Logik's guide to successful detox from Philosophy Now

[surreptitious57]

If it works this post should be final

It is entirely superfluous however as there is absolutely nothing to stop you returning if you really want to
You may have to register under a new username with a different password too but this takes no time at all
Furthermore your entire posting history will still be here for you [ or any one else for that matter ] to access should you so wish
You really want to stay away from here then you need good old fashioned willpower for that since anything else is doomed to fail

[surreptitious57]

Wait did he follow his own steps I wonder ? No posts from him since the OP

He has returned before when he came back as Logik after being TimeSeeker originally
This is why him trying to remove himself from the forum like this is not very effective

[Arising_uk]

What's physical information?

Of which I'm still awaiting an answer.

But human brains/minds appear able to do very large computations?

I'm asserting that human brains/minds can do very large computations and the question mark is for my interlocuter in that how would they explain this given they say that human brains/minds are not computers.

How do we 'code' meaning?

My apologies, I made the assumption that when my interlocuter said computers can't code meaning they were implicitly implying that humans can. If we don't code meaning then my question is why does my interlocuter think this would necessarily imply that it is not possible to code meaning?

[-1-]

What's physical information?

Of which I'm still awaiting an answer.

But human brains/minds appear able to do very large computations?

I'm asserting that human brains/minds can do very large computations and the question mark is for my interlocuter in that how would they explain this given they say that human brains/minds are not computers.

How do we 'code' meaning?

My apologies, I made the assumption that when my interlocuter said computers can't code meaning they were implicitly implying that humans can. If we don't code meaning then my question is why does my interlocuter think this would necessarily imply that it is not possible to code meaning?

Physical information (my definition, not official) is data delivered in physical media, such as punched cards, telecommunication channels which include sending and receiving apparatus, or from the sensors of feedback mechanisms or feed-forward mechanisms of robots and other systems to the processing unit.

Apology accepted.

The interlocutor said meaning is not coded. It neither denies, nor asserts, that meaning can be coded by humans. Your questioning the interlocutor either way is unfair, as the interlocutor has made no claim either way.

To date, no meaning was coded by humans into machines. This is an opinion, and I don't think the interlocutor went any further with this, so "nailing" him on this utterance is meaningless and unfair.

A question is followed and ended and indicated by a question mark. A statement, by a period or by an exclamation mark, or by thee dots. Like I said, I calls them as I sees them.

As to your question how human brains are not computers why the interlocutor made that claim. 1. You need to ask the interlocutor, not me. 2. The architecture underlying brain functioning is (or may be) different from that of computers. We have no available information on the topic. Therefore you can't ask proof or certainty to be shown for this opinion.

Please note I shan't be answering any more questions on this topic by you. You are a big person, you could figure these things out yourself. Asking questions is demeaning to the other party, because you make them work for free. From here on, on this topic, I charge a fee to you for any more questions. Including such as "how do I pay", "how much do you charge," and "do you accept Nepalese currency".

[-1-]

What's physical information?

Of which I'm still awaiting an answer.

UK, please be more mindful of the quoting system. I did not ask what your quote asserts I did. You asked "what's physical information", not I. Please don't use the quote system in erroneous ways.

[Arising_uk]

UK, please be more mindful of the quoting system. I did not ask what your quote asserts I did. You asked "what's physical information", not I. Please don't use the quote system in erroneous ways.

My error.

[Arising_uk]

I don't know Shannon information, UK, and I never will. It was not part of the curriculum that my lecturers put together. You blame me for that. And you shame me for not having profs who would put that in the curriculum.

It seems you are emotionally committed to put me down.

Nor really, I was just surprised that someone studying computer science wouldn't know Shannon as he pretty much invented the digital circuit.

[Arising_uk]

Physical information (my definition, not official) is data delivered in physical media, such as punched cards, telecommunication channels which include sending and receiving apparatus, or from the sensors of feedback mechanisms or feed-forward mechanisms of robots and other systems to the processing unit. ...

