what is "a thought" again, exactly?

[noname]

They say that a sentence expresses a complete thought, no more, no less.

What the hell does that mean, anyone? What exactly is "a complete
thought"?

[brian mitchell]

It's, like, ohh... when you get an idea, sort of, and then --hang on a
minute, kettle's boiling. Where was I? That last bit may have been
complete, but then... but it was a whole sentence. I think. You know,
like when you say something, and you've said what you meant, that is,
everything you wanted to say --I mean, mean, except Tang thinks
meaning is wrong. Not wrong exactly, I don't think, but de trop if you
know what I mean. Do you get what I'm trying to---?

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

I think thoughts develop. When children who are
learning to speak see a thing, for which they do
not know a descriptive word, the thought of the
thing is in their minds and it is represented by
the memory of the image. When they learn the
descriptive word for the thing the word becomes
part of the thought and a connection is made between
the image (memory) and the word.

The same happens with concepts later on in life.
Adults can become aware of concepts without knowing
words to describe it, or they can become aware of
concepts by learning words describing it. When a word
for a concept is not known the thought is represented
by something, but to describe it is difficult. When
the word is found for it, and the definition read in
a dictionary, the thought resolves into the word and
its definition.

Thoughts then develop further when words are
connected to form sentences.

[{:-])))]

noname asked:

>They say that a sentence expresses a complete thought, no more, no less.
>
>What the hell does that mean, anyone? What exactly is "a complete
>thought"?

It's a round sphere. Or a square box.
As contrast with a frament of thought.

Such as, for, uh ...

- incomplete thoughts, are, like, uh, ...

[{:-])))]

On Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:31:45 -0800 (PST), Marquard Dirk Pienaar
<mdpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 8:52:08 PM UTC+2, noname wrote:
>> They say that a sentence expresses a complete thought, no more, no less.
>>
>> What the hell does that mean, anyone? What exactly is "a complete
>> thought"?
>
>I think thoughts develop.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/completesentence.htm

>When children who are
>learning to speak see a thing, for which they do
>not know a descriptive word, the thought of the
>thing is in their minds and it is represented by
>the memory of the image. When they learn the
>descriptive word for the thing the word becomes
>part of the thought and a connection is made between
>the image (memory) and the word.

Dog. Mama. Stick.

>The same happens with concepts later on in life.
>Adults can become aware of concepts without knowing
>words to describe it, or they can become aware of
>concepts by learning words describing it. When a word
>for a concept is not known the thought is represented
>by something, but to describe it is difficult. When
>the word is found for it, and the definition read in
>a dictionary, the thought resolves into the word and
>its definition.
>
>Thoughts then develop further when words are
>connected to form sentences.

Mama threw the stick and the dog got it.

Mama throw stick.
Dog get stick.

Stick sticks in dog's mouth.
Mama get stick from dog's mouth.
Mama say, yuck. Dog slobber.

[noname]

[noname]

Marquard Dirk Pienaar <mdpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

So each word represents a thought? And you combine multiple words into a
sentence so that a single thought is fully expressed? So one plus one plus
one for every word in a sentence equals one complete thought? That don't
make no sense, does it?

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

And the difference between a complete thought and a sentence is that a
complete thought is a run-on sentence? Sheeyit, no wonder i never
understood this stuff as a kid.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

I'm thinking that sentences are more than one complete thought, since each
word represents a thought.

I'm thinking that people who need as many rules, and examples, and examples
of exceptions and suchlike, as the folks who wrote the web-page you linked
to, they gotta not understand something, cuz if they really understood it,
their explanation wouldn't be so long and self-referential.

So, words represent thoughts, and words/thoughts grouped together according
to the rules of linguistic magic attributed to English represent a single
thought. That's a pretty messed-up definition imo. Which thought is the
thought? And if the result of an entire sentence is supposed to be a
single thought, how does that differ from the thoughts each word inspires
in sequence as it becomes the next word read?

Clearly someone does not understand something. I'm thinking that a clue is
hidden in the subject/object imprecation, a sentence gots to have a
subject/thing and a verb. That sounds a lot more like a command than a
thought. A specification of something active, something happening, or to
happen, or some goddamn thing.

I've been coming around to a different view of language here lately.
Remember when they taught us how to diagram sentences? Nothing is quite as
confusing as a bunch of busted-ass rules. No wonder kids like emojis, the
hard work is all done by a picture. The picture represents something, but
it can't be a thought, since it has no subject and no object.

I'm thinking that maybe a sentence is a series of words that can stand
alone and transmits some new piece of information above and beyond the sum
of the information transmitted by the words expressing the sentence.

