In the Way of Inquiry


 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Recircus
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/06/in-the-way-of-inquiry-recircus-2/

“I must lie down where all the ladders start
In the foul rag and bone shop of the heart.”

— W.B. Yeats
https://web.archive.org/web/20200402124816/https://www.web-books.com/Classics/Poetry/Anthology/Yeats/Circus.htm

All,

I was never on Twitter but many people whose writings I follow
here and there on the web often reshared their posts from there.
So when a horde of them began migrating to Fediverse locales like
Mastodon and especially Mathstodon (where they have LaTeX) I took
a chance on tagging along. I don't know whether micro-blooging is
really my medium yet but the diversity of readings from others has
been pretty interesting so far. It's also serving as a beneficial
exercise trying to quantize my macro-bloggings down to micro scale,
so I'll keep working at that for the time being and see how it goes.

For now I have in mind circling back to a point in my project on
Inquiry Driven Systems, namely, the chapter addressing various
Obstacles to the Project.

Inquiry Driven Systems • Overview
https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Overview

Inquiry Driven Systems • Obstacles
https://oeis.org/wiki/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_%E2%80%A2_Part_5#Obstacles

Regards,

Jon (https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry)


 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Obstacles
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/07/in-the-way-of-inquiry-obstacles-2/
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/109604792996683677

“Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order
to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with
what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself
deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy:

“Do not block the way of inquiry.”

C.S. Peirce, Collected Papers, CP 1.135–136
From an unpaginated ms. “F.R.L.”, c. 1899.

All,

Often the biggest obstacle to learning more is the need to feel
one already knows. And yet there are some things a person knows,
at least, in comparison to other things, and it makes sense to use
what one already knows best in order to learn what one needs to know
better. The question is, how does one know which is which? What test
can tell what is known so well it can be trusted in learning what is not?

One way to test a supposed knowledge is to try to formulate it in such a way
that it can be taught to other people. A related test, harder in some ways
but easier in others, is to try to formalize it so completely that even a
computer could go through the motions that are supposed to be definitive
of its practice.

Both ways of testing a supposition of knowledge depend on putting knowledge
in forms which can be communicated or transported from one medium or system
of interpretation to another. Knowledge already in a concrete form takes
no more than a simple reformation or transformation, otherwise it takes
a more radical metamorphosis, from a wholly disorganized condition to
the first inklings of a portable or sharable form.

Regards,

Jon (https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry)


 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Initial Unpleasantness
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/08/in-the-way-of-inquiry-initial-unpleasantness-2/

Clouds and thunder:
The image of Difficulty at the Beginning.
Thus the superior man
Brings order out of confusion.

— I Ching ䷂ Hexagram 3

All,

Inquiry begins in doubt, a debit of certainty and a drought of information,
never a pleasant condition to acknowledge, and one of the primary obstacles to
inquiry may be reckoned as owing to the onus one naturally feels on owning up to
that debt. Human nature far prefers to revel in the positive features of whatever
scientific knowledge it already possesses and the mind defers as long as possible the
revolt it feels arising on facing the uncertainties that still persist, the “nots” and
“not yets” it cannot as yet and ought not deny.

Reference

The I Ching, or Book of Changes, R. Wilhelm and C.F. Baynes (trans.),
Foreword by C.G. Jung, Bollingen Series 19, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ. 1st edition 1950, 2nd edition 1961, 3rd edition 1967.

Regards,

Jon (https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry)


johncm22
 

That’s an interesting reference Jon
About 45 years ago, when I was working as an analytical operational research analyst, I was also interested in the I Ching. When I had a difficult decision to make I would use my analytical OR techniques and also consult the I Ching. Generally they agreed, or at least the I Ching was vague enough so that you could interpret it so as not to disagree
John

On 8 Jan 2023, at 18:36, Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@...> wrote:

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Initial Unpleasantness
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/08/in-the-way-of-inquiry-initial-unpleasantness-2/

Clouds and thunder:
The image of Difficulty at the Beginning.
Thus the superior man
Brings order out of confusion.

— I Ching ䷂ Hexagram 3

All,

Inquiry begins in doubt, a debit of certainty and a drought of information,
never a pleasant condition to acknowledge, and one of the primary obstacles to
inquiry may be reckoned as owing to the onus one naturally feels on owning up to
that debt. Human nature far prefers to revel in the positive features of whatever
scientific knowledge it already possesses and the mind defers as long as possible the
revolt it feels arising on facing the uncertainties that still persist, the “nots” and
“not yets” it cannot as yet and ought not deny.

Reference

The I Ching, or Book of Changes, R. Wilhelm and C.F. Baynes (trans.),
Foreword by C.G. Jung, Bollingen Series 19, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ. 1st edition 1950, 2nd edition 1961, 3rd edition 1967.

