Re: [Fis] Praxotype
Hi Karl, On 15 Oct 2013, at 17:23, Karl Javorszky wrote: > As Bob said experiences -> words. Wittgenstein said words -> > numbers. Pythagoras: world -> numbers. Idea: organise numbers like > you organise words and see the world. > Question from Stan: experience <-> number ?. > Answer: > Like in Bobs analogy: water as a recognisable, recurring experience, > sufficiently interpersonal to be consistently named and understood > that this is what was meant by "water". In our case, we have to > communicate recognisable, recurring expriences that relate to mental > products that are thought. The brain experiences by the sensory > organs differently than by thinking. Feelings that arise on > thoughts, rather than on sensual experiences, can also be > circumscribed. This will happen in an abstract way. The audience is > invited to recognise a pattern of patterns. These can be > communicated by ponting to a table and saying "such is the place > here and then", these statements being numbers. One may want to be > perceptive to the experience that a point in space and a load on > this point can be directly read out of the natural numbers. We are > presently learning the common, unifying experience that a table - > slightly more complicated than a multiplication table - delivers > exact data on "what is where and when". Therefrom, one will be > accessing a logical experience of "order". Like the physiological > experience "water" has got a common name, the cultural invention is > now to give the name "order" to a way of reading the contents of a > table that makes the concept explicable to all. > This is the stage we are at now. > As to the sufficient number of noumena - see Gordana - as compared > to that of words used by traditional languages: we are at learning > to give names to experiences, and the experiences themselves are not > yet universally connected to such an interpretation of numbers which > allows saying "this experience is commonly shared and is called", > e.g., 'order', or 'future' or 'space-mass-time stitch-up by standard > place changes'. > There is by far enough of numbers to represent all that could have > ever been said. In fact one needs rather only a few of the numbers. > It is mostly combinatorics, and Nature makes do with 3 places and 4 > markers to convey the message. One can simulate genetics in a crude > way by using twice 16 elements. Their relations are very intricate. > They deserve a closer look. There, one can experience that feeling > of order about which a rational dialogue is possible. > > Bruno: non-computability is true > The physical facts must lie within the nature of the numbers. The > perception by the human is where the information is added: aha, this > relation means that such-and-such will be that way. The content is > in the numbers, and is not computational. It is indeed us that have > to understand the movement of the elements by applying to the set of > beliefs that are based on a+b=c the idea of an ordered assembly. > Both the correctness of the addition and the position under a given > order are included in the properties of the numbers, they need not > be comnputed. They need to be recognised, not computed. Then, one > may talk about conflict caused by diverging ideas of order, and be > sure that others understand him. I was relying on the fact that if we assume computationalism (the Turing emulability of the brain), our computational states are distributed on the infinitely many computations, existing in the arithmetic, going through our state, and this makes the physics, below our computationalist substitution level, arising from a statistics on all those computations. The math confirms that we find something quite close to quantum mechanics. It makes also the physical reality into an emergent, NON entirely computable pattern. That approach has another key feature: it justifies the existence of non sharable qualia. Indeed quanta are recovered by the notion of sharable, first person plural, qualia. This provides also an arithmetical interpretation of Platonist conception of reality, notably Plotinus primary hypostases, and his two matters theory (inspired by Aristotle, but corrected for keeping Platonism). The physical reality is the border of something else. If we are digitalisable machine, physics is no more a fundamental science, and the laws of physics are due to an evolving structure in a logico- arithmetical reality, seen from "inside" (in a precise mathematical sense). This approach prevents also biology, psychology, and theology, from reductionism. The notion of persons plays a capital role, and the first person points view are not third person mechanical entities, which assess your point. You can find papers on this in my URL. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ __
Re: [Fis] Praxotype