It's a wonder to wonder about imo.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[pi]

Here is a universal thinker, von Neumann style:

http://www.cosc.brocku.ca/~bockusd/3p92/Local_Pages/8086_achitecture_files/image002.jpg

It may not look like much but if you couple enough of those and give em a decent description of a game (world), playing against itself, it will eventually figure out how to beat Kasparov at chess, Lee Sedol at Go and it will have no match at Jeopardy (all without a hammer :) It put a man on the moon, sequenced the genome and harnessed nuclear and solar energy. It will do much more but we haven't yet learned to communicate with it well enough (program it well enough).

And here is a single neuron of its brain. It's called a NAND gate:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Electronic/ietron/nand3.gif

Logic gates are the embodiment of abstract thought. What is a single logic gate thinking?

It has 3 nodes. n1, n2 are inputs and n3 is an output.

"it is true that n1 = 0" is an atomic thought.
"it is true that n1 = 1" is an atomic thought.

Same for n2.

But n3 is trickier. It sorta looks at the other two guys are thinking and thinks up its value in accordance the thinking table (called the truth table):

n1 n2 n3
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 0

We say that n3 determines its value deductively based on the truth table and the values of the other two nodes, n1 and n2.

Here is what it takes to produce a single bit of information storage using logic NAND gates:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Electronic/ietron/dflipflop3.gif

Technically, it's called a D-latch.

8 of those and you have an 8-bit register. 1,073,741,824 of those and you have a gigabyte of memory. Add an arithmetic-logic unit and lotsa multi- and demultiplexers and you're back where we started, flying to the moon, sequencing the genome or flying kites in the park. It's up to your skills as a programmer (machine teacher).

Logic is the art of (deductive) abstract thinking. Computer science (in a broad sense) is the art of implementing abstract thinking in machines i.e. mechanizing thought.

http://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1380320218i/689931._SX540_.png

:)

pi

[pi]

Machine thinking in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5DLbpp3-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR5N2Jl8k14

pi

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>Marquard wrote:
>> noname wrote:
>>
>>> They say that a sentence expresses a complete thought, no more, no less.

In a given context, as in, a Written English Class.

>>> What the hell does that mean, anyone?

It means, technically, there is a clause.
There is a subject and a verb.

And the clause is called, independent, in English Class.

It's a form of jargon. It may have gone
over the heads of non-context
heads going nowhere.

>>> What exactly is "a complete thought"?
>>
>> I think thoughts develop. When children who are
>> learning to speak see a thing, for which they do
>> not know a descriptive word, the thought of the
>> thing is in their minds and it is represented by
>> the memory of the image. When they learn the
>> descriptive word for the thing the word becomes
>> part of the thought and a connection is made between
>> the image (memory) and the word.
>>
>> The same happens with concepts later on in life.
>> Adults can become aware of concepts without knowing
>> words to describe it, or they can become aware of
>> concepts by learning words describing it. When a word
>> for a concept is not known the thought is represented
>> by something, but to describe it is difficult. When
>> the word is found for it, and the definition read in
>> a dictionary, the thought resolves into the word and
>> its definition.
>>
>> Thoughts then develop further when words are
>> connected to form sentences.
>>
>
>So each word represents a thought?

Stick.
A word may be able to represent a thought, yes.
It may stick in the mind. Or knot.

> And you combine multiple words into a
>sentence so that a single thought is fully expressed?

Johnny threw a stick.

> So one plus one plus
>one for every word in a sentence equals one complete thought?

Johnny.
The word, Johnny, can represent a thought.

Threw.
The word, threw, can represent a thought.

A proper sentence, in English Class, contains
a subject and a verb combined in an independent clause.

> That don't
>make no sense, does it?

Not all claws are the same.
Santa.

For example.

Santa went.

Okay. So there's this old guy, Santa.
And he went. Great.

Where he went, could have been.

On Xmas for cole slaw ride as a thought.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coleslaw

<<partial translation of Dutch koolsla,
from kool "cabbage">>

- word

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> {:-]))) gave a partial:

>> noname asked:
>>
>>> They say that a sentence expresses a complete thought, no more, no less.
>>>
>>> What the hell does that mean, anyone? What exactly is "a complete
>>> thought"?
>>
>> It's a round sphere. Or a square box.
>> As contrast with a frament of thought.
>>
>> Such as, for, uh ...
>>
>> - incomplete thoughts, are, like, uh, ...
>>
>
>And the difference between a complete thought and a sentence is that a
>complete thought is a run-on sentence?

A complete thought in the form of a sentence has:
subject, verb and an independent clause.

> Sheeyit, no wonder i never
>understood this stuff as a kid.

Someone might wonder, what is a torque.

Or, what is a head bolt.

Another may say, a head bolt is when your head
bolts the door so nothing is able to flatten it down
and its gasket keeps on springing leaks.

One time, replacing one, I failed to surface.
And so, being the kinda guy I was, Bar's Leaks was.

