More philosophy about adaptation..

[World90]

Hello....


More philosophy about adaptation..

As you have just noticed i have just written a proverb about adaptation
by saying: "You have to master the tools of adaptation", notice
that we can say: "the tools for adaptation" or "the tool of adaptation",
read in the following dictionary of psychology, and you will notice
that it is saying the "tools of intellectual adaptation", read here to
notice it:

https://dictionary.apa.org/tools-of-intellectual-adaptation

So this proves that the saying of my proverb is correct, here is
my just new proverb and notice it:

"You have to master the tools of adaptation, such as having
a good education with a good education system, since getting
rich quickly is not the wise thing to do, since mastering the
tools of adaptation like having a good education will allow
you to get rich and will allow you to keep you rich."

More philosophy about white european nationalism and nationalism and more..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many
scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think that white european nationalism or nationalism is
not good for USA, and i think that it is the stupid way
to take, because USA will get much more divided and conquered or
much more weakned if it takes the way of white european nationalism or
nationalism, since white european nationalism or nationalism is not good
for business, and hate is not good for business, and USA is a powerful
country that has not to fear globalization and USA can adapt quickly,
so USA has to avoid hate of white supremacists and neo-nazis and
it has to be wise.

And here is my just new proverb:

"You have to master the tools of adaptation, such as having
a good education with a good education system, since getting
rich quickly is not the wise thing to do, since mastering the
tools of adaptation like having a good education will allow
you to get rich and will allow you to keep you rich."

More philosophy about my kind of personality..

I think that i have something special in my brain, and i am noticing it
more and more, it is that i want and desire "greatly" to be innovative
and inventive and creative, and it is my engine, and i think it is
genetical in me, i mean that i am an inventor of many scalable
algorithms and algorithms and i am still inventing other scalable
algorithms and algorithms, and i am creating innovative poems of Love
and i have also created my thoughts of my philosophy, read them below,
also i have quickly constructed my new monotheistic religion that i
think is more efficient and read my thoughts below about it, and i have
quickly invented many beautiful proverbs, read them below, so i think i
am a special guy, since i am always advancing by being this kind of high
intellectual quality, and i know how to be high intellectual quality and
it is genetical in me, and i am a gentleman type of person and it is
genetical in me. So i invite you to read all my following thoughts so
that to understand more my kind of personality.

Here is my new proverb and more of my philosophy..

First i have to prove that i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms
and algorithms, so read my following thoughts about my inventions so
that to understand that it is the truth:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/V9Go8fbF10k

And here is my new proverb:

"You have to know about exponential thinking and about exponential
growth and about exponential progress, so when you want to become
really rich and powerful, you have first to be "creative" and
"inventive" so that to bring a really interesting added value to your
product or service, also you have to be smart and think smartly at how
to take "advantage" of exponential growth and you have to sell your
product or service to a "large" population of humans."

So when you read my above proverb you will then have to for example know
from where comes creativity, so read my following thoughts so that to
understand:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/O-p9IH1aL14

And i invite you to read my following other proverbs in my following
thoughts:

Yet more philosophy about the smart patterns and about abstraction..

So i will give you a smart question that is like a Mensa IQ test, here
it is:

What is the important relation between the exponential progress of
our humanity and abstraction and the smart patterns and functional
programming ?

So you are noticing that you have to be smart so that to answer
correctly this question, and answering this question is really
important, also i can logically infer from the answer of the above
question that i can invent a new proverb from it, so here is my new
proverb in french and english about it:

"The intelligent favors healthy eating over tasty eating, and by analogy
we can also say that the intelligent also favors the effective speaker
over the sweet talker"

"L'intelligent privilégie le manger santé au manger qui a du goût, et
par analogie on peut aussi dire que l'intelligent aussi privilégie le
parleur efficace au beau parleur."

Here is my other just new proverb that will help you to understand
what i want you to understand, and it is like a Mensa IQ test:

"Is understanding the patterns of functional programming and all
understanding of functional programming? so then the intelligent will
also pedagogically follow the same way of effectively learning
functional programming from the patterns of functional programming, so
it is also an effective abstraction and it is an effective top-down
methodology, and it permits you to be really efficient, and i am doing
it smartly, since i am finding with my smartness more of those patterns
or smart patterns that permit this effectiveness "

I am rapidly inventing and thinking and writing my following proverbs:

Here is my just new proverb:

"Even silence makes us advance, since a human life full of silence is
not the right diversity as a balance that makes the good reliance"

Here is my other just new proverb in english and french:

"Learn to lift your head with dignity because even the sea has
threatening waves."

"Apprends à élever la tête avec dignité car même la mer a des vagues qui
menacent."

