posted
Material events are an illusion of hologramic perception in the hologramic universe by which data, encoded in waves regulates energy. A vast network of data communication controls the universe and everything that happens in it.
Don't know how reliable this Russian research is, or how valid its interpretation given in this article, but it is interesting:
Ultra-precise ‘laser tweezers’ have enabled scientists to handle individual strands of DNA with unprecedented dexterity. The technique devised by Ken Hirano of the University of Tokushima in Japan and colleagues can grip the molecule at a chosen point along its length, manipulate it, and then release it. Among other things, the tool could insert single DNA molecules into cells, a process central to gene therapy (K Hirano et al 2002 Appl. Phys. Lett. 80 515).
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. Therefore, human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA. "
DNA follows regular grammar implies that human languages reflect inherent DNA? Really good article, but I find this statement in particular to be a little bit sketchy. Human languages did not appear coincidentally, but they by no means follow the rules of a regular grammar.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Information obtained from Popular Science, February 2005
The ink jet printer, the technology may seem simple but the unending search for new uses has led to some amazing discoveries. Refined in the last 20 years from 12 nozzles to more than 3000, the inkjet is the first mechanical device to control microdroplets of fluid, giving birth to the “Micro fluidics” industry.
2001, Clemson University. Chemical engineer Thomas Boland aquires surplus inkjet printers and modifies the output tray to drop a tiny notch with each pass to build 3D structures. Mr. Boland rewrites the software, then using hamster ovary cells and growth factor Boland introduced the inkjet to the world of tissue engineering.
To date, he has used this method to create half of a cat’s heart that actually beat in a petri dish. Also created have been tubes of cells that someday may be coaxed into viable blood vessels.
Within the next decade, Boland say’s we’ll see the printing of simpler tissues, including bit’s of cartilage and sheets of cells for plastic surgery and skin grafts.
Swapping ink for human cells and using biodegradable gel to hold them in place long enough to fuse, the possibilities of creating replacement, non rejective human organs seems limitless.
The applications don’t stop there, imagine having a 3D printer in your home and the ability to download the software to construct virtually any object in your home givin the right cartridge with the proper material ?
Companies such as 3D systems, Z Corporation, and Stratasys already have high resolution 3D inkjet printers. The $39,900 InVision printer from Valencia California 3D Systems uses a 448 nozzle print head to deposit photosensitive acrylic and wax onto an aluminum plate in microscopically thin layers. Melt off the wax and your left with a hard acrylic object. Commercial replicators are closing in on a price that the typical consumer could afford. Rumors are a $1000 home model is on the horizon.
Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley want to print complete digital devices, MP3 players, PDA’s, and cell phones in one process. Engineering Professor John Canny is integrating polymers (plastics able to conduct electricity) into a 3D inkjet that someday could print out circuitry in one simple step. Last November, engineers at Seiko-Epson in Japan printed a 20 layer circuit board only 200 microns thick, the smallest ever by swapping copper and silicon for conductive and insulating inks. The company estimates the boards will show up on the market by 2007 or sooner depending on the competition from Hewlett-Packard.
-------------------- On the other hand,
you have different fingers. Posts: 896 | From: Arizona. It's a dry heat ! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: "They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. Therefore, human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA. "
DNA follows regular grammar implies that human languages reflect inherent DNA? Really good article, but I find this statement in particular to be a little bit sketchy. Human languages did not appear coincidentally, but they by no means follow the rules of a regular grammar.
Human language is based on logic. Logic is based on set theory (math). Math mirrors the physical universe with logical laws of causality. Matter is descrete and logically ordered. Language is a reflection not only of our DNA, but of math and the physical universe (and anything in it).
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Logicism is the view that (some or all of) mathematics can be reduced to (formal) logic. In Bertrand Russell's words, it is the logicist's goal "to show that all pure mathematics follows from purely logical premises and uses only concepts definable in logical terms."
Logicism was advocated in the late seventeenth century by Gottfried Leibniz. Later, the idea was defended in greater detail by Gottlob Frege. During the critical movement initiated in the 1820s, mathematicians such as Bernard Bolzano, Niels Abel, Louis Cauchy and Karl Weierstrass succeeded in eliminating much of the vagueness and many of the contradictions present in the mathematical theories of their day. By the late 1800s, William Hamilton had also introduced ordered couples of reals as the first step in supplying a logical basis for the complex numbers. In much the same spirit, Karl Weierstrass, Richard Dedekind and Georg Cantor had also all developed methods for founding the irrationals in terms of the rationals. Using work by H.G. Grassmann and Richard Dedekind, Guiseppe Peano had then gone on to develop a theory of the rationals based on his now famous axioms for the natural numbers. Thus, by Frege's day, it was generally recognized that a large portion of mathematics could be derived from a relatively small set of primitive notions.
