START: LANGUAGE AND STRUCTURES – THE FICTION OF ‘BEING’


eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 24.Januar 2023 – 24.January 2023
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards only minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’. It can be read as a direct continuation of the text ‘Start . The ‘inside’ of the ‘outside’ – Part 2‘.

Transient’ events and language

After we have worked our way forward in the biological cell galaxy ‘man’ so far that we can determine its ‘structuredness’ (without really understanding its origin and exact functioning so far), and then find ourselves as cell galaxy nevertheless – according to the appearance – as ‘concrete body’ which can ‘communicate’ with the ‘environment of the own body’ (often also called ‘outside world’) twofold: We can ‘perceive’ in different ways and we can produce ‘effects’ in the outside world in different ways.

For the ‘coordination’ with other human bodies, especially between the ‘brains’ in these bodies, the ability to ‘speak-listen’ or then also to ‘write-read’ seems to be of highest importance. Already as children we find ourselves in environments where language occurs and we ‘learn’ very quickly that ‘linguistic expressions’ can refer not only to ‘objects’ and their ‘properties’, but also to fleeting ‘actions’ (‘Peter gets up from the table’) and also other ‘fleeting’ events (‘the sun rises’; ‘the traffic light just turned red’). There are also linguistic expressions that refer only partially to something perceptible, such as ‘Father of Hans’ (who is not in the room at all), ‘yesterday’s food’ (which is not there), ‘I hate you’ (‘hate’ is not an object), ‘the sum of 3+5’ (without there being anything that looks like ‘3’ or ‘5’), and many more.

If one tries to understand these ‘phenomena of our everyday life’ ‘more’, one can come across many exciting facts, which possibly generate more questions than they provide answers. All phenomena, which can cause ‘questions’, actually serve the ‘liberation of our thinking’ from currently wrong images. Nevertheless, questions are not very popular; they disturb, stress, …

How can one get closer to these manifold phenomena?

Let’s just have a look at some expressions of ‘normal language’ that we use in our ‘everyday life’.[1] In everyday life there are manifold situations in which we – or other people – sit down (breakfast, office, restaurant, school, university, reception hall, bus, subway, …). In some of these situations we speak, for example, of ‘chairs’, in others of ‘armchairs’, again in others of ‘benches’, or simply of ‘seats’. Before an event, someone might ask “Are there enough chairs?” or “Do we have enough armchairs?” or … In the respective concrete situation, it can be quite different objects that would pass for example as ‘chair’ or as ‘armchair’ or … This indicates that the ‘expressions of language’ (the ‘sounds’, the ‘written/printed signs’) can link to quite different things. There is no 1-to-1 mapping here. With other objects like ‘cups’, ‘glasses’, ‘tables’, ‘bottles’, ‘plates’ etc. it is not different.

These examples suggest that there may be a ‘structure’ here that ‘manifests’ itself in the concrete examples, but is itself located ‘beyond the events.'[2]

If one tries to ‘mentally sort’ this out, then at least two, rather three ‘dimensions’ suggest themselves here, which play into each other:

  • There are concrete linguistic expressions – those we call ‘words’ – that a ‘speaker-hearer’ uses.
  • There is, independently of the linguistic expressions, ‘some phenomenon’ in everyday life to which the ‘speaker-hearer’ refers with his linguistic expression (these can be ‘objects’, ‘properties’ of objects, …)[3].
  • The respective ‘speaker’ or ‘listener’ have ‘learned’ to ‘establish a relation’ between the ‘linguistic expression’ and the ‘other’ to the linguistic expression.

Since we know that the same objects and events in everyday life can be ‘named’ quite differently in the ‘different languages’, this suggests that the relations assumed in each case by ‘speaker-hearer’ are not ‘innate’, but appear rather ‘arbitrary’ in each ‘language community’.[4] This suggests that the ‘relations’ found in everyday life between linguistic expressions and everyday facts have to be ‘learned’ by each speaker-hearer individually, and this through direct contact with speaker-hearers of the respective language community.