Dear FIS colleagues, Sorry to double a part of this text for some of you but the SPAM filter of FIS server stopped my first letter. It is good for me because now I have second “first” attempt for this week in FIS mailing list. About words and numbers: Numbers are invented to make possible the abstraction from real word and, of course, from names of things from real word. NUMBERS ARE NAMES of abstract entities. One may make abstraction from reality to numbers and vice versa – to concretize some numbers to real entitles. In every case he/she may found some regularity. This game has no limits. The main question is “what is usefulness of the results from the game?”. In many cases, this question is without answer. But what about “numbering” and “numerology” ? Mapping words to numbers has no rational meaning for humans because numerology is not science but mystic approach for influence over non educated humans. I am specialist in numerology and immediatelly will ask "Why we use decimal system in this "science", why not any other - binary, hexadecimal, Roman numerals, etc." :-) In the same time, mapping letters, words, and phrases to numbers (numbering) permit us to realize (new type) computer systems which model human brain memory. Two weeks ago I speak about this at NIT 2013 Int. Conference in Madrid. This approach we call “Natural Language Addressing”. It solves some difficult problems with so called “big data”. Abouit "Praxotype": Every scientific research needs concepts to be used in corresponded theory. New concepts are useful if they could not be replaced by any other single concept. Because of this, proposing new concepts, they have to be accomplished with a survey of known similar concepts already used in the same or other scientific areas. I need such survey for "Praxotype" and "Cognotype". FIS is right place to provide such work and to propose common concepts and definitions for Information Science. Friendly regards Krassimir P.S. I apologize to all who assume concept “usefulness” as a forbidden one :-) From: Karl Javorszky Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:23 PM To: Stanley N Salthe Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Praxotype As Bob said experiences -> words. Wittgenstein said words -> numbers. Pythagoras: world -> numbers. Idea: organise numbers like you organise words and see the world. Question from Stan: experience <-> number ?. Answer: Like in Bobs analogy: water as a recognisable, recurring experience, sufficiently interpersonal to be consistently named and understood that this is what was meant by "water". In our case, we have to communicate recognisable, recurring expriences that relate to mental products that are thought. The brain experiences by the sensory organs differently than by thinking. Feelings that arise on thoughts, rather than on sensual experiences, can also be circumscribed. This will happen in an abstract way. The audience is invited to recognise a pattern of patterns. These can be communicated by ponting to a table and saying "such is the place here and then", these statements being numbers. One may want to be perceptive to the experience that a point in space and a load on this point can be directly read out of the natural numbers. We are presently learning the common, unifying experience that a table - slightly more complicated than a multiplication table - delivers exact data on "what is where and when". Therefrom, one will be accessing a logical experience of "order". Like the physiological experience "water" has got a common name, the cultural invention is now to give the name "order" to a way of reading the contents of a table that makes the concept explicable to all. This is the stage we are at now. As to the sufficient number of noumena - see Gordana - as compared to that of words used by traditional languages: we are at learning to give names to experiences, and the experiences themselves are not yet universally connected to such an interpretation of numbers which allows saying "this experience is commonly shared and is called", e.g., 'order', or 'future' or 'space-mass-time stitch-up by standard place changes'. There is by far enough of numbers to represent all that could have ever been said. In fact one needs rather only a few of the numbers. It is mostly combinatorics, and Nature makes do with 3 places and 4 markers to convey the message. One can simulate genetics in a crude way by using twice 16 elements. Their relations are very intricate. They deserve a closer look. There, one can experience that feeling of order about which a rational dialogue is possible. Bruno: non-computability is true The physical facts must lie within the nature of the numbers. The perception by the human is where the information is added: aha, this relation means that such-and-such will be that
Re: [Fis] Praxotype
As Bob said experiences -> words. Wittgenstein said words -> numbers. Pythagoras: world -> numbers. Idea: organise numbers like you organise words and see the world. Question from Stan: experience <-> number ?. Answer: Like in Bobs analogy: water as a recognisable, recurring experience, sufficiently interpersonal to be consistently named and understood that this is what was meant by "water". In our case, we have to communicate recognisable, recurring expriences that relate to mental products that are thought. The brain experiences by the sensory organs differently than by thinking. Feelings that arise on thoughts, rather than on sensual experiences, can also be circumscribed. This will happen in an abstract way. The audience is invited to recognise a pattern of patterns. These can be communicated by ponting to a table and saying "such is the place here and then", these statements being numbers. One may want to be perceptive to the experience that a point in space and a load on this point can be directly read out of the natural numbers. We are presently learning the common, unifying experience that a table - slightly more complicated than a multiplication table - delivers exact data on "what is where and when". Therefrom, one will be accessing a logical experience of "order". Like the physiological experience "water" has got a common name, the cultural invention is now to give the name "order" to a