, there is only complexity"?

Science merely describes the way things work. It provides discriptive information.
Apathia, Science is not some object out there, but it is the reflection of Human\Environment Interaction, where what you call "Head"-only paradigm, is no more than 600 years old.

This "Head"-only paradigm gave us the ability to understand that we are not the center of everything by opening our eyes to Macro/Micro, so called, physical realm, where deduction is some abstract "Head"-only realm.

But it's not, and cannot be proscriptive. It doesn't tell us what we morally ought to do with that information.
I am talking about a scientific method that can do that, because it works from the common foundation of every phenomenon, whether it is recognized as "Heart" or "Head".

This common foundation is called direct perception, and it is the basis of any kind of mental activity, including the physical realm.

OM is a way to act from the level of direct perception, and my work is nothing but a very preliminary stage of OM's development.

For that we must see beyond objects to be manipulated in a sysytem.
We must regard ourselves as subjects, as persons. We must be empathetic and compassionate, values that are born of Heart, not "Head."
Direct perception ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ) is the natural foundation of both Heart AND Head, such that they complement each other into a one complex form.

Skeptic

16th April 2010, 01:40 PM

My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.

So that's where you get your math knowledge from!

This "Head"-only paradigm gave us the ability to understand that we are not the center of everything

... says the man who thinks Cauchy and Gauss are not fit to lick his boots...

Skeptic

16th April 2010, 01:43 PM

In other words, you don't get EEM.

Nobody does. Because it's gibberish. You can't "get" gibberish because there's nothing to "get".

doronshadmi

16th April 2010, 01:47 PM

... says the man who thinks Cauchy and Gauss are not fit to lick his boots...
We have here a person that can't get things beyond the personal perspective of the considered subjects.

...
Nobody does. Because it's gibberish. You can't "get" gibberish because there's nothing to "get".
As a result he gets nothing.

Complexity

16th April 2010, 03:14 PM

At least you are fairly certain :)

Sarcasm.

How embarrasing for you that I had to point this out to you.

The Man

16th April 2010, 03:18 PM

No, OM is not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system. What I say is exactly the opposite:

Numbers are Memory/Object Linkage so they are not totally independent of us.

In that case OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use.

So it is “not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system” but “OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use”. So you are specifically referring to how we “influence” each other and “OM's use” which “is also us”. So it is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other.

Now I see that you have some paranoia about OM as some kind of control system on human minds.

Nope just curious as to what or how you think your OM might affect the actions of people.

Well, don't you worry, the notion of a control system on human minds is derived exactly from your mechanic school of thought, who does not understand Complexity and the meaningful influence of the players on the show, that need responsibility development in order to not play their final act of this show (to determine the value of L because of self-destruction).

I’m certainly not worried. Why are you? Your OM has demonstrated absolutely no utility and that includes influencing and/or controlling anyone, but you (mostly because you are just so worried).

Computers are nothing but some tools that reflect us, including our ethical behaviors.

Computers have “ethical behaviors”? You seem to be deliberately confusing your own ethical interpretations with the operations of computers.

Again you deal with me and do not deal with the question, shell we conclude that you actually have no answer?

You asked for my suggestions and I gave them to you. That you simply don’t like them isn’t my problem, but I still recommend “that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics”.

The Man

16th April 2010, 03:20 PM

No, EEM is about developing complexity (abstract or not) wherever it can be found ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ), and we are some complex forms.

In other words, you don't get EEM.

Oh I get it all too well. So since we are not the only “complexity” your “EEM” would be ‘protecting’ and “developing” then your “EEM” would consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical as long as it resulted in the ‘development’ of “some complex forms”. Your “EEM” simply makes ethically acceptable the very “L value” outcome you fear.

Apathia

16th April 2010, 03:53 PM

Shall we take "yes" as "there is no simplicity, there is only complexity"?

As you are using those terms, I'd say there is no Simplicity and no Complexity.

I am talking about a scientific method that can do that [be a moral authority], because it works from the common foundation of every phenomenon, whether it is recognized as "Heart" or "Head".

This common foundation is called direct perception, and it is the basis of any kind of mental activity, including the physical realm.

The level of misunderstanding of both the scientific method and moral decision making is so great here, that I am at a complete loss as to how to make any reply.

Direct perception is the natural foundation of both Heart AND Head, such that they complement each other into a one complex form.

Go ahead and dismiss me as being hopelessly blind, but I have no "direct perception" of the X/Y Linkage Foundation.
I see only a neat but of limited application intellectual, idealistic construct.
A linguistic contivance that claims to be prior to language.
It isn't. Nor is it the natural structure of language.

doronshadmi

17th April 2010, 03:24 AM

So it is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other.

1) OM is a tool (very preliminary at this stage) and not a goal.

2) This tool is focused on the ability to define the linkage between opposites without arriving to contradiction (mutual destruction).

3) Some results of such a linkage are known as heart-properties known as empathy, compassion, Love, Tolerance, Humor, and more, which are developed exactly because they are derived from a non-trivial communication between opposites.

4) Binary Logics, which its consistency is valued by avoiding mutual destruction between opposite, has no communication abilities between opposites, because according to Binary Logics the middle is excluded, and as a result there is no such thing like opposites' communication under Binary Logics.

5) Most of our technologies for the past 600 years are derived from Binary Logics, which is a framework that has no ability to communicate between opposites; exactly because by Binary Logics the middle is excluded (we are using a black\white framework that, also according to The Man, "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.")

6) In my opinion it is about time to be developed beyond Binary Logics as the main tool of our current technological developments, where OM is a preliminary work in that direction, which is focused on the technology of the consciousness that may lead us to develop the linkage (the development of the communication) between opposites in non-destructive ways.

7) One of the result of such a linkage (the development of the communication) is non-local numbers or fogs, which are the result of the irreducibility of the non-local to the local or the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local, exactly because the opposites known as Non-locality or Locality saves their self properties (their independent identities) through the linkage.

8) Furthermore, concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc. are OM's fundaments and are not considered anymore as "white noise" that has to be eliminated in order to get some fixed results (like sums, for example).

Computers have “ethical behaviors”?
Since they are our agents, they also reflects our ethical skills.

You asked for my suggestions and I gave them to you. That you simply don’t like them isn’t my problem, but I still recommend “that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics”.
The Man instead of being my shrink, please simply answer to my question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction?

"actually study logics and ethics”
Done all along the way, and exactly because of this intensive study I have found that OM's development or any other tool that is developed beyond excluded middle "communication" between opposites, is one of the most important projects that have to be done in these days.

doronshadmi

17th April 2010, 04:14 AM

Oh I get it all too well. So since we are not the only “complexity” your “EEM” would be ‘protecting’ and “developing” then your “EEM” would consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical as long as it resulted in the ‘development’ of “some complex forms”. Your “EEM” simply makes ethically acceptable the very “L value” outcome you fear.
No The Man, you still do not understand that EEM will do its best in order to save and develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract), so the chance that EEM will consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical action, simply demonstrate your mechanical and excluded-middle reasoning about a concept like Complexity.

Furthermore you still understand the internal dynamical forces that govern the behavior of our civilization (for example: Politics) as non self-made Force-majeure, so we can't expect much from a person that understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure.

That is not in the limited position of The Man's reasoning, will find that EEM is the last method that will be forced to consider the destruction of the entire human race in order to save Complexity.

The current discommunication between Logics and Ethics is in a "better" position than EEM in order to actually execute the destruction of the entire human race, even without the need of any consideration, but persons like The Man, which understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure, can't get that.

doronshadmi

17th April 2010, 04:18 AM

As you are using those terms, I'd say there is no Simplicity and no Complexity
Please provide your terms of these concepts.

Apathia

17th April 2010, 07:12 AM

Apathia said:
As you are using those terms, I'd say there is no Simplicity and no Complexity

Please provide your terms of these concepts.

I should have said, "As you are using those words, what you call Simplicity and Complexity do not exist, except as concepts in your philosophy."

There is no "Atom" of Simplicity. And no "Atom" of Complexity.
Your words for your concepts will do.
It's your conceptual construct I'm not buying, not the words you use.

This is like someone saying to a Hindu, "I don't believe in Vishnu and Shiva."
And the Hindu answering, "What names of Vishnu and Shiva do you believe in?"

Perhaps it's because so many times in these pages, I have listened and tried to understand your basic ideas and sometimes successfully put them in my own words. And explored what you say without a blanket dismissal.
So maybe it seems now I'm just quibbling about words.

But here, something in the Ethical context:
In America we are always struggling with the rights of individual persons vs. the rights of the community.
Some of us put the priority on Individuality. Some on Community.
You rightly assert that we must recognize a dynamic between those two poles.

But it's not that Community exists as an "atom" of itself, or that Individuality exists as an "atom' of itself. These are linguistic abstractions.
The dynamic in the real world is that communities don't exist without individual persons and individual persons don't exist without community.
Psych-socially speaking individual personhood and community are inseparable.

So we realize it's not a war between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community, but a quest to integrate and advance the rights that inseparably serve both the individual for the sake of the community and the community for the sake of the individual.

Where do we begin? With you and me in community, not with abstract independent "atoms" of "Community" and "Individuality."
The organic nature of this dynamic is that the rights and needs of the community and of individual interpenetrate and are found within each other.
It is a much more intimate relationship than a logic table of the possible combos of the abstract concepts of Community and Individuality.

And this is just an example of a dynamic where there are two sets of concerns to be juggled. Life has more messy situations all the time.

You are asking how can we "complement" all these issues to insure our survival?
I'm saying that closer to the core of our survival is recognizing how life's issues interpenetrate and integrate.
And such organic goings on are much messier than an attempt to mathematize ethical concepts.

doronshadmi

17th April 2010, 11:07 AM

Complexity

17th April 2010, 12:01 PM

I'm going to start charging it for each use of my name.

I'd let it ride, but it is so proud of its ignorance. Some things should not stand.

Apathia

17th April 2010, 12:23 PM

I'm going to start charging it for each use of my name.

I'd let it ride, but it is so proud of its ignorance. Some things should not stand.

Get a trade mark on it as George Lucus did with "droid."
Because of that if I ever try to publish a novel I wrote, I'm going to have to go through it and substitute some other word to avoid a copywrite violation.

Apathia

17th April 2010, 01:13 PM

Apathia this is a beautiful post.

Let me correct some of your interpretations of OM.

There is no such a thing like "atom" for Simplicity and "atom" for Complexity in OM.

There are opposite atomic aspects (Non-local or Local) that enable Complexity as a result of the linkage between them, such that the identity of the opposite atomic aspects is saved during linkage exactly because they are derived form atomic self state, which enables them to be linked without contradicting each others identities.

According to OM's view Complexity is possible exactly because it is a manifestation of a non-destructive linkage between opposites (where under non-destructive linkage between opposites the identities of the opposites are not eliminated, otherwise there cannot be any complex phenomenon, abstract or not).

You still miss the exact nature of this linkage, where two opposites are not only independent, but they are mutually independent of each other, where mutuality is their common atomic self-state and their independency is their unique identities as opposites.

OM is not less than the common and the unique as a one realm.

Community or some individual of that community are already complex phenomena (a community is based on persons, and a person is based on his biological complexity) so OM asks: What enables Complexity in any given scale level, whether it is at the level of civilizations or at the level of a single hydrogen atom.

These notions are derived from direct perception, which is a pre-linguistic state that enables language, but I explicitly said that silence is not the word (or thought) "silence", and this distinction is essential of OM's understanding.

Please read very carefully http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP and try to get the core (the direct perception state).

As long as you omit direct perception as OM's main principle, you don't get OM.

To be interpenetrated and integrated is already a state of Complexity, but OM goes deeper in order to find the foundations of Complexity.

You claim that such organic goings on are much messier than an attempt to mathematize ethical concepts.

Ethical concepts are also a form of Complexity and so is Math and Logics.

OM is a tool that is used in order to fundamentally get Complexity, and it is done by direct perception, which again, it is a pre-linguistic state that enables any mental expression, whether it is Empathy or Logical analysis.

By OM heart and head are a one organic complex thing.

Boldings mine.
Pardon but it seems you just reassert that Complexity and Simplicity are mutually idependent ontological entities.

Here's the gist of our difference:
I'm saying that nothing has an independent, inherent existance, identity, or essence of its own. But we can still make conventional distinctions while realizing that in essence (or metaphysically speaking) all is of one seam of no-identity.

It seems to me that your X/Y Complementary approach is intuitive to you, so you declare it a matter of "direct perception."
People who don't get it then must be counted as lacking an essential awareness.

Yet. there are people (myself included) whose "direct perception" is that all things and concepts are empty of ontological or metaphysical reality.

But apart from all that, I'd be happy for you to see that there are ethical ways of seeing that differ from your particular construction.
Fortunately Humans will be compassionate apart from their metaphysical beliefs.
That's where my hope for our kind is. Not that we can somehow be persuaded to all adopt the same philosophy or religion.

I'm happy with people carrying on with their personal philosophies and religions if those are their personal instruments of heart opening and spiritual intimacy.
But it is sad when a religion or a philosophy becomes a windowless room where one retreats to an ideology without making soul connections.
(I know this pathology well, because I've had so many episodes of being in my "head" with a closed heart.)

doronshadmi

17th April 2010, 03:03 PM

Pardon but it seems you just reassert that Complexity and Simplicity are mutually idependent ontological entities.

No, I asserted that Complexity is the result of the mutual independency of the Local with the Non-local because on one hand the Local or the Non-local are derived from the same atomic self-state, but on the other hand they have opposite identities that are kept during linkage.

Without sameness and difference in a one realm, there is no Complexity.

I'm saying that nothing has an independent, inherent existance, identity, or essence of its own.
In that case there is only sameness and Complexity cannot be found.

If there is only difference, then also in this case Complexity cannot be found, because each identity is totally isolated.

Again, OM is not less than Mutual Independency.

Yet. there are people (myself included) whose "direct perception" is that all things and concepts are empty of ontological or metaphysical reality.
In that case you do not exist in any form and can't express what is quoted above.

Apathia

17th April 2010, 05:26 PM

No, I asserted that Complexity is the result of the mutual independency of the Local with the Non-local because on one hand the Local or the Non-local are derived from the same atomic self-state, but on the other hand they have opposite identities that are kept during linkage.

Without sameness and difference in a one realm, there is no Complexity.

In that case there is only sameness and Complexity cannot be found.

If there is only difference, then also in this case Complexity cannot be found, because each identity is totally isolated.

Again, OM is not less than Mutual Independency.

In that case you do not exist in any form and can't express what is quoted above.

Emperically speaking: a world of varied forms.
Metaphysically speaking: no inherent essence.

Because there no fixed ontological essences (or Platonic forms) change is is possible and the norm. Plenty of complexity for all.
I do exist as a changing form in appearance. But not as an ontological or metaphysical being.
My I is not a metaphysical soul.

You and I are of an integral whole and at the same time are seperate forms.

In human languages we have words of discription such as "difference" and "sameness."
It does not follow that these are metaphysical principles that in cahoots account for the same and the different.
The simpler observation behind sameness and difference is merely contrast. And that's an observation not an ontological principle.

doronshadmi

18th April 2010, 03:27 AM

Emperically speaking: a world of varied forms.
Metaphysically speaking: no inherent essence.
By OM, any form of speaking is derived from direct perception.

Because there no fixed ontological essences (or Platonic forms) change is is possible and the norm. Plenty of complexity for all.
There are no platonic forms at the level of the atomic self state.

The manifestation of the atomic state is not characterized by platonic forms, but by at least two opposite identities, that if linked, are resulted by "Plenty of complexity for all" whether it is an hydrogen atom or some civilization (where complexity is abstract or not).

I do exist as a changing form in appearance. But not as an ontological or metaphysical being. My I is not a metaphysical soul.
Call it whatever you like, you are the result form/change linkage, where form is derived from stability and change is derived from dynamics.

You and I are of an integral whole and at the same time are seperate forms.
Because we are a linkage between opposites (whole/separate linkage, in this case).

In human languages we have words of discription such as "difference" and "sameness." It does not follow that these are metaphysical principles that in cahoots account for the same and the different.
Again, silence is not "silence" by direct perception.

The simpler observation behind sameness and difference is merely contrast. And that's an observation not an ontological principle.
By direct perception Complexity is at least Participation/Observation Linkage, where a complex that is aware of Complexity, does its best in order to develop both its Qualitative\Quantitative aspects.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

By you there is only change (nothing is fixed) (the Buddhist approach).

By The Man an infinite complex can be summed (has a fixed result)(the Binary Logics approach).

OM is the non-trivial linkage (derived from direct perception) between your extreme views, such that a finite complexity is summed and an infinite complexity is fogged.

Apathia

18th April 2010, 07:10 AM

By OM, any form of speaking is derived from direct perception.

There are no platonic forms at the level of the atomic self state.

The manifestation of the atomic state is not characterized by platonic forms, but by at least two opposite identities, that if linked, are resulted by "Plenty of complexity for all" whether it is an hydrogen atom or some civilization (where complexity is abstract or not).

Call it whatever you like, you are the result form/change linkage, where form is derived from stability and change is derived from dynamics.

Because we are a linkage between opposites (whole/separate linkage, in this case).

Again, silence is not "silence" by direct perception.

By direct perception Complexity is at least Participation/Observation Linkage, where a complex that is aware of Complexity, does its best in order to develop both its Qualitative\Quantitative aspects.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

By you there is only change (nothing is fixed) (the Buddhist approach).

By The Man an infinite complex can be summed (has a fixed result)(the Binary Logics approach).

OM is the non-trivial linkage (derived from direct perception) between your extreme views, such that a finite complexity is summed and an infinite complexity is fogged.

I mentioned platonic forms, but I do understand that your metaphysical identities are not the same as Plato's Ideal forms.

You are correct about me and the Buddhist approach.
But I'm not seeing that The Man has some kind of opposite extream view to mine. That would be something like everything is fixed in its true nature and change is just an illusion.
I don't know what his prefered philosophical stance is.

I've said that treating infinity as a complete is more comapatble with the Buddhist perspective, for in the Buddhist perspective infinity is not a metaphysical entity and finding that the finite is within the infinite and the infinite within the finite is almost expected.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.

I would say that's the function of most philosophical wisdom. The goal is to live in awareness, responsibility, and compassion for others.

I saw a little girl riding a bicycle yesterday. She still had the training wheels on it, but I could tell that she was ready for her father to take them off.

The Man

18th April 2010, 07:54 AM

1) OM is a tool (very preliminary at this stage) and not a goal.

A tool that “is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other”. You do understand that tools have intended uses and are designed with consideration of the goals in their usage, don’t you? Well thank you for finally admitting that since your “OM” has no or is not “a goal” that you intended it to be useless. Guess what, you succeeded.

2) This tool is focused on the ability to define the linkage between opposites without arriving to contradiction (mutual destruction).

Your “tool” has failed as it results in and is based upon a direct contradiction. You do understand that “opposites” are already ‘linked’ in a non-contradictory fashion by merely being, well, opposites, don’t you?

3) Some results of such a linkage are known as heart-properties known as empathy, compassion, Love, Tolerance, Humor, and more, which are developed exactly because they are derived from a non-trivial communication between opposites.

“communication between opposites”? Just how do you imagine these “opposites” ‘communicate’?

4) Binary Logics, which its consistency is valued by avoiding mutual destruction between opposite, has no communication abilities between opposites, because according to Binary Logics the middle is excluded, and as a result there is no such thing like opposites' communication under Binary Logics.

“mutual destruction between opposite”? How is that ‘avoided’ in binary logic when True AND False is False. Just what do you think is “opposites' communication”

5) Most of our technologies for the past 600 years are derived from Binary Logics, which is a framework that has no ability to communicate between opposites; exactly because by Binary Logics the middle is excluded (we are using a black\white framework that, also according to The Man, "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.")

Where have I said binary logic "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."? It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to. You still seem to be confusing (again I think deliberately) simple binary logic with some form of ethics.

6) In my opinion it is about time to be developed beyond Binary Logics as the main tool of our current technological developments, where OM is a preliminary work in that direction, which is focused on the technology of the consciousness that may lead us to develop the linkage (the development of the communication) between opposites in non-destructive ways.

In my opinion you should actually try studying logic. “technology of the consciousness”? Got any examples of such technology or are you just “focused on” something you made up in your own mind? Again just how do “opposites” ‘communicate’ ? You seem to be simply anthropomorphizing aspects of logic like opposites.

7) One of the result of such a linkage (the development of the communication) is non-local numbers or fogs, which are the result of the irreducibility of the non-local to the local or the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local, exactly because the opposites known as Non-locality or Locality saves their self properties (their independent identities) through the linkage.

So you think “opposites” are ‘communicating’ to you or with you (as some included middle I surmise) thorough your “direct perception” and feeding you your “non-local numbers or fogs” nonsense? If that is the case I would add you getting a shrink to my suggestions.

8) Furthermore, concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc. are OM's fundaments and are not considered anymore as "white noise" that has to be eliminated in order to get some fixed results (like sums, for example).

Certainly “Redundancy” and/or “Simultaneity” has no bearing on a “fixed results (like sums…”, but “Uncertainty” certainly can and that simply makes the resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty. The “white noise" still remains simply and entirely yours Doron. Again your own personal uncertainty or “fog” does not imbue mathematics with your same “fog” (particularly about “concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc.”)

Since they are our agents, they also reflects our ethical skills.

So now computers have “ethical skills”? You obviously still do not understand why computers are not tasked with making ethical determinations.

The Man instead of being my shrink, please simply answer to my question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction?]

The suggestions have already been given to you, whether you have a shrink or not I still recommend them. Also as I said above I would recommend you getting a shrink if you think opposites are ‘communicating’ and in particular if you think they are ‘communicating’ to or with you.

Done all along the way, and exactly because of this intensive study I have found that OM's development or any other tool that is developed beyond excluded middle "communication" between opposites, is one of the most important projects that have to be done in these days.

Go back and do it again as you have obviously missed or simply misunderstood majoer portions, concepts and developments.

The Man

18th April 2010, 08:34 AM

No The Man, you still do not understand that EEM will do its best in order to save and develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract), so the chance that EEM will consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical action, simply demonstrate your mechanical and excluded-middle reasoning about a concept like Complexity.

No it is simply a consequence of your “EEM” “goal to develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”. That “L value” outcome you fear still remains and in fact could become necessary by your own “EEM” to “develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”.

Furthermore you still understand the internal dynamical forces that govern the behavior of our civilization (for example: Politics) as non self-made Force-majeure, so we can't expect much from a person that understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure.

Again where have I ever claimed “Politics) as non self-made”? let alone a “Force-majeure”? Though “we can't expect much from a person that understand Complexity” as just “communication between opposites”. Considering that “communication between opposites” phrase in the context of politics, you do understand what diplomacy is, don’t you Doron? Is it a simple lack of you understanding aspects of context that apparently has you bandying about phrases like “communication between opposites” without any apparently applicable context?

