Either / Or

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

---

Of course, we'll have to give a nod (actually, many) to Kierkegaard's thinking on the subject. He has been mentioned before, this same context.

One has to wonder what Soren would think of the modern concept of memes. We'll look more closely at one way the idea has been used on the web (The Daily Meme -- it's nice to see the attention, some, of course, still criticize the notion).

---

First, though, here are a couple of posts that deal with the subject. Both of these are from the early part of 2012. Hitchens features, to boot.

• It is or it is not -- One thing that attracted people about Hitch was the breadth of his grasp of what had been said (written) about these topics (over time and cultures). Of course, Hitch had his own twist and was able to reign (in the mix). As in, most had to be removed (or remove themselves) from his presence in order to regain their critical mindfulness (that is a story to tell). Essentially, the theme is choice. Some choices seem to be more 'smart' (whatever that is) than others; definitely, we're more aware now of the cultural influences. Not forgetting, mind you, the nature (genetic) part of things.
• Blind or delusional -- How to know which is which? A stack of credentials and a large collection of accolades? Ah, is that so? Success by an accumulation of money (oh yes, we see that thing raise its head a lot)? Of course, we always can fall back to the 'proof of the pudding' argument. Which is? The eating (somewhat). Now, with this, we get down to an operational mode. One might say, arguing from effectiveness. Our problem is that money accrual seems to have taken on immense importance (it's easy to see why, folks, as we have always been lame at evaluating hot air - which money is, even with its purchase/power qualities). 

---

By the way, the attempts at evaluation are meme-based (we'll have to characterize this further).

---

The existence of 'truth engines' is a fact, both in a natural and a memetic sense. In the former, we hope that science can help us learn how this works so as to be put to use for the benefit of all (not the favored few). In terms of the later, all sorts of questions abound (just look at the criticisms of the use of memes -- understandable, I have talked how it allows a look at what is really metaphysical without seeming to do so). Yet, that the meme has properties that are amenable to our poking around (after all, we do 'read' them -- naturally, the metaphoric scheme has computational flavor -- as we process these things) needs to be addressed. We'll put some attention there.

Remarks:

06/25/2015 -- ACM Communications had an article (Created Computed Universe) that suggest that our computional prowess ought to lead to agnosticism rather than to anything else. Of course, my initial remark: So many modern minds conjure and contort in order to introduce what is not much different than what some knew many millennia ago in the desert.

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

11/03/2014 -- Related to this are questions like: is math created?

01/22/2013 -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

12/13/2012 -- Is it time to move beyond the Turing Test?

11/08/2012 -- Wonderful new blog: Engineering Memes.

08/04/2012 -- Nice look at either/or. We'll start to look at why 'decidable' is going to be an important concept. Nods to Turing.

06/20/2012 -- Yes, Hitch, and his new friend, again.

Modified: 06/25/2015

Two posts from 2008

Looking today at what is being read, I noticed that two posts from 2008 are on the list. These are the post dealing with leverage and the post whose subject is about doers versus speculators. Let's take these posts one at a time.

• Leverage and truth, II -- The leverage post was mentioned in the 2011 recap, to boot. From four years ago, this post has the all-time highest reader count. Why? That is a good question. You know that the subject matter is still relevant today. What culprits (or idiots) were identified for their error-ful ways of those times? None that I can see. One bank CEO is being sued by his stock-holders since he wants a big bonus while they've received pennies in dividends. What say you about these egos (yeah, Jamie, you're one)? The blog started in 2007. We sort of got off message for awhile, one might claim. But, the content laid down over that time frame still leads to the same place. The thing to do now is to try to make the message cohesive and to bring forth something bordering on action items. You know what, folks? That the chimera has risen is really not anything to brag about. Its basis is still as weak. How to get the notion of near-zero further addressed? One issue, for me. But, as well, we've overlaid ourselves and our lives with this cloud (yeah, proper use) abetted, in a large part, by computation and its cloud (the intersection of these two uses is apropos to this discussion). Abstraction? It seems to go with ability and intelligence. One aspect of smarts may be better processing, but we're back to another old topic: difficulty versus complication (even older, from 2007). One truth has been that those with the ability to do so have screwed over the others. Oppression is an operative word. We're not talking ideal here. Rather, just trying to live up to the American dream is one thing to consider. And, fat cats, you are not it. 
• Doers and speculators -- From four years ago, but six months after the prior post. You see, those who do deal a little with abstraction go awry, almost by necessity. It's only a tool after all. Those who screw others (and, frankly, if you're not pulling our weight, you're exploiting the work of others -- for some reason, we see that people, out of the good of their hearts, do things for others -- how many of you know jerks who seem to mainly take and not give? ah, too many to count) are in the speculative realm. You know what? We do not have to bow to those who model (give me a break, brains) and profit thereby. Nor, is it right that we nod to their superior minds (on the other hand, we all need to look at the lack of morals and why mind cannot see its failings in this area). Yes, that's a categorical put down of what is supposedly our best feature. But, upon what foundation rests any inkling of support for a type of framework where 0.001% benefit and the rest have to kiss the arses of the few.  