That just seems to be some mediums by which information is delivered?
Reading around it does look like there is a difference in the way "information" is used normally and Shannon's definition but I'm not smart enough to understand it so hopefully Atla will get around to explaining the difference. Although it does seem amazing that Shannon appears to have found that the equations for the entropy of thermodynamics is applicable to information communication.

The interlocutor said meaning is not coded. It neither denies, nor asserts, that meaning can be coded by humans. Your questioning the interlocutor either way is unfair, as the interlocutor has made no claim either way.

To date, no meaning was coded by humans into machines. This is an opinion, and I don't think the interlocutor went any further with this, so "nailing" him on this utterance is meaningless and unfair. ...

Ah! My apologies to Atla and you as I appear to have had a blind-spot with the word "current", I'll put it down to hopefully it being late and a bad chest infection rather than rank stupidity. As such I'd have ask them what they mean by "meaning" in this claim? As Siri, et al appear to respond to my meaning when requested. There's also this - https://www.vox.com/2017/3/23/14962182/ ... i-research.

A question is followed and ended and indicated by a question mark. A statement, by a period or by an exclamation mark, or by thee dots. Like I said, I calls them as I sees them. ...

Well if we are going to be pedantic about this then maybe I should have said "How do you explain that...?" rather than "But" but but seemed to do the job, my error.

As to your question how human brains are not computers why the interlocutor made that claim. 1. You need to ask the interlocutor, not me. 2. The architecture underlying brain functioning is (or may be) different from that of computers. We have no available information on the topic. Therefore you can't ask proof or certainty to be shown for this opinion. ...

We have lots of available information on this topic? The architecture underlying brain functioning appears to be a distributed massively parallel neuronal net and we can code these on digital computers even if their architecture is different.

Please note I shan't be answering any more questions on this topic by you. ...

No biggie.

You are a big person, you could figure these things out yourself. ...

Except I can't figure out what another person means all the time.

Asking questions is demeaning to the other party, because you make them work for free. ...

Not really, it's just trying to find an understanding.

From here on, on this topic, I charge a fee to you for any more questions. Including such as "how do I pay", "how much do you charge," and "do you accept Nepalese currency".

You take credit cards?

[A_Seagull]

Well I can't resist adding my tuppence worth to this thread.

IMO Logic was not a genuine philosopher. And yes he/she was Timekeeper too.

I tried to engage with him to see where he was coming from.. but I couldn't find anything. When probed on his posts he would usually shift the topic somewhat with some wordy statement and couple it with some random link.. which I would never follow. It seemed to me that he would just string words together in a fairly haphazard manner as though asking other people to try to make sense of them.

As I said to him one time.. that he seemed to know a lot but understand nothing.

So I concluded that his posts were without merit and not worth pursuing.

PS In the bots thread in the lounge, I suggested that there might be contributors to this forum who were actually bots... it was Logic that I was thinking of.

[-1-]

Arising_UK:

You humbled me with your seeing reason in my arguments there.

I bow to your superiority over many others on this forum who are incapable to admit they are wrong (when they are).

I like you a lot.

I don't take credit cards, but do take symbolic forms of payments. For instance, a greenish-grayish little piece of rag paper, with the picture of George Washington, and the symbol of the American Unity.

You may have turned a bit sarcastic on me as your replies progressed, which I haven't noticed. If that happened, I don't resent it, since I fully deserved it.

[-1-]

I tried to engage with him [Logik] to see where he was coming from.. but I couldn't find anything.

"...And there was an old man, who lived in the greenwoods, and nobody knew him, or what he had done, but mothers would say to their children, beware of mad John..."

Atla said in this thread that he had figured JohnDoe7 and Timekeeper/Logik were the one and the same person. However, this remark here by you reminds me why I never did think so. One sign is that JohnDoe7 did leave an exhaustive history of his life, and of his current state of affairs, in a post a long time ago, within a year or two. But T/L was relentlessly elusive.

