Re: Time and Freewill
"John Mikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:49 AM >I tried to scroll along this discussion - *in vain*. My *"mind"* is not > strong enough for that. I picked out portions to reply, while reading, then > other parts washed them away and at the end I sit here blank. It originated from my manuscript, located in PDF form at http://cogprints.org/6176/ ; other locations are mentioned in my first post to the topic. I can send you a PDF or other file format if you require it, or post a public copy at this group, subject to permissions. I will be happy to discuss any further details of the original published manuscript, either here or by email. Other posted comments would basically have to be referred back to their authors, but I can certainly comment further on anything I have seen on this group.. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Regarding Aesthetics
Gunther, Sorry for no umlaut. I'm sure you will wait for Bruno's answer, but I'd like to offer a simple example. What is the meaning of the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Granted, a circle is an ideal, but it is something that has meaning, and I would even argue, quasi a la Plato, that the ideal circle is what gives meaning to other circles. etc. Perhaps this is what Bruno is getting at. Not only is infinity sufficient for meaning (which some would even argue against, would you?), but it is also necessary. Tom On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno, > > why do you think that meaning depends on the presence of infinities? > > Cheers, > Günther > > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Sep 2008, at 06:28, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>> On Sep 12, 5:06 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be > > thought > > of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects > > of C > > to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that > > the > > compositional structure of the two categories is preserved. > No meaning there either. > > Brent > > >>> Given that its been published on wikipedia, I'd say ya need to brush > >>> up on ya category theory. Analogies and category theory are very > >>> interesting indeed, as a possible means to extend Bayesianism. > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy > >> "Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information > >> from a > >> particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular > >> subject (the > >> target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process." > > >> Notice that the subject must already have information, i.e. meaning, > >> and analogy > >> is a way of transferring it. > > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory > >> "In mathematics, category theory deals in an *abstract* way with > >> mathematical > >> structures and relationships between them: it abstracts from sets > >> and functions > >> to objects and morphisms." > > >> No meaning there. > > > ??? There are infinities there. I think this means that there is some > > meaning there. > > >> It's not that I disagree that Bayesian inference is limited, it's > >> just that I > >> don't see how any formalism, logic, set theory, category theory, > >> arithmetic... > >> can provide it's own meaning. To say that some symbolic string has > >> meaning is > >> just to say it can provoke action in some context. > > > Only a symbolic things can have meaning, or are putting mind in > > matter? then you have to put > > infinities in both mind and matter. At least. I don't believe if > > works, but if you don't you are back > > to explain meaning in strict finite terms. > > 5rememeber that the UD argument goes through with the "generalized > > brain". This can contain > > any finite part of the environment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Regarding Aesthetics
Bruno, why do you think that meaning depends on the presence of infinities? Cheers, Günther Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 Sep 2008, at 06:28, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 12, 5:06 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be > thought > of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects > of C > to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that > the > compositional structure of the two categories is preserved. No meaning there either. Brent >>> Given that its been published on wikipedia, I'd say ya need to brush >>> up on ya category theory. Analogies and category theory are very >>> interesting indeed, as a possible means to extend Bayesianism. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy >> "Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information >> from a >> particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular >> subject (the >> target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process." >> >> Notice that the subject must already have information, i.e. meaning, >> and analogy >> is a way of transferring it. >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory >> "In mathematics, category theory deals in an *abstract* way with >> mathematical >> structures and relationships between them: it abstracts from sets >> and functions >> to objects and morphisms." >> >> >> No meaning there. > > ??? There are infinities there. I think this means that there is some > meaning there. > > >> >> It's not that I disagree that Bayesian inference is limited, it's >> just that I >> don't see how any formalism, logic, set theory, category theory, >> arithmetic... >> can provide it's own meaning. To say that some symbolic string has >> meaning is >> just to say it can provoke action in some context. > > Only a symbolic things can have meaning, or are putting mind in > matter? then you have to put > infinities in both mind and matter. At least. I don't believe if > works, but if you don't you are back > to explain meaning in strict finite terms. > 5rememeber that the UD argument goes through with the "generalized > brain". This can contain > any finite part of the environment. > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Regarding Aesthetics