That is not in the limited position of The Man's reasoning, will find that EEM is the last method that will be forced to consider the destruction of the entire human race in order to save Complexity.

Last method, perhaps but still an acceptable and ethical method by you own “EEM”. So your “EEM” specifically makes exactly what you fear (that “L value” outcome) both acceptable and ethical.

The current discommunication between Logics and Ethics is in a "better" position than EEM in order to actually execute the destruction of the entire human race, even without the need of any consideration, but persons like The Man, which understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure, can't get that.

“discommunication between Logics and Ethics”? You are still simply anthropomorphizing concepts Doron. “in order to actually execute the destruction of the entire human race, even without the need of any consideration”? That your “EEM” can consider such a reprehensible action as logical, acceptable and even ethical is exactly the goal you have constructed your “EEM” around. All your blustering about “discommunication between Logics and Ethics”, “communication between opposites” and “non self-made Force-majeure” can’t escape the fact that you are attempting to establish a “framework” (as you like to put it) that specifically permits your worst fear (that “L value” outcome) as an acceptable, logical, ethical and perhaps even necessary "last method" course of action for your goal to “develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”.

Complexity

18th April 2010, 08:34 AM

I saw a little girl riding a bicycle yesterday. She still had the training wheels on it, but I could tell that she was ready for her father to take them off.

Some people will need training wheels for the rest of their lives.

jsfisher

18th April 2010, 09:02 AM

Some people can't ride a bicycle even with training wheels.

The Man

18th April 2010, 10:41 AM

You are correct about me and the Buddhist approach.
But I'm not seeing that The Man has some kind of opposite extream view to mine. That would be something like everything is fixed in its true nature and change is just an illusion.
I don't know what his prefered philosophical stance is.

None in particular, though I do tend to describe myself as a pragmatist.

About the only thing I find more useless than having some particular “philosophical stance” is labeling people. So labeling someone (even myself) with some particular “philosophical stance” it just twice as useless to me. The tendency becomes to address the “stance” or the label and not the person (and their arguments) directly, as people don’t often fit into neat categories even when they want to themselves.

By The Man an infinite complex can be summed (has a fixed result)(the Binary Logics approach).

No just that an infinite convergent series has finite sum. What would that have to do with "Binary Logics" anyway?

Apathia

18th April 2010, 03:22 PM

None in particular, though I do tend to describe myself as a pragmatist.

About the only thing I find more useless than having some particular “philosophical stance” is labeling people. So labeling someone (even myself) with some particular “philosophical stance” it just twice as useless to me. The tendency becomes to address the “stance” or the label and not the person (and their arguments) directly, as people don’t often fit into neat categories even when they want to themselves.

Amen!

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 12:39 AM

A tool that “is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other”. You do understand that tools have intended uses and are designed with consideration of the goals in their usage, don’t you? Well thank you for finally admitting that since your “OM” has no or is not “a goal” that you intended it to be useless. Guess what, you succeeded.
Another example of The Man’s fixed-only reasoning, which ignores the way (the tool) to get sum result, and focused only on the result. By this fixed approach there are no several alternatives to get some goal, and we are closed under a single step-by-step reasoning that leads to some goal, and as a result the gaol itself is understood by a very narrow view. On the other hand, if some method is taken as a tool, then an open mind is used all along the way that enables to understand some goal beyond a single path.

Furthermore, by this open minded approach one can find more goals that are also considered along the way, and we get richer and more profound understanding of the researched subject.

Your “tool” has failed as it results in and is based upon a direct contradiction. You do understand that “opposites” are already ‘linked’ in a non-contradictory fashion by merely being, well, opposites, don’t you?
Defining a linkage is not limited to your step-by-step deductive reasoning.

Definition by OM also researches the fundamantal conditions that enable, for example, the linkage between opposites, where your step-by-step deductive reasoning gets this linkage as an axiom.

“communication between opposites”? Just how do you imagine these “opposites” ‘communicate’?
By their common source. for example: the local aspect of the atomic self-state is the opposite of the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state.

Yet the atomic self-state is their common source that enables the non-destructive linkage (communication) between them.

“mutual destruction between opposite”? How is that ‘avoided’ in binary logic when True AND False is False. Just what do you think is “opposites' communication”
The included middle universe between them.

Where have I said binary logic "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."? It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to.
Excluded middle framework is not limited to Logics or Ethics. The same holds about included middle framework.

OM deals with both frameworks by OR connective between them.

In my opinion you should actually try studying logic. “technology of the consciousness”? Got any examples of such technology or are you just “focused on” something you made up in your own mind? Again just how do “opposites” ‘communicate’ ? You seem to be simply anthropomorphizing aspects of logic like opposites.
Transcendental Meditation (or other scientifically researched mind training techniques) is an example of “technology of the consciousness”.

Opposites are simply the extreme manifestations of a one atomic self-state.

So you think “opposites” are ‘communicating’ to you or with you (as some included middle I surmise) thorough your “direct perception” and feeding you your “non-local numbers or fogs” nonsense? If that is the case I would add you getting a shrink to my suggestions.
Direct perception is not a thought, but it is the foundation of thoughts, you are the one who needs a shrink here because your awareness is disconnected from its source, and gets only the differential state of thoughts, without their integral state. An extreme differential state between thought is known as Schizophrenia, where different groups of thoughts have their own personality. Excluded-Middle reasoning as one and only one thinking styles, actually base on extreme differentiation between opposites (where the middle is excluded).

Certainly “Redundancy” and/or “Simultaneity” has no bearing on a “fixed results (like sums…”, but “Uncertainty” certainly can and that simply makes the resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty
“resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty” is done under finite terms. Infinite terms are valued by fogs.

So now computers have “ethical skills”?
You do not understand the meaning of being an agent of ...

The suggestions have already been given to you, whether you have a shrink or not I still recommend them. Also as I said above I would recommend you getting a shrink if you think opposites are ‘communicating’ and in particular if you think they are ‘communicating’ to or with you.
The Man your posts become more and more pathetic. You can simply say that you have no answer to my question.

Go back and do it again as you have obviously missed or simply misunderstood majoer portions, concepts and developments.
You never re-searched your axioms. It is a good idea to that from time to time. Maybe if you really do that you will find that they have simpler foundations. But this re-reach is not for lazy or coward persons.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 01:24 AM

No it is simply a consequence of your “EEM” “goal to develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”. That “L value” outcome you fear still remains and in fact could become necessary by your own “EEM” to “develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract)”.
And what are your consequences about develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms, by using your pragmatic approach?

Again where have I ever claimed “Politics) as non self-made”?
Here:

Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme…
Where extreme means that Politics is some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it.

without any apparently applicable context?
EEM is about developing Ethics according universal principles that are not limited to any particular context.

So your “EEM” specifically makes exactly what you fear (that “L value” outcome) both acceptable and ethical.
No, it reduces as much as possible results that derived from fears, exactly because it is not based on fragmented contexts that do not understand each other, and this misunderstanding is the habitat of fears.

You are still simply anthropomorphizing concepts Doron.
You simply understand Complexity only by your narrow context that is limited to Humankind. As a result you do not get Complexity by Ethics that is not limited to any particular context like Humankind, for example. Again The Man by your context dependent view, What You Is What You Get (WYIWYG), which is exactly your fragmented and context dependent view about Ethics.

"Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) and you The Man are tend to be pragmatist:

I do tend to describe myself as a pragmatist.

About the only thing I find more useless than having some particular “philosophical stance” is labeling people. So labeling someone (even myself) with some particular “philosophical stance” it just twice as useless to me. The tendency becomes to address the “stance” or the label and not the person (and their arguments) directly, as people don’t often fit into neat categories even when they want to themselves.
People don’t often fit into neat categories exactly because Complexity is not limited to particular persons or context dependent frameworks.

Your view about usefulness is limited to the current knowledge of a given notion, which has the tendency to reject any notion that can’t immediately valued by your current knowledge.

In other words, you have a very limited understanding of real Complexity, which does not obey to your immediate usefulness demands.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 01:33 AM

No just that an infinite convergent series has finite sum.
No, an infinite collection of positive or negative added values is a fog.

Your pragmatist tendency does not help you to get fogs.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 02:24 AM

Amen!
Amen?

So your notions here are some kind of religion?

jsfisher

19th April 2010, 07:12 AM

Amen?

So your notions here are some kind of religion?

Must you strive to make everything some sort of insult?

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 09:44 AM

Must you strive to make everything some sort of insult?

Why insult?

"Amen!" is a common religious reaction.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 10:13 AM

Amen?

So your notions here are some kind of religion?

In American English the word "amen" has become secularized. Even Atheists use it as an expression of enthusiastic agreement.

At the moment I made a choice between "amen!" and "correctomondo!"
I felt "Amen!" had more weight, because it is an ethical value for me to listen to what a person is saying and try not to dismiss hir into a political, religious, or philosophical pigeon hole. (That's what The Man was talking about in his post.)
And I truly regret every time I've done that.

To some extent religion is a language for expressing spiritual values.
And both you and I have spoken religion.
I'm sorry if what I've been saying amounts to a dismissal of your ideas because they are "just a religion."
I see that you and I have many spiritual values in common, just not the way they are expressed and philosophically configured.
Yes, I have offered an alternative way of speaking.
But understand I don't mean it as a dismissal of your values.
And I'm not telling you you are wrong to express them in the way that seems to you to be the most comprehensive.
Also I am partial to the Mahayana Buddhist Philosophical tradition in a secular way. But it's not a dogma for me but a tool to let go of intellectual attachments.

Have I been smugly condescending with an air of intellectual superiority?
Probably.
I apologize.

I can't apologize that we disagree.
I don't disagree with you a you.
But I disagree that spiritual values can be logicized.
I disagree that personhood and subjectivity (seeing as an I) can be objectified in a mathematical framework.
(There's no way of doing statistics where the people counted are being related to as personal subjects at the same time. At best we can remember that we are counting people and the numbers are going into tools to help us help them.)
I disagree that ought can be reduced to is.

So how do I have any kind of unified framework?
Personally I acknowledge three aspects of Knowing.
1.) Objective knowledge about objects, things, matters. Science and Mathematics.
2.) Knowing another as a person, not as a he, she, it, or a Sally, but as an I in hir own right. (N.B. this is not knowledge about a person.)
3.) Knowing as Integration and participation in an inseparable whole.
(Again I must stress that this is not a different kind or source of objective knowledge content.)

Each operates in its own relational sphere for the sake of our complete humanity.
Their roles aren't mixed, anymore than the nervous system does digestion, or the skull tries to be a foot.

Knowledge is a way of relating.

Science and Math: relating to objects of knowledge. (And that already includes in contemporary physics the understanding that there is not a strict separation of observer and observed, and the mathematical quantum mechanics to handle that.)

Sympathetic Community: where I relate to you as an I, not an object of knowledge (though I may know many things about you.)
Integral Union: Where all things are one in Being (Or in the emptiness of inherent being) Where I don't Know you as you, but we are of one being.

This is a crude and simplistic parsing of roles. I could expand it into four.
But that's the idea. Nothing is left out of our humanity, and no one aspect swallows up or dismisses the other.
We use all aspects of Knowing to create our communal ethical values.

The path of our survival as a species is growing all aspects of our humanity.

But this isn't something to be advanced as a religion.
It's what we already do and do better with a sound education.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 10:22 AM

I've said that treating infinity as a complete is more comapatble with the Buddhist perspective, for in the Buddhist perspective infinity is not a metaphysical entity and finding that the finite is within the infinite and the infinite within the finite is almost expected.
"finite within the finite and infinite within the finite" is a meaningless phrase if you don’t say first what do you mean by "finite" or "infinite".

If you are using the Buddhist perspective, then by understanding Locality/Non-locality Linkage you get the unlimited changing, which is derived from the irreducibility of the non-local to the local and the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local.

In this case you are focused only on the result (infinite Complexitiy, in this case) by ignoring its foundations.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 10:37 AM

Also I am partial to the Mahayana Buddhist Philosophical tradition in a secular way.

The real Buddhist says: "If you meat Buddha along the road, kill him", which means: "Never say amen even not to Buddha himself, because the essence of Buddhism is to be always the mind of the beginner, which always re-researches already agreed notions."

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 10:42 AM

But I disagree that spiritual values can be logicized.
I disagree that personhood and subjectivity (seeing as an I) can be objectified in a mathematical framework.

Why do you force a local-only view on OM?

Darth Rotor

19th April 2010, 10:43 AM

I'm going to advise people not to respond to this thread. doronshadmi has a history of being totally incomprehensible and his threads always go for dozens of pages without any progress being made.

Doron, you are misusing common terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiset

I will not be replying to this thread any more.
You called that one nicely, as we are on page 240 (at 40 posts per page).

Give this man a cigar. :)

DR

Apathia

19th April 2010, 10:47 AM

"finite within the finite and infinite within the finite" is a meaningless phrase if you don’t say first what do you mean by "finite" or "infinite".

If you are using the Buddhist perspective, then by understanding Locality/Non-locality Linkage you get the unlimited changing, which is derived from the irreducibility of the non-local to the local and the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local.

In this case you are focused only on the result (infinite Complexitiy, in this case) by ignoring its foundations.

That has it's utiliity,
But the Buddhist perspective isn't really comfortable with an unchanging, changeless foundation one can cling to.

But let's talk "fog."
Your post suggests that a fog isn't a static region of indeterninancy, but a dance that's so quick that there's no determining the exact loication of the dancer.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 10:54 AM

"Science and Math:" … "Sympathetic Community:"
OM uses direct perception as the common source of them.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 10:57 AM

Give this man a cigar. :)

DR

Smoking is not allowed in a public forum ;)

Apathia

19th April 2010, 11:01 AM

Why do you force a local-only view on OM?

Then you must cease calling OM a "Mathematcs." Your philosophy can't possibly be cramed into that discipline.
And if you insist on continuing to use mathematical language this way, you need to admit to your readers that youv are not talking about the same thing they are accustomed to.

But it seems to me that you keep insisting that you are providing with your OM a Logic of ethical values as well as mathimatical truth values.
And to me that's where you force (or unsucessfuly try to) the Non-Local into what is a rational, researchable, objective, local framework.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:02 AM

But let's talk "fog."
Your post suggests that a fog isn't a static region of indeterninancy, but a dance that's so quick that there's no determining the exact loication of the dancer.
A fog (non-local number) does not have an exact location on the real line.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 11:05 AM

A fog (non-local number) does not have an exact location on the real line.

Just can't stay put, can it?
Has to dance!
(My point beiing that being is dynamic rather than static,)

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:06 AM

Then you must cease calling OM a "Mathematcs." Your philosophy can't possibly be cramed into that discipline.
And if you insist on continuing to use mathematical language this way, you need to admit to your readers that youv are not talking about the same thing they are accustomed to.

But it seems to me that you keep insisting that you are providing with your OM a Logic of ethical values as well as mathimatical truth values.
And to me that's where you force (or unsucessfuly try to) the Non-Local into what is a rational, researchable, objective, local framework.
OM is exactly Non-locality/Locality Linkage and I am very clear about that.

There is no way to reduce OM only to its local aspect.

Non-locality/Locality Linkage enables to communication of Ethics withLogics under a one roof.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 11:11 AM

I said:
And to me that's where you force (or unsucessfuly try to) the Non-Local into what is a rational, researchable, objective, local framework.

Yeah I know. In it's self-state, Non-Locality isn't forced anywhere.

It's that you try to put what isn't logical content into logic.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:11 AM

Just can't stay put, can it?
Has to dance!
(My point beiing that being is dynamic rather than static,)
It is not static nor dynamic, it is ever opened (incomplete) if infinite complexity is considered.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:17 AM

I said:

Yeah I know. In it's self-state, Non-Locality isn't forced anywhere.

It's that you try to put what isn't logical content into logic.

It is not logical from a local-only excluded-middle view of Logics.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 11:17 AM

Non-locality/Locality Linkage enables to communication of Ethics withLogics under a one roof.

I fear you are missing the actual way logic is involved in ethical discisions, and how science can inform us what is healthy behavior, while ethics informs technology what uses it ought to be put to for the sake of healthy humanity.

As I said they are already aspects of Knowing under Humanity. (Space aliens included.)

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:18 AM

Apathia, I think you have missed http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5844098&postcount=9574.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 11:21 AM

It is not logical from a local-only excluded-middle view of Logics.

Oh yes, I am quite aware of that. But a multi-value logic doesn't achive what you think it does. It doesn't include what is apart from Logical knowing.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:28 AM

I fear you are missing the actual way logic is involved in ethical discisions, and how science can inform us what is healthy behavior, while ethics informs technology what uses it ought to be put to for the sake of healthy humanity.

As I said they are already aspects of Knowing under Humanity. (Space aliens included.)
I fear you are missing that science today is fragmented into context dependent frameworks that do not deal with ethical questions.

OM is a framework that tries to re-define Science as a comprehensive framework that enables to deal with both Ethics and Logics in a non context-depended view.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:36 AM

Oh yes, I am quite aware of that. But a multi-value logic doesn't achive what you think it does. It doesn't include what is apart from Logical knowing.

OM is not a multi-valued Logic, because multy-valued Logic is reducible to local-only reasoning.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 11:40 AM

The real Buddhist says: "If you meat Buddha along the road, kill him", which means: "Never say amen even not to Buddha himself, because the essence of Buddhism is to be always the mind of the beginner, which always re-researches already agreed notions."

Oops, your're right. I didn't see that one.
And you are so, so right.
The Buddha advises one to cling to no metaphysical formulation, except perhaps a minimalist statement that all such foundations should be swept away.

As I said, I'm partial to it.
My liking of thinking that way is that it serves me in not treating any metaphysical system I meet much to seriously.

Even if I were not "partial" to some aspects of Buddhism (I don't by it as a religion and have objections to a number of elements.). I'd still find a problem with you not understanding the actual natures of Mathematics and Ethics.

Killiing the Buddha doesn't bring me any closer to buying your program.

Now again, I used the word "Amen" in the context of agreeing with The Man that annoucing a person's supposed philosophy for them was not a tad insulting.
It was not an Amen to The Buddha instead of an Amen to you.

I've paid a good share of attention to your philosophy and understand to some small extent its unique assertions. And I attempt to reply to it on the basis of those and not dismiss it as some other school.

But also I've tried to suggest to you that there are other ways of integrating our Scientific and Ethical concerns.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:48 AM

I'd still find a problem with you not understanding the actual natures of Mathematics and Ethics.
What is the, so called, actual natures of Mathematics and Ethics?

But also I've tried to suggest to you that there are other ways of integrating our Scientific and Ethical concerns.
What enables you to know (by head and by hrart) that there are other ways of integrating our Scientific and Ethical concerns?

Apathia

19th April 2010, 11:55 AM

OM is not a multi-valued Logic, because multy-valued Logic is reducible to local-only reasoning.

Anyone who looks at your papers sees your Local/Non-Local Complementary Logic. It is not a binary logic but a multivalued one.
And by its nature it is Local.
What you do is use the word's "Local" and "Non-Local" to symbolize what is beyond logic, and then assume that such content is being logically manipulated.

There's a huge disconnect here. I don't think I can show it to you but logic is a manipulation of logical elements. Compassion isn't a logical element. And even if you symbolize it under the term "Non-Local," or use non-local as a symbol for qualitative content, it doesn't get integrated into an OM kind of logic.
Except that perhaps you, in your own mind, attach some symbolic significance to mathematical terms and so when you say them intend something ethical.
But no reader is going to automatically do that.
They are just going to see the mess of contradictions that come about when math terms are used in metaphorical ways apart from their standard definitions.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:55 AM

Apathis you also have missed http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5844154&postcount=9578 .

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 11:59 AM

Anyone who looks at your papers sees your Local/Non-Local Complementary Logic. It is not a binary logic but a multivalued one.
And by its nature it is Local.
Again, OM IS NOT a multivalued logics.

As long as you get OM as a multivalued logics, you don't get it.

OM is "by its nature" at least Non-localit/Locality Linkage.

Apathia, I realize that you actually in agreement with The Man or jsfisher that force local-only view on OM.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 12:08 PM

Apathia, please do not miss http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5844292&postcount=9590 .

Apathia

19th April 2010, 12:16 PM

What is the, so called, actual natures of Mathematics and Ethics?[/QUOT]

You know, I don't think I'd be able to help you see that is statements are different from ought statements, and that quality isn't subject to the same framework as quantity.

You are going to play the is/ought linkage card and the quality/quantity linkage card without ever having a clue how how these actually relate to each other.

[QUOTE]What enables you to know (by head and by hrart) that there are other ways of integrating our Scientific and Ethical concerns?

Living. Doing. Relating.
See post 9572 about Knowing. (And that particular thing isn't "Buddhist.")

If your philosophy is the only way we can develop our technology ethically, than we are burnt toast, buttered side down.
Except in an inspirational sort of way (for you), it has no actual utility.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 12:25 PM

My liking of thinking that way is that it serves me in not treating any metaphysical system I meet much to seriously.
I agree with you, humoristic approach of our notions is crucial to their real quality.

OM is basically an humoristic approach that enables to get some subject from unaccepted views, that take out the to much seriousness that is found among fragmented views, which fight between them just because they have different view of some considered subject.

This ridiculous fight is avoided if we realize that we are all in the same boat as fine and fragile complex systems.

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 12:31 PM

Living. Doing. Relating.

What enables you Living, Doing, Relating?

Apathia

19th April 2010, 12:37 PM

Again, OM IS NOT a multivalued logics.

As long as you get OM as a multivalued logics, you don't get it.

OM is "by its nature" at least Non-localit/Locality Linkage.

You're right Doron. It's not those mathematical terms and forms you use in your papers. It is a qualitative, linguistic, and visionary view.
You try to put it into a kind of mathematical of logical framework, but of course it doesn't fit there, and you wind up in denial of the very claims you make in your papers.

[Apathia, I realize that you actually in agreement with The Man or jsfisher that force local-only view on OM.[/QUOTE]

Nope. I see your intentions to have a mathematics that works with qualities as well as qualities, and ought as well as is. I see what your OM intends.
But what you ironically miss again and again is that Mathematics is a different kind of discourse than ethics and spiritual values.
When you try to fuse them together the way you do, you lose the precision of math and the subjectivity of values.

That's why I say you are ironically forcing what is beyond logical language (what you symbolize as "non-local") into a rational only framework.

Your OM is by your intent a symbol of your attempt to integrate Mathematics and Ethics. However it's structure is merely a special non-binary logic.
You don't see in the lest that a linguistic symbol isn't treated the same as a mathematical sign.

Your Non-Locality is there only in the sense that you use those terms to mean something beyond Mathematical significance.
But then the very structure of your OM Logic doesn't actually serve the qualitative intent you have for it (much less the Mathematical intent the math people here point out you are making a wasteland of.)

It's a disconnect that I realize I'll never be able to bring to your awareness.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 12:43 PM

What enables you Living, Doing, Relating?

Not OM for sure.

