log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Cafe : Enumeration and Definiton

Author Message
Profile John
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 15
Posts: 4
Credit: 1,985
RAC: 0
Message 3561 - Posted: 26 Oct 2015, 2:08:58 UTC
Last modified: 26 Oct 2015, 2:18:08 UTC

It is often thought that Set Theory is a recent historical development, when in fact the only recent thing about it is its particular name. It is factually a principle of language itself. It can be called a theory of definition, a theory of forms, a two element metaphysics or even the two tablets of law. It is a biological fact that life support systems of a living organism either abstracts the form from things or it abstracts the material difference from things. These two parts of a thing were once called a things elements and one can see their linguistic function in the simple definition of a thing.

Definition: A thing is any material within limits, a shape, or a form.

In language, this gives us two distinct methods by which to name any thing. We can name a thing directly and this convention of naming is called the Subject Naming Convention. We can also name a thing, as Plato pointed out, as a combination of the names for a things elements, material and form. This is easier to see in a geometric figure. This is called the Predicate Naming Convention. Current grammar does not recognize this pattern. It is not recognized that we have three, and only three distinct categories of names.

However, be that as it may, this concept also distinguishes psychology types as well, as well as language usage. The one type can only think in accordance with enumeration the other can think in accordance with definition.

One is capable of pattern recognition, and the other not so much. And of course, particular psychologies range between the two. In fact, even someone who can think in accordance with definition requires a number of specific examples before it can abstract the defining characteristics. Plato called it the ability to see the simile in multis, the similar idea in the many examples, currently one can call it pattern recognition. If one is simple minded, they think only in terms of image patterns, when in fact, we, as mind are responsible for every system which abstracts elements directly from our environment. A standard measure is then not only something like one inch, or one pound, it also includes the concept of definition itself. A definition is a standard unit by which to intellectually process information.

This is a linguistic fact, which can be used to prove that Einstein was talking non-sense, but the Judeo-Christian Scripture using language concepts as a means to test linguistic functioning itself. In order to discredit the one, one only need refer his statements to linguistic fact, the other however requires a level of pattern recognition that few can muster and no matter how many words one uses, it cannot be demonstrated to a simpler mind. Words cannot impart functionality, they are only indexing systems.

Language, that is by definition, is itself based upon paradigms of these two elements. Logics, based on form, are simply indexing systems for analog content. Analolgics, on the other hand, use analogs by which to reason. An example of an analog language is Euclidean Geometry, not the words or equations that go with the figure, but the figure itself. I, myself, have presented the first full system of analog mathematics. I detail that work in many demonstrations, the major demonstration is A Universal Language, which provides example after example of how to pair a logic with an analogic. It is, frankly a very powerful language.

Another concept that is missing from language teaching is the fact that as there are two, and only two primitive branches of reasoning based upon the elements of a thing, logic and analogic, both must factually say the same thing. Secondly, it is the analog content itself from which logics are derived.

And so, when modeling a mind, one has to ask are we modeling a proto-linguistic mind, i.e. one that thinks primarily by enumeration, or are we modeling a mind that can think in accordance with definition? That would be a linguistically functional mind? In fact, I would also say, much of what is called the subconscious is actually analog processing. Analog processing, if one examines working figures in a program of the analogic I have been demonstrating is faster than any logical processor that can be built. Every computation is done simultaneously. It can account for what is called automatic response as it is so fast.

Has one even devised a method to distinguish staff members themselves who actually know the difference?

I would have to say, any model of a mind must use both logical processing and analog processing, and as mathematical analog processing as a complete system has just become available, I would have to say that perhaps such a feat is not within our grasp at current levels of understanding.

I can say, that we live in a world and individual social structures which discourage thought in accordance with definition. Such a situation is counter productive of minds that may be required for the product one is seeking.

A psychology which is dependent upon enumeration cannot, factually, make sense out of an argument based on definitions. They cannot abstract the definition by which to connect, as one may say, the dots.

To example this fact about language, one can view the essay, also on the Internet Archive, The Difference between Man and Beast. Most people cannot be objective about the demonstration, let alone follow it.


Message boards : Cafe : Enumeration and Definiton

Main page · Your account · Message boards

Copyright © 2018 MindModeling.org