way of reading the contents of a table that makes the concept explicable to all. This is the stage we are at now. As to the sufficient number of noumena - see Gordana - as compared to that of words used by traditional languages: we are at learning to give names to experiences, and the experiences themselves are not yet universally connected to such an interpretation of numbers which allows saying "this experience is commonly shared and is called", e.g., 'order', or 'future' or 'space-mass-time stitch-up by standard place changes'. There is by far enough of numbers to represent all that could have ever been said. In fact one needs rather only a few of the numbers. It is mostly combinatorics, and Nature makes do with 3 places and 4 markers to convey the message. One can simulate genetics in a crude way by using twice 16 elements. Their relations are very intricate. They deserve a closer look. There, one can experience that feeling of order about which a rational dialogue is possible. Bruno: non-computability is true The physical facts must lie within the nature of the numbers. The perception by the human is where the information is added: aha, this relation means that such-and-such will be that way. The content is in the numbers, and is not computational. It is indeed us that have to understand the movement of the elements by applying to the set of beliefs that are based on a+b=c the idea of an ordered assembly. Both the correctness of the addition and the position under a given order are included in the properties of the numbers, they need not be comnputed. They need to be recognised, not computed. Then, one may talk about conflict caused by diverging ideas of order, and be sure that others understand him. 2013/10/15 Stanley N Salthe > Kark, all -- I have question about this numbers <--> words concept. For > users of a given language much an be communicated by connotation as well as > denotation. It seems to me that the matching of numbers to words would not > encompass this -- would it? As well, what about synonyms with slightly > diifferent meanings? > > STAN > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Karl Javorszky > wrote: > >> Cointinuing Bob's discourse on language and words, the next step was done >> by Wittgenstein, who said that as tokens, words can be represented by >> numbers. This is a resurrecting of Pythagoras' statement, that Nature is >> representable by natural numbers and their harmonies. >> It is important to keep in mind that numbers have as many >> interrelationships among each other as words - if not more. And, by the use >> of computers, we can make their harmonies among each other visible to the >> human. The inner poetry of words that is behind the words themselves, can >> be found in the relations among the natural numbers. >> Karl >> >> >> 2013/10/15 Bob Logan >> >>> Thanks John for alerting us to the terms praxotype and cognotyppe. I >>> have a simpler formula which I made use of in my book the Extended Mind: >>> The Emergence of Language, the Human Mind and Culture. Words are simply >>> concepts and hence thinking tools. Before verbal language hominids >>> communicated by mimesis, i.e. hand signals, facial gestures, body language >>> and prosody (non-verbal vocalization) like grunts. As the complexity of >>> hominid existence increased mimesis did not have the requisite variety for >>> everyday life. Conceptualization was needed. Verbal language emerged in >>> which our words were our first concepts. The word water, for example, was a >>> concept that united all our percepts o
Re: [Fis] Praxotype
On 15 Oct 2013, at 14:32, Karl Javorszky wrote: Cointinuing Bob's discourse on language and words, the next step was done by Wittgenstein, who said that as tokens, words can be represented by numbers. This is a resurrecting of Pythagoras' statement, that Nature is representable by natural numbers and their harmonies. It is important to keep in mind that numbers have as many interrelationships among each other as words - if not more. And, by the use of computers, we can make their harmonies among each other visible to the human. The inner poetry of words that is behind the words themselves, can be found in the relations among the natural numbers. Karl Numbers are important, but any Turing universal system will do, if we assume computationalism (my consciousness is invariant for a digital substitution of my body/brain). People can look in my URL(*) for papers showing that IF we assume computationalism (a thesis in in cognitive science), then the physical reality (and more than that: a whole theology actually) 1) emerge from arithmetical relations, and 2) cannot be the result of computations (so it emerges in a necessarily non computable way). It can be seen as a return to Pythagorus, as far as the fundamental ontology is concerned, but physics happen to be an inside (projective, and statistical) view of arithmetic, and the math shows it to be non computable. This shows that computationalism is incompatible with the thesis of digital physics (the thesis asserting that there is a primary physical and that it is digital). Note that the proof is constructive, and so it shows how to derive the physical laws from addition and multiplication of natural numbers. Some familiarity with logic is needed. Bruno (*) see for example: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 2013/10/15 Bob Logan Thanks John for alerting us to the terms praxotype and cognotyppe. I have a simpler formula which I made use of in my book the Extended Mind: The