You are wanting to advance some linguistic abstractions into ontological principles and an X/Y Complement formulation that you will put before and transform everything I say with.
It's sort of neat. It trips up any discourse.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 12:50 PM

This ridiculous fight is avoided if we realize that we are all in the same boat as fine and fragile complex systems.

It is good that you come to that no matter the philosophical program you used to get there.
I'd say that we end the fight because why should the left hand struggle against the right. We are of one body.
Metaphysically we are all integral to each other.

Different philosophy, same boat!

Perhaps the Agreement/Disagreement Linkage.

It's been a good dialog this AM, but I need to get some lunch, since I skipped breakfast.

Cheers to you, my shipmate!

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 01:40 PM

But what you ironically miss again and again is that Mathematics is a different kind of discourse than ethics and spiritual values.
You ironically miss again and again that Mathematics and Ethics have a common and un-manifested source, which enables their ever developed linkage between them.

Different philosophy, same boat!
In other words Samness(areement)/Difference(disagreement) Linkage, which is exactly OM.

Not OM for sure.

You are wanting to advance some linguistic abstractions into ontological principles and an X/Y Complement formulation that you will put before and transform everything I say with.
It's sort of neat. It trips up any discourse.
You did not show anything that avoids OM, along our last dialog.

Furthermore, you still get OM as local-only thing, and in that case you can't be sure about OM.

That's why I say you are ironically forcing what is beyond logical language (what you symbolize as "non-local") into a rational only framework.
OM is not beyond logical language. OM extends, so called Logics, beyond its local-only view.

Again, Mathematics or Logics are not platonic invariant objects, and can be fundamentally changed by new notions (by using "the mind of the beginner", if you wish).

doronshadmi

19th April 2010, 01:45 PM

It's been a good dialog this AM, but I need to get some lunch, since I skipped breakfast.
Thank you. Enjoey your breakfast.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 05:29 PM

In other words Samness(areement)/Difference(disagreement) Linkage, which is exactly OM.

I said:
Different philosophy, same boat!

Perhaps the Agreement/Disagreement Linkage.

I'm glad I said it first!:wackygrin:

Furthermore, you still get OM as local-only thing, and in that case you can't be sure about OM. I get your OM metaphorical extension to qualitative values.
But more I get that you OM is much more than the "mathematical" applications you attempt to make in your papers.

Again, Mathematics or Logics are not platonic invariant objects, and can be fundamentally changed by new notions (by using "the mind of the beginner", if you wish).

I can't but agree!:wackyyes:

While I was eating lunch, I thought of a beginner's or childish question to ask you.
Next post.

Apathia

19th April 2010, 06:21 PM

doronshadmi

20th April 2010, 12:35 PM

I'm pretty sure I already know your answer for this, but I'll ask you for elucidation.

I'm surviving the "Great Recession" by working for the largest mail order pharmacy in America.
People gotta have their meds!

I'm in the mailroom, but back beyond that there is a huge room containing a remarkable array of automation.
Spread out over the facility is a very smart machine that sorts pills into bottles.
It "knows" which bottle go with which pills. Which labels to to affix to the right bottles. And how many pills go in a given bottle.
Plus it double checks in a number of internal controls to make sure the process is running correctly.
Thousands of orders are processed and placed in the appropriate mailers with the correct postage everyday.
And there is much more chance a human pharmacist would screw up an order than this machine.

It manipulates objects. It makes calculations. It uses memory.

So does it exhibit the Object/Memory Linkage?
If it does, Is this Object/Memory Linkage indicative of the presence of the non-locality and quality of consciousness?

I'll wait for your reply first before I say what answer I'm expecting you'll give.
"Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" is an agent of our memory/object linkage, but it is unaware of itself as a "Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" because it is a local-only system that its functions are totally known. We are memory/object linkage which is not totally known exactly because we are Non-local/Local complex that is aware of its own complexity and directly (without any agents) gets the foundations of its own complexity.

This self-awareness enables to see reality within us and us within reality, where reality is the result of both participation/observation (by using direct perception, reality is not a platonic object, but a changeable environment, and we as participators, has responsibility of some of the changes).

Complexity

20th April 2010, 02:10 PM

I don't think I'll keep up with this thread any longer.

The word 'primes' attracted me initially, but it is obvious that doronshadmi knows nothing and cares nothing about mathematics.

Whatever he is writing about, it is of no interest to me.

Something about the way he writes makes my skin crawl and makes me feel very uneasy. Very odd.

See the rest of you in other threads.

Apathia

20th April 2010, 02:32 PM

"Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" is an agent of our memory/object linkage, but it is unaware of itself as a "Huge room containing a remarkable array of automation" because it is a local-only system that its functions are totally known. We are memory/object linkage which is not totally known exactly because we are Non-local/Local complex that is aware of its own complexity and directly (without any agents) gets the foundations of its own complexity.
Bolding mine.

This self-awareness enables to see reality within us and us within reality, where reality is the result of both participation/observation (by using direct perception, reality is not a platonic object, but a changeable environment, and we as participators, has responsibility of some of the changes).

One answer I was expecting from you was that computers and smart systems are creations of our Memory/Object Linkage.

The other was that though such a system is a complex operating by its own Memory/Object Linkage, it is not at the level of complexity as a Human Being in which the Non-Local contribution in the complex is much larger.

I was not expecting you to assert that the smart machine is not a complex of Memory/Object or Non-Local/Local Linkage.

Perhaps you are saying it opperates merely with the local/local numbers of traditional mathematics and not the wider Organic Numbers of Redundancy/Uncertainty Bridging.

But if you are saying that calculators and computational systems are simply not of OM, and OM is only a matter of such complex systems that are aware of themselves and aware of that awareness,
That's an interesting qualification.

It suggests that OM is after all a system to account for beings who manipulate symbols and think analogically with qualities.
While the math of the daily technologies we use is merely the old "local only" business.

But would that apply to the insect brain as well? It not being a Complex because it really isn't complex enough?
Then there would be two kind of nature: Local Only and OM.
I kinda think you want all of reality to be complexes of OM.
It seems contradictory for you to not include the all natural operations in your system.

But again, if you are making that qualification for your views, then your specialized, metaphorical use of mathematic language for the special circumstance of self-consciouness is not a suprise.

I think I should ask for clarification:
Is our clever machine in its operation exhibiting the various X/Y Linkages that
generate numbers and arithmatic that are themselves derived from a Local/Non-Local Linkage?
Or is it less than and not an example of Complex, being only a tool created by a Complex?
And would that not imply that arithmatic is not a complex?

(Sorry for spelling errors. I'm on break, and this computer has no spell checker.)

The Man

20th April 2010, 07:56 PM

Another example of The Man’s fixed-only reasoning, which ignores the way (the tool) to get sum result, and focused only on the result. By this fixed approach there are no several alternatives to get some goal, and we are closed under a single step-by-step reasoning that leads to some goal, and as a result the gaol itself is understood by a very narrow view. On the other hand, if some method is taken as a tool, then an open mind is used all along the way that enables to understand some goal beyond a single path.

What “method” isn’t a tool? Obviously you are simply confusing your own "fixed-only reasoning" for mine. It is you who has determined some goal (avoiding that ‘L value outcome’) and construction your whole "OM" and "EEM" contrivance around that while failing to realize that your own contrivance contravenes your stated goal.

Furthermore, by this open minded approach one can find more goals that are also considered along the way, and we get richer and more profound understanding of the researched subject.

So try taking an “open minded approach” when you are considering what you call “standard math”.

Defining a linkage is not limited to your step-by-step deductive reasoning.

Definition by OM also researches the fundamantal conditions that enable, for example, the linkage between opposites, where your step-by-step deductive reasoning gets this linkage as an axiom.

As I said opposites are linked in that they are, well, opposites.

By their common source. for example: the local aspect of the atomic self-state is the opposite of the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state.

Again an “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into two aspects (even opposites) is not “atomic” by your own “indivisible” meaning of “atomic”

Yet the atomic self-state is their common source that enables the non-destructive linkage (communication) between them.

You seem rather preoccupied with ‘destruction’.

The included middle universe between them.

So just including a “middle universe between them” infers some “communication”? Again as you state above “linkage (communication)” so a “linkage”, even as binary opposites, is your “(communication)”.

Excluded middle framework is not limited to Logics or Ethics. The same holds about included middle framework.

That still does not show where have I said binary logic "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.". As agian It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to.

OM deals with both frameworks by OR connective between them.

By “both frameworks” you must mean self-consistent and your self-contradictory frameworks. Sorry Doron no one needs your "OM" to put an OR between them. It is your consideration of self-consistent and self-contradictory as both being valid that that gives your "OM" its, well, self-contradictory defining aspect.

Transcendental Meditation (or other scientifically researched mind training techniques) is an example of “technology of the consciousness”.

That’s it, some meditation technique? That’s your “technology of the consciousness”?

Opposites are simply the extreme manifestations of a one atomic self-state.

Oh you mean that indivisible “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into ‘opposing’ “aspects” just so you can combine them again into your “complex”. That’s only ‘extremely’ self-contradictory and contrived
Doron.

Direct perception is not a thought, but it is the foundation of thoughts, you are the one who needs a shrink here because your awareness is disconnected from its source, and gets only the differential state of thoughts, without their integral state. An extreme differential state between thought is known as Schizophrenia, where different groups of thoughts have their own personality. Excluded-Middle reasoning as one and only one thinking styles, actually base on extreme differentiation between opposites (where the middle is excluded).

So you think. That these thoughts might have occurred to you during some meditative technique does not make them any more than just your thoughts.

“resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty” is done under finite terms. Infinite terms are valued by fogs.

Again your “fog” has no value, other than to just your own thoughts and fantasies.

You do not understand the meaning of being an agent of ...

You do not understand the meaning of “ethical skills”.

The Man your posts become more and more pathetic. You can simply say that you have no answer to my question.

Well you do set a very low bar to try to crawl under. My suggestions still stand though.

You never re-searched your axioms. It is a good idea to that from time to time. Maybe if you really do that you will find that they have simpler foundations. But this re-reach is not for lazy or coward persons.

You still don’t understand the meaning and application of axioms, though those two words (“lazy" and "coward”) do seem to accurately describe your own inclinations towards research and, well, axioms.

The Man

20th April 2010, 08:18 PM

And what are your consequences about develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms, by using your pragmatic approach?

My “consequences about develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms, by using" a "pragmatic approach”? Not sure that I have any, since the questions just doesn’t make any sense. In general, though, the consequences of something useful are often simply a result of its use.

Here:

Where? That quote says nothing about “Politics) as non self-made” let alone a “Force-majeure”.

Where extreme means that Politics is some external thing (non self-made Force-majeure) beyond our abilities to change it.

The actual non-truncated quote…

Are you actually inferring politics as logical and/or ethical? You go to one extreme and your own consideration of “the goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.” does not exclude that genocidal extreme.

The “extreme” was yours Doron and specifically referred to your own genocidal extreme being both logically and ethically acceptable by your own “EEM”. If you want to consider politics “as non self-made” or a “Force-majeure”, well that is up to you, but if you try to pawn it off as something I have said or inferred you will simply fail, as usual.

EEM is about developing Ethics according universal principles that are not limited to any particular context.

You do understand that your particular ethics as “universal principles” would be your intended context, don’t you?

No, it reduces as much as possible results that derived from fears, exactly because it is not based on fragmented contexts that do not understand each other, and this misunderstanding is the habitat of fears.

Your “OM” and “EEM” certainly have not reduced your fears, nor do they exclude what it is that you fear (that ‘L value outcome’).

You simply understand Complexity only by your narrow context that is limited to Humankind. As a result you do not get Complexity by Ethics that is not limited to any particular context like Humankind, for example. Again The Man by your context dependent view, What You Is What You Get (WYIWYG), which is exactly your fragmented and context dependent view about Ethics.

Where have I said that “Complexity” is limited to “Humankind”? Ok so clearly “context” is another word Doron simply does not understand. Curious though as his assertions generally depend more upon what he does not say or write (his direct perception) than what he does.

"Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism) and you The Man are tend to be pragmatist:

So after my cautioning against addressing some particular “philosophical stance” as opposed the persons own particular stance, you waste your time quoting some aspect of pragmatism?

People don’t often fit into neat categories exactly because Complexity is not limited to particular persons or context dependent frameworks.

No, just because they are different.

Your view about usefulness is limited to the current knowledge of a given notion, which has the tendency to reject any notion that can’t immediately valued by your current knowledge.

In other words, you have a very limited understanding of real Complexity, which does not obey to your immediate usefulness demands.

Nope, just self-consistency demands. It is that lack of self-consistency that makes your notions useless to anyone but you and your fantasies. Your own notions can’t even be “valued” by your own notions since you only get some “fog” by your own notions.

Again try doing some actual research and you will find history replete with self-consistent notions considered useless originally. Fractals are a good example. Considered a mere geometrical curiosity at first, but now used to design the antennas that make up and make useful a lot of the technology of our modern society.

The Man

20th April 2010, 08:35 PM

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown

Indeed, Apathia.

doronshadmi

20th April 2010, 11:14 PM

It seems contradictory for you to not include the all natural operations in your system.
OM includes local-only agents as one of the natural operations of Complexity, that is based on fragmented cybernetic kernel, which are closed under automatic repetition of closed loops that are not aware of themselves, as clearly demonstrated by the representation of cybernetic kernels in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 .

Or is it less than and not an example of Complex, being only a tool created by a Complex?
The current mathematical science is a deductive-only and local-only use of real Complexity, which is not less that Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

As a result Technology is understood mostly in terms of automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves, but this is only a narrow view the concept of Technology, which by real Complexity is not only closed under automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves.

And would that not imply that arithmatic is not a complex?
Arithmetic at its local-only view is a limited state of real Complexity.
For example, only sums are valid under this limited framework.

doronshadmi

21st April 2010, 12:45 AM

avoiding that ‘L value outcome’
avoiding that accurate ‘L value outcome’ is achieved only if the way to this avoidance is inseparable and ever developed, which actually prevents the summed value of L (by your limited framework The Man, also infinite added values has a final and accurate sum, where one of that sums is the final value of L).

So try taking an “open minded approach” when you are considering what you call “standard math”.
The notion of an accurate sum as a result if infinitely many added values, is an excellent example of a “closed minded approach”.

As I said opposites are linked in that they are, well, opposites.
In what way? What enables this Linkage?

Again an “atomic self-state” that you deliberately divide into two aspects (even opposites) is not “atomic” by your own “indivisible” meaning of “atomic”
You simply can’t understand Y (trunk/branches form), and force your branch-only notion on Y.

You seem rather preoccupied with ‘destruction’.
You are using ‘contradiction’ instead of ‘destruction’, but both have the same meaning in this case. You are a very poor shrink because you are not aware of your own use of concepts.

Again as you state above “linkage (communication)” so a “linkage”, even as binary opposites, is your “(communication)”.
The result of the linkage does not end at opposites-only linkage, as its done by your limited excluded middle black/white framework, that currently is the main tool of our developed (and therefore trivial) technologies.

As agian It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to.
Another example of your generalization problems. Excluded middle framework is not limited to Logics or Ethics.

It is your consideration of self-consistent and self-contradictory as both being valid that that gives your "OM" its, well, self-contradictory defining aspect.
The Man, your local-only reasoning is a exactly the reason of why OM is understood by you as self-contradictory.

That’s it, some meditation technique? That’s your “technology of the consciousness”?
One of the practical aspects that are researched by scientific methods. East and west are linked into a one comprehensive and useful framework, in order to develop the technology of the consciousness, where direct perception is a main property of this technology.

So you think. That these thoughts might have occurred to you during some meditative technique does not make them any more than just your thoughts.
The Man you are simply ignorant of direct perception.

Again your “fog” has no value, other than to just your own thoughts and fantasies.
You sum-only is a limited value.

You do not understand the meaning of “ethical skills”.
Your narrow view prevents from you to understand Ethics.

Well you do set a very low bar to try to crawl under. My suggestions still stand though.
The Man, you have no answer.

You still don’t understand the meaning and application of axioms,
You do not have the guts to re-search already agreed terms, like any dogmatic person.

doronshadmi

21st April 2010, 01:15 AM

You do understand that your particular ethics as “universal principles” would be your intended context, don’t you?
Do you understand that by your local-only view of anything is resulted by particular context-dependent frameworks?

Your “OM” and “EEM” certainly have not reduced your fears,
The fear is not because of OM and EMM, but exactly because of the lack of OM and EEM, as demonstrated by your fragmented context-dependent view of anything.

No, just because they are different.
Difference is only a particular aspect of Complexity , which is not less than Sameness/Difference Linkage.
Again you narrow view of the considered subjects is shown.

Nope, just self-consistency demands.
It is your narrow local-only and context-dependent view, which gets OM as self-contradictory.

In general, though, the consequences of something useful are often simply a result of its use.
It does not mean that the development behind some useful result, is a clear cut single path, which is limited by clear amount of time.

Devomplent (as currently understood) is an infinite Complexity that has finite usful resutls.

doronshadmi

21st April 2010, 01:21 AM

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.

Apathia

21st April 2010, 06:17 AM

OM includes local-only agents as one of the natural operations of Complexity, that is based on fragmented cybernetic kernel, which are closed under automatic repetition of closed loops that are not aware of themselves, as clearly demonstrated by the representation of cybernetic kernels in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5832234&postcount=9503 .

The current mathematical science is a deductive-only and local-only use of real Complexity, which is not less that Non-locality/Locality Linkage.

As a result Technology is understood mostly in terms of automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves, but this is only a narrow view the concept of Technology, which by real Complexity is not only closed under automatic and closed loops that repeat on themselves.

Arithmetic at its local-only view is a limited state of real Complexity.
For example, only sums are valid under this limited framework.

So bugs and smart appliances are the result of Non-Local/Local Linkage but operate mostly within the local only aspects of Complexity.
While we self-aware beings are of a complexity beyond any traditional, binary logic.

That's more what I thought I'd hear from you.

I still don't get the application of the cybernetic kernels.
I'm not well read in the field of Artificial Intelligence, but I do know that heuristic learning systems based on cybernetic loops have been created.
Some of which take on chess masters.
And all kinds of smart appliances based on "Fuzzy Logic" are in the market.
But none of these exhibit the kind of Non-Local Complexity of beings who carry around a self image they call "I" and can ponder what the heck that means.

Am I right that you are making some kind of one to one correspondence for each CK and a particular "parallel"-"serial" bridging?

I wonder if that really takes in the whole of human complex thinking, or just makes up a clever device that may be aware but not aware that it is aware.

Apathia

21st April 2010, 06:23 AM

Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.

I agree with you that we are a part of an integrated whole in which observation and participation aren't separable.

My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.

doronshadmi

21st April 2010, 07:18 AM

I agree with you that we are a part of an integrated whole in which observation and participation aren't separable.

My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.
By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them.

doronshadmi

21st April 2010, 07:32 AM

Am I right that you are making some kind of one to one correspondence for each CK and a particular "parallel"-"serial" bridging?

We are simply complex systems that are able to get the origins of their complexity from "first hand" (we are not agents, but direct self aware things of our realm in any given level, by using both parallel AND serial participation/observation on the same time).

One to one correspondence is a serial-only observation-only non self-awarness view of the re-searched.

Apathia

21st April 2010, 08:23 AM

We are simply complex systems that are able to get the origins of their complexity from "first hand" (we are not agents, but direct self aware things of our realm in any given level, by using both parallel AND serial participation/observation on the same time).

One to one correspondence is a serial-only observation-only non self-awarness view of the re-searched.

Nevermind, I don't know enough about cybernetic kernals and what they mean in AI and much less whatever you are making of them.
I thought there was some realtion to those pretty diagrams and the generation of Organic numbers.
But I guess as far as it goes is that they are both complex.

Apathia

21st April 2010, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Apthia's signature
"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown

Doron's reply:
Exactly because they are also participators and not just ovservers.

Apathia:

My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.

Doron's reply?
By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them.

:wackyrolleyes:

The Man

22nd April 2010, 08:08 AM

Do you understand that by your local-only view of anything is resulted by particular context-dependent frameworks?

Your loco-only labels do not remove the dependence upon context or your particular ethics as “universal principles” as your own stated context for such ethics.

The fear is not because of OM and EMM, but exactly because of the lack of OM and EEM, as demonstrated by your fragmented context-dependent view of anything.

Again your “OM” and “EEM” not only permit exactly what you fear (that “L value outcome”) but also make it both logically and ethically acceptable (perhaps even required) to enact such an outcome that you fear.

Difference is only a particular aspect of Complexity , which is not less than Sameness/Difference Linkage.
Again you narrow view of the considered subjects is shown.

Doron you simply claim everything is “only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than” some dichotomy “Linkage”. The “narrow view of the considered subjects is” entirely yours.

It is your narrow local-only and context-dependent view, which gets OM as self-contradictory.

Nope, just the fact that your “non-local” “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription contradicts itself. Your loco-only labels don’t change that fact.

It does not mean that the development behind some useful result, is a clear cut single path, which is limited by clear amount of time.

Since I did not say that, then yes, what I said does not mean that. Yet by your own assertions your “EEM” is a singular “framework” “a clear cut single path” if you will for combining your notion of ethics with your notion of logic.

Devomplent (as currently understood) is an infinite Complexity that has finite usful resutls.

‘Development’ “(as currently understood)” is just the result of changes. As your notions have not changed to any discernable degree (certainly how you try to describe them has) they have not developed and remain without ‘useful results’, finite or otherwise (except for feeding your fantasies).

Patiently awaiting the subsequent claim that ‘change is only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than Remain/Change Linkage‘.

doronshadmi

23rd April 2010, 05:38 AM

‘Development’ “(as currently understood)” is just the result of changes. As your notions have not changed to any discernable degree (certainly how you try to describe them has) they have not developed and remain without ‘useful results’, finite or otherwise (except for feeding your fantasies).

Again your “OM” and “EEM” not only permit exactly what you fear (that “L value outcome”) but also make it both logically and ethically acceptable (perhaps even required) to enact such an outcome that you fear.
This is another example of a person that insists to use a partial view of X in order to get general conclusions of X.

There is no chance to communicate with a person, which insists to use a cyclopean view of a considered subject.

Patiently awaiting the subsequent claim that ‘change is only a particular aspect of Complexity, which is not less than Remain/Change Linkage‘.
Save your time, your Remain-only view is exactly the best you get (your WYSIWYG).

doronshadmi

23rd April 2010, 06:17 AM

Let us return to the proof without words of S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg

Some direct perception notions:

1) S or X are sizes > 0.

2) X is a constant size > 0, which is not changed by any amount of bends along it (exactly because each bend is an 0 size).

3) S is the result of the added projected sizes of the bended forms of X upon the non-bended form of X.

4) The added end-points or the infinitely many points that are located along the infinitely many bended versions of X, contribute exactly 0 size to S value, so S value is the result of the infinitely many convergent sizes (where each size > 0) 2a+2b+2c+2d+… such that for any 0 size (that does not contribute anything to the result) there is a size > 0, that contributes to the result of S.