In 1879, Frege developed the necessary logical apparatus, that the project of logicism could be said to have become technically plausible. Following another five years' work, Frege arrived at the definitions necessary for logicising arithmetic and, during the 1890s, he worked on many of the essential derivations.
By 1903, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell had reached this same conclusion. By this time, both men were in the initial stages of preparing second volumes to earlier books on related topics: Whitehead's 1898 A Treatise on Universal Algebra and Russell's 1903 The Principles of Mathematics. Since their research overlapped considerably, they began collaborating on what would eventually become Principia Mathematica, a classic work advocating the view that math is based in logic.
I view the material universe as descrete, with particles separated in time and space. Particles, language, math, and logic are all related in describing event categories and relationships between such categories.
Event categories and their relationships are abstractions. When such abstractions prove useful in describing and predicting material events, where accurate description is necessary for acurate prediction, then the abstraction takes on empirical reality. That does not mean it is real in some ultimate sense, but only that it has reality within the material event system. It is still an abstraction, as is any concept or percept, though abstractions vary in degree of abstraction and generality. The concept of dog, or the number 3, is less abstract than that of love or infinity.
Physics describes the material universe mathematically, and can do this because time/space is logically ordered in the material realm. Our language develops from the logical (causal) order of material events, and categorizes these events and their relationhips to mirror this order - our language is based in the logic of the physical universe which can be mathematically described.
My assertions stand.
Kevin, when are you moving to the U.S.?
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i see math as a just another language.... that said, i am embarassed to admit that i never really got "into it" as far as advanced math goes, and while i am capable of working with advanced mathematical concepts in the form of visualisation and thought/speech/work/art, i don't speak the language....
was M C Escher an advanced mathematical genius? i argue that he was.....
if a NASCAR driver can do all of the precise calculations to drive thru a 10 car wreck at 200 mph or a running back can run thru a strong defensive line with almost no openings, or a baseball player can run to catch a well hit baseball in left feild? they are all mathematicians too...BUT they don't have the necessary "language" skills to "prove" what they did on paper...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
And here you go into that kind of Star Trek eque-techno babble, that well I'm sure makes sense in your own mind, for anyone that really knows something about mathematics would know a lot of that was nonsensical.
You said that logic is based on set theory, and then googled some math histroy talking about logic. Set theory is based on logic, you said that logic was based on set theory. And by the first sentence of your own googled history, "Logicism is the view that (some or all of) mathematics can be reduced to (formal) logic."
Which in itself, is a belief among some mathematicians, something still being debated.
"Our language develops from the logical (causal) order of material events, and categorizes these events and their relationhips to mirror this order - our language is based in the logic of the physical universe which can be mathematically described."
No, sorry man, but anyone thats deep into mathematics and computer science can tell you this isn't the case. Hell, I ***WISH*** it were the case, because than we could parse human language and computers could interpret it. Human language may have *some* relation to the world around us, obviously, since we describe things with it. But to say that "Language is a reflection not only of our DNA", and the proof of which (as stated in this article), is that human languages follow regular grammars... dear god... pick up a book...
The author implies that because DNA conforms to regular grammars, our language is derived from this. You've taken it to be a more broader thing, and kind of changed the argument in the process, saying that "our language is based in the logic of the physical universe which can be mathematically described". This does have some credence to it, surely our language is based on describing the physical world around us. But to say that its based on the LOGIC of the physical universe, and that this logic can be MATHEMATICALY DESCRIBED, is just plain incorrect.
If it were, we'd be able to design computers that could mimic the syntax\semantics of human language precisely. But because human syntax\semantics are so ****ed up and illogical, this is impossible.
Proof you ask for?
Proof by contradiction:
For example, lets assume (incorrectly) we had an algorithm that could parse human language and interpret it. If your saying human language is based on logic and math, this would be possible.
Would the algorithm interpret the following statement as either true or false than?:
This statement is false.
This is a paradox. Is the statement true or false?
And the proof is complete.
More examples though,
I am a liar.