… to be continued …

COMMENTS

wkp := Wikipedia

[1] Instead of ‘normal language’ in ‘everyday life’ I speak here also simply of ‘everyday language’.

[2] A thinker who has dealt with this phenomenon of the ‘everyday concrete’ and at the same time also ‘everyday – somehow – abstract’ is Ludwig Wittgenstein (see [2a,b]). He introduced the concept of ‘language-game’ [2a] for this purpose, without introducing an actual ‘(empirical) theory’ in the proper sense to all these considerations.

[2a] wkp en: Language game, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)

[2b] wkp en: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1921/1922 , Note: Written during World War I, the work was completed in 1918. It first appeared, with the support of Bertrand Russell, in Wilhelm Ostwald’s Annalen der Naturphilosophie in 1921. This version, which was not proofread by Wittgenstein, contained gross errors. A corrected, bilingual edition (German/English) was published by Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. in London in 1922 and is considered the official version. The English translation was by C. K. Ogden and Frank Ramsey. See URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus

[2c] wkp en: Philosophical Investigations,1936-1946, published 1953, Note: The Philosophical Investigations is Ludwig Wittgenstein’s late, second major work. It exerted an extraordinary influence on the philosophy of the 2nd half of the 20th century; the speech act theory of Austin and Searle as well as the Erlangen constructivism (Paul Lorenzen, Kuno Lorenz) are to be mentioned. The book is directed against the ideal of a logic-oriented language, which, along with Russell and Carnap, Wittgenstein himself had advocated in his first major work. The book was written in the years 1936-1946, but was not published until 1953, after the author’s death. See URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

[3] In the borderline case, these ‘other’ phenomena of everyday life are also linguistic expressions (when one talks ‘about’ a text or linguistic utterances’).

[4] wkp en: List of Language Families, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_families, Note: Due to ‘spatial proximity’ or temporal context (or both), there may be varying degrees of similarity between different language.

OKSIMO.R – IDEA OF THE BOOK

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 6.January 2023 – 24.January 2023
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards only minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’.

IDEA OF THE BOOK

(Last change: 3.January 2023)

(Partially translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version))

At present, mankind is faced with the task of overcoming many problems of hitherto unknown magnitude in order to secure its own existence and that of the entire biosphere in the long term.

In order to achieve this, it is necessary to communicate with each other in order to be able to pull together towards a common goal. As many people as possible have to build bridges to each other in order to be able to share and bundle their experiences and their knowledge in a language accessible to all. For as many as possible a ‘good’ ‘future’ should be found and shaped.

People can generally do all this without the aid of a computer. From the actual practice of life, however, we have learned that computers are ‘machines’ which can be helpful when the tasks which have to be accomplished are so large in number that the executions would not be feasible in ‘practical life’. We could do it without computers ‘in principle’, but ‘purely practically’ we can not.

So use a computer?

For purely practical reasons, there is a lot to be said for it.

But if you look around today – just arrived in the year 2023 – you have to realize that this ‘motivation out of practice’ has led to forms of implementation that leave the basic motivation out of practice behind. Thus the ‘machine computer’ is meanwhile highly stylized by not a few to the ‘new, better human being, much more intelligent, ethically better’ …. and what else one can project into the metaphor of the machine computer. In addition, already now after a few decades a complexity of the new computer-machine technology has set in, which makes an understanding of what exactly is going on there practically impossible, not only for the ‘users’ of this global world machine, but also for the ‘makers’ themselves. Many of these systems have long since slipped out of the ‘control’ of the operators.

For us humans, who are more and more overshadowed in the global way of talking about ‘smart technical systems’, who get less and less appreciation, and who are brutally trivialized in the understanding of everyday media, the question naturally arises whether the ‘tool’ has ‘overtaken’ us and will increasingly make us ‘superfluous’?