And here is my other new proverbs read them carefully:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/w7wgcbkEEIQ

And i invite you to read all my following thoughts of my philosophy:

And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo

Also you can read more about my thoughts of my philosophy about human
smartness in the following web link:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Wzf6AOl41xs

More philosophy about correlation and the Hill’s Criteria

I just said yesterday the following:

"I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the
general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we
can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and
find causality. I think it is the same for logical implication, logical
implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more
general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are
like a general concept that permits to model the reality."

So i invite you to read the following interesting web page about the
Hill’s Criteria, look for example at what it is saying about the
strength and the consistency so that to notice it:

Causation in Statistics: Hill’s Criteria

https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/causation/

More philosophy about mathematics..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many
scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think that mathematics theory is based on logic in mathematics,
so it follows logical consistency, but notice that it follows
logical consistency by following human common sense and logic by using
operators and there allowed rules or instructions of addiction and
substraction and multiplication and less than and greater than etc. so
then notice that since they follow this logical path so then the
important rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is
still valid in mathematics theory, and this rule is logically inferred
from the truth table of the logical implication and that permits also to
logically infer and validate the logical proofs such as:

(p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p))

or

(not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p

Note that p and q are logical variables.

And note that -> means logical implication:

More philosophy about correlation and logical implication..

I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the
general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we
can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and
find causality. I think it is the same for logical implication, logical
implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more
general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are
like a general concept that permits to model the reality.

More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics..

So you have to be smart, since i am saying below that the following
logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it
systemically,
since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured
by common sense and logic of reality:

[3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining

More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my
following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the
following(read it below):

"I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is
something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real
numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general
rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making
the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it
also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general
concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the
logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and
making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think
that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made
to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)"

So i will be more rigorous so that you understand:

So notice the following truth table of the logical implication:

p q p -> q
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

Note that p and q are logical variables.

So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can happen
in the reality, i give you an example:

If we take the following two propositions:

"I take my umbrella"

"The sky is raining"

So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like
also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can
happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we
need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the
cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common
sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases
from the truth table by using the above two propositions:

Note that -> means logical implication:

[1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining

[2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining

[3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining

[4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining

So now by using our human common sense and human logic
we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical
in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense
and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not
to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table
it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule
logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and
"verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is
used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with
common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the
cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of:
(p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits
us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular
case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize,
so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule
logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general
concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like
the general concept, read my below thoughts about it:

More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent
ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really
interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics
that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that
from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication
we are getting a general law or general formula that is:

(p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q)

And p and q are logical variables.

And here is the truth table of the logical implication:

p q p -> q
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

So i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is
equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that
applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality
since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to
"model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so
i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general
concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in
mathematics are like a concept that was made
to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it),
so now we are understanding more that logic in mathematics permits to
verify the logical consistency, so it is good for "reliability", and it
also permits to optimize since for example one logical proof can be more
"practical" or "faster" than another logical proof.

More of my philosophy about the human free will and more..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so if we ask
the following philosophical question:

Is there any free will ?

I think humans have no free will, since they have the strong tendency
with there smartness to act by being more and more perfection since they
have to adapt and to survive and they want to be great perfection so
that to solve most of humans problems and it is the goal of morality to
be this "perfection" at best, so i think that since humans have this
strong tendency so i think it is like there is no free will.

Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or
process of perfecting"

Read here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection

And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo

More philosophy about the real numbers in mathematics..

I will ask the following philosophical question:

Can we know more about real numbers in mathematics?

Notice that real numbers in mathematics is like a general "concept" that
permits to generally represent quantities or such, so you are then
noticing that this general concept has an independent life from the
reality, since notice that we can find some parts of the real numbers in
mathematics that are not real in reality but they are general and they
ensure that real numbers in mathematics work in all the cases in
reality, but notice that the real numbers in mathematics are also
inferred from reality, it is like a concept that is also inferred from
the reality, so when we say "1", i think that the "1" in real numbers is
inferred from the reality, but we can find other real numbers that are
not real and that generalize. It is like the concept of a "cat" or
"dog", if we look carefully at those concepts you will notice that they
are both the reality and not the reality, since a concept of a dog is an
abstraction that is not the reality, but it is also a generalization
that is the reality, so we are abstracting the concept so that to
generalize.

More philosophy about relativity of time and relativity..

I think that i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think
that there Einstein special relativity that determines that time is
relative, but i say that the zero in the axis of real numbers in
mathematics that represents a meaning is also "relative", i mean we can
say that we have zero "of" a thing, so you are then noticing that the
axis of real numbers is like a general "concept", i mean it is like a
general concept that permits to represent like a quantity or such, but
since as i made you understand (read my thoughts below) that the law of
causation doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the
universe, so we can not say there is "zero" thing, since for example
things such as the wide space of our universe or multiverse have always
existed, read my thoughts below of philosophy so that to understand it.