(kind of the same example)
A says that B is true B says that A is false
(this is what us in the know call 'mutual reference')
"My assertions stand."
haha, I'm afraid your plagerized googling and subsequent babbling have been put flat on their ass. Its not that your COMPLETELY wrong in your assertions. One CAN create rules around human language that turn it into a regular grammar, but this isn't a proof that human language is based on logic.
"Kevin, when are you moving to the U.S.? "
haha, so I can goto some ****ty college with spoiled brats to learn how to plagerize like you just did? Probably never, I'll stay up here in good old Canada where the girls are hotter, the air doesn't smell funny and people don't argue by plagerizing google to make themselves look smarter in an argument with someone who is clearly more profecient at the topic at hand.
Argue what you will about politics, religion, etc. These are all personal beliefs, some might be more provable than others but they are all ultimately speculation around the big 'why?'. When it comes to mathematics, leave it to people that actually know what their talking about...
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Logicism is the view that (some or all of) mathematics can be reduced to (formal) logic. In Bertrand Russell's words, it is the logicist's goal "to show that all pure mathematics follows from purely logical premises and uses only concepts definable in logical terms."
Logicism was advocated in the late seventeenth century by Gottfried Leibniz. Later, the idea was defended in greater detail by Gottlob Frege. During the critical movement initiated in the 1820s, mathematicians such as Bernard Bolzano, Niels Abel, Louis Cauchy and Karl Weierstrass succeeded in eliminating much of the vagueness and many of the contradictions present in the mathematical theories of their day. By the late 1800s, William Hamilton had also introduced ordered couples of reals as the first step in supplying a logical basis for the complex numbers. In much the same spirit, Karl Weierstrass, Richard Dedekind and Georg Cantor had also all developed methods for founding the irrationals in terms of the rationals. Using work by H.G. Grassmann and Richard Dedekind, Guiseppe Peano had then gone on to develop a theory of the rationals based on his now famous axioms for the natural numbers. Thus, by Frege's day, it was generally recognized that a large portion of mathematics could be derived from a relatively small set of primitive notions.
In 1879, Frege developed the necessary logical apparatus, that the project of logicism could be said to have become technically plausible. Following another five years' work, Frege arrived at the definitions necessary for logicising arithmetic and, during the 1890s, he worked on many of the essential derivations.
By 1903, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell had reached this same conclusion. By this time, both men were in the initial stages of preparing second volumes to earlier books on related topics: Whitehead's 1898 A Treatise on Universal Algebra and Russell's 1903 The Principles of Mathematics. Since their research overlapped considerably, they began collaborating on what would eventually become Principia Mathematica, a classic work advocating the view that math is based in logic."
Oh yeah, THIS is specifically what Art just plagerized.
posted
Well, normally when you take things from others, you've got one of these, like they do on their website...
It generally prevents people from thinking what your saying is actually your words and thoughts from another persons. You did not indicate you had taken that from others, at all. The fact that you seamlessly wrote underneath it makes one think you were passing it off as your own knowledge...
"Bibliography Chihara, Charles (1973) Ontology and the Vicious Circle Principle, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Church, Alonzo (1978) "A Comparison of Russell's Resolution of the Semantical Antinomies with that of Tarski," Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41, 747-760. Repr. in Irvine, A.D., Bertrand Russell: Critical Assessments, vol. 2, New York and London: Routledge, 1999, 96-112. Church, Alonzo (1974) "Russellian Simple Type Theory," Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 47, 21-33. Copi, Irving (1971) The Theory of Logical Types, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Frege, Gottlob (1893, 1903) Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Band I (1893), Band II (1903), Jena: Verlag Hermann Pohle. Ed. and trans. in part by M. Furth as The Basic Laws of Arithmetic, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964. Hale, Bob, and Crispin Wright (2001) The Reason's Proper Study, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Landini, Gregory (1998) Russell's Hidden Substitutional Theory, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Linsky, Bernard (1999) Russell's Metaphysical Logic, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Quine, W.V (1960) Word and Object, Cambridge: MIT Press. Quine, W.V (1966a) Selected Logic Papers, New York: Random House. Quine, W.V (1966b) Ways of Paradox, New York: Random House. Ramsey, Frank P. (1931) The Foundations of Mathematics, London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner. Rodriguez-Consuegra, Francisco (1991) The Mathematical Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Boston: Birkhäuser Press. Russell, Bertrand (1903) Principles of Mathematics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Russell, Bertrand (1919) Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, London: George Allen and Unwin. Russell, Bertrand (1948) "Whitehead and Principia Mathematica," Mind, 57, 137-138. Russell, Bertrand (1955) My Philosophical Development, London and New York: Routledge. Urquhart, Alasdair (1988) "Russell's Zig-Zag Path to the Ramified Theory of Types," Russell, 8, 82-91. Whitehead, Alfred North (1898) A Treatise on Universal Algebra, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitehead, Alfred North (1906) On Mathematical Concepts of the Material World, London: Dulau. Whitehead, Alfred North, and Bertrand Russell (1910, 1912, 1913) Principia Mathematica, 3 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second edition, 1925 (Vol. 1), 1927 (Vols 2, 3). Abridged as Principia Mathematica to *56, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962. Wright, Crispin (1983) Frege's Conception of Numbers as Objects, Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. "
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kevin: Set theory is based on logic, you said that logic was based on set theory.