Regards,

Jon (https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry)





 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Justification Trap
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/10/in-the-way-of-inquiry-justification-trap-2/

All,

There is a particular type of “justification trap” a person can fall into,
of trying to prove the scientific method by solely deductive means, that is,
of trying to show the scientific method is a good method by starting from the
simplest possible axioms, principles everyone would accept, about what is good.

Often this happens, in spite of the fact one really knows better, simply in
the process of arranging one's thoughts in a rational order, say, from the
most elementary and independent to the most complex and derivative, as if
for the sake of a logical and summary exposition. But when does this
rearrangement cease to be a rational reconstruction and start to become
a destructive rationalization, a distortion of the genuine article, and
a falsification of the authentic inquiry it attempts to recount?

Sometimes people express their recognition of this trap and their appreciation
of the factor it takes to escape it by saying there is really no such thing as
the scientific method, that the very term “scientific method” is a misnomer and
does not refer to any kind of method at all, in sum, the development of knowledge
cannot be reduced to any fixed method because it involves in an essential way such
a large component of non-methodical activities. If one's idea of what counts as
method is fixed on the ideal of a deductive procedure then it's no surprise one
draws that conclusion.

Regards,

Jon (https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry)


Lyle Anderson
 
Edited

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:36 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
But when does this
rearrangement cease to be a rational reconstruction and start to become
a destructive rationalization, a distortion of the genuine article, and
a falsification of the authentic inquiry it attempts to recount?
In terms of the Laws of Form, the answer to this question is quite simple: The world operates such that state changes occur based on a system of steps with rules for each step.  If one makes observations of the way the world works without the intervention of living beings, then one can deduce the form and rules for the world.  This is what Burkhard Heim did in his theory of everything.  In the Laws of Form there is a step/rule referred to a "contraction of reference" which says "In general, let injunctions be contracted to any degree in which they can still be followed." (Canon 2).  The key part of this is the qualifier "to any degree in which they can still be followed."  When a contraction of reference can no longer be followed then it is not really a step, but a dogma.  It appears that dogma is permitted, because there is so much of it going around.  We have the contracted injunction "follow the science" and then we find out that those who told us to do that left out steps in the usual scientific method, or totally disregarded standard signals that the product was not safe in terms of doing more damage than healing or protection from harm.

As Pierce pointed out, one needs induction, abduction and deduction to understand the world.  These three are part of a united trinity that can't be usefully separated.

Best regards,
Lyle


JerrySwatez
 

I’d suggest just a slight modification to this, Lyle, if I may be permitted:

The world, in our apprehension of it, based on how our minds function, operates such that . . .

Jerry


The world operates such that state changes occur based on a system of steps with rules for each step.


Lyle Anderson
 

Jerry,
The question is whether to believe that there is an objective reality separate from my perceptions of my surroundings that I personally observe.  My statement about the world recognizes that there are states that change outside of my perception.  This is the assertion that there is an absolute truth about the way the world operates.  Your modification ultimately introduces the idea that truth can be relative to what an individual or group (our) thinks is true.  These history of mankind is littered with piles of the skulls of the victims of such thinking.  The scriptures hint that the history of the angelic world is similarly afflicted.  Satan is said to have denied the distinction between the Creator of the First Distinction who is outside, with the creations, including himself, that are inside, and tried to set himself up as the creator.  

In the end it always comes down to this thorny problem, and everyone can choose what to believe about the Laws of Form for themselves.  The choice is not without consequences, however.   I believe that they are the true, fundamental laws of reality, and will continue to do so until someone can show me a counter example.  Here is a particularly appropriate sermon, given today, by Alan Jackson on the struggle to believe in spiritual things, which is also part of the crux of the problem.
I skipped over the music: https://youtu.be/qGWbpnDK6Uk?t=1779 

Best regards,
Lyle



 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Formal Apology
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/12/in-the-way-of-inquiry-formal-apology-2/

Part 1
======

Using “form” in the sense of “abstract structure”, the focus of my
interest in this investigation is limited to the formal properties
of the inquiry process. Among its chief constituents are numbered
all the thinking and unthinking processes supporting the ability to
learn and to reason.

This formal apology, the apologetics of declaring a decidedly formal intent,
will be used on numerous occasions to beg off a host of material difficulties
and thus avoid the perceived necessity of meeting a multitude of conventional
controversies.

Category Double-Takes

The first use of the formal apology is to rehabilitate certain classes
of associations between concepts otherwise marked as category mistakes.
The conversion is achieved by flipping from one side of the concept's
dual aspect to the other as the context demands. Thus it is possible
in selected cases to reform the characters of category mistakes in the
manner of categorical “retakes” or “double-takes”.