Emergence of Language, the Human Mind and Culture. Words are simply concepts and hence thinking tools. Before verbal language hominids communicated by mimesis, i.e. hand signals, facial gestures, body language and prosody (non-verbal vocalization) like grunts. As the complexity of hominid existence increased mimesis did not have the requisite variety for everyday life. Conceptualization was needed. Verbal language emerged in which our words were our first concepts. The word water, for example, was a concept that united all our percepts of the water we drank, washed with, cooked with, fell as rain, or was found in rivers, lakes or the sea. With language the brain which before was a percept engine bifurcated into the human mind capable of conceptualization and hence planning and large scale coordination. Verbal language allowed us to deal with matters not immediately available in space and time. I claim that the emergence of verbal language represented three simultaneous bifurcations: from mimetic communication to verbal langauge; from the brain as a percept engine to the mind capable of conceptualization and from hominids to fully human Homo Sapiens. for more details visit http://www.academia.edu/783502/The_extended_mind_understanding_language_and_thought_in_terms_of_complexity_and_chaos_theory or http://www.academia.edu/783504/The_extended_mind_The_emergence_of_language_the_human_mind_and_culture cheers - Bob Logan On 2013-10-15, at 2:54 AM, John Collier wrote: This term might be useful in the context of the present discussion, especially in the contest of coordinated practice(s). Cognotype might also be useful. I think these might lead to a more fine- grained analysis of the more integrative sociotype. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/09/27/words-are-thinking-tools-praxotype/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis __ Robert K. Logan Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Praxotype
Kark, all -- I have question about this numbers <--> words concept. For users of a given language much an be communicated by connotation as well as denotation. It seems to me that the matching of numbers to words would not encompass this -- would it? As well, what about synonyms with slightly diifferent meanings? STAN On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote: > Cointinuing Bob's discourse on language and words, the next step was done > by Wittgenstein, who said that as tokens, words can be represented by > numbers. This is a resurrecting of Pythagoras' statement, that Nature is > representable by natural numbers and their harmonies. > It is important to keep in mind that numbers have as many > interrelationships among each other as words - if not more. And, by the use > of computers, we can make their harmonies among each other visible to the > human. The inner poetry of words that is behind the words themselves, can > be found in the relations among the natural numbers. > Karl > > > 2013/10/15 Bob Logan > >> Thanks John for alerting us to the terms praxotype and cognotyppe. I have >> a simpler formula which I made use of in my book the Extended Mind: The >> Emergence of Language, the Human Mind and Culture. Words are simply >> concepts and hence thinking tools. Before verbal language hominids >> communicated by mimesis, i.e. hand signals, facial gestures, body language >> and prosody (non-verbal vocalization) like grunts. As the complexity of >> hominid existence increased mimesis did not have the requisite variety for >> everyday life. Conceptualization was needed. Verbal language emerged in >> which our words were our first concepts. The word water, for example, was a >> concept that united all our percepts of the water we drank, washed with, >> cooked with, fell as rain, or was found in rivers, lakes or the sea. With >> language the brain which before was a percept engine bifurcated into the >> human mind capable of conceptualization and hence planning and large scale >> coordination. Verbal language allowed us to deal with matters not >> immediately available in space and time. I claim that the emergence of >> verbal language represented three simultaneous bifurcations: from mimetic >> communication to verbal langauge; from the brain as a percept engine to the >> mind capable of conceptualization and from hominids to fully human Homo >> Sapiens. >> >> for more details visit >> >> http://www.academia.edu/783502/The_extended_mind_understanding_language_and_thought_in_terms_of_complexity_and_chaos_theory >> >> or >> >> >> http://www.academia.edu/783504/The_extended_mind_The_emergence_of_language_the_human_mind_and_culture >> >> cheers - Bob Logan >> >> On 2013-10-15, at 2:54 AM, John Collier wrote: >> >> This term might be useful in the context of the present discussion, >> especially in the contest of coordinated practice(s). Cognotype might also >> be useful. I think these might lead to a more fine-grained analysis of the >> more integrative sociotype. >> ** ** >> >> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/09/27/words-are-thinking-tools-praxotype/ >> >> ** ** >> ___ >> fis mailing list >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> >> __ >> >> Robert K. Logan >> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD >> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto >> http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan >> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> fis mailing list >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Praxotype