Art: Boolean algrebra could have been developed before logic or vice-versa - they are based on the same unifying principles of event categories and relationships among such categories - as is math and as is language and as is the material universe. I am not saying that math and logic and language are all the same - as you misinterpret - I am saying they have a common unifying principle of describing event categories and category relationships.
Art: Our language develops from the logical (causal) order of material events, and categorizes these events and their relationhips to mirror this order - our language is based in the logic of the physical universe which can be mathematically described.
kevin: No, sorry man, but anyone thats deep into mathematics and computer science can tell you this isn't the case.
Art: The physical iuniverse is mathematiclly described in physics.
kevin: Hell, I ***WISH*** it were the case, because than we could parse human language and computers could interpret it.
Art: Computers can interpret language in taking voice stimuli/responses and translating them. Computers can not yet translate thinking that precedes language expression, but one day will, and this may requiere quantum computation.
kevin: Human language may have *some* relation to the world around us, obviously, since we describe things with it.
Art: Language is based on thought which describes and predicts events in the physical universe - a direct and strong relation.
kevin: But to say that "Language is a reflection not only of our DNA", and the proof of which (as stated in this article), is that human languages follow regular grammars... dear god... pick up a book...
Art: I never asserted this - I merely put out the article. "Our language is based in the logic of the physical universe which can be mathematically described," is what I said. Now, are you telling me this is wrong because our language is not based on the logic of the universe, or our universe is not logical, or the universe can not be described mathematically as physicists do?
kevin: Proof by contradiction:
For example, lets assume (incorrectly) we had an algorithm that could parse human language and interpret it. If your saying human language is based on logic and math, this would be possible.
Would the algorithm interpret the following statement as either true or false than?:
This statement is false.
This is a paradox. Is the statement true or false?
Art: Doesn't prove a thing. Human interpretation of the assertion is impossible as is a computer interpretation. You have in fact proved my point.
kevin: Argue what you will about politics, religion, etc. These are all personal beliefs, some might be more provable than others but they are all ultimately speculation around the big 'why?'. When it comes to mathematics, leave it to people that actually know what their talking about...
Art: You are a legend in your own mind. The only thing I have learned from you is the lack of value of the Canadian educational system. Tell me you are planning to live in the U.S.A. and I will consider that you may have some smarts.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
No, I didn't misintepret. You MISPOKE. Your saying that...
"Logic is based on set theory (math)."
(which is simply not true, its the other way around)
is equivalent to...
"I am saying they have a common unifying principle of describing event categories and category relationships."
(which is true)
Whatever you meant is one thing, but when you say that 'logic is based on set theory', is simply false as stated. Can't you realize, just for a moment, that YOU might be wrong? Seriously, its not that big of a deal. You just have to say, 'Oh whoops, this is what I actually meant when I said that'. Trying to blame me for intepretting an inncorrect statement... bah... get over yourself!!
"Computers can interpret language in taking voice stimuli/responses and translating them. Computers can not yet translate thinking that precedes language expression, but one day will, and this may requiere quantum computation."
NO, THEY CANT THOUGH. Dude, I'm a computer scientist, I know what I'm talking about. Computers can't interpret language, and quantum computing will not change that. Its algorithmically impossible to translate human language. One can create an algorithm that can recognize words, phrases, etc., but to interpret human language... its just impossible due to the nature of natural language.
"Language is based on thought which describes and predicts events in the physical universe - a direct and strong relation."
