Now you are advancing from Kant to Husserl and Deleuze ("Difference
and Repetition")Deleuze really does ground time in deeper underlying perceptions of sameness, difference and direction We can go there if we want to... but if building AGI systems running on modern digital computers which have clocks and such built in, I think it's fair enough to start with time as a fundamental category (time) and not go down to ultimate basic phenomenology (Husserl, Deleuze) making a mathematical version of "Difference and Repetition" in terms of distinction graphs is one of the things on my theory to-do list... https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.00741 On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 2:35 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <[email protected]> wrote: > > First, ontological time and space depend on the human mind. Suppose > dependence on the human mind, then time and space would be non-singular > constructs. Therefore empirically A => B. Suppose independence of the human > mind, then singular, and possibly own entities in the world. I would think > irrelevant to this particular question. > > My question is; given the binary version of Mathematics humankind-in-action > employs, how would empirical evidence possibly support the notion of a > singular space and time? It would not. > > A fundamental truth that seemingly remains is that time and space exist in > the reasoning universe (the universe of the human mind). To be functionally > useful, it may well not be all of time and space in the total notion of a > finitely-infinite cosmos, but rather relevant time and space according to the > binary version of humankind. > > In context of this question then, the answer should be "No, it does not > simply bring us back to Kant's view on time and space." That view would be > too wide and all encompassing. This question must be addressed in terms of > the assumption of a dependence on the relational acceptance of how all of > humankind ascribe to the general notion of time being dependent on a > unit-measuring, binary instrument and space being defined by the relative > objects in a select, version of relational reality - as humankind knows it. > As such, it would be qualifiable and quantifiable. > > > > ________________________________ > From: Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, 28 September 2019 15:01 > To: AGI <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [agi] can someone tell me what before means without saying > before in it? > > Aren't we back to Kant here? Time and space as fundamental > categories, not fully reducible to other things... > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 7:11 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ive got this feeling, that things are impossible to put. I want to tell my > > computer what before means, but I end up just saying before in the > > sentence itself. "before means before." > > > > That is bullshit. > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants > > + delivery options Permalink > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to > live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same > time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, > burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders > across the stars.” -- Jack Kerouac > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars.” -- Jack Kerouac ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Td59c0c4714ffb511-M7df0bbb767508a8901d71a43 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