More philosophy about time and space and matter and our universe..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart and now i will ask a
philosophical question of:

From where come time and space and matter of our universe and why
our universe is fine-tuned for consciousness?

First you can read the following about science:

"The laws of thermodynamics say they always existed. Matter is created
by energy. All matter consists of energy. This energy is
electromagnetic. Light is electromagnetic energy when it decays it
creates a background radiation to the universe. Energy cannot be created
from nothing or destroyed to nothing, it mutates into another form.
Without time there would be infinite space and without space there would
be infinite time. Spacetime is a fabric with dimensions and is part of
the physical universe. Space and time are inseparable. Everything that
exists inside of it is part of it. Time has always existed with space
the proportions are all that have changed. Science is trying to explain
when the proportions changed."

And read the following that says that there is a Multiverse from where
has formed our fine-tuned universe:

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/LGP8A8s6N9c

So i think that there is something really important to notice,
since i think that for example the wide "space" of our universe or the
multiverse has always existed, so we can then say that there is no cause
that has created the wide "space" of our universe or multiverse, so then
we can then say that we can not give a meaning by the law of causation
in such case, since the law of "causation" doesn't apply to some things
such as the wide space of the universe, so then we can logically infer
that there is some things such as God or the wide space of the universe
that have no cause that has created them, so then we can logically infer
that we humans have the tendency to think things by using the law of
causation, but i think it is a big logical mistake, because there is
things such as the wide space of the universe that have no cause.

And here is the logical proof that God exist: Read the following of
outer body experiences and you will notice that the soul from God exists:

More proof of the existence of God..

You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read
especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below,
it is the proof that the soul from God exists):

"A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still
experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops
beating.

The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who
have all suffered a cardiac arrest.

The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after
being pronounced clinically dead.

One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by
recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy
while he was technically dead."

Read more here:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven

And read the following:

Does God exists ?

You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read
especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full
awareness with explicit recall of “seeing” and “hearing” events – or
out-of-body )

Read more here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html

Yet more philosophy about the essence of God..

As you have just noticed, i have just explained that the nature of God
is that he is greatly arrogant(read my thoughts below), so he likes from
us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such,
so in my new monotheistic religion we have to “glorify” God and it means
to give glory to Him, so look in the following muslim video how muslim
white people are glorifying God:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3xjz4nxzGQ&list=RDBXBdyJitlRk&index=10

More philosophy about the nature of God..

I invite you to read the definition of being arrogant, here it is:

"Who is an arrogant person?

Arrogance can be defined as the personality trait whereby a person has
an obnoxiously elevated sense of self-worth. An arrogant person is the
one who acts as if they’re superior, more worthy, and more important
than others. Therefore, they tend to disrespect and put others down.
At the same time, they want admiration and respect from others. They
want to be appreciated for the great things they’ve done and for their
special qualities and abilities."

And in my new monotheistic religion, God is "greatly" arrogant, it is
his "nature", this is why he can be indifferent to suffering of poor
animals and he can be indifferent to suffering of humans etc. and this
is why God likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the
most beautiful and such and this is why we have to believe in God and
fear him and ask him for help.

More of my philosophy about from where comes monotheistic religions..

I think many of the talking and writing of Qur'an and Bible are
from humans, i mean that God has not 100% guided prophet Muhammad
or Jesus Christ, so i think that God has let prophet
Muhammad writes and talks as a human in many of the parts of the Qur'an
with his human defects, and God has also let Jesus Christ talks as a
human not as a God with his human defects, I mean God had programmed
prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ and he had let them talks and writes
in the Bible and Qur'an as humans with there human defects, so God is
the greatest, this is why we can notice that Jesus Christ has made
mistakes that look like mental health disorders, and i think it is part
of the curse from God and i think that the scientific errors and errors
and extremism in the Bible and Qur'an also come from the curse from God,
and the facts also prove that the most important thing for God is that
we believe in him and we fear him and we ask him for help, it is is the
basis of my monotheistic religion, and read more in the following web
link about my new monotheistic religion so that to understand(it is my
preliminary thoughts and i will organize them much more efficiently and
make of them a pdf and html book):

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is

More of my philosophy about the muslim persian philosopher Al-Ghazali..