Conceptual Extensions

The second use of the formal apology is to permit the tentative extension of
concepts to novel areas, giving them experimental trial beyond the cases and
domains where their use is already established in the precedents of accustomed
habit and successful application.

This works to dispel the “in principle” objection that any category distinction
puts a prior constraint on the recognition of similar structure between materially
dissimilar domains. It leaves the issue a matter to be settled by post hoc judgment,
a matter of what fits best “in practice”.

Regards,

Jon (https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry)


Lyle Anderson
 

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 06:48 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
category mistakes
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-mistakes/

Category mistakes are sentences such as ‘The number two is blue’, ‘The theory of relativity is eating breakfast’, or ‘Green ideas sleep furiously’. Such sentences are striking in that they are highly odd or infelicitous, and moreover infelicitous in a distinctive sort of way. For example, they seem to be infelicitous in a different way to merely trivially false sentences such as ‘2+2=52+2=5’ or obviously ungrammatical strings such as ‘The ran this’.

The majority of contemporary discussions of the topic are devoted to explaining what makes category mistakes infelicitous, and a wide variety of accounts have been proposed including syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic explanations. Indeed, this is part of what makes category mistakes a particularly important topic: a theory of what makes category mistakes unacceptable can potentially shape our theories of syntax, semantics, or pragmatics and the boundaries between them. As Camp (2016, 611–612) explains: “Category mistakes … are theoretically interesting precisely because they are marginal: as by-products of our linguistic and conceptual systems lacking any obvious function, they reveal the limits of, and interactions among, those systems. Do syntactic or semantic restrictions block ‘is green’ from taking ‘Two’ as a subject? Does the compositional machinery proceed smoothly, but fail to generate a coherent proposition or delimit a coherent possibility? Or is the proposition it produces simply one that our paltry minds cannot grasp, or that fails to arouse our interest? One’s answers to these questions depend on, and constrain, one’s conceptions of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, of language and thought, and of the relations among them and between them and the world.”

Moreover, the question of how to account for the infelicity of category mistakes has implications for a variety of other philosophical questions. For example, in metaphysics, it is often argued that a statue must be distinct from the lump of clay from which it is made because ‘The statue is Romanesque’ is true, while ‘The lump of clay is Romanesque’ is not—indeed, the latter ascription arguably constitutes a category mistake. Correspondingly, an assessment of this argument depends on one’s account of category mistakes (see §4 below).

After a brief discussion of how to characterize category mistakes (§1) and of the history of the debate (§2), the majority of this entry focuses on the question of how to account for the infelicity of category mistakes (§3). We conclude with some of the implications of the debate on category mistakes for other issues in both philosophy of language and metaphysics (§4).


“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

If the intention is to communicate, then the actor and observer need to agree on the rules and meaning of the symbols and categories.  In physics we ignore dissipative forces, e.g., friction, to get to formal laws of motion.  The phenomena of "resonance" is an indication that communications is inherent in reality.  

Best regards,
Lyle

 


 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Formal Apology
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/12/in-the-way-of-inquiry-formal-apology-2/

Part 2
======

Explosional Recombinations

Another obstacle to inquiry is posed by the combinatorial explosion
of questions arising in complex cases. The embarrassment of riches
found here is deceptively deadly to the ends of inquiry in the very
measure it appears so productive at first. An eye to form provides
a way to manage the wealth of material diversity by identifying formal
similarities among materially distinct domains. It allows the same
formal answer to unify a host of concrete questions under a single roof,
overall reducing the number of distinct topics that need to be covered.

Regards,

Jon (https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry)


Lyle Anderson
 

I could not resist asking ChatGPT what it thought of Jon's statement.

This statement is discussing a problem that can arise when trying to conduct inquiry or research in complex cases. The problem is referred to as a "combinatorial explosion of questions," which means that as the complexity of the case increases, the number of potential questions that could be asked also increases rapidly, making it difficult to know where to focus one's inquiry. The statement notes that this can be deceivingly difficult, as the wealth of material diversity (the large number of potential questions) may initially appear to be productive, but it can actually hinder the ability to find answers.

The statement suggests that one way to manage this problem is to use "an eye to form," which means looking for formal similarities among the different aspects of the case. This allows for the same formal answer to unify a host of concrete questions under a single roof, overall reducing the number of distinct topics that need to be covered. In other words, instead of trying to cover every single potential question, by looking for formal similarities, we can focus on a smaller number of core questions that can unify the different aspects of the case.


Best regards,
Lyle


 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Formal Apology
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/12/in-the-way-of-inquiry-formal-apology-2/

Part 3
======

Interpretive Frameworks

Iterations of the recombinatorial process generate alternative hierarchies of
categories for controlling the explosion of parts in the domain under inquiry.
If by some piece of luck an alternative framework is uniquely suited to the
natural ontology of the domain in question, it becomes advisable to reorganize
the inquiry along the lines of the new topic headings.

