I understand this. You are creating a set of "romantic quality" and
simplifying such a set with 4 variables. As you say, these variables
must be "defined", otherwise such a set is useless. As you are aware,
there are many different ways to formalize "Romantic Value", and the
choice of variables is important so that we can all agree on them
(define). It may also be important to have non-overlapping variables,
so we do not get caught up in one variable changing the nature of
another since this can get messy and require complex algebra, which
will only expand exponentially with each new relationship (infinitely
growing recursion?). Keeping it as simple as possible is important as
was said by William from Occam. It is understood that such simplicity
is just a formality, and life is not simple. It is also understood
that we are not trying to reduce life to a set of equations. Words do
not reduce life to the static, they simply add to the dynamic nature
of life, as I see it.
So, from this set you create sub-sets with the various arrangements as
you have presented in previous posts. These arrangements and their
rhetorical counterparts then provide some "in-sight" into Romantic
Quality. As with any mathematical formulation, the intent is to bring
meaning into observation, and possibly "tune us in" to other ways of
interpreting those observations. The formality of math as used by
Einstein, allows us to interpret a unity of energy and mass. This
unity is purely conceptual, for the body tends to differentiate in
order to survive. But it does provide us with meaning beyond the
scope of physics, and possible usefulness (atomic bomb?).
Carry on, and thanks,
On 3/1/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail@tuuk...> wrote:
>>> Formulas cannot be used to prove anything I want, because RP is not a
>>> formal theory despite including formulae. Likewise, physics is not a
>>> formal theory despite including formulae. RP's all formulae are not
>>> tautologies, but contingent, and their contingency depends on
>>> observations - namely, that one specific kind of observation is
>>> possible. Would you like to hear more? Is this relevant to you?
>> Yes, please.
> The truth value of RP depends on whether it is possible to distinguish
> the following kinds of cognitive experiences, or kinds of romantic
> quality, from each other:
> -internal and external sensory perceptions
> -thinking processes
> If it is possible to distinguish these four types of romantic quality
> from each other, it follows, than a certain instance of RP, formulated
> with "accuracy" set to 4, is true. That instance would include the
> theory of static value patterns in LILA.
> If the distinctions cannot be made, there is a problem. The problem
> could maybe be resolved by tweaking the emergence, eg. to the form that
> Dave (LS) suggested. This is why I initially began this conversation -
> to get some advice whether these cognitive experiences can be
> distinguished from each other. That is the only statement in RP whose
> truth value cannot be resolved by purely formal means. If it is false,
> all other statements of RP are apparently rendered irrelevant. This
> statement is also the way in which RP solves the symbol grounding
> problem. In addition, it is hopefully an outline of the way a more
> sophisticated theory will solve that problem in the future.
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html >
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.