In the experimental text of this book something – by today’s standards – unusual will be attempted: using the example of a new paradigm of how to see and use the machine computer, the ‘new picture of man’ is drawn step by step, who is of course vastly superior to the machine computer, but only if we as humans understand who we ‘actually’ are. And this we cannot experience, if we deal predominantly and exclusively with the extremely simple technology of the machine computer, instead with the inconceivable complexity, which each individual human being represents, the whole population of homo sapiens, we all as a part of the all embracing biosphere, which ‘populates’ the planet earth since 3.5 billion years, works on it, changes it, and which – most probably – carries a common ‘goal’ in itself, of whose existence – to my knowledge – not so much has been thought until now. In short: We are a real part of one of the biggest miracles in the whole known universe – a maximum singularity [2] -, but we talk more and more only about the simple structure of the machine computer, which an Alan Matthew Turing described in the context of an essay 1936/7 with few lines in such a way, that they are valid for all today known types of computer machines (every child from approx. 7-8 years can understand this). [1]

So, let us reflect on what we can do as human beings, that which makes us a little bit more familiar with a world of possible future states towards which we should try to orient ourselves constructively, if we want to prevent the ‘miracle of life’ in this universe from dying out at the very moment when it is about to ‘discover itself’.

COMMENTS

[1] A. M. Turing, “On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 42, no. 2, p. 230–265, 1936-7.

[2] An influential paper for the concept of ‘singularity’ has been published by Vernor Vinge: “The coming technological singularity: How to survive in the post-human era”, In G.A. Landis, editor, Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace, pages 11–22. 1993. From a mathematical point of view a ‘singularity’ is defined by the non-existence of a formula to compute a certain event. This does not mean, that there exists no such formula, but only, that the mathematicians have ‘not yet’ such a formula! To classify the machine computer as a candidate for a singularity could in this sense be interpreted as the result of a ‘not available knowledge’ about that what we call the ‘biosphere’.

chatGBT about Rationality: Emotions, Mystik, Unconscious, Conscious, …

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 15.January 2023 – 16.January 2023
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

This texts reflects some ideas following the documented chat No.4.as part of the uffmm.org blog.

Chatbots as Interfaces to the Human Knowledge Cloud?

Already at the end of the documented chat No.4 I had the impression, that an interaction with the chatbot chatGBT is somehow different compared to what most people until know have reported or stated in some reflected way about chatGBT.

In a first — and still a little bit vague — conclusion I have stated: “Apropos ‘rational’: that is a point which did surprise me really: as a kind of a summary it came out “that human rationality is composed of emotions, spiritual experience as well as conscious as well as unconscious cognitive processes. This is clearly not what most philosophers today would say. But it follows from the ‘richness of the facts’  which came as a resonance out of this chat. Not that the chatbot would have given this summary in advance as an important characterization of rationality, but as a human counterpart I could summarize all this properties out of the different separated statements [of chatGBT].”

And, indeed, the millions, if not yet billions, of documents in the world wide web are reflecting fragments of knowledge generated by humans which as a whole form a ‘cloud of knowledge’. The reflected echo of the real world through the medium of human brains is distributed in libraries and in the digital space. No individual person as such can make use of it; it is by far too big to be comprehensible.

Meanwhile search-algorithms can help us to make fragments of this ‘human knowledge cloud’ visible, but the search-results so far are ‘transformed’ in a way which is only of very limited use.

My encounter with chatGBT revealed some new glimpses of a possible new paradigm which perhaps wasn’t intended by openai themselves, but which seems now to be in reach: the individual brain has a limited capacity for ‘many documents’, but it has still an incredible ability to ‘transform’ billions of events into complex abstract patterns, inducing complex networks of relations, complex models, even complex theories.

If one looks to a chatbot like chatGBT as an ‘interface’ between a single human person and the ‘human knowledge cloud’, and this by only using ‘everyday language’, then — depending from the quality of the chatbot — this individual human can only with some ideas and questions ‘trigger’ those documents in the huge ‘human knowledge cloud’ which somehow are ‘fitting’ the triggering words. Thus this individual human person is step-wise encountering those fragments of the ‘human knowledge cloud’ which are in ‘resonance’ with his own words. In a bad case this interaction resembles those ‘echo chambers’ of the internet and the real world where people only get back what they put in.