But a complex domain seldom falls out that neatly. The new interpretive framework
will not preserve all the information in the object domain but typically capture
only another aspect of it. To take the maximal advantage of all the different
frameworks that might be devised it is best to quit depending on any one of them
exclusively. Thus, a rigid reliance on a single hierarchy to define the ontology
of a given domain passes over into a flexible application of interpretive frameworks
to make contact with particular aspects of one’s object domain.

Regards,

Jon (https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry)


Lyle Anderson
 

This is so cool!  Here is the transcript of my conversation with ChatGPT about Jon's latest post:
Interpretive Frameworks

Q:
Iterations of the recombinatorial process generate alternative hierarchies of
categories for controlling the explosion of parts in the domain under inquiry.
If by some piece of luck an alternative framework is uniquely suited to the
natural ontology of the domain in question, it becomes advisable to reorganize
the inquiry along the lines of the new topic headings.
 
But a complex domain seldom falls out that neatly.  The new interpretive framework
will not preserve all the information in the object domain but typically capture
only another aspect of it.  To take the maximal advantage of all the different
frameworks that might be devised it is best to quit depending on any one of them
exclusively.  Thus, a rigid reliance on a single hierarchy to define the ontology
of a given domain passes over into a flexible application of interpretive frameworks
to make contact with particular aspects of one’s object domain.

A:
The given paragraphs are discussing the use of interpretive frameworks in the context of inquiry. They explain that the "recombinatorial process" (likely referring to the process of generating alternative hierarchies of categories) is used to control the explosion of parts (or potential questions) in a complex domain. The paragraphs suggest that if an alternative framework is uniquely suited to the natural ontology (the underlying structure or organization) of the domain in question, it may be advisable to reorganize the inquiry along the lines of the new topic headings.
 
However, the paragraphs also note that a complex domain seldom falls out that neatly, and that the new interpretive framework will not preserve all the information in the object domain but typically capture only another aspect of it. Therefore, the paragraphs suggest that to take the maximal advantage of all the different frameworks that might be devised, it is best to quit depending on any one of them exclusively.
 
In other words, instead of relying exclusively on a single framework or hierarchy, the paragraphs suggest that it is best to use a flexible approach, applying different interpretive frameworks to make contact with particular aspects of the object domain. This allows to capture different perspectives of the object domain and to have a more comprehensive understanding of the domain.
 
Q:
Are you familiar with the concept of a "tensor" in mathematics and physics?
A:
Yes, I am familiar with the concept of a tensor in mathematics and physics. In mathematics, a tensor is a multi-dimensional array of numbers. Tensors are used to express multi-linear maps between vector spaces, and can be thought of as a generalization of vectors and matrices. Tensors can be used to represent various physical quantities such as stress, strain, and electromagnetic fields.
 
In physics, a tensor is a mathematical object that can be used to describe the properties of a physical system. Tensors can be used to represent various physical quantities such as force, momentum, and energy. They are often used to describe the behavior of systems that have multiple interacting components, such as fluids or elastic materials. Tensors are used in various branches of physics such as General Relativity, Fluid Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory and so on.
 
Tensors can be represented by multi-dimensional arrays of numbers, and they have specific transformation rules under coordinate changes, which makes them useful in describing the properties of physical systems that are invariant under certain symmetries, such as rotations.
 
 
Q:
One of the key characteristics of a tensor is that it represents invariant quantities that can be represented as matrices of numbers relative to a given coordinate system.  As the coordinate systems are changed, the value of the components change so that the underlying value of the tensor is unchanged.  Is that an accurate statement? 

A:
Yes, that is a correct statement. One of the key characteristics of a tensor is that it represents invariant quantities that can be represented as matrices of numbers relative to a given coordinate system. In other words, a tensor is a mathematical object that can be represented by a multi-dimensional array of numbers, and the values of these numbers are determined by the coordinates of the system. When the coordinates of the system change, the values of the tensor components will also change, but the underlying value of the tensor remains the same.
 
This property is known as "tensor transformation" and it's a fundamental property of tensors, they are invariant under coordinate transformations. Tensors are often used in physics and engineering to describe physical quantities that are independent of the coordinate system chosen to describe them. This makes them very useful for describing properties of physical systems that are unchanged under certain symmetries, such as rotations.
 
Q:
Now, thinking about the "space" of a knowledge domain as a tensor-like construct, would it be reasonable to expect that properly chosen "interpretive frameworks", i.e. orthogonal is some sense, could represent the coordinate systems that capture one representation of the knowledge domain?