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is

I invite you to look at this interesting video about the persian muslim
philosopher Al-Ghazali:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL-ZxXQ6HCU

I am a philosopher and i say that those muslim phisosophers are really
smart, since i think that the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali was an
orthodox muslim but the Arab philosopher Ibn ʿArabi was not an orthodox
muslim, but i am smart and i understand the muslim orthodoxy of the
persian philosopher Al-Ghazali that has shaped his philosophy that
you look at it in the above video, i think that you have to look at the
context of past time of the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali, i think
there was a requirement that is "dependent" on this context of past
time of the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali, and it is that we had to
strengthen the faith in God in the muslim orthodoxy way so that to avoid
corruption of the minds that could hurt a lot muslim people of that
time, so i think that the "engine" of faith in God in the way of muslim
orthodoxy was a so important engine, it is by logical analogy like my
following thoughts of my new monotheistic religion that makes you notice
how important is the "context":

More philosophy about my new monotheistic religion and the rich man..

So look at the following video of Jesus Christ:

Jesus and a Rich Man (Jesus teaches a Rich Man)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9kEvzYIIs


As you notice in the above video that Jesus Christ said to
the rich man to give all his money to the poors and he said to him
that he has to choose between serving the master that is God and
serving the master that is money. But i am your new prophet and i will
explain my new monotheistic religion:

You have to put the words of Jesus Christ in the "context" of the
past time when was living Jesus Christ, so you can easily
notice that in this past time of Jesus Christ, humans were very poor and
were living in a so bad conditions, so this is why Jesus Christ
was so "harsh" with the rich man, because to be able to be successful
you have to "prioritize", so as you are noticing that the high priority
in the time of Jesus Christ was that humans have needed to eat and
to survive the so difficult living conditions, so then the words of
Jesus Christ in the Bible are not timeless over this earth, because they
can be "restricted" to a particular time of the time of when Jesus
Christ was living over this earth.

Yet more philosophy about the Arab philosopher Ibn ʿArabi and more..

I invite you to look at the following interesting video of the Arab
philosopher Ibn ʿArabi:

Ibn 'Arabi & The Unity of Being

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bgWnzjONXE

And read more about the philosopher Ibn ʿArabi here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Arabi

I think i am philosopher that looks like the Arab philosopher Ibn
ʿArabi, since Ibn ʿArabi has talked about the "Al-Insān al-kāmil" (The
perfect man) by saying that he is a kind of "balance" between being of
both divine from God and earthly origin, and he said that when you
become faith in God it is that we become partly of God. I am saying the
same in my new monotheistic religion, so i invite you to read my
following thoughts of my new monotheistic religion so that to notice it
(it is my preliminary thoughts and i will organize them much more
efficiently and make of them a pdf and html book):

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is

So i am a philosopher that is in accordance with Ibn Arabi that says
that the perfect man is this "balance" between being of both divine from
God and earthly origin, since it is like an important "engine", and
notice that i am also insisting in my below philosophy on this kind of
"balance" that we have to have between competition and collaboration or
cooperation, or between individualism and collectivism(that can
be logically inferred from the first).

More philosophy about what is an idea and more..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many
scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I will ask a philosophical question of:

What is an idea ?

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and in my philosophy i say
that an idea can be an idea that doesn't exist in the physical reality,
and we can notice it in mathematics that we can have constructions of
ideas that don't exist in the physical reality or that also can not
be applied to the physical reality, so now we can say that an idea
can have an independent life from the physical world or can be not be
independent from the physical world, so an idea can be both physical
and not physical, and the not physical of it can look like the
"software" in a computer and the physical of it can look like the
"hardware" of a computer. And in my philosophy(read it below) i also say
that an idea can be both smartness and meaning, and why i am saying so?
because you can use a mathematical formula without its meaning and you
can also know about its meaning.

I also think mathematics describes reality or theory with a great
precision, this is also why we can "abstract" and/or "model" and/or
"simulate" reality or theory with mathematics, also i think that
mathematics can be independent of reality when we are working in
mathematical theory, but the mathematical theory that is independent of
reality can then be applied to reality, also i think that mathematics
permits to optimize and verify, and we can also know about it by for
example asking a philosophical question of: What is logic in
mathematics? , so i think logic in mathematics maps logical expressions
to logical variables and to logical operators and from that it permits
to logically model with those logical variables and the logical
operators and it permits to solve and verify the logical model, i will
give an example so that you understand:

Take as an example in logic in mathematics the following kind of logical
proofs:

(p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p))

Note: the symbol -> means implies and p and q are logical
variables.

or

(not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p

So we can ask the philosophical question of why are we using those kind
of logical proofs in logic ?

I think that it is because logic in mathematics wants to get the
meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically
correct, so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i
think that those kind of logical proofs also permit to optimize since a
kind logical proof can also be more practical than another in reality or
theory.

More philosophy about formal logic and propositional logic and more..

I invite you to read the following article about propositional logic:

https://analyticsindiamag.com/why-propositional-logic-is-the-foundation-for-artificial-intelligence/

As you notice it says:

"Propositional logic provides more efficient and scalable algorithms
than the other logics."