Yeah, thats true for a lot of human language. But not all of it, and thats where the problem lies.
"Now, are you telling me this is wrong because our language is not based on the logic of the universe, or our universe is not logical, or the universe can not be described mathematically as physicists do?"
Well, this whole thing started when you posted that link for this thread. Than I refuted a point made in the article. Than you, being a smart ass, tried to flex your intellectual muscle and said that, "Language is a reflection not only of our DNA, but of math and the physical universe (and anything in it).". Me, also being a smart ass, saw that that statement amongst other ones was wrong and have been disputing it ever since. Its just frustrating, to know your right but argue with someone who can never admit that they are wrong. I give you the thumbs up when you make a good point, no matter what the argument, but your doing this Bush style - "I've made no mistakes". Get over yourself. I've disputed points you've made and proved you wrong, its ok to say you meant something else or were thinking about something else bla bla bla. But don't be a bitch now that you've been proved wrong (which you have).
"Human interpretation of the assertion is impossible as is a computer interpretation. You have in fact proved my point."
Ahhh, but it does prove my point precisely, the fact that you don't like that your wrong does not change that.
"You are a legend in your own mind."
haha, thats awesome.
"Tell me you are planning to live in the U.S.A. and I will consider that you may have some smarts. "
haha
"only thing I have learned from you is the lack of value of the Canadian educational system."
wait... wait a second... which one of us was it that just plagerized an article?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To put it mildly... language interpretation is the holy grail of computer science. Its never going to happen, because its well understood that natural language is NOT a regular grammar based on mathematics (required for algorithmically sound interpretation). The reason you see "language interpretters" isn't because the language has actually been parsed (do you even know what parsing IS?) correctly like a regular grammar, its because researchers can use tricks to give an approximate interprettation. Ever use one of those English-to-Whatever online language translators? They work for single words, small phrases, but after that the non-mathematical nature of language catches up with it.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kevin954: No, I didn't misintepret. You MISPOKE. Your saying that...
"Logic is based on set theory (math)."
(which is simply not true, its the other way around)
Art: Can you read? I said your misinterpretation was in thinking that I had said that math, logic and language are the same - they obviously are not. WHowever they are linked in relation to a descrete event material universe, where events can be catergorized and relations between events can be specified. In math, logic and language, events are catergorized and relations between events are specified, just as in the material universe of events and event relationships.
As far as my saying that logic is based on set theory, instead of the other way around, either could have been based on the other - they are the same using different levels of abstraction. That was my point in saying logic was based on set theory. Again, either could have been derived from the other depending on which came first historically, as they are different ways of saying the same thing.
Art: Computers can interpret language in taking voice stimuli/responses and translating them. Computers can not yet translate thinking that precedes language expression, but one day will, and this may requiere quantum computation.
kevin: NO, THEY CANT THOUGH. Dude, I'm a computer scientist, I know what I'm talking about. Computers can't interpret language, and quantum computing will not change that. Its algorithmically impossible to translate human language. One can create an algorithm that can recognize words, phrases, etc., but to interpret human language... its just impossible due to the nature of natural language.
Art: Then those programs that type what you say, or can say what you type, don't exist?
Art: Language is based on thought which describes and predicts events in the physical universe - a direct and strong relation.
kevin: Yeah, thats true for a lot of human language. But not all of it, and thats where the problem lies.
Art: I need clarification on the computer interpreting language issue here. Somehow we are using the word 'interpretation' differently. A computer can translate spoken words into written words, and this is interpretation. However, a computer can not interpret the many nuances of meaning provided by tone of voice, phrasing, timing of phrases, etc. A computer can interpret logical but not evaluative meaning. A computer can not interpret poetry's meaning, for instance. This is only because a computer can not think in the ways that humans do - this one day will be done however and hologramic computer processing to associate concepts and percepts will be necessary, based on simultaneous processing of different procesors working simultaneously in a quantum processing fashion.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: Now, are you telling me this is wrong because our language is not based on the logic of the universe, or our universe is not logical, or the universe can not be described mathematically as physicists do?
Kevin: Well, this whole thing started when you posted that link for this thread. Than I refuted a point made in the article. Than you, being a smart ass, tried to flex your intellectual muscle and said that, "Language is a reflection not only of our DNA, but of math and the physical universe (and anything in it).". Me, also being a smart ass, saw that that statement amongst other ones was wrong and have been disputing it ever since. Its just frustrating, to know your right but argue with someone who can never admit that they are wrong. I give you the thumbs up when you make a good point, no matter what the argument, but your doing this Bush style - "I've made no mistakes". Get over yourself. I've disputed points you've made and proved you wrong, its ok to say you meant something else or were thinking about something else bla bla bla. But don't be a bitch now that you've been proved wrong (which you have).