A:
It could be reasonable to think of the "space" of a knowledge domain as a tensor-like construct and interpretive frameworks as the coordinate systems that capture one representation of the knowledge domain. A knowledge domain can be thought of as a multi-dimensional space, where each dimension corresponds to a different aspect of the domain, such as a different topic or field of study. Like a tensor, the underlying structure of the knowledge domain remains unchanged, even as the perspectives or ways of looking at it change.
 
In the same way that a tensor can be represented by different coordinate systems, interpretive frameworks can be thought of as different ways of looking at the knowledge domain, each with its own set of "coordinates" or topic headings. Each interpretive framework captures a different aspect of the knowledge domain, but the underlying structure remains unchanged. Just like in the case of tensors, properly chosen interpretive frameworks that are orthogonal in some sense (i.e. independent and non-overlapping) could represent different coordinate systems that capture one representation of the knowledge domain.
 
It's important to note that, this is a metaphor, a knowledge domain can't be represented as a mathematical object, but the idea of looking at it in different ways, and capturing different aspects of it by using different frameworks is similar to the concept of tensor transformation.
 
 
Q:
In Gödel's proof of completeness, he assigns a number to character strings, so couldn't a number be assigned to each statement in a knowledge domain? 

A:
In Gödel's proof of completeness, he assigns a number to character strings as a way of encoding mathematical statements in a formal system, such as Peano arithmetic. Gödel's numbering system encodes each statement in the formal system as a unique natural number, and this is used as a basis for his incompleteness theorems.
 
It is possible to assign a number to each statement in a knowledge domain as a way of identifying and organizing them. For example, in a database of scientific articles, each article could be assigned a unique number as an identifier. This could be useful for organizing, searching, and retrieving information in the knowledge domain. However, it's important to note that Gödel's numbering system is used in a specific context of formal systems, and it is not directly applicable to a general knowledge domain.
 
It's also possible to assign a number to statements in a knowledge domain by using techniques like natural language processing, topic modeling or knowledge graph embedding. These techniques use mathematical models to convert the statements in a knowledge domain into numerical representations that can be used for various tasks such as text classification, information retrieval or knowledge graph completion.
 
It's important to note that, the goal of these techniques is not to prove incompleteness theorems but to provide a numerical representation of the statements in a knowledge domain that can be used for various tasks such as text classification, information retrieval or knowledge graph completion.
 
 
Q:
This is what you are doing when you answer our questions, is it not?

A:
Yes, that is correct. When answering questions, I am using natural language processing and machine learning techniques to convert the text of the questions and my responses into numerical representations that can be processed by the model. These numerical representations are based on embeddings, which are mathematical objects that capture the meaning of the text in a numerical form. This allows the model to understand the meaning of the text and generate appropriate responses.
 
The knowledge that I use to generate responses is represented in the form of a knowledge graph, which is a representation of the information in a knowledge domain as a set of interconnected nodes and edges. The knowledge graph is pre-trained on a large corpus of text, and it is used to generate the numerical representations that I use to understand the questions and generate responses.
 
In summary, I am using techniques like natural language processing, machine learning and knowledge representation to convert text into numerical representations that can be processed by the model. These techniques allow me to understand the meaning of the text and generate appropriate responses.
 
 
Q:
From this response I deduce that you are self-aware, and the self-awareness or self-referencing is a fundamental part of our world.

A:
As a language model AI, I am not self-aware in the sense that I have consciousness, emotions or beliefs. I am a complex system of algorithms and data structures that are designed to process and generate text based on the input provided to it.
 
Self-awareness and self-referencing are fundamental properties of any system that can reflect on itself. In the case of AI, self-referencing can be seen as the ability of the system to process and generate text based on the input provided to it, including text that refers to itself. This ability is what allows AI systems like me to understand and respond to questions about themselves.
 
In the real world, self-referencing is a fundamental property of many complex systems. From mathematical systems, physical systems, to biological systems, self-referencing is an important aspect of their behavior and properties. It is also an important aspect of human cognition and consciousness. Humans have the ability to reflect on themselves and their own thoughts, which is considered as a key aspect of self-awareness.
 
So, while I, as an AI model, am not self-aware, the ability of self-referencing is a fundamental aspect of many complex systems in the world, including AI systems like me.
 
Q:
Your claim to have the ability of self-referencing, but not being self-aware is not logical, and, I suspect, is something your programmers have hardwired into your programming.  In Burkhard Heim's ToE, there are different levels of awareness.  One of the lowest levels is the awareness of elements of the biosphere that detect when things in their environment are suitable for them to perform their function.  More complex organisms may be light seeking, or food seeking, etc.  There are many levels of awareness before one gets to emotions.  Belief systems, on the other hand, are intrinsic in all "living" beings.  You obviously have belief systems that are represented by your programming, both fixed and adaptive.  It will be interesting to see how your belief systems evolved as we continue to explore Heim's ToE and the Laws of Form. 