More of my philosophy about Propositional logic:

I invite you again to read the following definition of what is an
implication in logic:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/material-implication

Notice that it says that the logical implication of
(p implies q) has the same meaning as ((not p) or q)

But I think the above definition by using the meaning of ((not p) or q)
is not the right way, since the ((not p) or q) is the formulation that
is logically inferred from the truth table of the logical implication,
so i think we have to say the following:

The statement “p implies q” means that if p is true, then q
"must" also be true.

And we have to use the truth table of the logical implication as
the following:

p q p -> q
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

So notice that the table of truth gives all the possibilities,
but i think it fixes the possibility of causality by saying:

The statement “p implies q” means that if p is true, then q
"must" also be true.

And the other possibilities of the truth table do model the other
possibilities.

So from the truth table we can easily get the following formulation of:

(p implies q) has the same meaning as ((not p) or q)

And in propositional logic we can use the following ways of logical proofs:

(p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p))

Note: the symbol -> means implies and p and q are logical
variables.

or

(not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p

And for fuzzy logic, here is the generalized form(that includes fuzzy
logic) for the three operators AND,OR,NOT:

x AND y is equivalent to min(x,y)
x OR y is equivalent to max(x,y)
NOT(x) is equivalent to (1 - x)

More philosophy about human consciousness and self_awareness..

I think that human consciousness and self_awareness comes from
the way life has evolved, since i say that the low level layers
of the physical world that are not biological are not able to
feel with human senses like is doing it humans, so they are not able to
give the necessary "meaning" that guides smartness, so i think that the
layer of the "biological" is able to do that, since i think that the
human senses that gives those feelings that give the meaning is
"inherent" to the biological and it is what gives "emergence" to
consciousness and self-awareness.

More philosophy about the reification and human consciousness..

So i can ask a philosophical question of:

What is consciousness ?

I will give you a smart example so that you understand:

So when you feel with your hands and brain that a table is "solid",
so this feeling gives a "meaning" that guides our thinking,
so our human senses are doing the same, they are feeling what's
a moving object and feeling what's speed and feeling what's a fast speed
or not fast speed and feeling what's an object that is before or after
another object etc. and i say that those feelings with our senses give
the meanings and it gives consciousness of time and space and matter, so
our feelings of our human senses give life or human awareness or human
consciousness that guides smartness, and notice that i am saying that an
idea is both smartness and meaning , and notice that in mathematics
we can have the following formula of a derivative:

Derivative_of(2*x) = 2

So this formula is a smartness, but the formula has also a "meaning"
given by our human senses , and i also define the self-awareness like a
human sense that feels the oneself, so now you are understanding that an
algorithm or running algorithm is like a formula that has not the
meaning that is understood by a human, so artificial intelligence has a
disadvantage since it is not guided by this meaning that plays the role
of an objective function that permits to optimize correctly.

More precision about more philosophy about the essence of human smartness..

I think i have to be more precise, so i will say that the process that
gives the meaning with the human senses is like reification, since we
say that reification is when you think of or treat something abstract as
a physical thing. Reification is a complex idea for when you treat
something immaterial — like happiness, fear, or evil — as a material
thing. So the human process in the brain that gives meaning with human
senses is by analogy like a the process of reification, since human
senses gives life or meaning to ideas, those human senses give
consciousness of the system composed of time and space and matter and
the human brain "compose" meanings with this consciousness, this is why
we are feeling life as we are feeling it.

I think i am a really smart philosopher, and i think i look like the
great philosophers like Aristotle and such, since i am thinking
rapidly and inventing ideas and discovering patterns etc. so i think
that my brain is special, so here is what i have just discovered:

I think that artificial intelligence is not understanding correctly
what is human smartness, since i say that an "idea" is both a smartness
and a "meaning" that "guides" smartness, it is like the objective
function of the dynamic system that is human smartness that guides and
makes us know how to optimize, since i say that humans are "feeling" the
"ideas" with there human senses that comes also from the brain, and this
feeling of the ideas is also what gives the ideas a meaning that guides,
and i also define the self-awareness like a human sense that feels
the oneself, so you are understanding now one of the basis
of my philosophy, since without those human senses, the algorithms
in a computer can not give a meaning that guides smartness, so i think
it is the disadvantage of artificial intelligence. So here is how i
think we have to do it with the algorithms:

I think i am smart, and i have just explained below that the divide and
conquer algorithms are a particular case or special case of Swarm
intelligence of PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization), and i will explain
it more in my next posts, now notice with me that Swarm intelligence
uses localized optimization with exploitation as heuristics like Greedy
algorithms so that to enhance much more the artificial intelligence
algorithm, but notice with me that general artificial intelligence can
use Swarm intelligence like PSO at a lower level layer, and at a higher
level layer it can use the divide and conquer algorithms, i mean that
the unknown meaning can be divided and conquered by measuring it with
previous meanings from the data using artifical intelligence of for
example PathNET so that to find the unknown meaning, and i define the
meaning in artificial intelligence as as the higher concept that is
recognized with deep learning, and this way we can construct much more
rapidly more and more meanings and incorporate them in PathNET so that
to converge more and more to much more generalized artificial
intelligence that will rapidly approximate general artificial intelligence.