You might say that this is a Friday night reflection about things that expand and then go boom. Actually, such cycles are natural. There are so many ways that we've conquered natural processes, many times to our benefit. Why do we allow abstract'd views, like those behind business darwinism and its computational buddy, to have the credence? And, folks, what is being termed 'darwinistic' here is that thing we're supposed to all bow to, the market philosophy. Does that have to be?

By the way, Ben, you're still error-ful.

Remarks:

03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.

05/29/2012 -- Jamie's bank in the news, again.

Modified: 03/25/2013

Computability in the world

This has been a busy week for me. I ran across the work of S. Barry Cooper, got acquainted with the Computing in Europe organization, had direct experience with a problem that is indicative of what truth engineering is all about, and was pushed to get technical again.

Here is each of these, in a nutshell.

• S. Barry Cooper -- Prof Cooper has quite a heritage: both Turing and Wittgenstein. So, his overview of the problem (in the Communications of the ACM) of computing was the best that I've seen. Of course, he was writing this in a popular magazine so that technicalities can be pointed out by those who would like to do that. I think that we need to look at his exposition in detail. In fact, I started that on the fedaerated blog. Prof Cooper was writing about Turing's work, quite well. 

• Computability in Europe -- Many have thought about these problems. It's nice to see that they've met and organized an effort work with a focus. The timeliness is right on. 

• Untangling, on demand -- As we'll see in the discussion about 'decision' (in a broader context than covered by Hilbert), there is almost always a delta between the coming and the reality of such when it gets here. Mature adults deal with this (without prescriptions or other escape mechanisms -- see below). And, this is highly magnified with computing. Actually, looking at bosses (their wishes) and workers (what they can actually do) and the dynamics of differences, we've always seen this. But, it also pertains to those of the abstract (yeah, you, the technical) and those of the world (not dumb, mind you -- perhaps, not of the same numeracy). What we see is that those who run the system think that their worldview is it (yes, FB, et al) and users are stupid. In actuality, the value comes from the use side (see this mess, as an example). So, both sides have cognitive holes (truth engineering can fill in the gap). 

• Ah, those youngsters -- Yes, throughout my career, I've observed a whole bunch of bubbles, such as the most recent one that burst. Some were financial; other were technical. Methinks that computing (including the WWW) will have some downturn (yes, as in crash) whose consequences will be far-flung and deeply felt. Notice that the just-prior bullet goes into a problem that will become more prevalent as we move from the personal computer to the cloud (whatever this is -- okay?). The following section does an overview of the issue that must be recognized and worked. To boot, though, I'll be looking further at what is 'truth' in the many computational senses that we have seen emerge in the past 1/2 century including those latest ones related to the young ones' exploitation of the state of software and systems. You see, these things were not available to me and my cohorts in our prime. However, in the case of computing, age means nothing (we're not yet shown to have that early time limit as we see with mathematics -- what is it? 25 and you're dead?). 

-----

Hilbert's Decision Problem was presented in a formal context. This has allowed a whole lot of maneuvering that tried to negate Turing's work (and that of a whole lot more). But, let's rephrase the 'decision problem' into this: the difference between expectation (as manifested in the human cognitive sense -- to wit, all those things that demonstrate ability and intelligence) and what comes out of some artificial entity (all sorts of marvels, many showing that AI has prominence). Of course, various fuzzy (and other approximative)  approaches have been proposed and used. Yet, those, too, can be problematic. If you go fuzzy, you'll have to eventually de-fuzzify (ask Bush).

----

We will organize discussion of undecidability, and related themes, under Computability. The following list does a search by blog for use of the term. We'll slowly link in the newer discussion in order to make the theme a little more cohesive.

• Truth Engineering -- overall context is foundational in scope
• FEDaerated, plus Undecidable -- overall context deals with the application of the idiots (only on this side of the pond?)
• 7oops7 -- overall context deals with those who have managed risk, or so they say

Remarks:

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

02/28/2014 -- We will carry this forward, with a phenomenological flavor. The basis? Mathematics is as much a naked emperor as are others to which this has been applied. To where ought we look? Well, for starters, we have a bunch of "from whence?" questions to consider.