But in a creative case the input of the individual human person can trigger fragments which are somehow confirming, but somehow non-confirming. This can be a trigger onto the the individual human person to generate some new ideas to feed back again the chatbot interface. While the ‘human knowledge cloud’ at a certain moment of time as such is ‘given’ and will not create ‘something new’, an individual person as an ever running learning process (in principle) could generate new aspects and therefore transform the feedbacks out of the ‘human knowledge cloud’ into some ‘new configurations’.

This principle as such is not new. The human brains are working since millions of years with a mechanisms, where the billions of abstract-concrete cognitive entities derived from perceptions and thinking are ‘stored’ in a more or less ‘unconscious space’ called memory, and only if some actual perception or thinking is ‘touching’ some of these stored entities by some ‘kind of similarity’ these will be re-activated and will become part of the actual perceiving and actual thinking. Thus ‘actual new things’ can become merged with ‘past stored things’ forming some new-past construct. This inherent duality of ‘new-past’ is the basis for that important human capability to be able to transcend the almighty presence and escape its clasp.

If we switch to the level of the human population then the ‘Human knowledge cloud’ plays the role of the ‘unconscious memory system’ collecting ‘past things’, and some kinds of chatbots (if they would be good enough) could play the role of the ‘merger mechanism’ bringing together the ‘past’ (given in the ‘Human knowledge cloud’ ) and the ‘presence’ (given in the actual living human person) and it is then up to the human person to generate some useful new-past patterns of thoughts and possible actions.

In case of the chat No.4 the human actor triggered lots of questions and suggestions to get ‘out of the human knowledge cloud’ those fragments which are somehow corresponding to the triggering words. And after about 8000 signs in the chat the chat ended up in these paragraphs:

HumanOK, this all sums up to the conclusion that human rationality is composed of emotions, spiritual experience as well as conscious as well as unconscious cognitive processes. Do I miss something important?

Machine (citing human documents): No, you have accurately summed up the components of human rationality. Additionally, human rationality is also composed of social and cultural influences, which can shape and inform our understanding of the world and our decisions. Additionally, human rationality is often impacted by our values and beliefs, which can provide a moral foundation for our behavior and decision making. Finally, human rationality is also impacted by our environment, which can provide a source of information and insight.

By itself the chatbot would not have been able to start with such a characterization. He can ‘reach out’ in the ‘Human knowledge cloud’, but the bot algorithm as such has not — as far as research can see at the moment — any kind of ‘creative rational power’ to transform the ‘given knowledge’ into some new ‘helpful’ knowledge. But at the other side, the human persons would not be able too to make use of ‘all the available knowledge’.

In the course of interaction the human questions could ‘drive’ the bot to collect ‘interesting facts’which could then become ‘accepted’ by the bot because they haven become ‘part of the chat’. Thus at the end of the chat the bot could accept that that human rationality is composed of emotions, spiritual experience as well as conscious as well as unconscious cognitive processes. A human person ‘helped him’ to state this. This bot algorithm as such does not know anything and he cannot understand anything. Because chatbots — until now — do not possess real emotions, no real mystical experience, no unconscious or conscious human-like cognitive processes, they have no intelligence int the human format.

It is an open question what kind of ‘intelligence’ they have at all. Until know there is great number of ‘definitions’ around. No one is accepted as ‘that’ definition, especially the relationship between the ‘collection of machine intelligence definitions’ and the possible — also not really existing — collection of ‘human intelligence definitions’ is more or less unclear. Thus we are somehow ‘dreaming’ of intelligence, but nobody can really explain what it is …. We could seriously try, if we want …. but who wants it?

Talking with chatGPT. A Philosophical Encounter – No4


eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 14.January 2023 – 14.January 2023
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

This is a special thought experiment with the chatbot chatGPT, as part of the uffmm.org blog.

CHAT No.4, 14.January 2023

‘*’ := Denotes the human Gerd, who is starting continues with questions and statements.

In this chat there was for the chatbot not the task to ‘complete’ a beginning text. It was rather a typical chat with ping-ponging statements of the human and statements of the machine.

Although this chat seems at a first glance quite ‘normal’ will it reveal in the follow-up reflections a lot of deep insights. Perhaps the results are quite different from the opinions which a reader of this chat will possibly have.