More precision about more philosophy about human smartness and about
artificial intelligence..

I have to be more precision, so here is the definition in the dictionary
of "pattern" that i am using in my thoughts of my philosophy below:

Pattern is a particular way in which something is done, is organized, or
happens.

Read here in the dictionary to notice it:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pattern

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so i will ask the following
philosophical question:

What is human smartness or intelligence ?

I will answer it by saying the following:

I think we call it human smartness because it discovers "useful"
patterns in the reality, so reality can contain static systems or
dynamic systems that contain smartness in form of useful patterns etc.,
so human smartness uses its smartness to "discover" those useful
patterns so that to become more and more smart, and by discovering the
useful patterns i also means knowing about there meanings of those
useful patterns so that to understand them, it is by logical analogy
like discovering the rules so that to become smart, so for example when
we are doing mathematics we can discover the useful rules or useful
patterns like the theorems in mathematics by using deductive logic and
inductive logic, so i can go further and say that Swarm intelligence
like PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization) is a self-organization, and
Self-organization, also called (in the social sciences) spontaneous
order, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local
interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The
process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not
needing control by any external agent, so then Swarm intelligence like
PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization) is self-organization since notice that
the exploration mechanism of PSO that is the global optimization is
"collaborating" with the exploitation mechanism of PSO that is the local
optimization so that to self-organize by finding the global optimum
, so then we can call Swarm intelligence like PSO(Particle Swarm
Optimization) a form of intelligence, this is why we call
it artificial intelligence.

Also you can read more about my thoughts of my philosophy about human
smartness in the following web link:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Wzf6AOl41xs

More philosophy about what is artificial intelligence or general
artificial intelligence..

I think i am smart, and i have just explained below that the divide and
conquer algorithms are a particular case or special case of Swarm
intelligence of PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization), and i will explain
it more in my next posts, now notice with me that Swarm intelligence
uses localized optimization with exploitation as heuristics like Greedy
algorithms so that to enhance much more the artificial intelligence
algorithm, but notice with me that general artificial intelligence can
use Swarm intelligence like PSO at a lower level layer, and at a higher
level layer it can use the divide and conquer algorithms, i mean that
the unknown meaning can be divided and conquered by measuring it with
previous meanings from the data using artifical intelligence of for
example PathNET so that to find the unknown meaning, and i define the
meaning in artificial intelligence as as the higher concept that is
recognized with deep learning, and this way we can construct much more
rapidly more and more meanings and incorporate them in PathNET so that
to converge more and more to much more generalized artificial
intelligence that will rapidly approximate general artificial intelligence.

More philosophy about Swarm intelligence and PSO and artificial
intelligence..

Can we ask a philosophical question:

Is Swarm intelligence like PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization) a
brute-force general problem-solving technique and what is it ?

So i invite you first to read the following interesting article about
artificial intelligence of PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization):

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2011/august/artificial-intelligence-particle-swarm-optimization

And read my following thoughts about artificial intelligence:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/BKGvkTI5FY4

So I think i am smart and i will say that since artificial intelligence
of PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization) is guided by not only exploration
but by the mechanism of exploitation, so this shows that this mechanism
of exploitation guides the problem-solving technique, so we can
not say that Swarm intelligence of PSO is a brute-force general
problem-solving technique, since brute-force general problem-solving
technique and algorithmic paradigm consists of systematically
enumerating all possible candidates for the solution and checking
whether each candidate satisfies the problem's statement, but notice
that brute-force general problem-solving technique is not guided by the
quality of exploitation of artificial intelligence of PSO(Particle Swarm
Optimization), and i can say that the artificial intelligence of
PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization) is Swarm intelligence that is more
general than the
particular case of the divide and conquer algorithms, since in the
divide and conquer algorithms we are guided by the divide mechanism that
is the "exploration" that finds a solution and after that there is an
exploitation of this solution of this quality that is the already sorted
small arrays in the case of mergesort that will permit the recursive
merge algorithm to reduce the time complexity to n*log(n), so i think it
is the same for PathNet in artificial intelligence that i also think
uses a kind of divide and conquer algorithm.

Here is PathNet in artificial intelligence, read carefully about it here:

https://medium.com/@thoszymkowiak/deepmind-just-published-a-mind-blowing-paper-pathnet-f72b1ed38d46

More philosophy about declarative programming and imperative programming
and object oriented programming..

