Stefan,
Great questions! O.K., just my opinion here, but I think this traditional
to modern view of logic is hiding the next quantum leap. Logic as we know
it has undergone very little change as a concept since Aristotle, but I
believe that this is the point of growth that will bring on singularity.
Related to this, I see math as symbols with a value assigned as meaning, and
language as symbols with meaning assigned, but having no precise value...and
as such there is very little difference between these two.
Because of the weakness and linear nature of natural language (and often
mathematics for that matter), the exacting logic of language is hidden from
view.
But both mathematics and language operate against the same exacting,
three-dimensional logic...and neither is very adept at describing this logic
in three dimensions. We can often view the result in three dimensions, but
can't yet process it in three dimensions. So the 'real' logic is still
presently hidden from view. We describe it with clear 'rules' in
two-dimensional terms, but haven't realized it in three dimensions yet.
Empiricism (from experience/reality) and rationalism (from itself/mind,
apart from experience) are the context we choose to work in and then how we
get the raw materials for knowledge working/logical structure. Both of
these are quite distinct from the logic formed, as in process vs. product.
Scientific method is simply empirical knowledge creation. Both empirical
and rational knowledge creation can be harmonized into a single (and
exacting) process that works in exactly the same way...extending/advancing
three dimensional logic by converting questions into structure. And again,
this is distinct from logic, as in process vs. product.
The logical process is the same for both mathematics and language:
Knowledge context => questions => structuring questions => new knowledge
context
That which is known is only known to the degree we have or have not
challenged it with questions. All knowledge is subject to the question and
some questions uproot all existing knowledge structure in a category by
challenging the very foundational assumptions (As in this note).
And this is where the instability of knowledge is really at, be it rooted in
mathematics or language...in the questions that we apply to it.
Essentially, everything (3-D) logical is right, but can always be more right
when challenged with questions. It is right because it is logical, but all
logic has been, and continues to be, challenged by the question.
The other complicating factor is social acceptance. I as an individual may
have wonderful advances, but until society accepts the 'logic' society will
not advance. If, for example, the scientific community rebels against a
logical advance, it can't receive it and thereby advance as a society. If
you think back to examples of great thinkers like Galileo who were cast out
from the scientific community for a time as heretical....this time spent
'cast out' was time that society did not advance. Society had to mature to
the point that it could accept the logic in order to advance. Once it
accepted solar-centric model...it advanced.
Hope this helps clarify some of my ideas...great dialogue here and again,
really insightful questions.
Kind Regards,
Bruce LaDuke
Managing Director
Instant Innovation, LLC
Indianapolis, IN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hyperadvance.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Stefan Pernar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [singularity] Definitions
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:54:11 +0800
Dear Bruce,
On 9/15/06, Bruce LaDuke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Knowledge - That which is retained in a storage mechanism at any level
>(individual, group, societal).
Is your definition of knowledge limited to what is provably true and
known facts or is the level of certainty/probability of the retained
storage excluded? This aspect seems abscent from your definition.
On 9/17/06, Bruce LaDuke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stefan,
The element that is missing from these definitions is the question.
Knowledge equals logic equals meaning. All knowledge/logic/mmeaning is
organized in a triadic, three-dimensional structure that is open-ended and
juxtaposed against an antithetical field of 'anti-logic.' This is the
logic
that has not been formed yet and it is realized by questions. Questions
are
the perceived lack of knowledge structure.
Hmmm.... Is there a specific reason why you diverge from the classic
view of how well an assumption is supported by evidence? It is not
immediately apparent why one would need to complicate matters more
than having the following three clases:
a) Math - statements that are either true (1+1=2) or not (1+1=3)
depending on your axioms
b) Logic - If A=B and C=B then A=C
c) Emperical - assumptions about the real world and how well they are
supported by past experience
What is seen as 'levels of true' is really a complex mix of questions and
logic. Concepts that are 'partly true' are knowledge mixed with questions.
These two meet at the 'cutting edge,' which is the line between the known
and the unknown. Knowledge structure not connected to the social structure
is theory. For theory to become 'known' questions must be answered to
connect it to mainstream knowledge.
Except for a) and b) nothing can be known to be true (see infinite
regress). The closest something can come to being knowable is in the
form of probability networks and margins of error. Einstein's theories
are false but they are /less/ false then anything else currently
receiving wide support in the scientific community.
Science evolves through empirical logic and is divergent and is fueled by
discovery. Technology evolves through rational logic and is divergent and
is fueled by invention/creativity. Both discovery and invention/creativity
operate by a single, simple, knowledge creation process which is
essentially
the conversion of questions to knowledge/logic/meaning/structure at the
cutting edge of knowledge.
Very nicely put.
Artificial intelligence then, is knowledge stored. Artificial knowledge
creation is the mechanized process of converting questions into knowledge,
which is singularity.
Agreed, once the speed of knowledge creation approaches infinity.
--
Stefan Pernar
App. 1-6-I, Piao Home
No. 19 Jiang Tai Xi Lu
100016 Beijing
China
Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931
Skype: Stefan.Pernar
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