- aka mechanic in a can

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>I'm thinking that sentences are more than one complete thought, since each
>word represents a thought.

Outside straits, and narrow lines of English grammar,
people are free to think as they thought. A flush.
A full house. Three of a kind. We Royals are.

>I'm thinking that people who need as many rules, and examples, and examples
>of exceptions and suchlike, as the folks who wrote the web-page you linked
>to, they gotta not understand something, cuz if they really understood it,
>their explanation wouldn't be so long and self-referential.

For a gestalt of English grammar to emerge
out of the abstract of language its self,
as if language had a self, may take
years and years of practice.

I am continually astonished at the depths
able to be explored in language mines
as chewy nuggets of thought are plucked
off the walls in caves of mind.

>So, words represent thoughts,

Some may. Most might. Generally. Hope fully.

And.

The word, and, might represent a thought.
But, depending on the context.

>and words/thoughts grouped together according
>to the rules of linguistic magic attributed to English represent a single
>thought.

If someone on the street walked up to you and said, but.

And then walked away. You may well wonder.

If another walked up to you and said, hi.
You might know a form of thought.

If a third was standing on the corner and said,
top of the morning to you.

You would know he, or she, was not referring
to a spinning top. Nor to midnight.

The word, top.

Top might mean any number of thoughts.

Hat the cat.

> That's a pretty messed-up definition imo. Which thought is the
>thought?

The environment in which the thought was expressed,
cud be a wabbit chowing down a carrot ruminating.

Chow is a word.

When my mechanic, Tony, said, chow,
he meant, like aloha, adios, see ya later alligator.

When a friend says, it's chow
time takes on a different form of thought.

A thought is able to be a thought, often enuf,
and yet, to think a thought is the Eternal Thought,
or the Most Fantastic Thought, might be to go
one mite over board, arrhh. Avast.

> And if the result of an entire sentence is supposed to be a
>single thought, how does that differ from the thoughts each word inspires
>in sequence as it becomes the next word read?

A complete thought may have many clauses,
subordinate, dependent, and thus many thoughts
are able to be expressed in a single sentence.

A mite went over the side of the ship.
It was thought within thought.

Mate is a word.
The word, mate, might be a thought.

What the word means, in a given context,
might be a mite, or may be a bit, when horses breed.

Horse sense could be called common.
Spacially when someone ain't got none.

>Clearly someone does not understand something.

Twenty foot pounds will get you going.
If Chilton's calls for 80, you might go round a bit.
Or maybe a star pattern of some sort is in the specs.

> I'm thinking that a clue is
>hidden in the subject/object imprecation, a sentence gots to have a
>subject/thing and a verb.

Shit.
Expletive deleted.

A word might be all rolled up as a single turd.

When dropping a hammer down about a foot
and it weighs about a pound, one foot pound
might be more than enough for a complete sentence
if the hammer lands on a toe and one says a magic word.

As subject, verb, independent clause
and a great thing that can be used in a variety
show of acts on and off stage, shit makes the grade.

Shit. Shit. Shit.
Three sentences. Almost a pair of graphic design.
But. A paragraph may only need a single sentence.

> That sounds a lot more like a command than a
>thought. A specification of something active, something happening, or to
>happen, or some goddamn thing.

Shit might be a command. No shit.
In teaching little doggie not to in the house.

Little children, and puppies, may be told, No!

When Snidely Whiplash asked Nell Fenwick for a kiss,
she might have told him, a thousand times, No!

And so, he throwed her on the railroad tracks.
And then he tied her up. And then along came Jones.
Or Dudley. Or someone else. To the rescue!

>I've been coming around to a different view of language here lately.
>Remember when they taught us how to diagram sentences?

Somewhat.

> Nothing is quite as
>confusing as a bunch of busted-ass rules.

Mom always said, just memorize them.
Don't try to figure out what they mean.

If, later on, they mean something, that's great.
As a math teacher once told me, when I said, look,
I can ace these tests and everyone thinks I'm the smartest
kid in the world but I have no idea what f(x) means.

The concept of a function had no function.
Without a specific application, a function mite be.

> No wonder kids like emojis, the
>hard work is all done by a picture. The picture represents something, but
>it can't be a thought, since it has no subject and no object.

It might be both, all at once. Like a :) or a :(

Each can be a thought that is well known
if someone has been to that well
and it has been known.

>I'm thinking that maybe a sentence is a series of words that can stand
>alone and transmits some new piece of information above and beyond the sum
>of the information transmitted by the words expressing the sentence.
>
>It's a wonder to wonder about imo.

Not only can a whole sentence be more than the sum
of its individual component parts, some are able to go thru
time in various ways to refer back to what was meant
previously which was unknown until it became
evidently evident where it was going only
to be as confusing as ever one sings
a song of foot pounds in to the ground.