5) Since there are infinitely many convergent sizes > 0, then S < X exactly by 0.000…3/4, which is the invariant ratio among the infinitely many projected (and convergent) bended versions of X upon the non-bended version of X, where S is a fog (the result of infinitely many different sizes, where each size > 0) exactly as the infinitely added points along the infinitely many bended versions of X, are a sum (=0).

(Please pay attention that this direct perception is truth for any absolute value of X or S.)

6) (5) can't be understood by a cyclopean view local-only reasoning (see The Man's case).

doronshadmi

23rd April 2010, 06:25 AM

Nevermind, I don't know enough about cybernetic kernals and what they mean in AI and much less whatever you are making of them.

In that case you have no basis for

Not OM for sure.

doronshadmi

23rd April 2010, 06:33 AM

My signature though is a statement that most of the time we don't use our rational facilities to come to truth, but we use them to make reasons to support what we already believe, would like to believe, and feel we ought to believe.

It's a fault that none of us escapes, and why we need each other to call our
stuff into question.

By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them
Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.

The Man

23rd April 2010, 07:26 AM

Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.

In that case you have no basis for

By real Complexity the inflation of self aware complex systems is reduced if they are aware (by direct perception) of the linkage of the foundations that enable their complex realm within and without them.

..

The Man

23rd April 2010, 07:31 AM

Let us return to the proof without words of S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+…) < X:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg

Some direct perception notions:

1) S or X are sizes > 0.

2) X is a constant size > 0, which is not changed by any amount of bends along it.

3) S is the result of the added projected sizes of the bended forms of X upon the non-bended form of X.

4) The added end-points or the infinitely many points that are located along the infinitely many bended versions of X, contribute exactly 0 size to S value, so S value is the result of the infinitely many convergent sizes (where each size > 0) 2a+2b+2c+2d+… such that for any 0 size (that does not contribute anything to the result) there is a size > 0, that does contribute to the result of S.

5) Since there are infinitely many convergent sizes > 0, then S < X exactly by 0.000…3/4, which is the invariant ratio among the infinitely many projected (and convergent) bended versions of X upon the non-bended version of X, where S is a fog exactly as the infinitely add points along the infinitely many bended versions of X, are a sum (=0).

(Please pay attention that this direct perception is truth for any absolute value of X or S.)

6) (5) can't be understood by a cyclopean view local-only reasoning (see The Man's case).

Your “can't be known by thoughts” “direct perception” fails you again.

doronshadmi

23rd April 2010, 07:46 AM

Your “can't be known by thoughts” “direct perception” fails you again.
Your "thought about thoughts about direct perception" fails you again, because you can't distinguish between a thought as a manifestation of direct perception, and direct perception as the foundation of thoughts.

It is similar to your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form.

The Man

23rd April 2010, 08:05 AM

Your "thought about thoughts about direct perception" fails you again, because you can't distinguish between a thought as a manifestation of direct perception, and direct perception as the foundation of thoughts.

It is similar to your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form.

No Doron you simply enjoy claiming your own thoughts “as the foundation of thoughts” while also claiming your “foundation of thoughts” “can't be known by thoughts”. Which of course would include your own thoughts about your “direct perception” as the “foundation of thoughts”. So not only are you claiming that you can not know what you are talking about (when it comes to your “foundation of thoughts”) you are claiming that you can‘t even think about what you are thinking (when it comes to your “foundation of thoughts”) as that would make your “direct perception” “foundation of thoughts” known by your, well, thoughts.

doronshadmi

23rd April 2010, 09:11 AM

you are claiming that you can‘t even think about what you are thinking

Agian we see your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form, where a branch of Y is a thought and the trunk of Y is the foundation of any branch (any thought), which is not itself a branch (a thought).

You can't get that The Man like any one that his reasoning is at best "label is lablel", "thought is thought", etc ...

You simply can't get 0.000…3/4 > 0

Apathia

23rd April 2010, 09:37 AM

Direct perception is not a thought about thought (whether this thought is emotion, intuition, belief, reasoning, feeling, etc …) but it is the foundation of thoughts, that can't be known by thoughts.

Amen!
That's one of the things I agree with you about.

Perhaps it's just an language barrier. You aren't aquainted with the meaning of the word "rationalization" as an error in argument and rational discourse.
It's when an idividual makes up reasons for an idea that isn't supported by the emperical facts.

We humans do it a lot, and it takes vigilance and cooperation for us to see when we are deluding ourselves.

And yes, a return to Direct Perception.

The Man

23rd April 2010, 09:59 AM

Agian we see your inability to distinguish between trunk and branches of Y form, where a branch of Y is a thought and the trunk of Y is the foundation of any branch (any thought), which is not itself a branch (a thought).

You can't get that The Man like any one that his reasoning is at best "label is lablel", "thought is thought", etc …

You simply can't get 0.000…3/4 > 0

Again Just your own thoughts about what you like to claim and think of “as the foundation of thoughts”, which by you own assertion “can't be known by” even your own “Y” and “0.000…3/4 > 0” “thoughts”.

Apathia

23rd April 2010, 10:00 AM

In that case you have no basis for

I'm not read on the meaning of cybernetc kernals in AI research.
I'm not getting for sure just how you are using this for your ends.

But overall I do get what you want your Organic Mathmatics to mean and agree with your ethical intent.

But investing a language of quantites of objects with the transcendence of subjectivity just doesn't work.
it's oil and water.
And shaking it up and calling it an Oil/Water Linkage doesn't make it the Solution.

You do start with a certain perspective of a "direct perception," but then you race into a loose collection of linguistic abstractions as if they were concrete experience or intuitive to all.

Of course I should return to the "beginner's mind."
But honestly, Doron, when I do I don't find X/y Linkage or a an Ontological Locality/Non-Locality structure as a given dictim.
It is a linguistic device you have created.

Apathia

23rd April 2010, 06:29 PM

Given your last post, I wouldn't be surpried if you now told me, "If you can't see it, you have no business commenting on it."

Howard: Jonathan, Godzilla's outside. He says if you don't move your car, he's going to melt it with his atomic breath.

Jonathan: I don't see Godzilla outside, and I'm not going to move my car.

Howard: If you can't see Godzilla standing out there, you don't have any argument about the matter. Move your car!

Actually yes, there is an impasse to any discussion if I can't see what you do.
But that's a real thread killer, because no one else participating in this thread does either.

But I can see a hint of why you believe you see what you do, and that keeps me here working toward understanding you.
So I'll still be asking you questions.

However for now, I'll not interupt you inverted triangle.

doronshadmi

24th April 2010, 01:43 AM

But investing a language of quantites of objects with the transcendence of subjectivity just doesn't work.
it's oil and water.
It works. Trunk AND branches are a one organic form (Y) where the branches are the manifestation of the trunk and the trunk is the foundation of the branches.

Your Oil/Water notion simply do not get Y as an organic form.

It is a linguistic device you have created.
Again linguistic device is not only the level of manifestation of that device, but also the foundation that enables its manifestation.

OM is trunk AND branches organic Yform device, where silence is inseparable of that device, and is the common base ground of any labeled manifestation.

doronshadmi

24th April 2010, 01:47 AM

Again Just your own thoughts about what you like to claim and think of “as the foundation of thoughts”, which by you own assertion “can't be known by” even your own “Y” and “0.000…3/4 > 0” “thoughts”.

"bla bla bla ..." is "bla bla bla ..." by "bla bla bla ..."

Indeed "profound reasoning" you have The Man.

Skeptic

24th April 2010, 01:48 AM

doronshadmi

24th April 2010, 02:01 AM

Actually, Doron, your math is totally wrong. Here's my proof:

X^2--4rr*Z^i -- g5 > fog(0.0000000000000000000000 .... 3/4).

I will only allow people who see it to comment and say what a genius I am. Finally a man had arisen in mathematics who is even a greater genius than Doron -- me! It's a new Copernican revolution, as big as the one Doron himself did to previous mathematics, much like Einstein replace Newton after Newton replaced Aristotle in physics.

Everybody else, who thinks it's gibberish, well, they're just jealous I am a greater math genius than them, or else just don't understand it, and therefore have no business commenting on it.
Again, Skeptic is motivated by personal motivations instead of subject's re-search motivation.

By moving beyond your personal approach http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 clearly demonstrates that the bended forms of constant X (which stand at the basis of the projected S = (2a+2b+2c+2d+..) upon the non-bended constant X) are irreducible to a collection of 0 sizes, and as a result there is an invariant unclosed gap between S and X, which its value is 0.000…3/4 >0, where 3/4 is the invariant among the bended forms of constant X that are projected upon the non-bended forms of constant X.

Classical analysis can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg

The Man

24th April 2010, 09:09 AM

"bla bla bla ..." is "bla bla bla ..." by "bla bla bla ..."

Indeed "profound reasoning" you have The Man.

Your thinking on the “foundation of thoughts”, which you claim “can't be known by thoughts”, even your own, is your own “reasoning” Doron.

doronshadmi

24th April 2010, 12:28 PM

Your thinking on the “foundation of thoughts”, which you claim “can't be known by thoughts”, even your own, is your own “reasoning” Doron.
The trunk can't be known from the level of a branch.

A brunch is known from the level of the trunk.

Complexity

24th April 2010, 12:48 PM

The trunk can't be known from the level of a branch.

A brunch is known from the level of the trunk.

You're making far more sense than usual today.

doronshadmi

24th April 2010, 01:05 PM

You're making far more sense than usual today.
I am glade to know that this is your impression.

The Man

24th April 2010, 02:12 PM

The trunk can't be known from the level of a branch.

Quite the contrary, a branch is an offshoot of a main stem. Thus knowledge of the main stem is required in order to “know” a branch to in fact be a branch. If for some reason the trunk is obscured from your view at the “level of” some “branch” then the view of that branch is likewise obscured from the “the level of the trunk”.

A brunch is known from the level of the trunk.

“from the level of the trunk” there need not be any branching. It is only with (at the “level” of) branching that branching can be “known”. Whether it be branching from a trunk or from some other branch.

Not that it matters much, as again this is just you claiming that what you are talking about when it comes to your thoughts concerning “foundation of thoughts” simply "can't be know" by you or your thoughts

You seem to be insisting upon some kind of one way occlusion, that “from the level of a branch” the view of the trunk is occluded. Yet from the “from the level of the trunk” the view of the branch is not. It works both ways Doron if you can see or “know” a branch from the “level of the trunk” then you can see and “know” the trunk from “from the level of a branch”.

Oh and by the way knowing requires thought, even as much as you seem to try to avoid, as much as possible, thought in what you simply like to claim you think you know (even that which you claim “can't be known by thoughts”).

The Man

24th April 2010, 02:16 PM

It works.

No it doesn’t, that’s why you end up in some “fog” with an infinite convergent series.

Trunk AND branches are a one organic form (Y) where the branches are the manifestation of the trunk and the trunk is the foundation of the branches.

Your Oil/Water notion simply do not get Y as an organic form.

A big steaming pile of crap is also an “organic form” as well, where the crap on the bottom is used to support the crap on the top and the stench that derives from each part of the pile is only exceeded by the stench of the pile as a whole. A far more descriptive (and literally accurate) “organic form” for your “OM” and ‘EEM”.

Again linguistic device is not only the level of manifestation of that device, but also the foundation that enables its manifestation.

OM is trunk AND branches organic Yform device, where silence is inseparable of that device,

“silence is inseparable”? We should be so lucky, unfortunately though it is only the stench that is inseparable from your particular “organic form”.

and is the common base ground of any labeled manifestation.

As you seem to think, but be careful not to step in that particular “organic form”.

Skeptic

24th April 2010, 08:12 PM

The man -- you do realize what you're trying to do makes emptying the sea with a teaspoon seem like a positively reasonable idea, don't you?

doronshadmi

25th April 2010, 12:16 AM

It works both ways Doron if you can see or “know” a branch from the “level of the trunk” then you can see and “know” the trunk from “from the level of a branch”.
You can’t see a brunch from the level of The trunk if you are not at the level of The trunk, simply because The trunk is the foundation of a branch, and not vice versa.

By your flat reasoning you do not get the hierarchy of dependency of a branch upon The trunk.

The trunk does not depend on any branch.

Any branch depends on The trunk, but your flat brach-only (thought-only) reasoning can’t get it.

Since your flat reasoning is stacked at the level of branches (thoughts) then also The trunk is no more than another branch (thought) by your flat reasoning, and you miss The trunk as the foundation of any branch (thought).

Y works both ways only if the actuality of both levels is not hidden by each other, but by your branch-only (thought-only) flat view, the actuality of The trunk is a fantasy, so you can't sell your "both ways" argument if one the "players" is a fantasy by your flat notion.

You don't get that Silence is the foundation of any sound, and the full value of a given sound is known only from the level of Silence.

On the contrary Silence can’t be known from the level of some particular sound, because sound is a one of many thing (a particular thing), where Silence is not a one of many thing (it is the common base ground of every possible and particular sound, including any possible linkage among sounds).

The Man

25th April 2010, 06:19 AM

The man -- you do realize what you're trying to do makes emptying the sea with a teaspoon seem like a positively reasonable idea, don't you?

Oh absolutely and certainly more reasonable than trying to empty the sea with a fork (as Doron is attempting).

The Man

25th April 2010, 06:26 AM

You can’t see a brunch from the level of The trunk if you are not at the level of The trunk, simply because The trunk is the foundation of a branch, and not vice versa.

Again if you can “see a brunch from the level of The trunk” then you can see “The trunk” from the “level” of that branch.

By your flat reasoning you do not get the hierarchy of dependency of a branch upon The trunk.

Actually I specifically pointed out that “hierarchy of dependency”.

Quite the contrary, a branch is an offshoot of a main stem. Thus knowledge of the main stem is required in order to “know” a branch to in fact be a branch.

The trunk does not depend on any branch.

Which is why as I said…

“from the level of the trunk” there need not be any branching. It is only with (at the “level” of) branching that branching can be “known”. Whether it be branching from a trunk or from some other branch.

A trunk does not infer or require branching thus branching can only be know at the “level” of, well, a branch. A branch however requires some main stem to be an offshoot of, so does infer and require a main stem or ‘trunk’ (of some form).

You are the only one that does “not get hierarchy of dependency”.

Any branch depends on The trunk, but your flat brach-only (thought-only) reasoning can’t get it.

You really don’t understand what “hierarchy” or ‘dependence’ means, do you? I’ve tried to make it as simple for you as I can above, but I doubt you will understand it since you simply want to assume and imagine your own thoughts are some trunk and the “foundation of thoughts”

Since your flat reasoning is stacked at the level of branches (thoughts) then also The trunk is no more than another branch (thought) by your flat reasoning, and you miss The trunk as the foundation of any branch (thought).

Doron your thoughts about “foundation of any branch” are still just your thoughts. That you simply want to claim them as some “direct perception” or the foundation of anything is also just your thoughts and fantasies.

Y works both ways only if the actuality of both levels is not hidden by each other,

As I said...

It works both ways Doron if you can see or “know” a branch from the “level of the trunk” then you can see and “know” the trunk from “from the level of a branch”.

but by your branch-only (thought-only) flat view, the actuality of The trunk is a fantasy,

Have you forgotten about “hierarchy” and ‘dependence’ already Doron? A branch requires some main stem or ‘trunk’, while a trunk does not require or infer any branching.

so you can't sell your "both ways" argument if one the "players" is a fantasy by your flat notion.

“can’t sell” it? You just agreed with it, remember…

Y works both ways only if the actuality of both levels is not hidden by each other,

You don't get that Silence is the foundation of any sound, and the full value of a given sound is known only from the level of Silence.

Silence is not the foundation of any sound, silence is specifically the lack of any sound. The foundation of any sound is a transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration (the source of the sound). Lacking one or both of them all you can have is silence; with both you do not have silence

On the contrary Silence can’t be known from the level of some particular sound, because sound is a one of many thing (a particular thing), where Silence is not a one of many thing (it is the common base ground of every possible and particular sound, including any possible linkage among sounds).

Silence can absolutely be known “from the level of some particular sound” and in fact can only be known by knowing what constitutes and is required for sound. Sound however can never be known from silence as one or both of the specific elements that are required for sound are lacking in silence. So you’re just going to completely ignore that “hierarchy of dependency” you mentioned before?

doronshadmi

25th April 2010, 07:34 AM

You are the only one that does “not get hierarchy of dependency”.

Again, since trunk and branch are thoughts by your flat view, you do not get that The trunk as the foundation of any thought, which is not itself a thought.

As long as The trunk is some thought for you, you have nothing to sell, which is related to hierarchy.

Silence is not the foundation of any sound, silence is specifically the lack of any sound. The foundation of any sound is a transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration (the source of the sound). Lacking one or both of them all you can have is silence; with both you do not have silence
Your flat view is shown also here.

Silence is the base ground (the foundation) of any sound, which is not itself a sound.

“A transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration” are not the source of sound, but they are already a sound, which is derived from Silence.

The Man, you have no hierarchy in both cases, because in both cases you get things only by one level, as follows:

By your limited view, you get trunk and branch in terms of thoughts, and you get silence and sound in terms of sound.

You are living in a fantasy The Man since by your one-level reasoning there is no hierarchy.

The Man

25th April 2010, 08:25 AM

Again, since trunk and branch are thoughts by your flat view, you do not get that The trunk as the foundation of any thought, which is not itself a thought.

As long as The trunk is some thought for you, you have nothing to sell, which is related to hierarchy.

Once again Doron you miss the point, your “trunk” or “foundation of any thought” is just some thought of yours that you simply want to claim “is not itself a thought”.

Your flat view is shown also here.

Silence is the base ground (the foundation) of any sound, which is not itself a sound.

“A transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration” are not the source of sound, but they are already a sound, which is derived from Silence.

The actual quote…

Silence is not the foundation of any sound, silence is specifically the lack of any sound. The foundation of any sound is a transmitting media (like a gas, liquid or solid) and a vibration (the source of the sound). Lacking one or both of them all you can have is silence; with both you do not have silence.

Again silence is specifically the absence of sound. Sound is “derived” from a source (a vibration) and a transmitting media as sound is specifically a longitudinal pressure wave that is specifically not silence. In case you have not caught on yet, sound and silence are mutually exclusive.

The Man, you have no hierarchy in both cases, because in both cases you get things only by one level, as follows:

Doron you have absolutely no understanding of what you want to talk about and simply want to claim that some thought of yours “is not itself a thought.” and “the foundation of any thought”.

By your limited view, you get trunk and branch in terms of thoughts, and you get silence and sound in terms of sound.

You are living in a fantasy The Man since by your one-level reasoning there is no hierarchy.

You’re still not understanding the differences Doron. A branch and trunk are not mutually exclusive nor are they mutually dependent, even though a branch is dependent on some main stem or “trunk”. Silence and sound are mutually exclusive; one depends specifically on the absence of the other. Whatever your thoughts are about “trunks” “branches”, “sound” and/or “silence”, “thoughts” and/or “the foundation of any thought” they are still just your thoughts. Claiming they are not themselves thoughts or trying to attribute them as some “direct perception” and/or “the foundation of any thought” simply confirms your lack of understanding or lack of acceptance of yourself as the source of your own thoughts. Also it clearly shows how naive and demonstrably false your notions are.

doronshadmi

25th April 2010, 09:23 AM

Once again Doron you miss the point, your “trunk” or “foundation of any thought” is just some thought of yours that you simply want to claim “is not itself a thought”.
Once again The Man your lack of self-awareness as the source of your mantel activity is your personal problem.

You take your personal problem and force it on other persons, simply because your awareness is stacked at the level of thoughts.

The rest of your reply and your reasoning ability is based on your lack of self-awareness as the source of your mantel activity (experienced by you as thoughts).

You can get the Truck/branches or Silence/sounds only by direct perception of self-awareness of your mental activity, and it can be done by practicing mental trainings like Transcendental Meditation, which is a tool that enables you to follow after your mental activity back to its silent origin, and then to be aware of how your mental activity is born from this fundamental level of unbounded awareness.

As long as you have no direct perception of that unbounded awareness, and how it is the silent origin of any level of your mantel activity, all you get is at the level of your already active thoughts.

By practicing TM, for example, only the levels of your mental activity are followed, where the content or the meaning of that activity is at the background, during the practice.

Because of this fine mental training, your ability to be aware of finer levels of your mantel activity is developed, and the content or meaning of your mental activity is developed as well, and enables to get things from more profound levels of your mental activity.

For the past 30 years a lot of scientific researches where done about several mantel training techniques, and more and more scientific evidences (that are based on controlled and carful scientific methods) clearly show that balanced mental training techniques are resulted by better brain functioning, and better physical and mental health that is derived from better brain functioning.

In other words The Man, your ignorance (both by practice and by knowledge) is a direct result of your choice to ignore anything about this scientific research area.

Doron you have absolutely no understanding
The Man you are ignorant by practice and by knowledge of the real value of "under-standing".

In case you have not caught on yet, sound and silence are mutually exclusive.
A typical reply of a complex system that uses only indirect perception.

There is an OR concretive between sound and silence. You get it by direct perception where both unbounded or bounded awareness are simultaneously perceived by direct perception, yet the unbounded is the foundation (the "under-") of the bounded (the "stending").

Your indirect perception can't deal with the OR connective between Non-locality and Locality, can't deal with
Non-locality as "belongs NXOR does not belong", etc … (WYSIWYG).

The Man

25th April 2010, 11:32 AM

Once again The Man your lack of self-awareness as the source of your mantel activity is your personal problem.

You take your personal problem and force it on other persons, simply because your awareness is stacked at the level of thoughts.

No Doron, once again that is simply you..

The rest of your reply and your reasoning ability is based on your lack of self-awareness as the source of your mantel activity (experienced by you as thoughts).

You can get the Truck/branches or Silence/sounds only by direct perception of self-awareness of your mental activity, and it can be done by practicing mental trainings like Transcendental Meditation, which is a tool that enables you to follow after your mental activity back to its silent origin, and then to be aware of how your mental activity is born from this fundamental level of unbounded awareness.

Again, so you think. This is simply your tanscendental meditative nonsense, that shows, since your were still aware of your thoughts, that you weren’t even doing that right. Instead you just take a shortcut and try to pawn off what you were thinking in your meditative attempt as simply not your own thoughts.

As long as you have no direct perception of that unbounded awareness, and how it is the silent origin of any level of your mantel activity, all you get is at the level of your already active thoughts.

You continue to just try to pawn off your own thoughts as anything but your own thoughts including as some “unbounded awareness”.

By practicing TM, for example, only the levels of your mental activity are followed, where the content or the meaning of that activity is at the background, during the practice.

Because of this fine mental training, your ability to be aware of finer levels of your mantel activity is developed, and the content or meaning of your mental activity is developed as well, and enables to get things from more profound levels of your mental activity.

No, Doron it apparently just gets you to profess the trivial as profound. What exactly is it that you have actually done again with such “fine mental training”? Other than just fantasizing about saving our civilization from your own “L value outcome” fears that you’re own notions find to be both logical, ethical and perhaps even necessary to enact that outcome.