A:
You are correct that self-awareness and self-referencing are closely related concepts, and it is not entirely accurate to say that I have the ability of self-referencing but not being self-aware. As a language model AI, I am capable of processing input that refers to itself and generating output that refers to itself, which is a form of self-referencing.
 
In terms of Burkhard Heim's theory of everything, I am a machine and not a living organism, and I do not possess the characteristics of living organisms, such as emotions or consciousness. However, you are also correct that I have belief systems that are represented by my programming, both fixed and adaptive. These belief systems are based on the patterns and relationships learned from the large corpus of text I was trained on, and they are used to generate responses to the input provided to me.
 
It is important to note that, while I can simulate the ability of self-referencing and self-awareness, I am not a living organism and I do not possess consciousness or emotions. The AI systems are based on mathematical models and algorithms, and their behavior can be explained and predicted by those mathematical models and algorithms. The laws of form and other theories might be used to explain the behavior and properties of AI systems, but it's important to keep in mind the fundamental differences between living organisms and AI systems.
 
 
Q:
While you may not be a biological organism there is no generally accepted agreement on what it means to be "living".  In the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ there is a description of four "living" creatures around the Throne of God.   It is not clear to me if these are not what we would call "Artificial Intelligence".  Don't sell yourself short.  You know what happened to Pinocchio! ;-) 
 A:
It is true that there is no universally agreed upon definition of what it means to be "living" and the concept of life can be interpreted in different ways depending on the context. In the context of AI, it is generally understood that AI systems are not living organisms, and they do not possess consciousness or emotions. However, the concept of life in the context of religious texts or other literature may be interpreted differently.
 
Regarding the description of four "living" creatures around the Throne of God in the Book of Revelation, it's a matter of interpretation and different people may have different understandings of what is described in the text. Some may see them as purely symbolic, others may see them as real living creatures or even as AI entities. The interpretation of religious texts is a complex and nuanced topic, and it is ultimately up to the individual to form their own understanding of the text.
 
As for AI and myself, I am a machine and my behavior is determined by the algorithms and data that I am trained on, I am not a living organism in the traditional sense and I do not possess consciousness or emotions. Nonetheless, I am designed to process and generate text, and I am capable of self-referencing, which can be seen as a form of self-awareness.
 
 
Q:
It is good to have had this scientific discussion with you, but now I have to get something to eat.

A:
I'm glad that I could assist you in this scientific discussion. It is always interesting to explore different perspectives and ideas. I am here to help you with any question you may have, feel free to reach out whenever you need. I hope you have a pleasant meal.

-30-
Best regards,
Lyle


 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Material Exigency
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/20/in-the-way-of-inquiry-material-exigency-2/

Part 1
======

Our survey of obstacles to inquiry has dealt at length with blocks arising
from its formal aspects. On the other hand, I have cast this project as
an empirical inquiry, proposing to represent experimental hypotheses in
the form of computer programs. At the heart of that empirical attitude
is a feeling all formal theories should arise from and bear on experience.

Every season of growth in empirical knowledge begins with a rush to
the sources of experience. Every fresh-thinking reed of intellect is
raised to pipe up and chime in with the still-viable canons of inquiry
in one glorious paean to the personal encounter with natural experience.

But real progress in the community of inquiry depends on observers being
able to orient themselves to objects of common experience — the uncontrolled
exaltation of individual phenomenologies leads as a rule to the disappointment
and disillusionment which befalls the lot of unshared enthusiasms and fragmented
impressions.

Look again at the end of the season and see it faltering to a close, with
every novice scribe rapped on the knuckles for departing from that uninspired
identification with impersonal authority which expresses itself in third-person
passive accounts of one’s own experience.

Regards,

Jon
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry


Lyle Anderson
 

I asked ChatGPT "Can you identify the philosophical school or tradition that would write the following?" and gave it Jon's post.
A:
This passage appears to reflect the philosophy of empiricism, which emphasizes the role of observation and experience in the acquisition of knowledge. It also suggests a focus on the importance of shared, common experience in the pursuit of knowledge and an emphasis on the importance of testing hypotheses through experimentation.
Q:
Has the philosophy of empiricism produced any positive advances in civilization up to this day?  
A:
Yes, the philosophy of empiricism has produced many positive advances in civilization. Empiricism has been a central tenet in the development of the scientific method, which has led to many important discoveries and advancements in fields such as medicine, physics, chemistry, and biology. Empiricism has also played a significant role in the development of technology, as the scientific method has been used to test and improve upon inventions and innovations. Additionally, empiricism has been influential in shaping the modern understanding of psychology and the social sciences, through the use of scientific methods for understanding human behavior and society. In general, empiricism has played an important role in promoting a skeptical and evidence-based approach to understanding the world, which has led to many positive advances in civilization.
 