- clicking a torque wrench clicks

[{:-])))]

A single neuron may be able to connect
with many other neurons and work to make a net.

When they wave, thoughts ripple.

A simple pulse, on-off, when combined with others
may give rise to various waves of sorts.

Of the things thought are thought to be made of.

Except, some people may feel, at their level of mind,
it goes in a different way or fashion so to speak.

The hard-ware and the soft-ware and the machine itself
as a whole when running is something other than any bit
or number of bytes being encoded.

When a soccer ball is kicked thru two sticks it counts.
And when someone says, Gooooooooaaalllllll!, it means
something out of the ordinary just took place.

- among the sounds

[{:-])))]

pi <pi6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Machine thinking in action:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5DLbpp3-M

I was able to solve those puzzles once,
after reading an instruction book. It only took me,
quite a while, to figure out what the book was saying.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR5N2Jl8k14

I remember seeing that one!

[pi]

J: Machines. Puzzles.

We can create a machine that can beat us at chess.

The idea is to create a machine that can beat us at anything, especially creating machines.

This machine will create a more powerful machines than itself and so on until the physical limits of computing (thinking) are reached.

I wonder what Zz and Lz would say.

pi

[brian mitchell]

Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:

>On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 8:52:08 PM UTC+2, noname wrote:
>> They say that a sentence expresses a complete thought, no more, no less.
>>
>> What the hell does that mean, anyone? What exactly is "a complete
>> thought"?
>
>I think thoughts develop. When children who are
>learning to speak see a thing, for which they do
>not know a descriptive word, the thought of the
>thing is in their minds and it is represented by
>the memory of the image. When they learn the
>descriptive word for the thing the word becomes
>part of the thought and a connection is made between
>the image (memory) and the word.

I agree with this developmental picture, but the image and the memory
of it, prior to the word, are also thought. When we see a thing that
we've never encountered before (a condition pre-verbal infants are
frequently in) there is no thought involved in the seeing at all.
There can't be, because thought is the past, the stored image. But
once the meaning of a thing has been comprehended and internalised,
object and meaning become one thing. The word is not the meaning, it's
a way of conveying meaning.

>
>The same happens with concepts later on in life.
>Adults can become aware of concepts without knowing
>words to describe it, or they can become aware of
>concepts by learning words describing it. When a word
>for a concept is not known the thought is represented
>by something, but to describe it is difficult. When
>the word is found for it, and the definition read in
>a dictionary, the thought resolves into the word and
>its definition.
>
>Thoughts then develop further when words are
>connected to form sentences.

Yes. But not all thought is verbal. Musicians, I'm told, have musical
thoughts; artists visual thoughts, mathematicians daft thoughts.

`¦

[brian mitchell]

As J has said, this mostly applies to English composition, and what is
really meant by a complete thought is usually a completed action.

"The cat" is not a completed action. "The cat sat" could be, but we
usually want to know more. Sat up? Sat down? Sat on the mat? "The cat
sat on the mat" is a complete thought because the action has been
completed.

[{:-])))]

If there was a machine that did not use words
he might like to have a word with it.

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

> mathematicians daft thoughts.

The mathematician in me has a number of thoughts.
And quite a few variables going along the same lines.

[noname]

They might say nothing. They might say those who know don't say, and those
who say don't know, and personally i say that's a bunch of it. They might
say hey, don't fuck with that DNA, it's likely to get away. They might say
oh well, what the hell, i've been through tougher knotholes than that.

"Oh look, more humanity", Jesus snorted, then he rolled over and went back
to sleep.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Geez, that's cute, so what? Do you understand the difference between
deductive and inductive logic?

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[{:-])))]

noname speculated and surmised:
> pi had a bright one going:

>
>> The idea is to create a machine that can beat us at anything, especially creating machines.
>>
>> This machine will create a more powerful machines than itself and so on
>> until the physical limits of computing (thinking) are reached.
>>
>> I wonder what Zz and Lz would say.
>

>They might say nothing. They might say those who know don't say, and those
>who say don't know, and personally i say that's a bunch of it. They might
>say hey, don't fuck with that DNA, it's likely to get away. They might say
>oh well, what the hell, i've been through tougher knotholes than that.
>
>"Oh look, more humanity", Jesus snorted, then he rolled over and went back
>to sleep.

In the Zz is a story about a well-dipper machine.

An old man is using a bucket to draw water from a stream
which he then dumps into a ditch to water the crops.

A young man says, hey, old man, ya know there's a machine
that can do that in less time than you can shake a stick at?

The old man gets a bit flustered and says, yes, he knows.
But, as he goes on, says, with machines arise machine problems.
And so a solution to one thing may have unintended results.

The young man then tells of the old man to his teacher
who had a few words to say about the situation.
I have forgotten the rest of the story.

