|
Harv,
You are most certainly off the subject I am discussing!
***** Harv:
No, we aren't at the point where I'm supposed to understand what you are trying to say.
*****
I hope that line is a joke! Harv, I have never posted anything to you from the perspective that you were not to understand what I was trying to say. I am very sorry that I have done so; believe me it was not intentional. I, personally, have no interest in typing out trash that you are incapable of understanding. What I am trying to do is to find a starting position which is not totally beyond your comprehension. If you wish to go back and cavil about something outside your ability to understand, that is fine with me (it is certainly in accordance with most of what is posted here) but I have no interest in taking part in it.
***** Harv:
Okay, what do you mean by a number? Are you talking about those human concepts that are mental objects?
*****
If numbering things is beyond your comprehension then I do not know where we are to start.
***** Harv:
Let's start with your first assumption and first definition. Your first assumption is that it is acceptable to use mathematics, and you are restricting yourself to assumptions that are true by definition. How more basic can we get? I have a dispute here, so this seems like a perfect place to continue the discussion until we come to a resolution.
*****
I have solved a problem Harv! And I am trying to explain that solution to you! Philosophy is beside the point until you can understand what I have done. You can get philosophical later!
***** Harv:
I don't see a need to switch the subject and allow a contradiction to fester.
*****
My impression is that your purpose is to get as many things to fester which you can, meanwhile doing your best to remain oblivious to any rational relationships (or logical consequence thereof) otherwise put forth.
***** Harv:
These contradictions should be dealt with otherwise you'll never see what is wrong with the premises and subsequent conclusions of your paper.
*****
Since the conclusions of my paper are completely and totally beyond your comprehension, there is no need to even discuss them yet. Let us at least reach some understanding of what I am saying.
***** Harv:
As I've said, you can't use analytical systems (e.g., mathematics) to find ampliative conclusions unless you interpret the results to physical world.
*****
Ampliative??? Please explain what you mean by this collection of letters! You keep telling me what I cannot do. How about you do a little more towards making it clear what you are capable of comprehending?
***** Harv:
The interpretation is where you are mistaken.
*****
Again I say, until you reach some semblance of comprehension of what I am saying, how "I" interpret things is completely beside the point! That is the whole purpose of this conversation: i.e., I am curious as to how you would interpret what I have discovered. We certainly cannot do that unless you can comprehend it. Does that make any sense to you at all?
***** Harv:
The first step, though, is analyzing your assumptions and definitions. Otherwise every communication that follows is meaningless.
*****
That is exactly why I have backed off entirely from making any attempt to talk about my paper. Do you think I am an idiot?
***** Harv:
That is, if we can't agree on your assumptions and definitions as valid, then how can we agree on the contents of your paper?
*****
We cannot even discuss my paper until we reach some commonality in our thinking. To date I have found next to none. In fact, I have not yet detected the presence of any thought emanating from you at all. Now clearly, I must be sincerely misunderstanding the import of your posts. So let us drop that tack and see if we can establish communication on some level.
***** Harv:
It is like asking if I can conceive of any communicable explanation of the universe that can't be modelled using a computer.
*****
No Harv, I am afraid that comparison falls far short of the generality I am proposing. Either you are simply not reading my posts (or perhaps not understanding my posts as it has been suggested to me that you are an AI program and I have found nothing in your responses to prove that contention false) or it is your intention not to understand. I am saying (at this point) that reality is "something A" and that I am only interested in ("something A")’s which are communicable. And still you balk!! My question is WHY? I know, it’s because I haven’t told you what "something A" is! So, Harv, let it be anything you wish it to be so long as you agree that what you are talking about is “reality” and what you have in mind is communicable (if it isn’t, I don’t want to hear about it -- as if I could!!! Ha ha!!).
***** Harv:
Yet, some people think they are really communicating a message
*****
Yes, I agree, a lot of people think they are communicating a message when they are not! Actually very little of what you have posted to me appears to add much of anything to this correspondence (other than convincing me that you do not follow much of what I say).
***** Harv:
that can't be modelled, it can only be received 'as is'. Your model would perhaps (?) fail with that kind of data.
*****
As I said before, until you understand what I am talking about, comments such as this serve no purpose whatsoever. By the way, I have seen a number of AI attempts and one of the steps which almost everyone includes in an AI program is that, if none of the available algorithms generate a useful response, it just drops back to a random response it has used in the past. I have noticed you do that a lot Harv! Please, at least try to convince me you are not an AI program.
If you wish to continue this conversation, please tell me if you will accept [reality is "something A" and that I am only interested in ("something A")’s which are communicable] as a rational starting point. All that is required is a simple yes or no. If your answer is "no" then it would appear to me that we have nothing more to discuss.
Have fun -- Dick
|