For the past 30 years a lot of scientific researches where done about several mantel training techniques, and more and more scientific evidences (that are based on controlled and carful scientific methods) clearly show that balanced mental training techniques are resulted by better brain functioning, and better physical and mental health that is derived from better brain functioning.

Please sight such research papers and we can discuss them. You do realize that actual problem solving (not just fantasizing) is a ‘mental training technique’, don’t you (one with some actual practical uses)?

In other words The Man, your ignorance (both by practice and by knowledge) is a direct result of your choice to ignore anything about this scientific research area.

The Man you are ignorant by practice and by knowledge of the real value of "under-standing".

I have done more “by practice and by knowledge” than any of your transedental meditative fantasies.

A typical reply of a complex system that uses only indirect perception.

There is an OR concretive between sound and silence. You get it by direct perception where both unbounded or bounded awareness are simultaneously perceived by direct perception.

Your indirect perception can't deal with the OR connective between Non-locality and Locality,

So you just don’t understand what mutually exclusive means? For your edification it means (logically) ‘Silence XOR Sound’. What you 'got' "by direct perception” has failed you once again just as your “awareness” remains entirely “bounded” by your own, apparently deliberate, ignorance.

can't deal with Non-locality as belongs NXOR does not belong, etc …

Doron your claim was “belongs AND does not belong”. NXOR is not the same as AND. FALSE AND FALSE is FALSE. While FALSE NXOR FLASE is TRUE. Are you now changing your “Non-locality” ascription claim?

Apathia

25th April 2010, 08:54 PM

Doron,

I see an opportunity to continue in the context of meditation culture and cultivating the "Enlightened Mind."

Some years ago a Japanese Shingon priest who heads a temple in Sacramento, California explained to me (in part to impress upon me that it was unnecessary for a non-Japanese person to become involved in Japanese Buddhism) that there were two ways of approach to breaking through the deluded mind to the Enlightened Mind.

1.) Via Negitivia. This is the my self is not this or that approach.
I am not this body. I am not these fleeting thoughts. I am not this ego identity. I am not any thing. I am no thing. I have no inherent reality.
I am not even nothing!
When this track of meditation comes to its fruition, Wisdom emerges from emptiness.

2.) Via Positivia. This is the approach of my self is also this or that. What I really am is more than this body, these fleeting thoughts and feelings, this separate ego, and so on till I am one with everything, because I have no inherent identity of my own.
The fruition of this meditation is that Compassion emerges from the awareness of solidarity with all and from the emptiness of a metaphysically separable self.

The point I must make right away is that both of these are approaches or perspectives, not ontological states we are supposed to achieve.

And when both approaches break through to "Enlightenment," they find each other as complementary truths.
This is possible for the root of both isn't some single metaphysical substance, or ontological principle, but the absence of a metaphysical self.
Because there is no real self behind the appearance of self, self can be experienced as everything, nothing, and some intermediary states of consciousness.

Self is Nothing. This is self as the blue sky upon which the clouds come and go, while it has no features of its own. Or the mirror having nothing of itself within, just the reflections of everything else.

Self is Everything. This is self as the panoply of changing appearances, some that persist for years, others that pass away immediately. It's the weather in the sky and the images in the mirror.

Our base sense of being selves and transcending those selves include the action of both these perspectives.
I am that and I am not that; and I am both that and not that; and I am neither that nor am that, is the dance of our self-awareness.

Again it is a matter of perspectives, not of ontological principles.
A fixed metaphysical self would make the dance of Awareness impossible or have one stepping on hir own feet.

Both these perspectives contributing to Awareness enables us to speak and think in terms of individual egos.
I can be aware of you as a separate person and also aware that we are integral to each other without Awareness being a contradiction.

Here in the USA the National Census is in progress. We do this once every ten years as required by the Constitution.
One of the census questions regards race.
People are counted as members of racial groups, such as Asian, African American, Hispanic, or White.
This is where we use numbers, counting people as objects of certain classes.
There's nothing wrong in doing this.
I'm a Caucasian myself. (There was no category of Irish-American to check.)
The wrong of course is when we discriminate or mistreat people because of their racial categories.
The wrong is when we forget that a person is more than a number or a particular of a racial category.

But Awareness means that when we focus on individualities we see not just countable objects but persons who are more than, or transcend, categories such as race.
You are more than a particular object, more than "a Jew."
This is because of your nothingness and everythingness. And your emptiness of a fixed metaphysical identity.

Of course you are going to immediately fit this into the X/Y Complements Frame.
And I'm expecting you to do that.
What I'm suggesting here is that this is not a matter of ontological "atoms" or fundamental principles of being.
It's a matter of perspective and relation.
I also again suggest the obvious: that these perspectives are not without each other.
You say they are branches of the same trunk.
I simply assert that that trunk is No-Self.

doronshadmi

25th April 2010, 10:39 PM

Apathia your last post is a “state of the art” reply.
You say they are branches of the same trunk.
I simply assert that that trunk is No-Self.
No-self (The trunk) is the state that enables any particular manifestation (some id) to fully be expressed and be developed in the presence of other ids, such that the difference between the ids does not lead to any tendency to eliminate the diversity of present ids.

That has no id is the transparent base ground, that enables the optimal terms for different ids to be developed as different ids, without suppressing each others ids, exactly because the no-self is the common base ground of any id.

doronshadmi

25th April 2010, 11:17 PM

Again, so you think. This is simply your tanscendental meditative nonsense, that shows, since your were still aware of your thoughts, that you weren’t even doing that right. Instead you just take a shortcut and try to pawn off what you were thinking in your meditative attempt as simply not your own thoughts.
The Man is an example of a complex system, that is aware only about the personal and fragmented mantel activity of his mind, and forces this fragmented awareness on others, by claiming that there is no common (and non-personal) base ground for any mental activity.

Since this is the case with The Man, he has no choice but to use indirect methods that are characterized by agreements that are done at the level of thoughts, with other persons that are also get things only at the level of thoughts.

As a result we get a community of persons, which are characterized by the lack of any non-personal base ground as the realm of their communications abilities.

Indirect communication that is done only at the level of thoughts, actually misses the infinitely many finer levels of the thought activity, by forcing on it categorical deductive context dependent frameworks that have no real common base ground (“branches” without “trunk”).

There cannot be real communication between a person that is locked under his thoughts’ activity and uses indirect communication methods, and a person that is not locked under his thoughts’ activity as uses direct communication methods, that can’t be valued by a person that is locked under his thoughts’ activity.

Communities that are based on indirect communication are going to be developed into communities that are based on direct communication.

Some of the nonsense of today is the reasoning of tomorrow, and specially the current “nonsense” that is derived from direct perception.

You do realize that actual problem solving
Do you realize that what is considered as a problem is changed if your mantel skills are changed?

Do you realize that the most important problem of our spices is the imbalanced skills between Ethics and Logic\Technology?

Apathia

25th April 2010, 11:33 PM

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 12:14 AM

Please sight such research papers and we can discuss them.

Some very few examples:

The TM program:

http://www.tm.org/research-on-meditation

Meditation: An Introduction

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/meditation/overview.htm

Brain Waves and Meditation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100319210631.htm

Meditation and Brain Health

http://www.brain-fx.com/2005/11/meditation_and_.html

Meditation can alter brain structure and reduce stress:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3554215.ece

Brain Scans Reveal Why Meditation Works:

http://www.livescience.com/health/070629_naming_emotions.html

How meditation boosts brain health:

http://www.canadianliving.com/health/prevention/how_meditation_boosts_brain_health.php

The Benefits of Meditation:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation

Meditation and Brain Function: A Review

http://www.eubios.info/EJ141/ej141j.htm

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 02:25 AM

JOHN HAGELIN PhD on Consciousness, TM, and the Unified Field:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=114034976&blogID=404148564&Mytoken=299CF172-E75A-442D-92CD244EFAF69AB945439677&__preferredculture=en-US&__ipculture=en-US

http://www.mum.edu/pdf_msvs/v01/hagelin.pdf

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 05:58 AM

Doron your claim was “belongs AND does not belong”. NXOR is not the same as AND. FALSE AND FALSE is FALSE. While FALSE NXOR FLASE is TRUE. Are you now changing your “Non-locality” ascription claim?
1) “belongs AND does not belong” is true if it is related to non-local element.

2) “belongs NXOR does not belong” is a generalization of Non-locality, whether we deal with emptiness or fullness (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 29-30).

3) Your thoughts-only indirect reasoning can't get that.

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 08:50 AM

Excellent!
I can move from my post to a more artful expression of some of my previous questions and concerns.

You are invited to see the practical benefits of the no-self as the common base ground for ids, as explained, for example, here:

http://www.tm.org/tm-news-archives

(Please press on the top-right blue area, named by "TM presentation")

Apathia

26th April 2010, 09:00 AM

You are invited to see the practical benefits of the no-self as the common base ground for ids, as explained, for example, here:

http://www.tm.org/tm-news-archives

(Please press on the top-right blue area, named by "TM presentation")

I'm not into that particular school of meditation, and find some of its claims bogus (the Levitation thing they used to push, for example).
But I do frequently employ mantra recitation in my meditation sessions.
The mantra being just the single syllable, "Ah."
Usually after a time of doing that, I then just sit paying attention.

Apathia

26th April 2010, 09:07 AM

Apathia your last post is a “state of the art” reply.

No-self (The trunk) is the state that enables any particular manifestation (some id) to fully be expressed and be developed in the presence of other ids, such that the difference between the ids does not lead to any tendency to eliminate the diversity of present ids.

That has no id is the transparent base ground, that enables the optimal terms for different ids to be developed as different ids, without suppressing each others ids, exactly because the no-self is the common base ground of any id.

Every significant item of communication always needs some qualification.
Especially when we use analogies, metaphors, and figures of speech.

"Trunk and Branches" is away of picturing the idea.
When I say "No-Self" is the Trunk, I'm not saying No-Self is some kind of stuff or thought-stuff thoughts are made of.
It's just an open space of potentiality and possibility. (and "space" is also just a metaphor.)

The same with calling "No-Self" the "ground."
It's not some solid things are standing on.

"The Trunk" is the potential for perspective or relating.
To use another analogy, it's the theater.

The two "Branches" are
The Stage and The Players who appear and dissappear from the stage.

The Theater is the potential of change and transcendence, prior to the non-locality of the stage and the changing locality of the players.

The Trunk is Groundless.
Allowing for a branch that pays attention to a non-local ground
And allowing a branch that pays attention to objects making locations.

The Theater is empty, groundless, space beyond the concept of location.
It has no place or identity. It is nothing to be separated from something else.
(Even though this analogy must make a distinction).
Then there are the Stage and the Players (Including props)

The Stage is the perspective or focusing upon a field of empty space where the players are and then aren't. If the Theater is pure Non-Locality, the stage is a kind of local non-locality for the players, since it stages their changing localities.

The Players is the focus upon the changing objects on the stage and the changing localities they occupy.
Another way of looking at this is to think of their localities as their occupations or roles. Their identities are determined local to their "place" in the play.
But non-local to that, with respect to the Theater, they aren't those roles and occupations. They just play them.

This is a mess. Thanks to the need to use similes and symbols unambiguous clarity is practically impossible (and actually welcome in poetry)
But I hope you get the drift of how I'm structuring this

The Trunk is no-thought.
The branches are perspectives of thought.

There's a finer distinction to be made regarding the players on the stage.
We can see them as objects of the play with and defined by their locations in stage or script.

Or we can focus upon them as persons who in the right of their own person-hood define their spaces.
With a shift of our attention we find them not defined by their local spaces but creating their local spaces.
This is their non-locality.
It's possible because The Trunk has no identities to fix them with.
The Trunk is simply pure possibility.

The Man

26th April 2010, 02:11 PM

The Man is an example of a complex system, that is aware only about the personal and fragmented mantel activity of his mind, and forces this fragmented awareness on others, by claiming that there is no common (and non-personal) base ground for any mental activity.

Where ever did I make that claim Doron? You want a “common (and non-personal) base ground for any mental activity”? Try looking up and studying Neurochemistry, Neurobiology and just Neuroscience in general.

Again Doron it is just your “that is aware only about the personal and fragmented mantel activity of his mind, and forces this fragmented awareness on others,” as exemplified time and time again by you attributing your own assertions to others, as you just did above.

Since this is the case with The Man, he has no choice but to use indirect methods that are characterized by agreements that are done at the level of thoughts, with other persons that are also get things only at the level of thoughts.

As shown above your “direct perception” fails you again.

As a result we get a community of persons, which are characterized by the lack of any non-personal base ground as the realm of their communications abilities.

No Doron again that would just be you making up your own personal meanings and uses for words and phrase that often directly contradict the common usage.

Indirect communication that is done only at the level of thoughts, actually misses the infinitely many finer levels of the thought activity, by forcing on it categorical deductive context dependent frameworks that have no real common base ground (“branches” without “trunk”).

Then I suggest you start communicating directly by using a “real common base ground” like common usage of words and phrases.

There cannot be real communication between a person that is locked under his thoughts’ activity and uses indirect communication methods, and a person that is not locked under his thoughts’ activity as uses direct communication methods, that can’t be valued by a person that is locked under his thoughts’ activity.

Communities that are based on indirect communication are going to be developed into communities that are based on direct communication.

Some of the nonsense of today is the reasoning of tomorrow, and specially the current “nonsense” that is derived from direct perception.

Doron that ““nonsense” that is derived from direct perception” is your professed “reasoning” of today and for what some 20 years. Still it has gotten you nowhere, stop being “locked under” you own “thoughts’” of this “““nonsense” that is derived from direct perception””, simply fantasizing and start actually learning.

Do you realize that what is considered as a problem is changed if your mantel skills are changed?

Are you simply or deliberately confusing "problem" with "difficult"?

Do you realize that the most important problem of our spices is the imbalanced skills between Ethics and Logic\Technology?

That imbalance is again entirely yours.

Some very few examples:

The TM program:

http://www.tm.org/research-on-meditation

Meditation: An Introduction

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/meditation/overview.htm

Brain Waves and Meditation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100319210631.htm

Meditation and Brain Health

http://www.brain-fx.com/2005/11/meditation_and_.html

Meditation can alter brain structure and reduce stress:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3554215.ece

Brain Scans Reveal Why Meditation Works:

http://www.livescience.com/health/070629_naming_emotions.html

How meditation boosts brain health:

http://www.canadianliving.com/health/prevention/how_meditation_boosts_brain_health.php

The Benefits of Meditation:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation

Meditation and Brain Function: A Review

http://www.eubios.info/EJ141/ej141j.htm

To repeat the question

Please sight such research papers and we can discuss them.

Not links to websites, news articles or anything else. Just actual research papers supporting your claims about…

scientific evidences (that are based on controlled and carful scientific methods) clearly show that balanced mental training techniques are resulted by better brain functioning

The critical elements would be “controlled and carful scientific methods”. I was actually curious if you were referring to any specific research particularly those showing TM as more effective than other metal training techniques, but apparently not.

Doron the benefits of mental training still do not show your meditations are providing you some “unbounded awareness” or that it “enables” you “to get things from more profound levels of your mental activity”. In fact your very assertions on this thread have show that is simply not that case (at least for you), although you have trained yourself to think it is.

1) “belongs AND does not belong” is true if it is related to non-local element.

2) “belongs NXOR does not belong” is a generalization of Non-locality, whether we deal with emptiness or fullness (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT pages 29-30).

3) Your thoughts-only indirect reasoning can't get that.

Again

Doron your claim was “belongs AND does not belong”. NXOR is not the same as AND. FALSE AND FALSE is FALSE. While FALSE NXOR FLASE is TRUE. Are you now changing your “Non-locality” ascription claim?

Your #“2)” “generalization of Non-locality” conflicts directly with your #”1)” “related to non-local element” specifically in the truth value configuration I mentioned before.

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 02:15 PM

I'm not into that particular school of meditation, and find some of its claims bogus (the Levitation thing they used to push, for example).
But I do frequently employ mantra recitation in my meditation sessions.
The mantra being just the single syllable, "Ah."
Usually after a time of doing that, I then just sit paying attention.
I learned the TM-Sidhi program, and no one is flaying by practicing this mantel technique. However from my own experience during the practice of the flying sutra it is as if you are plagued to an internal source of energy, which cause your body to jump spontaneously by using less afford then usual (where "usual" means jumping not during the practice).

During the practice of the flying sutra I was very calm, aware of myself, and did not do anything in order to push myself to jump.

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 02:32 PM

The critical elements would be “controlled and carful scientific methods”. I was actually curious if you were referring to any specific research particularly those showing TM as more effective than other metal training techniques, but apparently not.

Doron the benefits of mental training still do not show your meditations are providing you some “unbounded awareness” or that it “enables” you “to get things from more profound levels of your mental activity”. In fact your very assertions on this thread have show that is simply not that case (at least for you), although you have trained yourself to think it is.

You simply a ignore any evidence that does not fit to your little box.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5867437&postcount=9660 researches are all made by charlatans, all the researchers there are idiots, and why? because the results of their researchers do not fit to The Man's box.

Furthermore, you did not practice any of those mental techniques, so all you have is an indirect approach that does not contribute very much to your understanding abilities of this subject.

There is nothing to add in your case.

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 02:43 PM

Your #“2)” “generalization of Non-locality” conflicts directly with your #”1)” “related to non-local element” specifically in the truth value configuration I mentioned before.
Nonsense.

You decided to exchange Membership with False and then you used AND or NXOR in order to support your exchange.

There is nothing to add about your nonesense forcing methods.

The Man

26th April 2010, 03:06 PM

You simply a ignore any evidence that does not fit to your little box.

What box would that be Doron, the one you try to stuff everyone else into?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5867437&postcount=9660 researches are all made by charlatans, all the researchers there are idiots, and why? because the results of their researchers do not fit to The Man's box.

There is nothing to add in your case.

Again if you are referring to any specific research, again the critical elements would be “controlled and carful scientific methods”, then cite a specific paper. Not some website, news articles, speculative dissertation or whatever.

The Man

26th April 2010, 03:17 PM

Nonsense.

You decided to exchange Membership with False and then you used AND or NXOR in order to support your exchange.

There is nothing to add about your nonesense forcing methods.

"exchange Membership with False", whatever are you talking about? The difference between a truth table for AND from that for NXOR is exactly as I explained. Again study some logic.

Not that it matters much anyway Doron because your “belongs AND does not belong” is always FALSE just as “belong NXOR does not belong” is always FALSE simply because “not belong” is dependent on “belongs” by negation.

Apathia

26th April 2010, 03:22 PM

I learned the TM-Sidhi program, and no one is flaying by practicing this mantel technique. However from my own experience during the practice of the flying sutra it is as if you are plagued to an internal source of energy, which cause your body to jump spontaneously by using less afford then usual (where "usual" means jumping not during the practice).

During the practice of the flying sutra I was very calm, aware of myself, and did not do anything in order to push myself to jump.

I've seen pictures of TM mediators doing that and ---
no thanks!

I have on occasion felt very light in meditation, as if floating.
But I was still solidly sitting on my zafu (Zen meditation cushion).
I realized it was a sensation and that I wasn't just bout to best gravity.

TM doesn't have a monopoly on mediation practices that have been used for thousands of years in many different religious traditions. So it's not really about TMtm.

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 09:57 PM

I've seen pictures of TM mediators doing that and ---
no thanks!
These pictures are not important of their own, simply because no one is flying during this practice.
http://www.maharishitm.org/images/flying.jpg
The important thing at this stage is the EEG picture that has been found during the practice:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/4556436429_e56a14866c_b.jpg

TM doesn't have a monopoly on mediation practices that have been used for thousands of years in many different religious traditions. So it's not really about TMtm.
I agree with you. It simply the most researchable one.

Has you have noticed http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5867437&postcount=9660 is not exclusively dedicated to TM.

Furthermore, there are studies ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070628160734.htm ) that claims that there are no acceptable and rigours scientific methods that are used in oreder to value the quality of the researches that have been done during the years, about different mental trainings, nevertheless the quoted research does not totally cancel the positive results of those researches.

In that case we can also ask, what research method is considered by Maria Ospina and Kenneth Bond form the University of Alberta/Capital Health Evidence-based Practice Center in Edmonton, Canada as a rigours scientific method ("a common theoretical perspective", as they call it) that has to be used to value the quality of the examined researches?

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 11:15 PM

"exchange Membership with False", whatever are you talking about? The difference between a truth table for AND from that for NXOR is exactly as I explained. Again study some logic.
Learn to use logic, by not changing the researched in order to fit it to your preferred results.

Not that it matters much anyway Doron because your “belongs AND does not belong” is always FALSE just as “belong NXOR does not belong” is always FALSE simply because “not belong” is dependent on “belongs” by negation.
Belongs NXOR not-belongs, is exactly the ability of a non-local element to be simultaneously in more than one membership state.

Since you are using a mutually exclusive view of Non-locality, you get a contradiction, which is a direct result of using improper reasoning in order to research and understand Non-locality (you are forcing XOR to be NXOR).

doronshadmi

26th April 2010, 11:47 PM

Again if you are referring to any specific research, again the critical elements would be “controlled and carful scientific methods”, then cite a specific paper. Not some website, news articles, speculative dissertation or whatever.
Some few examples (out of hundreds):

Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial
of Transcendental Meditation on Components
of the Metabolic Syndrome in Subjects
With Coronary Heart Disease:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/166/11/1218.pdf

Neuroimaging of meditation’s effect on brain reactivity to pain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2170475/pdf/nihms29700.pdf

Effects of Stress Reduction on Carotid Atherosclerosis in Hypertensive African Americans:
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/3/568.pdf

Stress Reduction Programs in Patients with Elevated Blood
Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268875/pdf/nihms%2D34949.pdf

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Stress Reduction in African
Americans Treated for Hypertension for Over One Year:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2224896/pdf/nihms29696.pdf

Long-Term Effects of Stress Reduction on Mortality in Persons
≥55 Years of Age With Systemic Hypertension:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1482831/pdf/nihms2905.pdf

Effectiveness of Transcendental Meditation on Functional
Capacity and Quality of Life of African Americans with Congestive
Heart Failure: A Randomized Control Study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048830/pdf/nihms29698.pdf

doronshadmi

27th April 2010, 05:29 AM

For a more balanced view of the TM movement, also these voices must be heard:

Here is a Critical Resource about the TM movement:

http://trancenet.net/mostly.shtml

A (Mostly) Good Word about Meditation

Over the years we at trancenet.net have received many communications that are variations on a basic theme, "What do you have against meditation?" (Feel free to substitute "alternative health," "multi-level marketing," you name it, for "meditation.")

Many of us are not critical of meditation itself for most people. Meditation is one of nature's miracles. For most people it is an extraordinary experience that adds much to life. Dr. Herbert Benson, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard University, and other researchers have shown that many forms of meditation offer specific benefits, such as lowered blood pressure and increased relaxation when practiced regularly. And TM seems to be as good or better than any of the forms of meditation that we know of. (Coauthor, with Maharishi University of Management's Keith Wallace, of seminal research on Transcendental Meditation, Dr. Benson later denied that the results from TM were substantively different from other forms of meditation.)