With Taoism, simple tends to be more better.
When there is work to be done, one works, but not too much.
Knowing when to stop and rest is, perhaps, natural enough.
And yet, I heard of a guy who didn't know.
It's an oft repeated story too.

Stories exist about the great sage, Shun, or some such,
who died of exhaustion, and so, in Taoism, he is thought
to be not so great after all, since he died giving his life
for something that wasn't all that necessary at the time.

Once the physical limits of computing/thinking machines
are reached, and machines do all the menial tasks, and
can do more advanced, creative stuff, people might
find something else to do, or not.

As for me, myself, since I don't need to work much,
I find I enjoy exercise and learning, relaxing and enjoying,
shooting the bull and carving it all to pieces is fun.

When machines are granted the quality of consciousness,
that might be found to be a solution to some problem
which is considered difficult or hard for a few people.

I'd say maybe it's just too simple, for them.
And what is difficult or hard for them to admit
is how a word can be just a word, quite often.

- in various ways

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>> This machine will create a more powerful machines than itself and so on
>> until the physical limits of computing (thinking) are reached.
>>
>> I wonder what Zz and Lz would say.

< begin quote >

Tzu-kung traveled south to Ch'u, and on his way back through Chin, as
he passed along the south bank of the Han, he saw an old man preparing
his fields for planting. He had hollowed out an opening by which he
entered the well and from which he emerged, lugging a pitcher, which
he carried out to water the fields. Grunting and puffing, he used up a
great deal of energy and produced very little result.

"There is a machine for this sort of thing," said Tzu-kung. "In one
day it can water a hundred fields, demanding very little effort and
producing excellent results. Wouldn't you like one?”

The gardener raised his head and looked at Tzu-kung. "How does it
work?"

"It's a contraption made by shaping a piece of wood. The back end is
heavy and the front end light and it raises the water as though it
were pouring it out, so fast that it seems to boil right over! It's
called a well sweep."

The gardener flushed with anger and then said with a laugh, "I've
heard my teacher say, where there are machines, there are bound to be
machine worries; where there are machine worries, there are bound to
be machine hearts. With a machine heart in your breast, you've spoiled
what was pure and simple; and without the pure and simple, the life of
the spirit knows no rest. Where the life of the spirit knows no rest,
the Way will cease to buoy you up. It's not that I don't know about
your machine - I would be ashamed to use it!"

Tzu-kung blushed with chagrin, looked down, and made no reply. After a
while, the gardener said, "Who are you, anyway?"

"A disciple of Kung Ch'iu."

"Oh - then you must be one of those who broaden their learning in
order to ape the sages, heaping absurd nonsense on the crowd, plucking
the strings and singing sad songs all by yourself in hopes of buying
fame in the world! You would do best to forget your spirit and breath,
break up your body and limbs - then you might be able to get
somewhere. You don't even know how to look after your own body - how
do you have any time to think about looking after the world! On your
way now! Don't interfere with my work!"

Tzu-kung frowned and the color drained from his face. Dazed and
rattled, he couldn't seem to pull himself together, and it was only
after he had walked on for some thirty li that he began to recover.

One of his disciples said, "Who was that man just now? Why did you
change your expression and lose your color like that, Master, so that
it took you all day to get back to normal?"

"I used to think there was only one real man in the world," said
Tzu-kung. "I didn't know there was this other one. I have heard
Confucius say that in affairs you aim for what is right, and in
undertakings you aim for success. To spend little effort and achieve
big results - that is the Way of the sage. Now it seems that this
isn't so. He who holds fast to the Way is complete in Virtue; being
complete in Virtue, he is complete in body; being complete in body, he
is complete in spirit; and to be complete in spirit is the Way of the
sage. He is content to live among the people, to walk by their side,
and never know where he is going. Witless, his purity is complete.
Achievement, profit, machines, skill - they have no place in this
man's mind! A man like this will not go where he has no will to go,
will not do what he has no mind to do. Though the world might praise
him and say he had really found something, he would look unconcerned
and never turn his head; though the world might condemn him and say he
had lost something, he would look serene and pay no heed. The praise
and blame of the world are no loss or gain to him. He may be called a
man of Complete Virtue. I - I am a man of the wind-blown waves."

When Tzu-kung got back to Lu, he reported the incident to Confucius.
Confucius said, "He is one of those bogus practitioners of the arts of
Mr. Chaos." He knows the first thing but doesn't understand the
second. He looks after what is on the inside but doesn't look after
what is on the outside. A man of true brightness and purity who can
enter into simplicity, who can return to the primitive through
inaction, give body to his inborn nature, and embrace his spirit, and
in this way wander through the everyday world - if you had met one
like that, you would have had real cause for astonishment. As for the
arts of Mr. Chaos, you and I need not bother to find out about them."

