Robert W. wrote:
>Logic is a powerful tool for analysis. Some use it
>intuitively, you people seem to have mastered
>formalized, symbolic logic. That's great.
Logic is just a branch of mathematics which studies
discourse and their interpretation.
>My point has to do with the way you folks seem to be
>trying to understand *everything*. Logic will always
>play a powerful role in understanding and analysis.
>I am basically trying to say, there are ways of seeing
>and understanding that transcend sequential thinking.
Most discourses are sequential but the thinking behind
does not need to be sequential. The semantics are
in general not sequential.
>Maticulously wondering a search space, with logic or
>any other method, only reveals what's in that space.
>It does not help one see outside of the space.
Recall I have until here give only an informal (although
persuasive IMO) argument showing that if we can survive
with a digitale brain then physics transform itself
into a branch of machine psychology.
UDA = UDA http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m1726.html
And currently, I have just proposed to some to explain
the technical part of my thesis where I will explicitely
show how quantum logic in the discourse of the introspective
UTM. I' dont feel myself searching in a space.
>I'd love to be expert enough in logic and mathmatics
>to demonstrate all the brick-walls I see intuitively,
>unfortunately, I am not now, or likely to be good
>enough in formalized systems of logic to do so.
It is true that logic is poorly taught. But then that is
the reason why I propose to take it at the beginning.
Of course that demand some works.
>I was hoping to call attention to other facilities we
>all posses to expand understanding in areas that seem
>to defy understanding.
Thank you. Such facilities are welcome, although they are
in general much more difficult to communicate.
Read the UDA. It is IMO such a "facililities". The logic
is only for those who have grasped UDA and want to see
the emergence of the quantum in machine's mind.
To be honest I think you were also rather hardhearted with
Brent Meeker's post. That post was indeed indirectly pointing
to the very reasonable critics which can be adress to Thaetetus
definition of knowledge (true and justify) which entails
we can know think for bad or reason.
To introduce "causality" in the definition of knowledge is
a move which will be forbidden by comp and UDA, we must on the
contrary extract the squeletton on causal proposition from
our definition of knowledge or better observation.
In fact that remarks is important and we will be obliged
to say more on that, soon or later.