Art: So you refuse to answer my question.
As far as the DNA communications, they could potentially be mathematically expressed like anything in the universe could be. They are causally ordered in space/time in a logical pattern, like anything else in the universe is. Language is also logically ordered and could potentailly be mathematically expressed. Anything in the universe is logically ordered and can potentially be mathematically expressed. A logical order means events are categorized and event relationships repeat when their causes repeat.
Waves convey data in a hologramic domain - everything is in constant communication with everything else, in the language and logic of the universe.
kevin: Ahhh, but it does prove my point precisely, the fact that you don't like that your wrong does not change that.
Art: No, you proved that a computer and a human have the same problem with a language pardox - that equates them rather than argues for their difference.
Art: You are alegend in your own time.
kevin: Haha, thats awesome.
Art: Yes, because I plagerized it.
kevin: wait... wait a second... which one of us was it that just plagerized an article?
Art: I excerpted historical notes just as the article did from other sources - not original material that I purposefully stole, just some history. I should have referenced it with a link but was in a hurry. Big deal! Substantive criticism of my ideas are appreciated - waiting still for same.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Substantive criticism of my ideas are appreciated - waiting still for same. "
You've been getting it for a long time, on multiple threads that we've been arguing. But you don't like being proven wrong, so come back with arguments that roughly translate to, "your wrong, so there". Just saying that my criticism is not subsantitive doesn't make it so, just because your not really too familiar with the concepts were talking about.
"Art: Then those programs that type what you say, or can say what you type, don't exist?"
Thats completely different actually, no parsing of a regular gramar occurs here. The computer can read each word and spit it out on your speakers, thats really not a big deal.
"I need clarification on the computer interpreting language issue here. Somehow we are using the word 'interpretation' differently. A computer can translate spoken words into written words, and this is interpretation. However, a computer can not interpret the many nuances of meaning provided by tone of voice, phrasing, timing of phrases, etc. A computer can interpret logical but not evaluative meaning. A computer can not interpret poetry's meaning, for instance."
You really need to understand what a regular grammar is and what parsing is, in order to understand what interpretation is in mathematics\computer science. Do you know what a regular grammar is?
"This is only because a computer can not think in the ways that humans do - this one day will be done however and hologramic computer processing to associate concepts and percepts will be necessary, based on simultaneous processing of different procesors working simultaneously in a quantum processing fashion. "
Again, more babbling about things you know nothing about. It is algorithmically impossible for a computer to interpret natural human language. Do you know what a regular grammar is?
This part in particular, litterally does not make sense "based on simultaneous processing of different procesors working simultaneously in a quantum processing fashion.". Based on the sumulatneous processing of different procesors? Working simulaneously in a quantum processing fashion? Do you know how quantum computers even work (theoretically speaking obviously)? The only way possible for a man made creation to interpret natural language is if we were to mimic the structure of not just our brain, but our mind, precisely. This would involve more study into neuroscience than computation.
"So you refuse to answer my question."
I'm telling you that our language is not based on the mathematics of the universe. You can use language to describe mathematics, but to say that natural language is based on the mathematics of the universe shows a big lack of understanding.
"No, you proved that a computer and a human have the same problem with a language pardox - that equates them rather than argues for their difference. "
If your saying that natural language is based on the logic of the universe, a computer could deal with such things.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: Art: Substantive criticism of my ideas are appreciated - waiting still for same.
kevin: You've been getting it for a long time, on multiple threads that we've been arguing. But you don't like being proven wrong, so come back with arguments that roughly translate to, "your wrong, so there".
Art: Where specifically did you prove an argument of mine wrong?
Art: Computers can print out what is spoken to them or speak out what is written to them in a language interpretation.
kevin: Thats completely different actually, no parsing of a regular gramar occurs here.
Art: I never said there was. Why do you argue against things I never said, as if I had said them?
kevin: You really need to understand what a regular grammar is and what parsing is, in order to understand what interpretation is in mathematics\computer science. Do you know what a regular grammar is?