< end quote >

[pi]

noname: Deductive vs inductive logic.

When a God throws dice, he says 6 times 6 and that's what comes out. That's deduction. The dice follows a lookup table set out by God.

When a human throws dice, he says 6 times 6 and that's what comes out, once in a million times. That's statistics ie inductive logic.

I think.

When you ask a computer what's 6 times 6, it will say 5, once in a gazillion times. That's also statistics.

Nothing is certain in this world. Deductive logic is theoretical logic.

pi

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

A definition, which stayed with me,
after reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance", a long time ago, is: Doctors and
mechanics think deductively. If an engine does
not get petrol, deductive logic says, the problem
will be found somewhere from the petrol tank to the
injector, along *that* line, i.e..
Deductive logic thus only allows for what is known,
logically possibly, thinking backwards to possible causes.
Elimination is a technique to solve a problem
deductively. If "the" pipe from the petrol tank to
the injector is not damaged, then that possibility
is eliminated, and the problem is searched for
somewhere else, along *that* line. It is
problematic, with some reasoning, because sometimes
people who argue deductively, think they know everything,
whilst knowing everything is impossible. With an engine,
it is possible to know everything, but not with a human
body, imo.

[pi]

:)

[pi]

The meaning of life is to work and to be well. -- The Dalai Lama

If you know this, you know everything. Imvho.

Unfortunately, my life is meaningless in both senses.

pi

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Tibetan Buddhism is Mahayana Buddhism, the type, which
promotes idolatry, although Buddha said idolatry is wrong.

Ideas about working and being well is a bit messed up
because of unemployment figures.

[noname]

Self-contradiction is not conducive to the transmittal of truth.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[{:-])))]

Marquard wrote:
> pi wrote:
>> noname: Deductive vs inductive logic.
>>
>> When a God throws dice, he says 6 times 6 and that's what comes out. That's deduction. The dice follows a lookup table set out by God.
>>
>> When a human throws dice, he says 6 times 6 and that's what comes out, once in a million times. That's statistics ie inductive logic.
>>
>> I think.

When I throw dice, a number between 2 and 12 is counted on.
The probability of any number manifesting can be calculated.
It's more likely numbers in the middle will turn up.
Two and 12 are less probable.
Odds exist, even still.

I once threw five dice in a Yahtzee game
and got several Yahtzees in a round of play.
To say it was phenomenal might be an understatement.
Skeptics would call it coincidence and explain it away.

Being in the Zone is phenomenal.
Being able to get there at will can be sought.
Perfect practice might make perfect, or not.

At times, Zones may be entered and why
becomes a question. I can give several examples,
and explanations that satisfy me, to a point.

>> When you ask a computer what's 6 times 6, it will say 5, once in a gazillion times. That's also statistics.

That would be a glitch, probably.

>> Nothing is certain in this world. Deductive logic is theoretical logic.

Given a batch of axioms, presumptions, givens,
it might be possible to deduce, or, prove, some conclusion.

Given a batch of phenomena, reasons why a thing occurs
might be induced, abstracted and be accepted as explaning.

Today, just now, another form materializes.

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

>A definition, which stayed with me,
>after reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
>Maintenance", a long time ago, is: Doctors and
>mechanics think deductively. If an engine does
>not get petrol, deductive logic says, the problem
>will be found somewhere from the petrol tank to the
>injector, along *that* line, i.e..
>Deductive logic thus only allows for what is known,
>logically possibly, thinking backwards to possible causes.
>Elimination is a technique to solve a problem
>deductively. If "the" pipe from the petrol tank to
>the injector is not damaged, then that possibility
>is eliminated, and the problem is searched for
>somewhere else, along *that* line. It is
>problematic, with some reasoning, because sometimes
>people who argue deductively, think they know everything,
>whilst knowing everything is impossible. With an engine,
>it is possible to know everything, but not with a human
>body, imo.

The question of why may be solved, but then, someone
such as noname may see the situation as being a symptom.

Why did the fuel injection system get plugged?
One may say, oh, it was the filter. The filter had a hole in it.

Well, okay, but why did the filter get a hole in it?

For some paradigm-makers, a greater picture is viewed.

The filter might represent something in one's life
and a hole manifests as a wake-up call.

Fixing the hole and getting back on the road, patches
the leak in one's energy-form, or, mind, for a spell.

It solves the ostensible problem
but does not get at the root.

- grounded in the air accordion to sum

[noname]

Sounds like the Republicans' draft of an Obamacare replacement, it pretends
to solve the problem, but due to the ignorance of the wealthy, they're not
getting at the root. Maybe it's time for the US Government to replace the
insurance industry, which is an abomination before the fact.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

The insurance industry is capitalism's solution
for the same problem addressed by communism's
sharing. Spreading risk with communal funds, is
what insurance funds do.