On 12 Sep 2008, at 06:28, Brent Meeker wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> On Sep 12, 5:06 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be thought of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects of C to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that the compositional structure of the two categories is preserved. >>> No meaning there either. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> Given that its been published on wikipedia, I'd say ya need to brush >> up on ya category theory. Analogies and category theory are very >> interesting indeed, as a possible means to extend Bayesianism. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy > > "Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information > from a > particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular > subject (the > target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process." > > Notice that the subject must already have information, i.e. meaning, > and analogy > is a way of transferring it. > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory > > "In mathematics, category theory deals in an *abstract* way with > mathematical > structures and relationships between them: it abstracts from sets > and functions > to objects and morphisms." > > > No meaning there. ??? There are infinities there. I think this means that there is some meaning there. > > > It's not that I disagree that Bayesian inference is limited, it's > just that I > don't see how any formalism, logic, set theory, category theory, > arithmetic... > can provide it's own meaning. To say that some symbolic string has > meaning is > just to say it can provoke action in some context. Only a symbolic things can have meaning, or are putting mind in matter? then you have to put infinities in both mind and matter. At least. I don't believe if works, but if you don't you are back to explain meaning in strict finite terms. 5rememeber that the UD argument goes through with the "generalized brain". This can contain any finite part of the environment. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Regarding Aesthetics
On 11 Sep 2008, at 19:06, Brent Meeker wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> I think we are due for yet another extension to logic, one which will >> contain Bayesianism as a special case. > > But logic is also the manipulation of sequences of propositions. No > matter how > clever, you still need to something else to supply meaning. I think > meaning > only arises in relation to action within an environment. That is a magical move, unless you put some infinities perhaps. Selection among an infinity of environment would explain a little more, yet it is not enough. > > >> >> I think Bruno had it right, it's all Category Theory- and make the >> next big leap forward in logic, we need to start using the concepts >> from Category Theory and apply them to logic, to develop a new logic >> capable of going beyond Bayesianism and dealing with the semantics of >> information. But how? Listen to this: >> >> Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be >> thought >> of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects of C >> to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that the >> compositional structure of the two categories is preserved. > > No meaning there either. Caterorial logician and algebraist would differ with you on this. Again I don't think it is enough, but at least category theory gives a frame for the notion of reductive meaning, that is, when meaning is given by a faithful embedding of some unknown into something we already know "meaningfully". Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Regarding Aesthetics
Yes indeed Brent! Tts a very tough problem, and exactly what I've been critizing Bayesianism for. That's what I've been going on about when I talked about how Bayesianism can only fully deal with *Shannon Information* , it can't fully handle the *meaning* (semantics) of the information. So how do we ascribe meaning to mere formalism? Remember the story of John Boole. He developed a means of reasoning about thinking, by matching up the abstract concepts of *algebra* with concrete concepts of *mental logic*. In large part, his ideas were the foundation for Bayesianism. Enter the story of Marc Geddes ;) Like Boole, I’m trying to extend logic further meaning by matching up abstract concepts with concrete logical concepts. In particular, it is highly suspicious that there appears to be a remarkably close match-up between the concepts of *category theory* and the concepts of *analogy formation*. What is even more remarkable, no one but me seems to have noticed ;) So, the meaning is obtained by matching the abstract concepts to the concrete ones. Let’s look once again at the close match between an *analogy*, and a *functor* from category theory: First, observe the definition of an analogy: " Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process." Go to the definition of a functor from category theory: "Given two categories C and D a functor F from C to D can be thought of as an *analogy* between C and D, because F has to map objects of C to objects of D and arrows of C to arrows of D in such a way that the compositional structure of the two categories is preserved" So we can match the meaningful concept (ie 'analogy') to the abstract concept (ie 'functor', from category theory) Intriguing huh? It useful to look at the story of George Boole once again, because he developed computer logic precisely by performing these sorts of match- ups between abstract algebra (meaningless) and basic mental logic (meaningful) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_boole --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
