--- Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. 

Let's be clear on the meaning of *logic*. Logic as a
reasoning power existed before the discipline of
formalized logic.

One can have a very powerful logical reasoning
facility without having attented a course on the

> >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
              should be wandering.
> 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

This assumes a great deal...

> 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.

How can it be anything but a space to be searched?

One can invision a possibility space where one
dimension is time and others possible expression

One might attempt to write a program to demonstrate
consciousness by generating a random program within
some set of constraints and then generating many until
he stumbles upon what he's looking for. When all the
possibilities within the constraints are exhausted,
he's searched the possibility space. 

Obviously there are faster ways to search this space
for meaningful results, but it's still a search.

> >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 have not taken a course on it. I have read a book on
Symbolic Logic but found the discipline of little
utility and so not worth my time to incorporate as a
persistent knowledge. My logical reasoning power is
reasonable developed however and find it more than
adequate for most endeavours.

I have noticed that when it comes to exhausting a
possibility space with logic and finding an answer
using intuitive methods then verifty the results with
logic is far more productive.

On the other hand, I can see the temptation to use
one's already developed formalized method to explore a
subject. I however, do not enjoy considering the
possiblity of having my mind placed in a mathmatical
bottle by you people. 

> >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.

I was having a bad day. My appologies for being harsh.

> Bruno

Robert W.

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices

Reply via email to