Cointinuing Bob's discourse on language and words, the next step was done by Wittgenstein, who said that as tokens, words can be represented by numbers. This is a resurrecting of Pythagoras' statement, that Nature is representable by natural numbers and their harmonies. It is important to keep in mind that numbers have as many interrelationships among each other as words - if not more. And, by the use of computers, we can make their harmonies among each other visible to the human. The inner poetry of words that is behind the words themselves, can be found in the relations among the natural numbers. Karl 2013/10/15 Bob Logan > Thanks John for alerting us to the terms praxotype and cognotyppe. I have > a simpler formula which I made use of in my book the Extended Mind: The > Emergence of Language, the Human Mind and Culture. Words are simply > concepts and hence thinking tools. Before verbal language hominids > communicated by mimesis, i.e. hand signals, facial gestures, body language > and prosody (non-verbal vocalization) like grunts. As the complexity of > hominid existence increased mimesis did not have the requisite variety for > everyday life. Conceptualization was needed. Verbal language emerged in > which our words were our first concepts. The word water, for example, was a > concept that united all our percepts of the water we drank, washed with, > cooked with, fell as rain, or was found in rivers, lakes or the sea. With > language the brain which before was a percept engine bifurcated into the > human mind capable of conceptualization and hence planning and large scale > coordination. Verbal language allowed us to deal with matters not > immediately available in space and time. I claim that the emergence of > verbal language represented three simultaneous bifurcations: from mimetic > communication to verbal langauge; from the brain as a percept engine to the > mind capable of conceptualization and from hominids to fully human Homo > Sapiens. > > for more details visit > > http://www.academia.edu/783502/The_extended_mind_understanding_language_and_thought_in_terms_of_complexity_and_chaos_theory > > or > > > http://www.academia.edu/783504/The_extended_mind_The_emergence_of_language_the_human_mind_and_culture > > cheers - Bob Logan > > On 2013-10-15, at 2:54 AM, John Collier wrote: > > This term might be useful in the context of the present discussion, > especially in the contest of coordinated practice(s). Cognotype might also > be useful. I think these might lead to a more fine-grained analysis of the > more integrative sociotype. > ** ** > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/09/27/words-are-thinking-tools-praxotype/ > > ** ** > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > __ > > Robert K. Logan > Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD > Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto > http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan > www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan > > > > > > > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Praxotype
Thanks John for alerting us to the terms praxotype and cognotyppe. I have a simpler formula which I made use of in my book the Extended Mind: The Emergence of Language, the Human Mind and Culture. Words are simply concepts and hence thinking tools. Before verbal language hominids communicated by mimesis, i.e. hand signals, facial gestures, body language and prosody (non-verbal vocalization) like grunts. As the complexity of hominid existence increased mimesis did not have the requisite variety for everyday life. Conceptualization was needed. Verbal language emerged in which our words were our first concepts. The word water, for example, was a concept that united all our percepts of the water we drank, washed with, cooked with, fell as rain, or was found in rivers, lakes or the sea. With language the brain which before was a percept engine bifurcated into the human mind capable of conceptualization and hence planning and large scale coordination. Verbal language allowed us to deal with matters not immediately available in space and time. I claim that the emergence of verbal language represented three simultaneous bifurcations: from mimetic communication to verbal langauge; from the brain as a percept engine to the mind capable of conceptualization and from hominids to fully human Homo Sapiens. for more details visit http://www.academia.edu/783502/The_extended_mind_understanding_language_and_thought_in_terms_of_complexity_and_chaos_theory or http://www.academia.edu/783504/The_extended_mind_The_emergence_of_language_the_human_mind_and_culture cheers - Bob Logan On 2013-10-15, at 2:54 AM, John Collier wrote: > This term might be useful in the context of the present discussion, > especially in the contest of coordinated practice(s). Cognotype might also be > useful. I think these might lead to a more fine-grained analysis of the more > integrative sociotype. > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/09/27/words-are-thinking-tools-praxotype/ > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis __ Robert K. Logan Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Praxotype
This term might be useful in the context of the present discussion, especially in the contest of coordinated practice(s). Cognotype might also be useful. I think these might lead to a more fine-grained analysis of the more integrative sociotype. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/09/27/words-are-thinking-tools-praxotype/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