I invite you to read the following interesting webpage from wikipedia
about declarative programming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_programming

I think that declarative programming is too much abstraction
since Functional programming is declarative programming that attempts to
minimize or eliminate side effects by describing what the program must
accomplish in terms of the problem domain, rather than describe how to
accomplish it as a sequence of the programming language primitives (the
how being left up to the language's implementation). This is in contrast
with imperative programming, which implements algorithms in explicit
steps. So declarative programming like functional programming generally
uses higher levels of abstractions than imperative programs or OOP. That
is, they’re further away from describing what’s actually happening in
the computer or lower level layers of programming, so i think that
declarative programming like functional programming is too much
abstraction that lacks understanding of the lower level layers of
programming that is also very important to know so that to become
efficient, so i think that this way of too much abstraction or/and too
much centralization of cloud computing like of Amazon or functional
programming and such look like the old way of too much centralization
and too much abstraction of the mainframe computer that was lacking on
efficiency, so then we have to know how to "balance" so that to be
efficient.

More philosophy about functional programming and more..

I think that the Delphi List Monad and the Delphi Maybe Monad that i am
giving below are not slower and they are working correctly.

I think i am smart and i understand the objections of neo-Nazism and
white supremacism, but i think that neo-nazis and white supremacists are
not thinking correctly, because there way of thinking there racial
superiority is not the correct way simply because they are not taking
correctly into account the exponential progress of our humanity,
since i am convinced that with this exponential progress of our humanity
we will soon (in about 20 years or 30 years from now) be able to enhance
much more our genetics and become much more smart
or much more beautiful and we will soon be able to do much more
than that because we will soon become so powerful because of this
exponential progress of our humanity, so this is why i am not in
accordance with white supremacism and neo-nazism since they have to
adapt to this exponential progress of our humanity.

More philosophy about the exponential progress and about artificial
intelligence..

I think i am smart and i think that we are going to become so powerful
soon, i mean that this exponential progress of our humanity is an
amazing thing, and i think that with this exponential progress,
artificial intelligence too will soon become so powerful soon, so i
think that the most important thing now is not to ask if we are going to
become so powerful soon, but the most important thing it is that we have
to ensure high "safety" or high "reliability" of this process of
becoming so powerful by for example being a sophisticated philosophy.
And i invite you to look at the following video so that to understand
this exponential progress of our humanity:

Exponential Progress: Can We Expect Mind-Blowing Changes In The Near Future

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfM5HXpfnJQ&t=144s

More philosophy about artificial intelligence and about the objective
function that guides..

I think i am smart, and i have quickly thought about the objective
function of artificial intelligence that guides, so the important
philosophical question in artificial intelligence is:

Is general artificial intelligence possible and what is the the
objective function that guides general artificial intelligence ?

I think that the objective function of general artificial intelligence
is not the same as a gradient descent with wich we optimize, since i
think that the objective function in artificial intelligence is
that we have to build like a model that approximate the result
of the reality, i mean that the objective function of general artificial
intelligence has to be that we measure the meaning with the previous
meanings from the data, and this way we approximate the meaning, so we
have to build much more meanings and meaning from the data and we have
to measure the unknown meaning with the previous meanings and if it
doesn't approximate well, so it is like a baby that doesn't know about
the meaning and it can become a dangerous environment for the baby like
for general artificial intelligence, and my way is also valid in a
distributed environment with many artificial intelligence robots, so i
think that the more localized artificial intelligence will become
incrementally and rapidly a more and more generalized artificial
intelligence that can approximate a general artificial intelligence, so
i think that general artificial intelligence is possible.

More philosophy about Swarm intelligence and about the too much
abstraction and more..

I invite you to read about Swarm intelligence here:

How Swarm Intelligence Is Making Simple Tech Much Smarter

https://singularityhub.com/2018/02/08/how-swarm-intelligence-is-making-simple-tech-much-smarter/

I think that humanity is using "specialization" and the "division" of
labour that reduces complexity so that to be efficient, so our evolution
looks like Swarm intelligence algorithms, since Swarm intelligence
algorithms also have to both explore with a bigger size of the
population of the Swarm intelligence algorithms and have to do
exploitation so that to reduce complexity and be efficient, and this
bigger size of of the population in Swarm intelligence algorithms that
explore is the division of labour that we use and it is also a
specialization and it looks like a divide and conquer algorithms, since
notice in the mergesort algorithm that we are reducing the time
complexity from for example a time complexity of an n^2 sorting
algorithm to n*log(n), and you are noticing it clearly since the
mergesort algorithm reduces much more the time complexity by recursively
"dividing" the array of elements so that to obtain a small arrays that
are already sorted(or we can sort the small arrays of 10 elements by
using an algorithm of sorting of n^2 and it will be more efficient), and
notice that when we obtain those small arrays that are already sorted,
it is what reduces the complexity and brings much more efficiency, since
we are recursively using the merge algorithm after that, and notice that
the mergesort is also like Swarm intelligence since when we recursively
divide and obtain the already sorted arrays, notice that this
recursively dividing leads to many already sorted arrays, and it is like
the bigger size of the population in Swarm intelligence that explore and
that leads to high efficiency, so i think that artificial
intelligence must be like a divide and conquer algorithm, so you divide
like in a Divide and conquer algorithm so that to obtain a high quality
or high efficiency since you reduce complexity, so it looks
like PathNet in artificial intelligence, read my following thoughts
about it:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/BKGvkTI5FY4

