I can't determine why John is saying what he is saying but let me say this. Is zero the opposite of infinity? Well not usually. For example, 0 is a number whereas infinity is not. However, from a slightly different point of view we might consider infinity as the opposite of zero. So we would need some way to ground the concepts of 'zero' and 'infinity' for their different relations. Here the word 'ground' is being used in a different way (a more general way) than those who think that all concepts should be grounded to some raw sensory data. I am saying that a concept has to be grounded to be defined in such a way so that it can be used more reliably. So the ground that you would need to say that zero and infinity are opposites might consist of insights into how they might be so considered and how that concept of 'opposition' might be applied to zero and infinity in a reliable way (more reliable than just making the assertion that zero and infinity are opposites without any conceptual support for the assertion.)
But there are more methods to conceptual integration then blending. The Berkeley, CA. definition of blending is not the only possible way to explain conceptual integration. A critic might dismiss my ideas about conceptual integration by saying that that they only consist of an association between features of different conceptual complexes (or something like that). But while my methods of conceptual integration might be classified as a method which includes a definition of the associations between features of different conceptual complexes there are still a couple more parts to my theory. One is that concepts play roles which might be likened to variable typing in programming and the other is that concepts are relativistic. But the problem of defining the grounding of an unusual relation is that it will look superficial at first, as if I was just redefining the concept in a circular (or what I think is a more apt description, loopy) definition. At first conceptual integration (which is necessary for conceptual grounding) is going to be superficial just as any new idea that you have will be. When you realize that the initial integration might then be related to dynamic methods and other useful methods you might start to see why this process is so important. So zero is nothing and infinity is more than can be counted (or even theoretically so). That is the basis of the opposition. But zero is a number whereas infinity is not but there are ways we can use infinity in some formulas to produce a number-like evaluation. But this distinction may be reexamined by realizing that while you would not need to, you could use zero in a way similar to infinity, so it seems like the numbers are elements of a useful class that includes infinity - as well as members of a class that does not include infinity. The fact that intuition about something could lead to a redefinition of a class (or more generally a collection) means that to be able to think about a subject with the agile fluidity that is often demanded by thought that we need to know a great many things about a simple subject in order to understand it even in a simple way. If someone who has studied mathematics thinks about what I wrote it should refresh his memory about the distinction between infinity and the numbers but also help him to specify the intuition that infinity can be seen as the opposite of zero. So even without going further into any more details about how this idea of opposition should be grounded, you have a slightly better structure to use to think about the relation if there was some reason for you to think about it. -Jim Bromer On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 7:53 AM, John Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes for me "This is all numbers" so as to be able to model everything and > operate upon with computers. But really everything is numbers physically IMO > also. A number is a virtual representation or even the thing itself as a > thing is a representation except if it is the only thing with no observer but > then in that single item panpsychistic universe the thing of unity would > represent itself to itself as its own virtuality of unity perhaps...? > > 0=∞ is dazzlying precise yet imprecise, it connects the two. It blends > opposites causing the observer to change mechanics or refactor it's worldview > to conceptually propagate and absorb. It wrap-morphs illusion of reality into > something representationally more directed... IMO. > > People can only change their rules somewhat. Humans are a multi-agent > intelligence, a single human grown in isolation in a lab would never reach > much intelligence it would die. The species traditionally has relied on > "agents" expiring when rules severely change as intelligence progresses > through time. One of the reasons for limited lifetimes maybe... that > biological minds can't fully rewire and expunge? > > John > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mike Archbold [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> I think "0 = infinity" is a legitimate thought in the way that it is kind of >> a look at >> all quantity in a sort of atomic way. If you just had a thought "This is all >> numbers." I think dogmatist oriented philosophers change the "rules" all the >> time by showing the "truth" >> which is usually some inner, subconscious drive unknown to everybody but >> Nietzsche if I read him correctly! The question seems to be what variation >> of >> philosophic system might be implementable, which I think is what you are >> saying. >> >> On 8/9/13, John Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Mike Archbold [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> >> >> >> The problems start in strong AI, however, when you try to reconcile >> >> things like "beginning, cause, one vs. many, >> >> sameness/difference/likeness, complete vs. >> >> incomplete, possible, >> >> potential..." etc etc etc. Just considering one of these is fine, >> >> one can usually make sense out of it, but the problem is that all >> >> these concepts are concurrently taken up in something in the world. >> >> How do you even begin to work all of that together? If the approach >> >> is emergence, nobody does, they just place hope in a clever learning >> >> scheme can determine those things. It might work -- I'm not knocking >> >> evolutionary learning algorithms. It might not though, and then it's >> >> back to head scratching on these long standing philosophy issues, >> >> like the potential vs actual, appearance in relation to existence... >> >> on and on like that. >> >> >> > >> > I know. All these fuzzy concepts from the philosophers, Kant is like >> > that I just can't read Kant. Picture loading them all in a knowledge >> > graph. What is "essence" across the various philosophies through time >> > until now and how does that relate to "being". They should just load >> > up into the system aren't all these things just subgraphs with relative and >> changing definitions? >> > >> > What we can do with AGI but the philosophers cannot is change the >> > rules from the ground up. Modify logic to see what happens. What if >> > "up" really is "down" or outside is really inside? How does the system >> > refactor >> itself? >> > Some AGI's couldn't deal with that though they might have to re-emerge >> > what the "essence of being" is. The AGI system really needs to be able >> > to do that. The shining light of rationalism has to de-rationalize >> > itself locally in various ways in order to see into the shadows of >> > unknown so it can ingest new rules, those of which were previously >> > illogical... and some new rules might require total system >> > refactoring. Human brains struggle with total system refactoring. A 0=∞ >> conjecture is deflected rather than subsumed. >> > There is too much logic against it. A full integration would yield >> > unacceptable systemic risk. >> > >> > John >> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