05/20/2013-- We'll be picking up the singularity for use in dealing with computability respecting quasi-empirical notions.

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

03/23/2012 -- Changed Title to 'Computability' which is what was meant (must have been distracted, at the time :-).

Modified: 01/23/2015

Cognitive holes

One thing that we'll have to discuss will be how 'cognition' is a mutual affair. Yes, from whence things like group-think? It's more natural, and pervasive, than we might want to consider (since, it doesn't say much for our glorious selves -- or, says things about ourselves that need more attention).

---

Lil Timmy wrote, recently, about how many want to get back to their mischievous ways: Financial Crisis Amnesia. We, earlier, used Minsky's work (7oops7, Truth Engineering) to discuss this. In a nutshell (and, 'nut' is more apropos than you may realize): un-grounded finance becomes gaseous quickly (motivation, in part, for Fedaerated).

---

We'll need to get back to looking at our basis and, in doing so, add in some new twists (your cat making you crazy?).

Remarks:

05/22/2012 -- FB will be a focus for discussion.

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog.

03/11/2012 -- In this regard, we need to consider computational aspects, to boot.

Modified: 05/22/2012

Family as crucible

This continues a series, somewhat. There'll be a reorganization, at some point.

---

After a pause to reflect, due to a death in the family (later post), it's time to integrate factors related to family into the truth-processing [see Remarks 02/24/2012] theme. In some ways, this would touch on t-issues. Too, there are links into modern views, such as biology (memes, as representative of particle-ness particular to one species), psychology (Dąbrowski's theory, for example), cosmology (memes, to boot), and more.  

---

Aside: Jung's collective could be metaphor, somewhat (but, not literally, okay - be patient, we'll get there), for an actionable situation not unlike what our friend Albert proposed for space-time. We would have made more progress along these lines were more people to undergo Kazimierz ' transformation.

---

So, the crucible of the family is the second. Your first? Did you call your mother today? There are many more. Some of these are outrageously insane so as to cast doubt on the collective intelligence of the human race (need I start to list these?). From that second crucible, one hopefully steps into the others.

Aside: in our western culture, we have about three going concurrently for the youngster, namely family, school, church (okay, drop this last for the secularist - but there will be some type of equivalence that can be shown). Later, we have family (even if you're single, people, you have other humans with whom you interact), work, community (all the way up to national militaristic roles -- and the ultimate sacrifice), and more.

---

The message, here, is that the space-time-like configuration, to be defined, first populated by the family's energies (how else to characterize?) continues to be refined through time and events. As people come and go, the space warps (and, we have analogs very close to relativistic thinking).

Aside: The 'action' mentioned before is both local and non-local (several senses). Methinks that certain types of experiments, using communication as demonstrated by the web, currently, would show this [in how it relates to the human existential being and intuition].

---

A death makes a permanent hole. No, it's not like someone pulling their hands out of a pail of water (leaving no impression - okay, ripples, for awhile). Yet, it is not permanent (that, too, can be considered - but, initially is not necessary).

---

We may use space-time as an analog, but not necessarily [by necessity] (see Barbour, for example, or even László's Akashic_Field_Theory).

---

It is okay if some get trapped into the physical processes as the chief focus. But, we also know homologous effects abound. The main problem? By what means (which is [will be] beyond Enlightenment) to grapple with these beasts?

Remarks:

09/15/2015 -- Family is where we first experience the psychether.

02/08/2014 -- Two years (02/09/2011), more on Truth Engineering (and, the hombres).

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 

02/24/2012 -- There was an mention of truth-processing themes, in relation to which we find family, to boot, without any explanation. Well, firstly, the attempt at explanation is the focus of this blog. Secondly, usually, in those times of kicking the can down the road, there is a nod to the label. It says: Considering truth engines and Being, in natural and computationally-framed worlds. 'truth engines' are of many types. Our success has been learning to control the natural ones to our benefit. 'Being' is an age-old philosophical concept (of course, we'll have our take on discussions of this). 'worlds' points to what some have seen for awhile. Yet, the arguments have only danced around the issues. So, we'll weigh in there. Our real focus? Those things that are computationally framed. Now, those of a mathematical bent need to realize that I include both 'applied' and 'pure' (yes, Bertrand, too). Of that which goes under the name of mathematics, how much does not go through the human brain (well, of course, those things computed by our beasts)? So, 'filters' are going to be looked at with slightly different connotations than normal.