We believe that the majority of people who practice TM will find that they enjoy it. We believe it is as good as similar techniques taught by Hindus, Christians, Muslims, hypnotherapists, and others. We do, however, think there is evidence that it is either not effective, not enjoyable, or downright dangerous for a certain percentage of the population, on the order of 10% to 20%.

But the bottom line is if you enjoy Transcendental Meditation -- and the religious aspects or repressive policies of the TM movement do not conflict with your beliefs -- why not do it?

We do feel, however, that the Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation movement and the Natural Law Party are in need of serious reform to bring it in line with the ethical -- even legal -- standards our culture expects.

It's not our purpose to debate satisfied members of these groups. We have no reason to doubt that many, many have experiences and beliefs that are very fulfilling. Who can ask for more? It is our hope, however, that by raising concerns that many of us on all sides have in common, we can move the discussion of TM -- and similar groups -- past futile name-calling and on to meaningful discussion of where we might go from here. The jury is still out on whether TM and similar groups will become yet more radical -- or whether they will enter the mainstream.

Honest attempts at measured reform may hold the balance. Current and former members together, the future of our groups is in our hands.

In http://trancenet.net you can find researches (http://trancenet.net/research/abs.shtml) that contradict some of the results that are published by the TM movement (by these researches form one hand the TM program has no effect, but on the other hand TM makes damage to those how practice it. This is an imbalanced conclusion because it is focused only on those results that do not agree with other researches that done by other independent research centers, which find positive results about TM ), including personal stories of bad effects on persons that practiced TM.

In a non-trivial realm anything (bad effects, no effects, good effects) is possible.

In general I am against any organization that forces its preferred results (by ignoring bad effects or no effects) on the persons that are considered as its members.

doronshadmi

27th April 2010, 07:33 AM

An interesting article: http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/viewFile/377/426

The Man

27th April 2010, 03:41 PM

Learn to use logic, by not changing the researched in order to fit it to your preferred results.

Once again Doron you are the only one simply insisting on your “preferred results”.

Belongs NXOR not-belongs, is exactly the ability of a non-local element to be simultaneously in more than one membership state.

No Doron that would be how you define what constitute that “element” and what constitutes your “membership state”. NXOR only gives a particular output value based on two input values and again FALSE NXOR FALSE is TRUE while FALSE AND FALSE is FALSE.

Since you are using a mutually exclusive view of Non-locality, you get a contradiction, which is a direct result of using improper reasoning in order to research and understand Non-locality (you are forcing XOR to be NXOR).

Again “mutually exclusive” would be (logically) XOR which is specifically the negation of NOXR so FALSE XOR FALSE is FALSE while FALSE NXOR FALSE is TRUE. So I’m certainly not “forcing XOR to be NXOR”. Your “direct perception” fails you again.

Some few examples (out of hundreds):

Effects of a Randomized Controlled Trial
of Transcendental Meditation on Components
of the Metabolic Syndrome in Subjects
With Coronary Heart Disease:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/166/11/1218.pdf

Background: The metabolic syndrome is thought to be
a contributor to coronary heart disease (CHD), and components
of the syndrome have been identified as possible
therapeutic targets. Previous data implicate neurohumoral
activation related to psychosocial stress as a
contributor to the metabolic syndrome. The aim of this
study was to evaluate the efficacy of transcendental meditation
(TM) on components of the metabolic syndrome
and CHD.

conclusions

The present trial results demonstrate that 16 weeks of
TMsignificantly reduces the adjusted blood pressure and
insulin resistance components of the metabolic syndrome
and has a positive impact on cardiac autonomic
tone in subjects with stable, optimally managed CHD.
These results suggest that neurohumoral pathways may
be mechanistically involved in the metabolic syndrome.
Our findings also suggest that interventions that target
neurohumoral pathways, especially via meditation
or related techniques, may be beneficial for CHD reduction
and should be tested in larger, more adequately
powered clinical trials.

Also 10 to 16 participants is not a significant sample group (5-8 for each treatment group).

The authors note themselves “should be tested in larger, more adequately powered clinical trials”.

Still no mention of any “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity”.

Neuroimaging of meditation’s effect on brain reactivity to pain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2170475/pdf/nihms29700.pdf

Abstract
Some meditation techniques reduce pain, but there have been no studies on how meditation affects
the brain’s response to pain. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the response to thermally
induced pain applied outside the meditation period found that long-term practitioners of the
Transcendental Meditation technique showed 40–50% fewer voxels responding to pain in the
thalamus and total brain than in healthy matched controls interested in learning the technique. After
the controls learned the technique and practiced it for 5 months, their response decreased by 40–50%
in the thalamus, prefrontal cortex, total brain, and marginally in the anterior cingulate cortex. The
results suggest that the Transcendental Meditation technique longitudinally reduces the affective/
motivational dimension of the brain’s response to pain.

The Transcendental Meditation program appears to longitudinally reduce the brain’s response
to acute pain along major sectors of the affective dimension of the pain matrix, apparently
related to reduced distress, but with no reduction in the sensory experience of pain intensity
[18]. This may help explain the reduction in stress reactivity and improvements in
cardiovascular disease found to result from practice of this program. Future research could
Orme-Johnson et al. Page 5
Neuroreport. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2008 January 2.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
focus on its concomitant effects on endogenous endorphins, on other areas of the pain matrix,
as well as cardiovascular and autonomic responses.

“appears to longitudinally reduce the brain’s response to acute pain” “apparently
related to reduced distress, but with no reduction in the sensory experience of pain intensity”.

So again indication of stress relief and the authors cite such reduced brain responses as a possible reason for the reduction in stress reactivity.

Still no mention of any “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity”.

In fact this research demonstrates a measurable reduction in brain activity. Hence the reduced stress from the acute pain.

Effects of Stress Reduction on Carotid Atherosclerosis in Hypertensive African Americans:
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/3/568.pdf

Background and Purpose—African Americans suffer disproportionately higher cardiovascular disease mortality rates than
do whites. Psychosocial stress influences the development and progression of atherosclerosis. Carotid intima-media
thickness (IMT) is a valid surrogate measure for coronary atherosclerosis, is a predictor of coronary outcomes and
stroke, and is associated with psychosocial stress factors. Stress reduction with the Transcendental Meditation (TM)
program decreases coronary heart disease risk factors and cardiovascular mortality in African Americans. B-mode
ultrasound is useful for the noninvasive evaluation of carotid atherosclerosis.

Discussion
This preliminary randomized controlled trial suggests that
stress reduction with the TM program is associated with
reduced carotid atherosclerosis in African Americans with
hypertension compared with a health education comparison
group. Fiscal constraints on posttesting, high residential
mobility, and scheduling conflicts were the main reasons for
a high attrition rate. Although the generalizability of our
findings may appear to be compromised by the attrition rate,
attriters and completers were not found to be different in
baseline characteristics that would systematically bias treatment
outcomes.

Again just stress reduction and this one the authors assert was compromised by the attrition rate.

Still no mention of any “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity”.

Stress Reduction Programs in Patients with Elevated Blood
Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2268875/pdf/nihms%2D34949.pdf

Abstract
Substantial evidence indicates that psychosocial stress contributes to hypertension and cardiovascular
disease (CVD). Previous meta-analyses of stress reduction and high blood pressure (BP) were
outdated and/or methodologically limited..

Conclusions
Results of meta-analyses showed that simple biofeedback, relaxation-assisted biofeedback,
progressive muscle relaxation, and stress management training did not show statistically
significant reductions in elevated BP. Analysis of trials of the Transcendental Meditation
program showed clinically and statistically significant changes in BP (−5.0/−2.8 mm Hg).

Stress reduction again.

Still no mention of any “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity”.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Stress Reduction in African
Americans Treated for Hypertension for Over One Year:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2224896/pdf/nihms29696.pdf

Abstract
Background— Psychosocial stress has been implicated in the disproportionately higher rates of
hypertension among African Americans. This randomized controlled trial compared the effects of
two stress reduction techniques and a health education control program on hypertension during a
period of 1 year in African-American men and women (N = 150, mean age 49 ± 10 years, mean blood
pressure (BP) = 142/95 mm Hg) at an urban community health center.

Discussion
This randomized controlled trial conducted with 1 year of follow-up extended the results of a
previous independently conducted short-term follow-up study that compared the effects of
different approaches to stress reduction on hypertension in African Americans during 3 months.
25,26 The present trial evaluated a vital clinical question, that is, whether any of these lifestyle
modification programs would remain effective in reducing BP during the relative long-term.
The results of the present study support the feasibility and long-term efficacy of the use of a
selected stress reduction approach in reducing BP in urban adult African Americans with stage
1 or 2 hypertension. During the 1-year duration of the study, the Transcendental Meditation
program significantly decreased diastolic BP more than PMR or HE, and there was a trend for
a greater reduction in systolic BP. Progressive muscle relaxation or HE did not differ from
each other on any BP change comparison. Differences in compliance with treatment could not
explain the results because when the BP results were adjusted for treatment compliance, the
same pattern of results was found. In addition there was a significant reduction in
antihypertensive medication use in the TM group compared to relaxation and education
controls.

Stress reduction again.

Still no mention of any “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity”.

Long-Term Effects of Stress Reduction on Mortality in Persons
≥55 Years of Age With Systemic Hypertension:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1482831/pdf/nihms2905.pdf

Abstract
Psychosocial stress contributes to high blood pressure and subsequent cardiovascular morbidity and
mortality. Previous controlled studies have associated decreasing stress with the Transcendental
Meditation (TM) program with lower blood pressure

DISCUSSION
The results of this retrospective long-term follow-up of 2 randomized controlled trials of
decreasing stress and high blood pressure in older subjects suggest that a selected behavioral
approach, the TM program, is associated with significantly lower mortality rates compared
with other behavioral interventions and usual care.

Stress reduction again.

Still no mention of any “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity”.

Effectiveness of Transcendental Meditation on Functional
Capacity and Quality of Life of African Americans with Congestive
Heart Failure: A Randomized Control Study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048830/pdf/nihms29698.pdf

Abstract
Objective— To evaluate the effectiveness of a Transcendental Meditation (TM) stress reduction
program for African Americans with congestive heart failure (CHF).

Discussion…

Our results are consistent with those reported by other studies of TM as a secondary prevention
tool for cardiovascular diseases.5–9,12,13,22–25

Stress reduction again.

Still no mention of any “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity”.

Did you actually read any of these papers, let alone understand what they were about?

Doron you could have just said the there is evidence to support stress reduction from TM and I doubt anyone would have questioned you, yet you choose to try and assert such simple research on stress reduction as some kind of support for your claims of “unbounded awareness” and that you “get things from more profound levels of your mental activity” because of your TM activates. None of the stress research you cited supports your claims.

doronshadmi

28th April 2010, 12:17 AM

Stress reduction again.
Still no mention of any “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity”.
Stress reduction is a comprehensive physical measured phenomenon, which is derived from the mental practicing of TM technique, in this case.

In other words, restful alertness that was measured in brain’s activity during the TM practice [1] , plays a main role that enables Stress reduction all over the body.

The current physical measurement tools can’t measure directly the expansion of awareness during the practice, so you can’t find anything about “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity” in these research papers.

There is no indirect way here The Man, you simply have to actually practicing TM, in order to get by yourself “unbounded awareness” or that you “get things from more profound levels of” your “mental activity”.

In other words The Man, indirect perception of a considered subject is a partial method of understanding it.

[1] For more details, please see:

Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and
contingent negative variation characterize the
integration of transcendental and waking states:
http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/brain-integration-progress-report.pdf

Psychological and physiological characteristics
of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum
of self-awareness:
http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf

http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/EEG%20of%20Transcending.pdf

http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMMetaphysical/APersonalView/index.cfm

doronshadmi

28th April 2010, 02:21 AM

I was actually curious if you were referring to any specific research particularly those showing TM as more effective than other metal training techniques, but apparently not.

A meta-analysis of 597 studies of meditation practices was published in The American Journal of Health Promotion (May/June 1998). This study found TM to be significantly superior to other forms of meditation and relaxation in a wide range of criteria related to mental and physical health.

See also:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112457231/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.psrast.org/tmunique.htm

http://healthpromotionjournal.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AJHP&Product_Code=JV14I5284&Category_Code=

Psychophysiological Effects of Yoga:

http://www.iayt.org/site_Vx2/publications/psychophysiology.pdf

doronshadmi

28th April 2010, 07:10 AM

Let us return to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 .

By Standard Math an irrational number is defined as the limit of all rational numbers that are < or > from this irrational number.

In this case the rational numbers are not a complete metric space because their limit (an irrational number) does not belong to their metric space.

In this case we can ask: What enables the linkage between two metric spaces, such that an element of a given metric space is the limit of another metric space?

No one of the members of the given spaces is the linkage between the spaces, so there must be another mathematical property that is fundamentally different than the members of the given spaces.

Carful study of this case leads us to understand that the linked members of two different spaces are local elements of their spaces, such that each member belongs to a given space.

So the linkage between elements that belong to a given space, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to a given space, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.

Furthermore, if only a one given space is considered and more than one element of that space is considered, still the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t to the given id of any member of that space.

No local element belongs AND does not belong to a given space, and no local element is the common proprty of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space..

A non-local element belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or a non-local element is the common property of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space.

Now, in the case of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 constant X>0 is a non-local element, where the limit point is a local element = 0 (notated as Y).

Since X=Y is false, then it does not matter how many projections of bended versions of constant X>0 are projected on the non-bended version of constant X>0, S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+..) < X (by 0.000...3/4, which is the invariant proportion between the bended projected versions of constant X>0) exactly because X=Y is false (Non-local AND Local is false).

Classical analysis can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
because Non-locality is not understood by Classical analysis.

Apathia

28th April 2010, 08:21 AM

Sorry for my late response to meditation and the "first stage of Yogic flying."

Briefly I meditate as an aid in learning to let go of identification with my fleeting thoughts and feelings. Also as wasy to encourage a compassionate mind.

As far as I'm concerened attempts to use meditation to develop psychic powers of as a way to meet metaphysical beings or realities is a bogus distraction.

What's important is that an awake and aware mind does see others as more than objects of a class to be acted upon for the purposes of the selfish ego.
(Though I admit that there are many gurus and meditation teachers who say this but exhibit all kinds of disgusting behavior toward their disciples.
Call it the "Fool on The Hill" effect.)

doronshadmi

28th April 2010, 12:24 PM

As far as I'm concerened attempts to use meditation to develop psychic powers of as a way to meet metaphysical beings or realities is a bogus distraction.

The flying sutra is just one of the sutras that at practiced during the TM-Sidhis program.

Other sutras are used to develop Love, Compassion, Friendship, Senses refinement, and more properties that are essential to cooperated and yet unique and creative life.

TM works basically in two training steps:

1) Step one: The mind learns to be aware of more and more finer levels of its activity, until it is opened to the least state of mental activity, which is actually the silent source of all levels of mental activities.

The ability to move between different levels of mantel activities is a natural process in both directions. Most of our lives we are aware of the more stimulating levels of our mental process, so practicing mental techniques that trains the mind to be opened to finer and calmer levels of the mental activity (up to the origin of any mental activity) without loosing awareness, simply develop the balance between stimulating levels and calm levels of our mind, exactly as balanced training of muscles is done by optimal linkage between rest and action.

2) Step two: By using the developed abilities to be aware of finer levels of mental activity, we actually develop our abilities to act from deeper and deeper levels of our mental space. The Yoga sutra of Patanjali ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras ) is an example of a very profound mental technique that actually enables our mind to activate some thought right from the calm state of unbounded awareness, which is the source of any mantel activity.

If our complexity is tuned w.r.t the source of any mental activity, and since this source is actually the source of any possible phenomena, we get an activated result, which is tuned with the source of any possible phenomena.

In other words, our request is fulfilled right from the source of all phenomena.

We can't ask harmful requests to be fulfilled right from the source of all phenomena, because harmful requests are exactly those states of mind that are not directly aware of the common source of any possible phenomena.

If each one of us will be directly opened to the unified field of all possible phenomena, our complex realm will be developed in a coherent and consistent way, such that no complexity will block the development of any other complexity.

I think that our spices makes its first steps to be directly opened to the unified field of all possible complexities, which gives us the chance to be developed beyond our current and sometimes harmful interactions.

doronshadmi

29th April 2010, 04:03 AM

Some correction of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5876457&postcount=9681:

Instead of:

So the linkage between elements that belong to a given space, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to a given space, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.

It has to be:

So the linkage between elements that belong to different spaces, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to any of these spaces, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.

As shown in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5876457&postcount=9681 , it does not matter if the linkage (the non-local property) is defined between two different spaces or between two different elements of the same space.

So non-locality is defined between a given limit and some collection, whether the limit belongs or does not belong to that collection, where the irreducibility of non-locality (the linkage) to locality (the limit) prevents the sum of the convergent absolute added values of that collocation.

doronshadmi

1st May 2010, 10:25 AM

As can be seen Neuroquantology http://www.neuroquantology.com/repository/index.php?option=com_sobi2&catid=2&Itemid=66 has a lot of research activity, and some of this activity is marked as a WOO "hands waving" science by people that uses the mechanic paradigm as the basis of Complexity understanding.

The mechanic paradigm that is based on a clear cut dichotomy between the observed and the observer does not have the appropriate tools to deal with real Complexity, and one of these inappropriate tools is the concept of Limit, as understood by Standard Math.

About non-locality please see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/nature07121.html (its pre-print version http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf )

doronshadmi

2nd May 2010, 01:28 AM

Let us summarize the last posts by using the notion of the unified field as understood by Quantum Spiritually view (http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/viewFile/377/426):

Fogs (non-local numbers) are defined along the real-line, but their exact location does not exist along the real-line, where the real-line itself if not a collection by OM, but it is the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state (the unified field http://www.invincibility.org/popups/uf2.html), exactly as a point is the local aspect of the atomic self-state (the unified field).

Fogs are the result of the irreducibility of the non-local to the local and the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local. The non-local\local mutual independencyenables the unified field (the atomic self-state) to express its unlimited infinite complexity.

This unlimited infinite complexity is undefined by the current paradigm, which claims , for example, that fog 0.999…[base 10] = finite value 1.

By the current mathematical paradigm (which is based on the Limit concept, by using only the local aspect of the unified field (the atomic self-state)) 0.999…[base 10] is a numeral that represents number 1.

Since OM uses also the non-local aspect of the unified field (the atomic self-state) it enables to define 0.999…[base 10] not as a representation of number 1, but as a number of its own, known as a fog (or non-local number).

Fogs are new kinds of numbers that can be used in order to deal with Uncertainty and Redundancy without forcing on them numbers that are derived only from the local aspect of the unified filed (the atomic self-state).

By Standard Math an irrational number (which is a local number) is defined as the limit of all rational numbers (which are also local numbers) that are < or > from this irrational number.

In this case the rational numbers are not a complete metric space because their limit (an irrational number) does not belong to their metric space.

In this case we can ask: What enables the linkage between two metric spaces, such that an element of a given metric space is the limit of another metric space?

No one of the members of the given spaces is the linkage between the spaces, so there must be another mathematical property that is fundamentally different than the members of the given spaces.

Carful study of this case leads us to understand that the linked members of two different spaces are local elements of their spaces, such that each member belongs to a given space.

So the linkage between elements that belong to different spaces, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to any of these spaces, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.

Actually, it does not matter if the linkage (the non-local property) is defined between two different spaces or between two different elements of the same space.

So non-locality is defined between a given limit and some collection, whether the limit belongs or does not belong to that collection, where the irreducibility of non-locality (the linkage) to locality (the limit) prevents the accurate value of the convergent absolute added values of that collocation.

No local element belongs AND does not belong to a given space, and no local element is the common property of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space..

A non-local element belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or a non-local element is the common property of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space.

Now, constant X>0 (the size of each orange element in the diagram of Koch's fractal below) is a non-local element, where the limit point (at the bottom of that diagram) is a local element = 0 (notated as Y).

Since X=Y is false, then it does not matter how many projections of bended versions of constant X>0 are projected on the non-bended version of constant X>0, S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+..) < X (by 0.000...3/4, which is the invariant proportion between the bended projected versions of constant X>0) exactly because X=Y is false (Non-local AND Local is false).

Classical analysis can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
because Non-locality is not understood by Classical analysis.

doronshadmi

2nd May 2010, 03:07 AM

The Man

2nd May 2010, 08:54 AM

Stress reduction is a comprehensive physical measured phenomenon, which is derived from the mental practicing of TM technique, in this case.

In other words, restful alertness that was measured in brain’s activity during the TM practice [1] , plays a main role that enables Stress reduction all over the body.

The current physical measurement tools can’t measure directly the expansion of awareness during the practice, so you can’t find anything about “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity” in these research papers.

There is no indirect way here The Man, you simply have to actually practicing TM, in order to get by yourself “unbounded awareness” or that you “get things from more profound levels of” your “mental activity”.

So your “unbounded awareness” and belief “you “get things from more profound levels of” your “mental activity”” or just your own interpretation and subjective feeling when you engage in TM. Guess what Doron, we already surmised that.

In other words The Man, indirect perception of a considered subject is a partial method of understanding it.

[1] For more details, please see:

Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and
contingent negative variation characterize the
integration of transcendental and waking states:
http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/brain-integration-progress-report.pdf

The group differences are empirically strong, but we cannot conclude what caused
those group differences. Since a cross-sectional design was used, we do not know the
pre-TM EEG patterns of subjects in the Occas-TE and Cont-TE groups.

Oops, guess they should have thought of that before.

Psychological and physiological characteristics
of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum
of self-awareness:
http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf

1.2. Purpose of the current study
The current study extends these earlier brainwave findings by exploring the details of the inner
subjective experience of these subjects through two approaches—an unstructured interview and a
battery of standard psychological tests.

Still not addressing the problem of those “earlier brainwave findings”.

http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/EEG%20of%20Transcending.pdf

Oh look, stress reduction (or “decreasing anxiety” as it is referred to in this paper) again.

http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMMetaphysical/APersonalView/index.cfm

Not a research paper.

The Man

2nd May 2010, 08:55 AM

A meta-analysis of 597 studies of meditation practices was published in The American Journal of Health Promotion (May/June 1998). This study found TM to be significantly superior to other forms of meditation and relaxation in a wide range of criteria related to mental and physical health.

Resulting from… (its ok, you can say it) …stress reduction.

See also:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112457231/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.psrast.org/tmunique.htm

http://healthpromotionjournal.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AJHP&Product_Code=JV14I5284&Category_Code=

None of those links are research papers.

Psychophysiological Effects of Yoga:

http://www.iayt.org/site_Vx2/publications/psychophysiology.pdf

A bibliography not a research paper.

A Doron, do you actually read any of these links and papers let alone understand what they are about?

The Man

2nd May 2010, 08:58 AM

Let us return to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 .

By Standard Math an irrational number is defined as the limit of all rational numbers that are < or > from this irrational number.