Art: I am using interpretation in the sense of translation, which any computer can do at some level. You are using 'interpretation' in the sense of thinking, which computers can not yet do. Parsing involves defining sets and sub-sets, in a dimension of generality (tree structure), and relations among them. Language is an expression of thought, and when computers can think then they will interpret language in the sense that you use the term 'interpretation'. A computer can not think in the ways that humans do - this one day will be done, however, and hologramic computer processing to associate concepts and percepts will be necessary, based on simultaneous processing of different processors (modes of thinking), perhaps in a quantum processing fashion.
kevin: This part in particular, litterally does not make sense "based on simultaneous processing of different procesors working simultaneously in a quantum processing fashion.". Based on the sumulatneous processing of different procesors? Working simulaneously in a quantum processing fashion?
Art: That is how the brain thinks. In quantum processing A bit is specified by either one or zero, in a classical digital computer, as the fundamental unit of information. A binary word, in a typical computer, is described by a particular string of zeros and ones. However, a quantum bit, or qubit, is represented by an atom in one of two different states, which can also be denoted as 0 or 1. Thus, two qubits, unlike two classical bits, can attain four different states (0 and 0, 0 and 1, 1 and 0, or 1 and 1) simultaneously. Qubits can exist simultaneously as 0 and 1, even with a different probability for each state, as represented by a numerical coefficient. This conveys a tremendous range of informational possibilities. Describing a two-qubit quantum computer thus requires four coefficients. In general, n qubits demand 2n numbers. For larger values of n, this capacity exceeds that of the largest conventional computer. Thus, a quantum computer is immensely powerful because it can be in multiple states at once (in superposition), and can act on all its possible states simultaneously. Thus, a quantum computer could naturally perform many operations in parallel, using only a single processing unit. The brain exhibits such parallel processing ability, simultaneously processing differently at the five levels of personality product formation (as will be described later). Ian Walmsley (2001), professor of optics at the University of Rochester, led a team that invented a simple non-quantum computer that rivals the computing power of quantum mechanics, but uses light. Light is much more easily controlled than are individual sub-atomic particles. This could yield a non-quantum computer that performs some tasks a billion times faster than today's supercomputers using relatively simple light technology. This optical computer utilizes quantum interference, a property that makes quantum computers exponentially faster at tasks such as breaking encryption codes or searching huge databases. Instead of interference, conventional computers use electrons to perform tasks on one track, like a librarian looking for a book by inspecting the entire library one volume at a time. Interference enables you to make as many librarians as there are books, and let them simultaneously make parallel searches. Thus, using light interference is just as effective as quantum interference in retrieving items from a database. Walmsley (2001) notes, "What we've shown here is that if you have a quantum computer that is based entirely on quantum interference, we can build you a computer that is equally efficient, based entirely on light interference. And light is a whole lot easier to manipulate than quantum systems." Could such a computer, quantum or light based, using interference-based imaging and retrieval, be the basis of personality processing? Conventional theory assumes that particular features of the sensory stimulus are memory-stored in separate places in the brain: parts of the stimulus are isomorphically stored as corresponding parts in different places in the brain. Activation of these stored memories involves an activation of the neural connection of brain-stored parts of the original stimulus. Associated neural tracts communicate and combine to rebuild the whole memory from these memory building blocks which represent parts of the original stimulus. This is a linear, computer-like, process of particle-by-particle (byte-by-byte) construction. Karl Pribram (1991) is the most prominent advocate of the holonomic view that says memory storage, and brain processing, is holographic, where data is conveyed in wave codes, rather than isomorphic or piece-by-piece relay of data. This directly opposes the conventional view of memory-bit-by-memory-bit brain-personality construction of stimulus inputs, experience, and response products. Lashley (1929, 1963) noted, from his research of the 1920's, that memory stored in the brain was not site specific. Local lesions do not selectively impair specific memories - memory is distributed over the whole brain rather than in a collection of site-specific neurons. In Lashley's experiments, memory destruction depended on the amount of brain tissue that was removed and not the site of its removal: memory is distributed throughout the brain rather than localized in a specific site. Lashley also noted a connection between brain memory and the holographic storage of information. The holograph, reproduced from wave interference, stores information in the same way that the brain does.
kevin: The only way possible for a man made creation to interpret natural language is if we were to mimic the structure of not just our brain, but our mind, precisely. This would involve more study into neuroscience than computation.
Art: True, as I have been saying. However, we need much more study into computation, particularly hologramic computation in a quantum or quasi-quantum domain. We are just beginning in this.