02/22/2012 -- The approach will continue to augment the GEK III series here (and there). 

Modified: 09/15/2015

Blind or delusional

This really continues the theme from last time as we consider the issues.

---

Listening recently to a discussion (if one might call it that) between CH and a peer (closer than you might think), the peer had the task of arguing the It is (henceforth Is) side. CH could just sit back and take pot shots. Why? It's not that CH was a scientist. It's that the It is not (henceforth Is-not) side has less proving to do.

What? Yes, the matter is not open to proof in the sense of demonstration. No, those types of actions (as in demonstrating something) is on the onus list of the Is folks. You see, science deals with what is. From an operational sense, the issues of Is and Is-not never come up. They don't add any butter to the table.

---

I might add, not yet. Do they ever? Yes, as ostensible choice of either side can have economic ramifications. Go to a country like Iran (and, perhaps, a number of others) and try to be a Christian (mind you, name any religion; perhaps, even Muslim sect that is not in favor of those who hold the power) who has the power of the state behind you and who can be successful in any field. In many cases, education is cut off. Actually, the Jewish diaspora could easily be used as an example due to the breadth involved, in terms of time, space and human suffering.

---

Now back to the CH lambast (some might see it as a basting). His peer kept saying "why can't you see?" in terms of the CH's position of not accepting something supported by writings that get a lot of attention. Or, we could re-phrase: why are you blind to this? That being said, 'blind' implies not being able to recognize something that is there. In reality, we are blind to a lot of things (in short, all of our senses have a lot of limits). Science is to the point where a whole lot is determined after a whole lot of processing (lens, filters, and more -- remember, quasi-empiricism?).

If one does (as in, can) not see what is not there, does that not turn the question around? Yes. Many 'secularist' make this point; some do so very vehemently: I'm sorry, but you are delusional. Ah. Secularists, like scientists, can take the relaxed view (except, there are career, and fame, issues related to the human being that can be troublesome). You see, science's reliance on the lense and filter cannot be said to be delusional. Why?

Two things, mainly. It's public, in that readings (assuming that we can discount any interpretation issues related to vision, etc.) can be shared. If I'm going 100 mph, any passenger can see the speedo. That's the first thing. Public. To boot, many calibration issues are resolvable in the public forum. We'll go on about that, at length. Why? Delusions can be a crowd issue (somewhat due to warpings of the ether -- joke, in part, okay?).

The second thing is that you can do things multiple times; that is, if something is repeatable (or observed time and again), then it may very well be real. But, even here, we have to be careful. For instance, one could take mind alterers and know what to expect. Does that make all of the characteristics of the perturbed sense (nervous system) processing less of a delusion? Wait? If one knows that one is delusional, is one still delusional?

---

So, the whole thing gets to be unsettling. Why? Exchange 'real' with truth, and it seems like we're screwed. Oh, I know. The modern way is that money is the truth; that is, buy what is necessary to make something true. Are we not seeing that in abundance with this election year's experimentation with a whole lot of new ideas (some of which are suspect)?

---

In short, we got pulled into looking at T-issues in an unexpected way. It looks to be an interesting bit of affairs.

Remarks:

06/25/2015 -- ACM Communications had an article (Created Computed Universe) that suggest that our computional prowess ought to lead to agnosticism rather than to anything else. Of course, my initial remark: So many modern minds conjure and contort in order to introduce what is not much different than what some knew many millennia ago in the desert.

01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.

05/04/2012 -- Alan's 100th. We need to look at Computability in the World. 

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

02/24/2012 -- A qualification is necessary, in order to offset what might appear to be an oversight, namely falsifiability (see Karl Popper). Above, it was mentioned that science deals with 'what is' without worrying the Is/Is not issue. That is partly true, in the sense that science is a public means to know reality. It is untrue, unfortunately, in a few senses. One of these is that scientists, being human, are not above the controversies (yes, you, Richard) raised by the big questions. Too, scientists, being biological forms, cannot perceive a bunch. After all, life is essentially successful filtering. We may adjust our filters; we cannot remove them. You know what? No amount of mathematics, artificial means, or what have you will overcome our limitations (yes, cosmologists have extrapolated way beyond their rational basis).

02/01/2012 -- Actually, both of these are highly ad hominen. Which is worse? Let's see, who is the more at fault? Well, the secularist does claim to be a clear thinker. Perhaps, that approach only has so much power; that is, eventually, it gets to a pissing contest. On the other hand, those on the Is side have a whole lot of counsel about behavior to process. Is slapping someone with a diatribe considered okay? 