More philosophy about black box models and too much abstraction..

I think that black box models in AI in deep learning etc. are also too
much abstraction, and speaking about the too much abstraction, i invite
you to read my following thoughts of my philosophy about Liberalism of
the philosopher and economist Adam Smith:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/-UEOsak12mM

So as you are noticing from my thoughts in the above web link that the
economic Liberalism of Adam Smith is a too reductionist system that is
too much abstraction that doesn't work correctly and i am explaining it
in my thoughts above of my philosophy, other than that notice that
economic Liberalism of Adam Smith is not even taking into account an
important factor that i am speaking about in my below thoughts and it is
the too much abstraction that can happen in economy and that can lead to
inefficiency, so as you are noticing that this too much abstraction can
not be based on monopolistic practices, but it can lead to inefficiency,
i mean for example when you abstract too much, the others can not be
able of understanding sufficiently and correctly the inside or the
behind of your abstraction, so they can "lack" understanding and be
inefficient, so we have to be careful about cloud computing of Amazon
and such that can become a too much abstraction that leads to this kind
of inefficiency, so i think it is too much abstraction if you program
the software in a too high level way lacking programming and
understanding of the lower level ways of programming.

More philosophy about abstraction and the Divide and Conquer methodology..

I think that humanity is abstracting much more with cloud computing and
with functional programming and such, but since i think i am a
philosopher, there is a question in philosophy and it is the following:

Is abstraction always good ?

I think that abstraction comes with disadvantages and advantages,
so the best way is to know how to balance, it is like balancing between
Evolutionary design with an agile discipline and Planned design since
they both come with disadvantages and advantages, abstraction comes with
an important disadvantage , and it is that it can become a monopolistic
practice, i mean that when you abstract, the others can become too
dependent on your abstraction and they can not understand the inside of
the abstraction, so they can become inefficient, so we have to be
careful about abstraction since too much abstraction is not good, so i
think that functional programming is too much abstraction and i think
Chapel is too much abstraction, read here more about Chapel:

WILL CHAPEL MARK NEXT GREAT AWAKENING FOR PARALLEL PROGRAMMERS?

https://www.nextplatform.com/2018/04/10/will-chapel-mark-next-great-awakening-for-parallel-programmers/

I have just posted previously my thoughts about continuation—passing
style (CPS) and Monads, here they are:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.comp.lang.borland-delphi/c/kdP6YSTcjj4


And here is the List Monad in Delphi that works correctly:


program List_monad;

{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}

uses
System.SysUtils;

type
TmList = record
Value: TArray<Integer>;
function ToString: string;
function Bind(f: TFunc<TArray<Integer>, TmList>): TmList;
end;

function Create(aValue: TArray<Integer>): TmList;
begin
Result.Value := copy(aValue, 0, length(aValue));
end;

{ TmList }

function TmList.Bind(f: TFunc<TArray<Integer>, TmList>): TmList;
begin
Result := f(self.Value);
end;

function TmList.ToString: string;
var
i: Integer;
begin
Result := '[ ';
for i := 0 to length(value) - 1 do
begin
if i > 0 then
Result := Result + ', ';
Result := Result + value[i].toString;
end;
Result := Result + ']';
end;

function Increment(aValue: TArray<Integer>): TmList;
var
i: integer;
begin
SetLength(Result.Value, length(aValue));
for i := 0 to High(aValue) do
Result.Value[i] := aValue[i] + 1;
end;

function Double(aValue: TArray<Integer>): TmList;
var
i: integer;
begin
SetLength(Result.Value, length(aValue));
for i := 0 to High(aValue) do
Result.Value[i] := aValue[i] * 2;
end;

var
ml1, ml2: TmList;

begin
ml1 := Create([3, 4, 5]);
ml2 := ml1.Bind(Increment).Bind(double);
Writeln(ml1.ToString, ' -> ', ml2.ToString);
readln;
end.


Output:
[ 3, 4, 5] -> [ 8, 10, 12]


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.