None other than “I am a strange loop” Douglas Hofstadter. I call it metaphor; I call it theory; he calls it analogy. I’m not saying anything new nor is he and it’s the same notion. George Lakoff of Embodied cognition fame first gained fame by “Metaphors we live by” – as direct competition to Chomsky’s computational model (and Pinker’s computational model) saying the same thing. Theory Theory that says, similar to “Turtles all the way down” basically says, “It’s theories all the way down” and it starts at least right after we’re born (studies have 42 minutes after birth at first theory formation proof shown via imitating faces, requiring a theory or analogy or metaphorical connection between what’s seen, the muscles in the face moving similarly, mapped via a mental abstraction that functions). And yes, your dog smiles back at you when you smile, too. It’s not your imagination. Why should it shock us that so many human traits were in mammals first. Or slime mold. Or plants. Or bacteria in clusters. What’s communication? It’s not just a functional abstraction to us and for us. It’s not bacteria “communicate”. It’s bacteria communicate. I don’t want to reduce it down to “information” as Information Theory has it. There are “supervening structures” which have distinct properties from the activities below its surfaces and anyway, thinking that it’s “all information” brings us to flaws in thinking, looking for “the gene that makes me laugh at a bad pun” and “which neuron controls the phrase ‘girfunkle shandowed de nostrum flatulary”? But “It’s all analogy / metaphor / theory” that living things use distinctly from rocks, stars and other Newtonian describable periodic and entropic systems who don’t? Yeah. I’ll back it. I haven’t seen and don’t need to see this lecture. It’s correct.

None other than “I am a strange loop” Douglas Hofstadter.
 
I call it metaphor; I call it theory; he calls it analogy. I’m not saying anything new nor is he and it’s the same notion.
 
George Lakoff of Embodied cognition fame first gained fame by “Metaphors we live by” – as direct competition to Chomsky’s computational model (and Pinker’s computational model) saying the same thing.
 
Theory Theory that says, similar to “Turtles all the way down” basically says, “It’s theories all the way down” and it starts at least right after we’re born (studies have 42 minutes after birth at first theory formation proof shown via imitating faces, requiring a theory or analogy or metaphorical connection between what’s seen, the muscles in the face moving similarly, mapped via a mental abstraction that functions).
 
And yes, your dog smiles back at you when you smile, too. It’s not your imagination.
 
Why should it shock us that so many human traits were in mammals first. Or slime mold. Or plants. Or bacteria in clusters.
 
What’s communication? It’s not just a functional abstraction to us and for us. It’s not bacteria “communicate”. It’s bacteria communicate.
 
I don’t want to reduce it down to “information” as Information Theory has it. There are “supervening structures” which have distinct properties from the activities below its surfaces and anyway, thinking that it’s “all information” brings us to flaws in thinking, looking for “the gene that makes me laugh at a bad pun” and “which neuron controls the phrase ‘girfunkle shandowed de nostrum flatulary”?
 
But “It’s all analogy / metaphor / theory” that living things use distinctly from rocks, stars and other Newtonian describable periodic and entropic systems who don’t?
 
Yeah. I’ll back it.
 
I haven’t seen and don’t need to see this lecture. It’s correct.
======
  Oh, Shannon is my hero. But my argument against reduction to “it’s all mere bit flips” is that way of thinking avoids the complex structures that operate on their own _above_ (supervene) the layer of bit-flips.You can have vast amount of noise and still the upper layers can function. That is actually a lot of what Shannon wrote about: the reduncancy of information being its power.The metaphor NOT having a one-to-one relationship is what holds it together, preventing its further reduction.It floats above the bits.
======
 Oh for that level, I picked NOR as the logical function.
=====
  bits encoding is nothing without decoding (or actualizing).. That means: A function has to be applied. For that, I pick NOR as base function.You can construct any logical function from NOR.Also, on its own, NOR has the unique feature of allowing multiple truths to be valid.But if you layer enough NOR tables, USUALLY you can winnow down to a single TRUE.
======
So, I’d conditionally accept your “bits only” – if (but not only if), you allow a complete Noun/Verb as base instead of just dead bits:bits NOR. (or NOR(bits))Noun Verb.Thing. Action-on-Thing.That can be a base of everything.

======
 NOR’s good for paraconsistancy. Thanks for compelling me to push harder. I learn more about what I’m trying to say that way and find out if I’m making mistakes.
—–
 Oh it can be purely “action” or “relationship”. It’s just hard in English to write that way, although I’d like that.
======
 Oh that’s a great page: His critique of “what’s missing from the scientific method?” is great.

1. Language – what kind of Scientific language – arithmetic, symbols, algebra, FOPL, calculus or simply Natural Language (susceptible to has ambiguity)
2. Ontology – Type of Classification that is and the starting point – where do you stand – with respect to your question – are you in agreement with Newtonian ontology – which is primarily based on Material world and on Reductionism or Einsteinian – which is causality or Quantum theory which is on Probability
3. Epistemology – Logic of logic – when a hypothesis is made, what are the logical guidelines the hypothesis is adhering to and why such a logic is chosen instead of another
4. Computation – The scale – what is the purpose and the method of computing, also the parameters – this will reveal the core purpose of the hypothesis the corresponding experiment and their relationship – what is trying to be concluded (least for now)
5. Finally the big question – “Is conclusion possible or necessary?” the popular opinion is that Scientists seek conclusion but that’s not true, not all Scientists are rushing to conclude – prevalent practice nowadays is that a view is given – which media takes and interprets as conclusion‘

—–

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


four × = 28

Leave a Reply