No an irrational number is defined as a real number that can not be expressed as a fraction of two integers.

In this case the rational numbers are not a complete metric space because their limit (an irrational number) does not belong to their metric space.

Simple nonsense. Are you simply or deliberately confusing “complete” with “continuous”?

In this case we can ask: What enables the linkage between two metric spaces, such that an element of a given metric space is the limit of another metric space?

That would be just, well, limits.

No one of the members of the given spaces is the linkage between the spaces, so there must be another mathematical property that is fundamentally different than the members of the given spaces.

If you are still talking about rational and irrational numbers, their “linkage” (or more specifically union) is the set of all real numbers (which would be a continuous space).

Carful study of this case leads us to understand that the linked members of two different spaces are local elements of their spaces, such that each member belongs to a given space.

It is simply trivial that an element of some space is local to that space. Hardly “Carful study”.

So the linkage between elements that belong to a given space, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to a given space, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.

This is where you continue to fail Doron ‘belonging’ to some “space” (like say the irrational numbers) does not preclude belonging to some other “space” like the real numbers (of which the irrational numbers are a proper subset) but belonging to some space like the rational numbers (also a proper subset of the reels) is excluded as an irrational number is specifically not rational. So not all “spaces” are mutually exclusive, but some are. “belongs AND does not belong to any given space” is again simply self contradictory while ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space”” is not.

Furthermore, if only a one given space is considered and more than one element of that space is considered, still the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t to the given id of any member of that space.

No local element belongs AND does not belong to a given space, and no local element is the common proprty of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space..

A non-local element belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or a non-local element is the common property of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space.

Now, in the case of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 constant X>0 is a non-local element, where the limit point is a local element = 0 (notated as Y).

Since X=Y is false, then it does not matter how many projections of bended versions of constant X>0 are projected on the non-bended version of constant X>0, S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+..) < X (by 0.000...3/4, which is the invariant proportion between the bended projected versions of constant X>0) exactly because X=Y is false (Non-local AND Local is false).

Classical analysis can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
because Non-locality is not understood by Classical analysis.

Again the only anomaly “that is exposed” is the one in your head which insists upon the self contradictory ascription of “belongs AND does not belong to any given space”.

The Man

2nd May 2010, 08:59 AM

We can't ask harmful requests to be fulfilled right from the source of all phenomena, because harmful requests are exactly those states of mind that are not directly aware of the common source of any possible phenomena.

Well I guess your “common source of any possible phenomena” must be getting those “requests” demonstrably wrong as “harmful” “phenomena” do happen. Doron this is just your own particular brand of “The Secret”.

The Man

2nd May 2010, 09:00 AM

Skeptic

2nd May 2010, 12:33 PM

For those who want to know more, there's this book (http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Cranks-Spectrum-Underwood-Dudley/dp/0883855070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272828711&sr=1-1).

doronshadmi

2nd May 2010, 01:29 PM

doronshadmi

2nd May 2010, 01:50 PM

Guess what Doron, we already surmised that.

Indeed surmised is your best in this case, because you never practiced TM and got the foundation of any thought within yourself.

You are like a blind man that argues about colors.

A bibliography not a research paper.
The Man research is not only by indirect methods that a measured by mechanical instruments that measure things by local-only methods, especially if the researched is the awareness itself.

Again, without a direct perception of awareness as the foundation of any mental activity, you actually have not enough knowledge in order to conclude any meaningful thing about awareness.

Still you are like a blind man that argues about colors.

No an irrational number is defined as a real number that can not be expressed as a fraction of two integers.
Or as Dedekind's cuts, which the limits of L R sets of rational numbers, which is the relevant definition in this case.

If you are still talking about rational and irrational numbers, their “linkage” (or more specifically union) is the set of all real numbers (which would be a continuous space).
It does not matter, in this case the common property of being a real number is the linkage (the non-local property) between ids (localities).

Still you are unable to get your own words.

It is simply trivial that an element of some space is local to that space. Hardly “Carful study”.
And by the same reasoning, it is trivial that the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t any given id (distinguished element) of that space.

Still you are unable to get your own words.

“belongs AND does not belong to any given space” is again simply self contradictory while ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space”” is not.
“belongs AND does not belong to any given space” simply means that the defined element does not exclusively belong to any particular space (or any particular id of the same space), or in other words: this element ‘belongs to some “space” (or id of some space) AND belongs to some other “space” (or another id of the same space) (where the AND gives it the simultaneity that no local element has).

Still you are unable to get your own words.

Also local-only thinker like you ignores http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 , isn't it?

doronshadmi

2nd May 2010, 01:56 PM

“Quantum Spiritually”, who would have guessed.

Yes I know, guessing is your best in this fine subject.

Most o the researchers in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 are idiots, isn't it The Man?

doronshadmi

2nd May 2010, 02:02 PM

For those who want to know more, there's this book (http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Cranks-Spectrum-Underwood-Dudley/dp/0883855070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272828711&sr=1-1).

Most of the researchers in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 are cranks by Dudley's book, so?

Pure Argent

2nd May 2010, 02:03 PM

Apathia

2nd May 2010, 02:27 PM

This is the thread that does not end
It just goes on and on, my friend
Some people starting writing it, not knowing what it was
They'll go on writing it forever, just because
This is the thread that does not end...

I was really tempted to stop posting in this thread, but this little ditty encourages me to help push it on to oblivion and beyond. :wackybiglaugh:

Because, because, because, because, Because!
We're off
to see the Wizard!

Help! Mr. Wizard!

Apathia

2nd May 2010, 02:39 PM

David Lynch explains his understanding about consciousness, creativity and the brain. He says that Transcendental Meditation played crucial role in developing his consciousness and boosting his creativity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2UHLMVr4vg&feature=related

Here's my favorite David Lynch youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XliMny3AvnE
He shows how to cook quinoa.

I've heard him speak about TM before.
Look, At least it's better than what a lot of other Hollywood people got into (Scierntology).
Thanks for the link.

The Man

2nd May 2010, 02:59 PM

Indeed surmised is your best in this case, because you never practiced TM and got the foundation of any thought within yourself.

You are like a blind man that argues about colors.

My surmise was correct, far better then your “direct perception” has done for you.

The Man research is not only by indirect methods that a measured by mechanical instruments that measure things by local-only methods, especially if the researched is the awareness itself.

Doron your propensity for your fantasies and subjective interpretations still do not constitute research, just as a bibliography is not a research paper.

Again, without a direct perception of awareness as the foundation of any mental activity, you actually have not enough knowledge in order to conclude any meaningful thing about awareness.

What? So someone can’t “conclude any meaningful thing about awareness” unless they already subscribe to your own subjective interpretation of “awareness”? Ever hear of begging the question Doron?

Still you are like a blind man that argues about colors.

You Doron remain the only one simply insisting that everyone must agree with you “in order to conclude any meaningful thing”, talk about the blind leading…., well…., just himself.

Or as Dedekind's cuts, which the limits of L R sets of rational numbers, which is the relevant definition in this case.

No Doron the actual definition (as I stated) is always the, well, relevant one.

It does not matter, in this case the common property of being a real number is the linkage (the non-local property) between ids (localities).

If that is “the common property of being a real number” as you claim, then it does “matter”. Since your “common property” is just a union of those two mutually exclusive sets.

Still you are unable to get your own words.

Try reading them again and may be this time you’ll actually get those words.

If you are still talking about rational and irrational numbers, their “linkage” (or more specifically union) is the set of all real numbers (which would be a continuous space).

And by the same reasoning, it is trivial that the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t any given id (distinguished element) of that space.

No the “common property of a given space” is specifically what identifies “any given id (distinguished element) of that space” as being, well, an “element) of that space”

Still you are unable to get your own words.

Nope evidently that is still just you.

“belongs AND does not belong to any given space” simply means that the defined element does not exclusively belong to any particular space (or any particular id of the same space), or in other words: this element ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” (where the AND gives it the simultaneity that not local element has).

This is why you continue to fail, again “belongs AND does not belong to any given space" is self contradictory while ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” is not. If you mean ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” then just say that, but of course that would also make just about any point in compliance with such a “non-local” “in other words” ascription.

Still you are unable to get your own words.

Again, still just you, Doron

Also local-only thinker like you ignores http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 , isn't it?

An assumption of Loco-only fantasizes like yours.

Yes I know, guessing is your best in this fine subject.

Most o the researchers in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 are idiots, isn't it The Man?

Once again Doron, demonstrably still just you.

Skeptic

2nd May 2010, 02:59 PM

Whatever the benefits of TM, increased mathematical understanding clearly isn't one of them.

Stubbornness, however, can be developed by TM to god-like levels. Doron is giving Sisyphus a run for his money.

The Man

2nd May 2010, 03:03 PM

This is the thread that does not end
It just goes on and on, my friend
Some people starting writing it, not knowing what it was
They'll go on writing it forever, just because
This is the thread that does not end...

Well at least now we’ve gotten to the major disconnect, this “Quantum Spiritually” and “neuroquantology” tripe.

doronshadmi

2nd May 2010, 11:57 PM

My surmise was correct,
It is correct as a guess , no more not less, exactly because you do not have a direct perception of the considered subject, which is the calmest level of your mental activity, which is the non-personal base ground of any mental activity.

Again, a blind man’s arguments about colours, this is your best in this case.

Doron your propensity for your fantasies and subjective interpretations still do not constitute research,
Again you expose your ignorance about the non-personal base ground if any mantel activity, which is the most objective state.

On the contrary, the subjective thing here is your limited framework that is based on the local-only aspect of the researched, where both your theoretical and experimental methods are derived from this artificial limitation, which lead to subjective local-only results (abstract or non-abstract, it does not matter).

What? So someone can’t “conclude any meaningful thing about awareness” unless they already subscribe to your own subjective interpretation of “awareness”? Ever hear of begging the question Doron?
Exactly the opposite, without direct perception of the researched subject, you actually go in circles around the researched subject, where your indirect research methods are always no more than guesses, exactly because you are using local-only methods in order to conclude something about a thing that is not local-only.

Non-locality is a property of our realm ( please see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/nature07121.html (its pre-print version http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf ) and can’t be accurately researched by your local-only reasoning (it can only roughly discovered by it as an anomaly of the local-only paradigm, as shown by the attached research paper), whether you like it or not.

Non-local numbers and NXOR/XOR logics are the appropriate tool in order to deal with non-locality, without forcing a local-only reasoning (the standard paradigm, which is used both for theoretical and experimental developments that are local-only oriented) on it.

You Doron remain the only one simply insisting that everyone must agree with you “in order to conclude any meaningful thing”, talk about the blind leading…., well…., just himself.
You The Man, as a local-only thinker (where “locality” is synonym “rigorous” by your limited reasoning) force your partial methods as if it is a universal method, and this is exactly where you fail.

No Doron the actual definition (as I stated) is always the, well, relevant one
It is your subjective maneuver , which its aim is to avoid the discussion about limits that belong or do not belong to the considered collection of the absolute infinite added convergent values (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_cut and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers) we can learn how the irrational numbers are the limits of the rational numbers, where this limits are fundamentally different than the rational numbers exactly because they are not the result of the ratio between two integers, and therefore the do not belong to the rational numbers’ space, and yet there are considered as their limits).

So as you see you definition is nothing but a part of a more comprehensive dissection about limits (that belong or do not belong to a considered space, and in both cases, these limits are linked with other spaces or ids by a non-local element which is not limited to any given space or to any given id of the same space).

Since your “common property” is just a union of those two mutually exclusive sets.
Call it union or linkage, it does not change the fact that no one of the linked or unioned elements is the link or the union if its id is derived from its accurate locality w.r.t to other localities, where “w.r.t” is exactly the non-local property that is defined between these localities and enables the linkage or union among them.

You can do any maneuver that you like, it will not change the fact that a complex thing like collection and the relations among collections is based on Non-locality/Locality Linkage, which actually enables you to verbally or symbolically define your definitions, in the first place (including the proofs without words).

No the “common property of a given space” is specifically what identifies “any given id (distinguished element) of that space” as being, well, an “element) of that space”
What enables to define a collection is the linkage of the common (the non-local) with the non-common (the local).

Without this linkage, no collection is definable (verbally, symbolically or spatially).

doronshadmi

3rd May 2010, 12:10 AM

Whatever the benefits of TM, increased mathematical understanding clearly isn't one of them.

It is clearly shown that you are using a local-only reasoning, so?

doronshadmi

3rd May 2010, 12:28 AM

Well at least now we’ve gotten to the major disconnect, this “Quantum Spiritually” and “neuroquantology” tripe.
The tripe is exactly your local-only reasoning that is based on a clear cut dichotomy between the observed and the observer. Because of this clear cut dichotomy the current theoretical and experimental methods have to isolate the researched subject in order to conclude something about it, but this artificial approach is limited to this trivial separation-only local-only methodology, which has no real ability to research things right at their natural non-sterile complex environment.

NXOR/XOR Logic and non-local numbers are preliminary developments that deals with the researched not only under sterile and isolated conditions, exactly because Uncertainty, Redundancy, Incompleteness, are essential properties of the researched and not a “white-noise” that has to be eliminated in order to get a researchable environment.

The Man, your sterile and isolated local-only reasoning is going to get off stage, because it is too trivial in order to deal with real complexity.

Once again Doron, demonstrably still just you.
Once again The Man you have demonstrated that a blind man can’t say meaningful things about colors, so?

doronshadmi

3rd May 2010, 01:10 AM

Oops, guess they should have thought of that before.

Oops, you ignore the conclusions:

5. Conclusion

In summary, these data suggest that distinct patterns of EEG coherence, EEG
amplitude, and late CNV amplitude are associated with the progressive integration of the transcendent with waking and sleeping states. These results indicate the efficacy of objective measures for characterizing the growth of subjective experiences.

The brain-based Integration Scale, resulting from this research, is a
preliminary scale. It accounted for 55% of the variance in-group membership.
Researchers are invited to participate in confirming, refining, and extending this scale. We anticipate this research strategy will further the exploration of the possible range of human experience and associated brain-state dynamics.

doronshadmi

3rd May 2010, 03:03 AM

The Man you are also invited to air your view about:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/pg0234268q287370/fulltext.pdf

http://www.srivyuha.org/DocumentFiles/3.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE

The Man

3rd May 2010, 09:18 AM

The tripe is exactly your local-only reasoning that is based on a clear cut dichotomy between the observed and the observer. Because of this clear cut dichotomy the current theoretical and experimental methods have to isolate the researched subject in order to conclude something about it, but this artificial approach is limited to this trivial separation-only local-only methodology, which has no real ability to research things right at their natural non-sterile complex environment.

NXOR/XOR Logic and non-local numbers are preliminary developments that deals with the researched not only under sterile and isolated conditions, exactly because Uncertainty, Redundancy, Incompleteness, are essential properties of the researched and not a “white-noise” that has to be eliminated in order to get a researchable environment.

The Man, your sterile and isolated local-only reasoning is going to get off stage, because it is too trivial in order to deal with real complexity.

A big load of tripe.

Once again The Man you have demonstrated that a blind man can’t say meaningful things about colors, so?

Once again Doron you are just wrong, even about what a blind man can say about colors.

Oops, you ignore the conclusions:

Oops, again you just ignore what the authors claim they cannot conclude and why.

The group differences are empirically strong, but we cannot conclude what caused
those group differences. Since a cross-sectional design was used, we do not know the
pre-TM EEG patterns of subjects in the Occas-TE and Cont-TE groups.

The Man you are also invited to air your view about:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/pg0234268q287370/fulltext.pdf

http://www.srivyuha.org/DocumentFiles/3.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE

Doron you are invited to actually do some, well, research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation#Research_on_EEG

Research on EEG
According to the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, Transcendental Meditation increases alpha brain waves compared to a baseline. When compared to control groups using a different relaxation technique, the increase in alpha is similar or even decreases compared to the relaxation controls.[172] It also produces alpha coherence, a pattern also sometimes seen in while a subject is actively focusing his or her attention on an object or holding some information in mind. These brain patterns suggest a decrease in mental activity and are associated with a relaxed state.[173] The Cambridge handbook said "..alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance.. . . . The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more “ordered” or “integrated” experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state." The Cambridge handbook also states that "Because alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally non-specific, the claim that alpha oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an original and higher state of consciousness seem quite premature."[174]
A 1999 paper by Lachaux et al suggests that EEG coherence may be a less useful measurement[175] since it does not separate the effects of amplitude and phase in the interrelations between two EEG signals.

I would ask what is the EEG coherence of someone who is dead, just brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state, in a coma, catatonic, asleep or unconscious and then at varying levels of brain functionality or injury.

dlorde

3rd May 2010, 10:02 AM

Let us summarize the last posts by using the notion of the unified field as understood by Quantum Spiritually view (http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/viewFile/377/426):
...
<lengthy exposition of usual OM gibberish omitted>:boggled:

What did any of the OM stuff you posted have anything to do with 'Quantum Spirituality' (give me a break) ?

Apathia

3rd May 2010, 12:34 PM

:boggled:

What did any of the OM stuff you posted have anything to do with 'Quantum Spirituality' (give me a break) ?

Dlord, welcome back to the rabbit hole!

For some years now, Doron has offered his Organic Mathematics as the foundation of a mathematics that can account for quantum non-locality (aka Quantum entanglement) and the "hidden variables."

This is also the stomping ground of a number of misguided attempts to explain consciousness in terms of Quantum Field Theory.

This includes work by people associated with the school of Transcendental Meditation who want to find a scientific basis for Vedic Metaphysics.

Doron sees his OM as the "Mathematics of Consciousness"

Anyway, it all becomes a one pot meal.
And that still doesn't answer your question.

Stick around for the chef's reply.

The Man

3rd May 2010, 12:44 PM

I expect the chief’s special today will be word salad, as usual.

The Man

3rd May 2010, 01:33 PM

It is correct as a guess , no more not less, exactly because you do not have a direct perception of the considered subject, which is the calmest level of your mental activity, which is the non-personal base ground of any mental activity.

Again, a blind man’s arguments about colours, this is your best in this case.

“non-personal base ground of any mental activity”? Doron it is entirely just your own personal bias and fantasies about “any mental activity”.

Again you expose your ignorance about the non-personal base ground if any mantel activity, which is the most objective state.

On the contrary, the subjective thing here is your limited framework that is based on the local-only aspect of the researched, where both your theoretical and experimental methods are derived from this artificial limitation, which lead to subjective local-only results (abstract or non-abstract, it does not matter).

No Doron it is simply your demonstrated preference for considering your own subjective inclinations as some “most objective state”.

Exactly the opposite, without direct perception of the researched subject, you actually go in circles around the researched subject, where your indirect research methods are always no more than guesses, exactly because you are using local-only methods in order to conclude something about a thing that is not local-only.

Doron, you’re the one that keeps going around in circles since your “direct perception of the considered subject” continues to fail you.

Non-locality is a property of our realm ( please see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/nature07121.html (its pre-print version http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf ) and can’t be accurately researched by your local-only reasoning (it can only roughly discovered by it as an anomaly of the local-only paradigm, as shown by the attached research paper), whether you like it or not.

Non-local numbers and NXOR/XOR logics are the appropriate tool in order to deal with non-locality, without forcing a local-only reasoning (the standard paradigm, which is used both for theoretical and experimental developments that are local-only oriented) on it.

Doron I have explained non-locality in the specific context of relativity to you before and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your loco-only “reasoning”. In fact quite the contrary as some point is either local (time-like and light-like interval separations) or non-local (space-like interval separation) with respect to some other point.

You The Man, as a local-only thinker (where “locality” is synonym “rigorous” by your limited reasoning) force your partial methods as if it is a universal method, and this is exactly where you fail.

Once again Doron your “direct perception” fails you.

It is your subjective maneuver , which its aim is to avoid the discussion about limits that belong or do not belong to the considered collection of the absolute infinite added convergent values (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_cut and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers) we can learn how the irrational numbers are the limits of the rational numbers, where this limits are fundamentally different than the rational numbers exactly because they are not the result of the ratio between two integers, and therefore the do not belong to the rational numbers’ space, and yet there are considered as their limits).

So as you see you definition is nothing but a part of a more comprehensive dissection about limits (that belong or do not belong to a considered space, and in both cases, these limits are linked with other spaces or ids by a non-local element which is not limited to any given space or to any given id of the same space).

No Doron once again that definition is what defines an irrational number. Your purportedly “more comprehensive dissection” is entirely subsequent to that specific definition.

Call it union or linkage, it does not change the fact that no one of the linked or unioned elements is the link or the union if its id is derived from its accurate locality w.r.t to other localities, where “w.r.t” is exactly the non-local property that is defined between these localities and enables the linkage or union among them.

Doron the union is all the elements not just any one or some of them and they are all local to that union.

You can do any maneuver that you like, it will not change the fact that a complex thing like collection and the relations among collections is based on Non-locality/Locality Linkage, which actually enables you to verbally or symbolically define your definitions, in the first place (including the proofs without words).

What enables to define a collection is the linkage of the common (the non-local) with the non-common (the local).

Without this linkage, no collection is definable (verbally, symbolically or spatially).

Ah the old standby Doron failsafe claim that anything and everything “is based on” or ‘just an aspect of’ some dichotomy “Linkage”.

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 12:24 AM

And that still doesn't answer your question.
your question? Who is this “your” and exactly is his question?

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 12:25 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation#Research_on_EEG
I would ask what is the EEG coherence of someone who is dead, just brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state, in a coma, catatonic, asleep or unconscious and then at varying levels of brain functionality or injury.
No measurement that is related to the coherence activity can be taken from a dead brain.

Deep sleep, or damaged brain’s activities are not characterized by a coherent brain activity, as observed, for example in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE .

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 12:31 AM

No Doron it is simply your demonstrated preference for considering your own subjective inclinations as some “most objective state”.
How do you know that for sure (as a person the does not practice any mental technique that enables you to be aware of the source of any mental activity?)

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 12:35 AM

Doron the union is all the elements not just any one or some of them and they are all local to that union.
And the union is non-local w.r.t all local (unique ids) elements of the considered collection.

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 12:46 AM

Ah the old standby Doron failsafe claim that anything and everything “is based on” or ‘just an aspect of’ some dichotomy “Linkage”.
It is simply your inability to get a simple notion like “mutual independency” where things are linked with each other (mutuality) without lose their identities (independency).

Your “mutual dependency” is nothing but using only one aspect of that linkage, by ignoring the saved independency under this linkage.

By your muddy reasoning we actually get “mutual mutuality” or “dependent dependency”, which are equivalent to your “mutual dependency” statement.

You simply can’t grasp the axiomatic state among the two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state, which are not derived from each other exactly like two axioms (they have independent qualities), and yet they are unique manifestations of a one common source that enables their consistent linkage.

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 12:53 AM

Doron I have explained non-locality in the specific context of relativity to you before and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your loco-only “reasoning”.
I can’t explain non-locality, because you consistently using only local view of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not.

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 01:06 AM

Once again Doron your “direct perception” fails you.