[pi]

MDP: Unemployment.

We can't be all employed and happy. At least not yet. The idea is to do our best.

pi

[pi]

noname: Self-contradiction is not conducive to the transmittal of truth.

Didn't get it. Sorry :(

pi

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>The meaning of life is to work and to be well. -- The Dalai Lama
>
>If you know this, you know everything. Imvho.
>
>Unfortunately, my life is meaningless in both senses.

At times, my physical body might not be all well
but I'm as happy as happy can be, and so I am well
and might realize how I am more than just a physical being.

Young ones know, the meaning of life is to play.

Work is what happens when play gets more serious.
And with many games people play, they play hard and
work at winning. And when someone wins, often times
someone else must lose, as that's how the games are.

Playing hide-and-seek is said to be a primordial game.
Babies love to play peek-a-boo. Something about
object-permanence is beyond their cognition.

Unlearning can be a Way.

[noname]

Insurance is the materialist's reply to karma, the form taken by lack of
faith in anything except material wealth; to require its adherence through
law is to abridge the religious freedoms of the individual and make atheism
a state religion.

Insurance is the Guarantee behind the Dream of mankind's godhood, something
one might call Caiapathickeyism if he'd ever hear of whatever that is.


--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

We can't all forfeit our lives for money and be happy about it; when we
can, life on earth will have outlived its usefulness. Think about it,
maybe you'll find a clue nearby.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[pi]

noname: Money.

Money ain't no problem when you gotta it.

pi

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Would you expand on the above? Don't know what you mean.

[pi]

noname: Atheism as state religion.

What does it matter anyway? No believer I know sincerely believes anything except what their belly tells em.

Oh, I know... killing folks legally and as many as the state pleases cuz what does it matter anyway? No?

Honestly, it doesn't fucking matter at all but if folks go down that path the last two men standing will be a gay lad and a lesbian lass and they will kill each other with a-bombs rather than have baby.

And I'm not on shrooms today. I'm just fucking pissed at my stupidity cuz there's nothing I can do about it. I just have to be fucking stupid. That's my role in life.

pi

[noname]

If that's enough for you, it's enough.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[pi]

noname: If that's enough for you, it's enough.

You said you owe your understanding of the world to seeing it through the computer programming lenses. That's why I need math, to clarify things.

After all, CS is just that -- applied math.

All science is just applied math. But I can't learn math because I am too stupid. :(

pi

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> Maybe it's time for the US Government to replace the
>insurance industry, which is an abomination before the fact.

When I look at tall buildings in a downtown area
and see them as full of people pushing paper
from one floor to another, it's absurdity in motion.

If everyone were treated as if they were born royal,
as kings and queens, that would be great in ways.
And, perhaps as it could be, if not should be.

Once all the information about everyone is known
and all the forms are filled out automatically, and
everyone is entitled to be cared for, health-wise,
education-wise and other-wise, that will be
what shall be called, the day.

There will be plenty of everything for everyone,
and no reason to kill nor die for any cause because
everyone will have everything they ever wanted.
They will be able to do as they please and to live.

- happily ever after

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>MDP: Unemployment.
>
>We can't be all employed and happy. At least not yet. The idea is to do our best.

It's possible that, with smart management, everyone
could be employed. Jobs could be created and things
to do could be invented for people to work at.

Being happy is another story.

Being born happy might be perfectly natural.
Content with simply being alive. In wonder, seeing,
opening and closing hands, moving feet, learning.

Eventually, one knows how to stand, walk, run.
One plays and has fun. When tired, sleeps. And
when hungry, eats. Life is simple and good.

Eventually, some kids get bored and get into trouble.
Many are born mischief makers and learn what is
right and what is wrong in their culture. Trials
and errors occur. Consequences are experienced.

In order to shoot an arrow forward, it's pulled backward.
Such may be observed to be a strange thing/event.
One might notice how many things are that way.

If one is happy at first one might be sad later on.
Lots of things/events may induce sadness.
What is found might be lost.
What was, won't be.

Emotions may cycle, as seasons change. From day
to day and day to night, summer to winter, fall and
some will spring back to life. Over and over.

Falling down happens.
Getting back up on one's feet happens
for those who have feet to begin with.

- a journey may begin with a first step

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>noname: Self-contradiction is not conducive to the transmittal of truth.
>
>Didn't get it. Sorry :(

There could be a difference between knowing everything,
and for that to be of any use.

>>> The meaning of life is to work and to be well. -- The Dalai Lama
>>>
>>> If you know this, you know everything. Imvho.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, my life is meaningless in both senses.

If you did work, as you say you did.
And you were well, as you must have been
in order to work as hard as you did when you did.
Then you knew everything. And the meaning.

Now, perhaps you have forgotten what you knew.
And so, you say your life is meaningless.
It used to mean something. Now
it means nothing.