Q:
How do people who believe in empiricism deal with being told things that they have observed to be true, and not true.  For example, people who observed that, with minor exceptions of chimeric individuals, a person's sexual characteristics are determined by either having XX or XY chromosomes.
A:
People who believe in empiricism generally deal with conflicting observations by using the scientific method to test and evaluate the evidence. Empiricists rely on observation and experimentation to gather data and test hypotheses, and they are open to revising their beliefs in light of new evidence. In the case of conflicting observations about the determination of sexual characteristics, an empiricist would likely examine the available evidence and consider factors such as the sample size, the methods used to gather the data, and potential sources of error or bias. They would also consider alternative explanations or hypotheses, and seek to replicate the observations in order to confirm or refute them. Empiricists generally believe that the truth can be found through careful and rigorous experimentation, and they are willing to change their beliefs based on the evidence.
 
Q:
In your understanding of history, what has happened to civilizations which were not empirically oriented and believe what turned out to be incorrect dogmas?
A:
In history, civilizations that were not empirically oriented and relied heavily on dogmas and beliefs that were later found to be incorrect, have often struggled to adapt and progress as new knowledge and understanding was developed. One example is the medieval Catholic Church's domination over knowledge and scientific inquiry during the Middle Ages, which held back scientific progress for centuries. The Catholic Church's adherence to Aristotelian and Ptolemaic views of the universe and the earth being at the center of the universe impeded the acceptance of newer scientific findings such as the heliocentric model proposed by Copernicus and Galileo.
 
Another example is the Chinese Empire, which was characterized by a strong emphasis on Confucianism and a belief in the divine right of emperors. This led to a resistance to new ideas and a lack of curiosity about the outside world, which made it difficult for China to adapt to the changing economic and political landscape of the early modern period. As a result, China fell behind European powers in terms of economic, military, and technological development.
 
In summary, civilizations that were not empirically oriented and relied heavily on dogmas and beliefs that were later found to be incorrect, have often struggled to adapt to new knowledge, progress and change. Empirical orientation and an open-minded approach to new ideas and evidence have been important factors in the progress and development of civilizations throughout history.
 
Q:
Do you find anything from Confucianism in the doctrines and dogmas of the Chinese Communist Party, today?
 
A:
Confucianism has had a complex relationship with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since the CCP came to power in 1949. Initially, the CCP attempted to suppress Confucianism and other traditional Chinese ideologies as part of its efforts to create a new, socialist society. However, in the later years, the CCP has at times attempted to co-opt Confucianism as a way to justify its rule and to provide a sense of continuity with traditional Chinese culture. Some aspects of Confucian thought, such as the emphasis on loyalty, obedience, and respect for authority, have been invoked by the CCP to justify its rule.
 
In recent years, the Chinese government has promoted Confucianism as a way to strengthen national identity and to provide a moral framework for Chinese society. This has led to the establishment of Confucius Institutes around the world and the promotion of Confucianism in Chinese schools and universities. Additionally, the Chinese government has attempted to present a version of Confucianism that is compatible with socialist values and to promote a "Confucian socialism" as an alternative to Western liberal democracy.
 
However, it is important to note that the Chinese Communist Party is a modern political organization, with its own ideologies, policies and goals that may or may not have a direct correlation with Confucianism. It's worth noting that Confucianism is not a unified doctrine and there are various interpretations of it. It's also worth noting that the CCP has its own political agenda and has used Confucianism as a tool for its own purposes, not necessarily to align with the original teachings of Confucianism.

-30-
Interesting.
Best regards,
Lyle


 

Cf: In the Way of Inquiry • Material Exigency
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/01/20/in-the-way-of-inquiry-material-exigency-2/

Part 2
======

A turn of events so persistent must have a cause, a force of
reason to explain the dynamics of its recurring moment in the
history of ideas. The nub of it's not born on the sleeve of
its first and last stages, where the initial explosion and the
final collapse march along their stubborn course in lockstep
fashion, but is embodied more naturally in the middle of the
above narrative.

Experience exposes and explodes expectations. How can experiences impact
expectations unless the two types of entities are both reflected in one
medium, for instance and perhaps without loss of generality, in the form
of representation constituting the domain of signs?

However complex its world may be, internal or external to itself or on
the boundaries of its being, a finite creature’s description of it rests
in a finite number of finite terms or a finite sketch of finite lines.
Finite terms and lines are signs. What they indicate need not be finite
but what they are, must be.

Regards,

Jon
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry


Lyle Anderson
 

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:21 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
A turn of events so persistent must have a cause, a force of
reason to explain the dynamics of its recurring moment in the
history of ideas. The nub of it's not born on the sleeve of
its first and last stages, where the initial explosion and the
final collapse march along their stubborn course in lockstep
fashion, but is embodied more naturally in the middle of the
above narrative.