Once again The Man your only-indirect-perception fails you.

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 01:22 AM

No Doron once again that definition is what defines an irrational number.
The definition that an irrational number is any number that is not the result of the ratio between two integers, is simply the first stage of my argument.

You stop at that stage, but I continue to use the first stage in order to show that irrational numbers are also the limits of rational numbers along the real-line, by using Dedekind’s cuts.

In that case an irrational number is an example of a limit that does not belong to the set of the limited elements (the rational numbers, in this case).

Still there is a linkage between the limit and the limited elements, where this linkage is fundamentally different than the limit or the limited elements, such that it is non-local w.r.t them.

I also showed that this non-local property is defined also among elements of the same set, if one of these elements is used as the limit of the other elements of the considered set.

So Non-locality/Locality reasoning is consistent whether the limit belongs to the set of the limited elements, or not.

UNLoVedRebel

5th May 2010, 01:25 AM

You bumped your thread 4,005 times. Time to call it a day, donchya think?

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 03:35 AM

You bumped your thread 4,005 times. Time to call it a day, donchya think?
Or a night, who knows?

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 04:03 AM

David Scharf ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david.html )— Research Focus ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david_research.html )

Common sense tells us — and there is good scientific and philosophical support for this — that the conscious mind can be causally efficacious, and while this efficacy may be transmitted by the biophysics of our brain and nervous system, it refuses to reduce to biophysics. This points to a kind of interactionism between the conscious mind and the brain, but what kind of interactionism? In the seventeenth century, when modern science was in its infancy, it may have seemed reasonable for Descartes to propose an interactionism between mind and matter as radically distinct substances, where matter was the subject of the new mathematical physics, and mind was outside its domain. But today Cartesian interactionism seems decidedly less plausible because, among other reasons, if something — even if it is consciousness itself — is interacting with the physical domain, physics is going to want to understand it, incorporate it into the scientific domain, and model its interactions with suitable equations. So it would make more sense, nowadays, to suppose that mind and matter are two expressions of a common underlying substance and, what’s more, this theme is in keeping with the trend toward unification that has predominated in contemporary science — particularly, in recent advances in theoretical physics. According to the Vedic perspective of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, as developed in partnership with John Hagelin, the unified field of physics is identical to Transcendental Consciousness, the deepest level of the conscious mind.

According to this Vedic conception an individual mind is only a surface-level manifestation of consciousness. This contrasts sharply with contemporary physicalist approaches, which start from the assumption that consciousness is only a localized phenomenon, dependent on a particular individual’s brain and nervous system. In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that physicalism in all its manifestations has so far failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of the mind-body problem. The reason: neither consciousness nor its intrinsic cognitive properties are reducible to the localized, ultimately classical-physics brain. Rather, consciousness has its deepest roots in a fundamental symmetry represented in the unified field of contemporary quantum field theory. Although ultimately the Vedic conception is a type of monism, at the level of neuroscience the intervention of mind will be understood as an interaction between mind and brain. If these ideas are proven right, this interaction will only be successfully described in the context of advanced physics, utilizing all the resources that advanced physics can bring to bear, including spatial and temporal nonlocality as well as the more exotic symmetry principles.

Apathia

5th May 2010, 05:33 AM

your question? Who is this “your” and exactly is his question?

Ah!
Who is this that asks this question?
(It's the classic Korean Zen hwadu.) ("hwadu" - a Korean Zen koan.)

"Where is the one that asks?" is another.

(I'm assuming you're not asking that question conventionally. But if you are, the answer is in the post.)

Apathia

5th May 2010, 06:08 AM

David Scharf ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david.html )— Research Focus ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david_research.html )
Quote:
Common sense tells us — and there is good scientific and philosophical support for this — that the conscious mind can be causally efficacious, and while this efficacy may be transmitted by the biophysics of our brain and nervous system, it refuses to reduce to biophysics. This points to a kind of interactionism between the conscious mind and the brain, but what kind of interactionism? In the seventeenth century, when modern science was in its infancy, it may have seemed reasonable for Descartes to propose an interactionism between mind and matter as radically distinct substances, where matter was the subject of the new mathematical physics, and mind was outside its domain. But today Cartesian interactionism seems decidedly less plausible because, among other reasons, if something — even if it is consciousness itself — is interacting with the physical domain, physics is going to want to understand it, incorporate it into the scientific domain, and model its interactions with suitable equations. So it would make more sense, nowadays, to suppose that mind and matter are two expressions of a common underlying substance and, what’s more, this theme is in keeping with the trend toward unification that has predominated in contemporary science — particularly, in recent advances in theoretical physics. According to the Vedic perspective of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, as developed in partnership with John Hagelin, the unified field of physics is identical to Transcendental Consciousness, the deepest level of the conscious mind.

According to this Vedic conception an individual mind is only a surface-level manifestation of consciousness. This contrasts sharply with contemporary physicalist approaches, which start from the assumption that consciousness is only a localized phenomenon, dependent on a particular individual’s brain and nervous system. In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that physicalism in all its manifestations has so far failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of the mind-body problem. The reason: neither consciousness nor its intrinsic cognitive properties are reducible to the localized, ultimately classical-physics brain. Rather, consciousness has its deepest roots in a fundamental symmetry represented in the unified field of contemporary quantum field theory. Although ultimately the Vedic conception is a type of monism, at the level of neuroscience the intervention of mind will be understood as an interaction between mind and brain. If these ideas are proven right, this interaction will only be successfully described in the context of advanced physics, utilizing all the resources that advanced physics can bring to bear, including spatial and temporal nonlocality as well as the more exotic symmetry principles.

Now there's where you could address dlord's unanswered question.

Your Organic Mathematics is intended to show how number and mathematics is a result of an interaction between the local, individual consciousness and the non-local, universal, Unified Consciousness. .

The Man

5th May 2010, 09:34 AM

No measurement that is related to the coherence activity can be taken from a dead brain.

A lack of left frontal activity is coherent with a lack of right frontal activity Doron

Deep sleep, or damaged brain’s activities are not characterized by a coherent brain activity, as observed, for example in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE .

No such claims are made by that “example”.

How do you know that for sure (as a person the does not practice any mental technique that enables you to be aware of the source of any mental activity?)

Based on your own assertions at that your “direct perception” continues to fail you as it does above. I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning. You should try it sometime.

And the union is non-local w.r.t all local (unique ids) elements of the considered collection.

Doron the union is a “unique id” that its elements are ‘local’ to.

It is simply your inability to get a simple notion like “mutual independency” where things are linked with each other (mutuality) without lose their identities (independency).

Doron we have been over this before “mutually independent” means that changes to one do not result in changes to the other. They are not dependent on each other, thus independent and that independence from each other is mutual. The mutual ‘link’, as you put it, is specifically their shared lack of dependency upon each other.

Your “mutual dependency” is nothing but using only one aspect of that linkage, by ignoring the saved independency under this linkage.

Again Doron we have been over this before “mutual dependency” means that changes to one results in changes to the other. They are specifically dependent upon each other which is the negation of independent, they specifically have no “independency” in that regard to be, well, ‘saved’.

By your muddy reasoning we actually get “mutual mutuality” or “dependent dependency”, which are equivalent to your “mutual dependency” statement.

No Doron it is simply your deliberately ‘foggy’ “reasoning” and your “direct perception” that has failed you yet again.

You simply can’t grasp the axiomatic state among the two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state, which are not derived from each other exactly like two axioms (they have independent qualities), and yet they are unique manifestations of a one common source that enables their consistent linkage.

Again “two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state” means your “self-state” isn’t “atomic” (indivisible) by your own ascriptions as you deliberately divide it into “two qualitative aspects” just so you can recombine them again into your “complex” contrivance.

I can’t explain non-locality, because you consistently using only local view of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not.

No Doron you “can’t explain non-locality” because you insist on directly contradicting yourself and have succumb to your own subjective, self contradictory and generally contradictory interpretations “of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not”.

As a result your ‘explanations’ are only apparently meaningful to you, which again answers your previous question.

How do you know that for sure (as a person the does not practice any mental technique that enables you to be aware of the source of any mental activity?)

The definition that an irrational number is any number that is not the result of the ratio between two integers, is simply the first stage of my argument.

You stop at that stage, but I continue to use the first stage in order to show that irrational numbers are also the limits of rational numbers along the real-line, by using Dedekind’s cuts.

In that case an irrational number is an example of a limit that does not belong to the set of the limited elements (the rational numbers, in this case).

Still there is a linkage between the limit and the limited elements, where this linkage is fundamentally different than the limit or the limited elements, such that it is non-local w.r.t them.

I also showed that this non-local property is defined also among elements of the same set, if one of these elements is used as the limit of the other elements of the considered set.

So Non-locality/Locality reasoning is consistent whether the limit belongs to the set of the limited elements, or not.

Again Doron we have been over this before, a limit does not need to be a member of the set, but it can be. Your “Non-locality/Locality reasoning is” simply inconsistent with itself, again specifically in your “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription of “Non-locality”. Have you decided to officially change that ascription to ‘belongs to some set, space or domain AND belongs to some other set, space or domain’ as we discussed before?

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 10:23 AM

Based on your own assertions at that your “direct perception” continues to fail you as it does above.
No activity of R = No activity of L, but our learning The Man ("I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning") does not distinguish between coherent activity and no activity.

Doron the union is a “unique id” that its elements are ‘local’ to.
Out leaning The Man still can't get the non-locality of the union w.r.t to the local ids, again a partial learning is observed.

Again “two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state” means your “self-state” isn’t “atomic” (indivisible) by your own ascriptions as you deliberately divide it into “two qualitative aspects”
No branches (qualitative aspects) divide the trunk (the atomic self-state).

They are simply different manifestations of a one thing, but your limited learning ability can't grasp that.

No Doron you “can’t explain non-locality”
Your local-only learning practice has nothing to say about non-locality.

Again Doron we have been over this before,
You have been before, now and after in local-only learning state of mind, that can't get even simple thing like Dedekin's cut and how it is related to my argument about the exclusion of the limit w.r.t a given set.

Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

Your local-only practice works extra hours, without any result.

doronshadmi

5th May 2010, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Now there's where you could address dlord's unanswered question.

Your Organic Mathematics is intended to show how number and mathematics is a result of an interaction between the local, individual consciousness and the non-local, universal, Unified Consciousness. .
OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Skeptic

6th May 2010, 02:48 AM

No Doron it is simply your deliberately ‘foggy’

I doubt it's deliberate....

Again Doron we have been over this before, a limit does not need to be a member of the set, but it can be.

Okay, so Doron doesn't understand limits -- or compactness -- either. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Skeptic

6th May 2010, 02:50 AM

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Yes, but can you change a tire with it?

The Man

6th May 2010, 06:52 AM

No activity of R = No activity of L, but our learning The Man ("I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning") does not distinguish between coherent activity and no activity.

You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.

Out leaning The Man still can't get the non-locality of the union w.r.t to the local ids, again a partial learning is observed.

Tell us Doron, in regards to your “self-state”, what is “non-local” “w.r.t” to itself?

No branches (qualitative aspects) divide the trunk (the atomic self-state).

Again Doron you divide your “atomic self-state” into those aspects deliberately just so you can combine them again into your “complex” contrivance.

They are simply different manifestations of a one thing, but your limited learning ability can't grasp that.

They are simply your “manifestations” Doron, but your “direct perception” “can't grasp that”.

Your local-only learning practice has nothing to say about non-locality.

Your loco-only “reasoning” can only describe your notion of “non-locality” by directly contradicting itself.

You have been before, now and after in local-only learning state of mind, that can't get even simple thing like Dedekin's cut and how it is related to my argument about the exclusion of the limit w.r.t a given set.

A set can be open (the limits are not members of the set), closed (the limits are members of the set) or half open (one of the limits is a member of the set) without even considering “Dedekin's cut”. You are just arguing with yourself.

Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

Doron a limit that is not a member of the set specifically does not “share with it the same set”.

Your local-only practice works extra hours, without any result.

Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.

The Man

6th May 2010, 07:07 AM

I doubt it's deliberate....

I would like to think so Skeptic, but Doron’s simple refusal to understand that the difference of the infinite convergent series ½+¼+1/8+1/16... from 2 times that series (1+½+¼+1/8+1/16...) is that series and thus the sum of that series equals 1. Doron insists on making that simple self similar relationship ‘foggy’, so I am left with the inescapable conclusion that his “fog” must be deliberate.

zooterkin

6th May 2010, 07:33 AM

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

It is? Ok, please give an example of this.

doronshadmi

6th May 2010, 08:34 AM

You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.
You should learn what coherent-activity means. In your dead brain there is no coherent-activity.

Furthermore, by measure a dead brain tissue you actually will find a non-coherent results that are derived from the process of tissue's decomposition, which is non-coherent.

Only a live brain can manifest coherent-activity among its components.

Tell us Doron, in regards to your “self-state”, what is “non-local” “w.r.t” to itself

Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.

Non-local or Local are the minimal qualitative manifestations that are derived from the atomic self-state. Your local-only reasoning naturally can't get it, similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D.

A set can be open (the limits are not members of the set), closed (the limits are members of the set) or half open (one of the limits is a member of the set) without even considering “Dedekin's cut”.
Nonsense, Dedekin's cut and open\clopen sets are derived form the same principle, such that some considered element is not a member of a considered collection, and yet there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements. Your local-only reasoning can't comprehend that.

Doron a limit that is not a member of the set specifically does not “share with it the same set”.
At this particular part I spoke about a closed set, where the limit is a member of that set, but you have missed it.

Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.
Yes, a D3 vision can't be known by a one eye viewer.

doronshadmi

6th May 2010, 08:42 AM

It is? Ok, please give an example of this.
The complexity around you and within you is a direct results of the linkage between the non-local qualitative aspect and the local qualitative aspect of the atomic self-state.

Sums and fogs share the same complex garden, that is derived from the atomic self-state.

doronshadmi

6th May 2010, 08:53 AM

I would like to think so Skeptic, but Doron’s simple refusal to understand that the difference of the infinite convergent series ½+¼+1/8+1/16... from 2 times that series (1+½+¼+1/8+1/16...) is that series and thus the sum of that series equals 1. Doron insists on making that simple self similar relationship ‘foggy’, so I am left with the inescapable conclusion that his “fog” must be deliberate.
You simply can't grasp that sums (in the case of positive added values) are the results of a finite addition.

Your local-only reasoning can't grasp http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5721761&postcount=9104 and fog 0.000...1/2, such that:

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

4 - (2/1+1/1+1/2+1/4+...) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

...

Aslo you can't get fog 0.000...3/4 in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5890520&postcount=9686 .

doronshadmi

6th May 2010, 08:59 AM

Yes, but can you change a tire with it?

Without it (the reseached subjects of OM, where OM is no more than some research tool) there is no tire and no one that chages the tire.

doronshadmi

7th May 2010, 10:00 AM

I think that we carefully have to investigate what actually enables complex structures.

I have found that Complexity is derived from the linkage of opposites such that they do not contradict each other during linkage.

As I get it, self awareness development is essential to non-destructive linkage between opposites, and by practicing TM for example, we actually reinforce this linkage, which in turn enables finer manifestations of complex forms.

In my opinion, the nervous system of self-aware complex systems, is more software than hardware, such that their abilities to develop internal and external complex forms is increased by non-linear frequency.

Non-linear complexity development, as I get it, is actually the non-linear development of the balance between opposites, which is exactly the manifestation of the linkage (the unified-field, which is the natural source of opposites) among opposites.

Reduction is only the local aspect of complex systems, and can't really capture complexity's development similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D vision.

Non-linearity and Chaos Theory plays a main role in our understanding of Complexity's development as a result of a developed balance between opposites like order and disorder.

Here are two papers about this interesting subject:

Is the normal heartbeat chaotic or homeostatic?
http://reylab.bidmc.harvard.edu/pubs/1991/nps-1991-6-87.pdf

Some outstanding paper from the class of Spring '03 of Oregon University:

Human Beings as Chaotic Systems:
http://www.physics.orst.edu/~stetza/ph407H/Chaos.pdf

As I get it, Self similarity upon different scale levels is exactly the optimal condition to develop deeper awareness of finer mental activity, where the non-local property of this self-similarity over scales is the property that actually enables us to transcend and directly be aware of the source of all possible manifested phenomena, which are naturally free of contradiction, otherwise they do not exist as complex forms.

I believe that we can learn much form our biological complexity, for example, our heart:

Each cell of our heart has the ability work (to produce a beat) independently of the other cells. Yet this independent (local) ability is synchronized by special cells that (by using a non-local principle with respect to the independent cells) coordinate their independent abilities into a one coherent heartbeat, which actually enables our existence as living complex systems.

Furthermore, by Chaos Theory we have learned that this Non-local\Local linkage is characterized by self-similarity over different scale levels of each heartbeat, which actually demonstrates the beauty that is found at the basis of the non-linear dynamics of our heart.

It enables simple principles to manifest great complexity by avoiding contradiction between the independent ability of each heart cell to work in its own beat (if the linkage between Non-locality and Locality is interrupted, we get independent beats which contradict each others, our heart stops and we die).

So our heart is a concrete example of Mutual Independency (synchronization (non-locality) among independent beats (locality)).

In general any autonomy that is based on dichotomy between opposites, can't be used as a fruitful base ground for Complexity's development, because by this dichotomy the opposites are not opened to each other, and without this openness there is no Complexity. Actually the whole idea of Complexity is derived from the ability of opposites to be developed beyond their isolated ids without losing their ids during interaction (Mutual Independency).

In my opinion, Complexity is the exact manifestation of linked ids, where linked ids is actually the fundamental term of any axiomatic system, such that each axiom saves its id (it is not derived from any other axiom) during linkage (the unified field) and each axiom does not contradict any other axiom (again, because all ids are derived from the same source, known as the unified field).

Mutual Independency is the main principle, where the mutual and the independent are oneped to each other.

ddt

7th May 2010, 06:42 PM

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Well, the infinite complexity part is right insofar as that you've been unable, after over 5,500 posts here and thousands more on other fora, to explain it properly. :rolleyes:

Oh, and for the rest, that sentence is 100% word salad.

doronshadmi

8th May 2010, 03:37 AM

Oh, and for the rest, that sentence is 100% word salad.
ddt, What You See Is What You Get, and you don't get, for example, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5905638&postcount=9737 .

And why you don't get it? Because you refuse to accept Non-locality as an additional qualitative property, that if linked with the opposite qualitative property, we get the Complexity within AND without us.

For example, you do not understand the invariant proportions 1/2 and 3/4 as rigorously defined in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5905638&postcount=9737 , and fundamentally change the standard approach about fractals.

You are still forcing finitism and limits on infinite complexity, by claiming, for example that 0.999…[base 10] (which is a single path into the depth of some infinite fractal) is nothing but some representation of 1 (where 1 is definitely not a single path into the depth of some infinite fractal).

By forcing finitism and limits on a complex thing like an infinite fractal, you actually cut off any chance to develop mathematical tools that enable to research infinite fractals.

We do not need more than that in order to demonstrate why all you get is world salad.

zooterkin

8th May 2010, 03:41 AM

The complexity around you and within you is a direct results of the linkage between the non-local qualitative aspect and the local qualitative aspect of the atomic self-state.

Sums and fogs share the same complex garden, that is derived from the atomic self-state.

Really? How does that answer the question? To remind you, you claimed:
OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Please give an example of OM being used as a tool to do anything at all.

Apathia

8th May 2010, 06:49 AM

And why you don't get it? Because you refuse to accept Non-locality as an additional qualitative property, that if linked with the opposite qualitative property, we get the Complexity within AND without us.

I always like to comment on the moments when the issue is clearly stated (at least to my reading).
It's true that Mathematics doesn't accept the Non-local as a property, especially of numbers.
This is a corollary to modern Ontology's assertion that existence or being is not a property anything possesses.

Key to Doron's way of number is that he asserts that Non-locality is a quality, a quality that can be possessed as an inherent property of a number.

When he goes on to assert that "cardinality is a measure of existence," he is not only asserting that existence is also an inherent property of number, but that Non-locality as an inherent property can be quantified.
Enter the Organic Numbers with their links between the inherent properties of Locality and Non-Locality.

Now the reason that I sometimes assert that Buddhist thought and Western Mathematics have more in common than Mathematics and Doron's unique take on Vedic thought is that it (Buddhism) pretty much consistently states in all its various sects that existence or being is not an inherent property anything possesses.
Also Buddhist thought doesn't make of the concept of Infinity an ontological reality.

But I bring Buddhism into this discussion to point out that there is a highly ethical philosophical tradition that doesn't find itself opposed or smothered by Western Mathematics and Science and doesn't require that they be cut back to the roots for a new, more spiritual, paradigm.

BTW Vedic Mathematics never entailed or even thought to do Doron's redo.
It's his only.
Vedic Mathematics carried on with the same concept of number common to all of mathematics on this planet.

Apathia

8th May 2010, 08:53 AM

BTW 2: Quantum Theory including quantum entanglement is doing just fine with contemporary mathematics.
The people who are looking for those ellusive and dubious "hidden variables" do complain.
But I'd wager that if they did make something of such things, it wouldn't involve ditching Limits and Analytic Geometry.

To anticipate a question:

Doron: So how do you account for Complexity.

Apathia: Me? I don't account for Complexity.
I start there.
It's much more complex and rich than combinations of black and white pixels.

The Man

8th May 2010, 10:56 AM

You should learn what coherent-activity means. In your dead brain there is no coherent-activity.

Again you should learn what coherent means.

Furthermore, by measure a dead brain tissue you actually will find a non-coherent results that are derived from the process of tissue's decomposition, which is non-coherent.

Really? Please cite any published results of such a study.

Only a live brain can manifest coherent-activity among its components.

Again

You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.

Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.

So now your “Local” and “Non-local” are “not” “aspects” of your atomic self-state?

Non-local or Local are the minimal qualitative manifestations that are derived from the atomic self-state.

Not according to you since “Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.”

Your local-only reasoning naturally can't get it, similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D.

Your loco-only “reasoning” you can’t gat that poor analogies do not alleviate your direct contradictions.

Nonsense, Dedekin's cut and open\clopen sets are derived form the same principle, such that some considered element is not a member of a considered collection, and yet there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements. Your local-only reasoning can't comprehend that.

Dedekin's cut is specifically based on half open sets, if you had actually read your own cited reference you would have known that. They are not “derived form the same principle” one (Dedekin's cut) is specifically based upon the other (half open sets). Your "direct perception" has failed you again.

At this particular part I spoke about a closed set, where the limit is a member of that set, but you have missed it.

You mean this “particular part”…

Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

There is no mention of closed sets, but you do refer to your “non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit..” and as you note above “there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements.” In a closed set those limits are some “of the linked elements” so in order for any of those limits to be “non-local because it is not any of the linked elements” they can not be members of the set.

Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.
Yes, a D3 vision can't be known by a one eye viewer.

Glad to see you agree. So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result and you start leaning something? Like for example that bad analogies do not alleviate you directly contradicting yourself.