Kevin: I'm telling you that our language is not based on the mathematics of the universe.
Art: Yes it is. But not as we know it now. The thought of the universe is computation of data encoded in waves or pulses, and this is true of the brain also. The brain produces language expressions and actions and feelings and fantasies, while the universe produces the unfolding of material change.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Where specifically did you prove an argument of mine wrong?"
You refuse to acknowledge you were incorrect in saying that "Logic is based on set theory (math).". You did try to change the argument, and say that they were different abstractions of the same thing. But, at the end of the day, whether you like it or not, Logic is NOT based on set theory as you said it was. They are both based on common things,yes, like you said afterwards. But, your intitial statemnet, was wrong. Get. The. ****. Over. It. Just one example....
"Art: Computers can print out what is spoken to them or speak out what is written to them in a language interpretation.
kevin: Thats completely different actually, no parsing of a regular gramar occurs here.
Art: I never said there was. Why do you argue against things I never said, as if I had said them? "
Ahhh... but again your lack of knowledge comes out, you saying that "Computers can print out what is spoken to them or speak out what is written to them in a language interpretation." ***IMPLIES*** that a regular grammar exists, because this is the root of mathematical interpretation!!!!!!!! The fact that you don't understand this just proves you don't know what the **** your talking about.
"That is how the brain thinks."
No, its not. We don't have the frankest idea how the brain thinks! We know that neurons fire, and not much else.
"True, as I have been saying. However, we need much more study into computation, particularly hologramic computation in a quantum or quasi-quantum domain. We are just beginning in this."
Quantum computing isn't going to change the fact we can't simulate the human brain, the underlying algorithms will still rely on the same rules of regular grammars and mathematics. Parallel computation isn't going to change that.
"Yes it is. But not as we know it now. The thought of the universe is computation of data encoded in waves or pulses, and this is true of the brain also. The brain produces language expressions and actions and feelings and fantasies, while the universe produces the unfolding of material change. "
Bah, more babbling! 'not as we know it now' eh? So your saying, I'm not getting this crap your spewing because what your saying is beyond the current state of the art? Well, at least thats phyiscally possible unlike the rest of your arguments in this thread. Hey, if you know something the top researchers in the world don't know, maybe you should join them!
Language is not based on the mathematics of the universe.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhhh... what your talking about DOES defy whats currently provable and accepted in the scientific community at large... we've just got very different schools of thought...
Yours is the minority opinion. The right ideas emerge as minority opinions, I'll give you that. But most minority opinions end up being wrong ones. So, if those who support this theory can back it up better in the future, you just might be proven right.
So yeah, you might be proven right at some point in the future. But for now and most likely in the future, most would agree that I am correct.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... I've done some more reading on this, and the honest answer to our question of language being based on the mathematics of the univerise, is that WE REALLY DONT KNOW YET. Their are competing theories, and we've both come to accept different theories for whatever reasons. The traditional\dominant theory I've adopted is the one that can proven the most at present, thats why it remains dominant. Its possible, with time, what your saying will be correct. But right now your stating as fact what in reality are the largely unproven theories of a minority in the scientific community. I take back saying that you were 'babbling', it seemed that way. But, I'm more convinced now than ever that what I'm saying is the dominant and currently considered correct position.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: Well, we'll see, communism never really turned out as planned...
Yes, communism was accepted as knowledge (reality) yesterday, but turned out to be liberal myth that was proved invalid, today.
Liberals still promote communism today, saying it is valid to expand government and increase government regulations, by robbing from those that earn their money and giving it to those that didn't earn what the government gives them, etc. To the ecxtent that the liberals get their way, to that extent will a nation suffer as a whole (while its parasites benefit some at first, and increase in number while the nation declines economically to the point the parasites don't benefit but lose like everyone else.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
haha, so we agree communism was a minority position that never turned out as planned? I'm not even going to start about the other stuff you said...
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: haha, so we agree communism was a minority position that never turned out as planned? I'm not even going to start about the other stuff you said...
Communism is not dead by any means. It is reflected in modern liberal beliefs in government control and assumption of responsibility rather than individual responsibity, and in welfare and free healthcare and related forms of robbing money from some and giving it to others. Gun control is an example - render individuals impotent against gangsters and taking away their ability (responsibilty) to defend themselves.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, if you believe that you believe that, but not every minority position turns out to be true is my point...
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