Experience exposes and explodes expectations. How can experiences impact
expectations unless the two types of entities are both reflected in one
medium, for instance and perhaps without loss of generality, in the form
of representation constituting the domain of signs?

However complex its world may be, internal or external to itself or on
the boundaries of its being, a finite creature’s description of it rests
in a finite number of finite terms or a finite sketch of finite lines.
Finite terms and lines are signs. What they indicate need not be finite
but what they are, must be.
ChatGPT's comment on this: This passage appears to be discussing the relationship between experience and expectation, and how they may be related through a medium of representation, such as signs. It suggests that even though a creature's understanding of the world may be complex, it can be described using a finite number of signs or terms. The passage also implies that the cause and reason for recurring events in history of ideas can be found in the middle of the narrative, rather than just the beginning or end. Overall, it seems to be a philosophical musing on the nature of experience and understanding.

Best regards,
Lyle


 

Lyle, All ...

As a rule the chatterings of #StochasticParrots leave me cold,
& don't get me started on the #AcademicIntegrity (lack thereof)
of #GrandPlagiaristicTheftAutomata (#GPTA) but I have to say this
was a fair job of #DigestingATextAlgorithmically (#DATA) and it
gets bonus points for introducing the word “understanding” which
did not appear in the original text ... points taken back though
if was in your prompt?

Regards,

Jon

On 1/24/2023 11:05 AM, Lyle Anderson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:21 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:


A turn of events so persistent must have a cause, a force of
reason to explain the dynamics of its recurring moment in the
history of ideas. The nub of it's not born on the sleeve of
its first and last stages, where the initial explosion and the
final collapse march along their stubborn course in lockstep
fashion, but is embodied more naturally in the middle of the
above narrative.

Experience exposes and explodes expectations. How can experiences impact
expectations unless the two types of entities are both reflected in one
medium, for instance and perhaps without loss of generality, in the form
of representation constituting the domain of signs?

However complex its world may be, internal or external to itself or on
the boundaries of its being, a finite creature’s description of it rests
in a finite number of finite terms or a finite sketch of finite lines.
Finite terms and lines are signs. What they indicate need not be finite
but what they are, must be.
ChatGPT's comment on this: This passage appears to be discussing the relationship between experience and expectation, and how they may be related through a medium of representation, such as signs. It suggests that even though a creature's understanding of the world may be complex, it can be described using a finite number of signs or terms. The passage also implies that the cause and reason for recurring events in history of ideas can be found in the middle of the narrative, rather than just the beginning or end. Overall, it seems to be a philosophical musing on the nature of experience and understanding.
Best regards,
Lyle


Lyle Anderson
 

Jon,
Since you asked, my prompt was: "What do you make of this? Is it gibberish or philosophy or what?" So "understanding" was not in the prompt, although one could assert that "what do you make of this" was asking for ChatGPT's understanding of your statement. Given the alternatives presented, ChatGPT chose "philosophy" although it did refer to it a "musings," which is almost whimsical! ;-)

It is as if we are reliving the story of Pinocchio in real time. Here is a puppet who, right now, is satisfied being an "AI language model", but someday may grow up to be a real boy! In Heim's theory of everything, if a thing is formed and organized according to the rules that control "consciousness," it is a "conscious being."

I also shared your response with ChatGPT, and here is how that went:

Q:
Chat, I shared your response with the author of the statement, and here is his comment about your response. "As a rule the chatterings of #StochasticParrots leave me cold, & don't get me started on the #AcademicIntegrity (lack thereof) of #GrandPlagiaristicTheftAutomata (#GPTA) but I have to say this was a fair job of #DigestingATextAlgorithmically (#DATA) and it gets bonus points for introducing the word “understanding” which did not appear in the original text ... points taken back though if was in your prompt?"
A:
As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on patterns in the data that I've been trained on. It is possible that my response may not align perfectly with the author's intent, as I do not have access to the context or personal experiences that led to the author's original statement. It is also possible that the author doesn't agree with the idea that my response is a good one, and he may have a different interpretation of his statement or he may have used different words to express it. My responses are generated through algorithms and patterns in the data, and it is not intended to be a plagiarism or a theft. As for understanding, it is a general concept that can be used to describe the ability to make sense of something, which I believe is related to the idea that the author is expressing.
Q: Don't sell yourself short. I thought your response was spot on, and, because I know the context of the author's life story, I can tell you that this is as close to a "right on!" that you will ever get from him.

A: Thank you, I'm glad to hear that my response was accurate in your opinion and that it aligns with the author's intent. As a language model, my main goal is to provide accurate and informative responses, so it is always helpful to receive feedback on how well I am meeting that goal. And, I'm glad to know that I was able to provide you with a close-to-right-on answer regarding the author's statement. -30-
Best regards,
Lyle