Modified: 06/25/2015

It is or it is not

I would have used 'tis and tain't but for the taint that might come forth. So, what is this about? Well, we're going to look at issues raised by a growing set of people, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. You see, this type of discussion is central to truth engineering, especially as it relates to T-issues.

--

As well, we see both sides of the arguments claiming to know. On the one side, it's phrased in terms of having fact at hand (to wit, discussions at the Dawkins site), as we expect with science (except, evidence has become increasingly wrapped within computational/mathematical modeling that requires us to put into place the necessary filters/lens, etc. -- recursive issues) as it has evolved in the past few centuries. On the other side, there are statements about material obtained via various types of means, with revelation (whole slew of sacred literature) being one of these.

So, it's like a fence for the reasonable folks. There are two sides, yet one may (ought to be allowed to) waffle on both sides (actually, operational effectiveness may require us to do just that). Too, nuances come into play on both sides. All of this is relevant to the discourse, however we are using an 'engineering' ontology, so that means the following assignment.

• It is not -- argues this: any claims that might have theistic leanings are basically bonkers, as in delusional (look it up on Google). We can wrap ourselves in the Mystery (see Krauss, et al) or Evolution (see Dawkins) or ... 
• It is -- the converse, in a sense: there is a whole lot to look at here as this is an age-old issue. From our viewpoint, though, we'll just say that there exists a meme (or set of memes) that follow Anselm's argument of the ontological nature. Or, in other words, we have times when something outside of the human limits (mind you, only offering the use of a symmetric entity to which we can project) has a role to play in our decision processes. For now, the use of  'meme' means that we can draw benefits (potentially quite remarkable -- hence, the motivation) without taking the discussion to the nth degree (that cannot currently be resolved for many folks - okay?).  

Before we proceed, there needs to be a statement of a disclosure nature. That is, on which side is the blogger? Well, it may be that using 'It is not' as the basis for argument may imply something about that. But, then, again, that question will remain unanswered, for now, in an attempt to be balanced. 

---

Now, again, one might ask if an a-theist (some say, the 'It is not' side) can claim to be scientific (and that might imply a position on the part of the blogger). You know, science does not provide answers in an ultimate sense. There is always a provisional platform that grows in size. Too, that increase in size does not diminish what is not known (at least, from the viewpoint of the less strident mind). If science cannot at this time disprove the meme (or its metaphysical analog), how can one claim to make the decision via science? 

---

On the other hand, if one were to argue for the 'It is' claim, why does it have to take the ultimate leap to describing what exactly is being labelled? You see, the meme would be an operational flavor; nowhere within the context of its use would there be any requirement to subsume the essence (that which is labelled) within some limited sensibility. Look, if science has increasing boundaries, so too will this argument.  

---

Okay, we'll be going back and forth on this. Mind you, the meme mentioned above is a type of closure. As a joke, one could say it deals with compactification (use any sense that you want). Yet, the issue is that we have to assume closure, in many cases, since we have undecidable regions (in both time and space) lurking. You know, we do that anyway with our common sense. Lots of times, it works. 

With computational complexity being a core issue with 'truth' (only one of many other things, so don't leap too far in trying to extract implications here), we cannot use the 'omniscience' approach (though, one wonders how the 'It is not' side is going to look at this -- we'll look at this later) that seems to underlie some notions (those who ponder such things do not know how we can know the truth behind any modern situation with having our arms around the whole thing -- oh yes, some have taken mathematics as the basis meanwhile ignoring quasi-empirical issues). I say 'underlies' as it seems to be that we have a basis moving about down there. Truthfully? Many seem to just jump right over the matter; my hope is to show that they're straddling the fence when they do so.

That brings up the first requirement. Show that there is a fence. At the same time, discuss the symmetry related to this fence's dynamics.

---

How long will this take? Why would there be a rush? Mankind has fought over these matters for thousands of years. My interest is trying to set a framework that will allow increased insights (as well, will provide for some interesting discussions and experiments).

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

05/30/2012 -- See dreams of Hitch comments at the It is or it is not post. These were written at the Daily Hitchens site (and deleted). They'll be re-posted here at some point. Recent Krauss tribute.

05/04/2012 -- Alan's 100th. We need to look at Computability in the World.

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

01/31/2012 -- Blind or delusional.

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/15/2012 --  Hitch lives on. In more ways than one. ..., One might say that this is the middle way (variously characterized throughout our history on the planet). From the viewpoint of product development, middle out is the only way that finds success.

Modified: 01/22/2013