The other is a bit harder for me to prove... but I always sensed an air of honesty and frankness in JD7's posts. He or she never was trying to trick anyone, s/he just presented his or her theorems and theories, which were (in my opinion) incomprehensible due to his or her lack of using consensus-approved math and logic symbols. But s/he was never two-faced, s/he never did a face-about, s/he never aimed to trap people. Whereas those things were typical of T/L. Furthermore, JD7 stays on a given topic, and is happy to exhaust it... while T/L goes from topic to topic, and a conversation with him/her is never ending. He proves himself wrong or nonsensical in those long conversations, or in the least, he either contradicts himself or introduces quotes that are inconsequential to the topic. JD7 never does that. In fact, these trends are so tightly typical, and without any crossover, that I am convinced JD7 and T/L are not the same one person, while I admit that TK and L may be.

[Arising_uk]

Well I can't resist adding my tuppence worth to this thread.

IMO Logic was not a genuine philosopher. And yes he/she was Timekeeper too. ...

Well yes, he admitted to it but so what?


What is a genuine philosopher?

I tried to engage with him to see where he was coming from.. but I couldn't find anything. When probed on his posts he would usually shift the topic somewhat with some wordy statement and couple it with some random link.. which I would never follow. It seemed to me that he would just string words together in a fairly haphazard manner as though asking other people to try to make sense of them. ...

By and large he made reasonable sense to me if you understand that he was promoting a or his philosophy and his links were generally apposite to what he was saying.

As I said to him one time.. that he seemed to know a lot but understand nothing.

So I concluded that his posts were without merit and not worth pursuing.

PS In the bots thread in the lounge, I suggested that there might be contributors to this forum who were actually bots... it was Logic that I was thinking of.

If he was then we pretty much have AI.

[Arising_uk]

"...And there was an old man, who lived in the greenwoods, and nobody knew him, or what he had done, but mothers would say to their children, beware of mad John..."

Atla said in this thread that he had figured JohnDoe7 and Timekeeper/Logik were the one and the same person. However, this remark here by you reminds me why I never did think so. One sign is that JohnDoe7 did leave an exhaustive history of his life, and of his current state of affairs, in a post a long time ago, within a year or two. But T/L was relentlessly elusive.

The other is a bit harder for me to prove... but I always sensed an air of honesty and frankness in JD7's posts. He or she never was trying to trick anyone, s/he just presented his or her theorems and theories, which were (in my opinion) incomprehensible due to his or her lack of using consensus-approved math and logic symbols. But s/he was never two-faced, s/he never did a face-about, s/he never aimed to trap people. Whereas those things were typical of T/L. Furthermore, JD7 stays on a given topic, and is happy to exhaust it... while T/L goes from topic to topic, and a conversation with him/her is never ending. He proves himself wrong or nonsensical in those long conversations, or in the least, he either contradicts himself or introduces quotes that are inconsequential to the topic. JD7 never does that. In fact, these trends are so tightly typical, and without any crossover, that I am convinced JD7 and T/L are not the same one person, while I admit that TK and L may be.

They are obviously not the same person but both are obviously smart, the difference is, for me, that JohnDoe cannot apply his smarts so is lost in his own mind swirl and Logik isn't.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What's physical information?

Of which I'm still awaiting an answer.

But human brains/minds appear able to do very large computations?

I'm asserting that human brains/minds can do very large computations and the question mark is for my interlocuter in that how would they explain this given they say that human brains/minds are not computers.

How do we 'code' meaning?

My apologies, I made the assumption that when my interlocuter said computers can't code meaning they were implicitly implying that humans can. If we don't code meaning then my question is why does my interlocuter think this would necessarily imply that it is not possible to code meaning?

No sign of who you are responding to here. It also creates a huge mess when it comes to responding to you with all your little bits everywhere. No telling who wrote what.

[Atla]

Atla said in this thread that he had figured JohnDoe7 and Timekeeper/Logik were the one and the same person.

Noo T/L/pn? isn't the Johndoe