From knowing everything, including the meaning,
to life being meaningless might suggest something.

How could everything go from being full to empty
might be obvious to those who have lost everything.

Some people, such as noname, found everything
after having lost everything. For them, it is
not all about work and health. The meaning occurs
in some other else to be found when sought.

Words are able to shift, nuance-wise, meanings.

Knowing llife as meaningless is knowing something.

Knowing how both, being full and empty, arise
out of something that is neither, may be wise.

A fun thing about Taoism, for me, is how, with a
shift in perspective, all may be found well-wise
in a well, near an ocean that waves at times.

The ocean is always full.
When it waves work and health, surf is up.
When it is perfectly flat and calm, there is no surf.
Waves rise and fall. At times there are no waves.

Either way, in every way, the ocean doesn't mind.
It's already at its level and stays there.

- ice melting not included

[noname]

Computer Science isn't about math, it's about communication and the
manifestation of concepts. Some concepts relate to quantities or sizes,
but mostly that's irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. CS is where
structure meets form. It's a mental discipline for enacting abstract
science.

If you can't learn math that's because you need not to learn math. Maybe
there's something else you can learn to fill your time. I'd suggest
anything that causes you to forget about your pain because it's so
interesting you don't have time to bother with the pain.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Nice dream. Something tells me it doesn't work that way. Emotions emote,
attachments attach, unrequited love brings angst, making the world into the
nicest of places for the defective snowflake to abide may not be the
answer. Some are unready for heaven but unfit for hell, to get a bit
drippy about things.

--
email: noname.123...@gmail.com

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

It could be that the pale blue dot, aka, planet Earth,
will always have squabbles, wars, violence and peace
is only able to be found as a state of mind.

- for those who find it

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>noname: Money.
>
>Money ain't no problem when you gotta it.

Spending time on the Road, my experience was
the Road was able to supply all my needs.
I did not need any money. I simply kept moving.

Sleeping under bridges is not for everyone.

Depending on the Road for meals and such
is not the Way of most ordinary people.

Some folks depend on cities, dumpsters to dive into
as they forage for food and shelters vary.

- at the present, unfolding occurs

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:

>noname: Atheism as state religion.
>
>What does it matter anyway? No believer I know sincerely believes anything except what their belly tells em.

Knowing everything appears to have its limits.

I sincerely believe I'm going to wash up, and going
to go and get my teeth cleaned today. My belly may
speak later on, I can believe that.

>Oh, I know... killing folks legally and as many as the state pleases cuz what does it matter anyway? No?
>
>Honestly, it doesn't fucking matter at all but if folks go down that path the last two men standing will be a gay lad and a lesbian lass and they will kill each other with a-bombs rather than have baby.
>
>And I'm not on shrooms today. I'm just fucking pissed at my stupidity cuz there's nothing I can do about it. I just have to be fucking stupid. That's my role in life.

What did you do recently that induces you to believe, sincerely,
or perhaps insincerely, that you are stupid?

Or are you beating yourself up for what happened in the past?

It could be said everyone was born stupid, not knowing how,
what, when nor where to do batches of everything.

Some people live and learn.
Many of them grow a pair of items.
One time I grew ten toes all at once!
And lots of hairs, whose number I don't know.

It could be said, the Universe isn't stupid.
It knows how many hairs are on your head.
It isn't saying, in words, and yet, there they are.

- falling out, and, at times, growing again

[pi]

noname: CS.

I am no expert here, I'm afraid.

pi

[{:-])))]

>pi wrote:
>> noname: If that's enough for you, it's enough.
>>
>> You said you owe your understanding of the world to seeing it through the
>> computer programming lenses. That's why I need math, to clarify things.
>>
>> After all, CS is just that -- applied math.
>>
>> All science is just applied math. But I can't learn math because I am too stupid. :(

Feynman had thoughts about CS, math, and physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL4wg6ZAFIM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWGGDXe5MA

Physics often uses math as its language.
Physics picks and chooses what math best fits
a given situation and goes from there.

Math can get along fine without physics.
Math is able to be so abstract it does not need to apply
to anything found in one's normal day to day living.

To get along in the world, one might not need any
of the above three disciplines as one could study
life on life's terms, instead of in the abstract.

What is, is.
It could be just that simple.
What to do about what is, may vary.
Depending one what cares to do.

- in Usenet, as well as all else wears

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:
>noname: CS.
>
>I am no expert here, I'm afraid.

What are you afraid of?

Paranoia strikes deep, is how a song begins.
It may have been before your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY

- on the bus

[pi]

J: CS, math, physics.

You know a good deal about it, it appears.

Well done.

pi

[{:-])))]

Normally, I may request my stakes, medium.
Possibly medium well.

- as paranormal activities vary