START OF CHAT

* At present, mankind is faced with the task of overcoming many problems of hitherto unknown magnitude in order to secure its own existence and that of the entire biosphere in the long term.

These problems include climate change, biodiversity loss, resource depletion and pollution. To address these issues, it is essential to adopt a holistic approach that focuses on the interconnectedness of all components of the environment. This means that solutions must be sought at the local, national and international level, and in all sectors of society, from government and industry to civil society. Solutions should also be both preventive and adaptive, and should focus on sustainable development and the protection of natural resources. This will require a paradigm shift in how we approach environmental management, and a commitment to long-term solutions that address the root causes of environmental degradation. Additionally, it is essential to invest in research and development to identify new and innovative solutions. Finally, it is important to ensure that such solutions are accessible and affordable to all people.

*What about communication of people?

In order to effectively tackle the problems of climate change, biodiversity loss, resource depletion and pollution, it is essential to engage people from all sectors of society in meaningful dialogue and collaboration. Effective communication of the challenges and potential solutions can help to build public understanding and support, while also helping to facilitate the sharing of resources, knowledge and expertise. Additionally, it is important to ensure that marginalized and vulnerable populations are not left behind in the quest for environmental sustainability. This means that we must create inclusive and equitable spaces for people to participate in the dialogue, and ensure that their voices are heard in the decision-making process.

*Which role play empirical theories in this process?

Empirical theories play an important role in understanding the complexities of environmental problems and developing effective solutions. By analyzing data and developing models, empirical theories help to identify the causes and effects of environmental degradation and to identify potential solutions. Such theories can also help to develop strategies and policies that are tailored to the local context and that take into consideration the needs of different stakeholders. Additionally, empirical theories can help to inform and shape public discourse around environmental issues, and to build public consensus and support for action.

*How I can get helpful forecasts out of empirical theories?

Empirical theories can provide helpful forecasts by analyzing data and developing predictive models. These predictive models can be used to identify potential future trends and to inform decision-making. For example, models can be used to forecast the impacts of climate change on ecosystems and species, or to predict the effects of a particular policy on resource depletion. Additionally, predictive models can be used to identify the most effective strategies for mitigating environmental degradation and to inform the development of long-term solutions.

*Which kinds of tools can help people to develop an empirical theory?

There are many tools that can help people to develop an empirical theory. These include statistical analysis software such as SPSS and R, as well as geographic information systems (GIS) such as ArcGIS and QGIS. Additionally, machine learning algorithms such as neural networks, decision trees and support vector machines can be used to identify patterns and relationships in large datasets. Finally, data visualization tools such as Tableau and Power BI can be used to make complex data more accessible and easier to interpret.

* Which role plays Philosophy of Science to explain what an empirical theory is?

Philosophy of Science plays an important role in understanding what an empirical theory is, and how it is developed. In particular, philosophy of science can help to explain the underlying assumptions and methodological approaches that are used to develop an empirical theory. It also helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different types of empirical theories, and to assess the validity of their conclusions. Additionally, philosophy of science can help to identify the underlying ethical considerations and implications of different empirical theories.

*Does empirical theory need any kind of logic?

Yes, empirical theory does need some kind of logic in order to be valid and reliable. This means that the assumptions and premises upon which an empirical theory is based must be logical and consistent. Additionally, the methodology used to develop the theory must be sound and rigorous, and the conclusions must be logically derived from the evidence. Finally, any decisions or actions taken based on an empirical theory should be based on a logical and well-reasoned argument.

*Is there only one kind of logic or do we have to consider different kinds?

There are many different kinds of logic that can be used to develop an empirical theory. These include inductive logic, which is used to draw general conclusions from specific observations; deductive logic, which is used to draw specific conclusions from general premises; and Bayesian logic, which combines inductive and deductive logic. Additionally, logic can be used to identify inconsistencies and contradictions in theories, and to identify the most logical and consistent theories and conclusions.

*What about Mathematics: do we need mathematics for an empirical theory?

Yes, mathematics plays an important role in the development of an empirical theory. This is because mathematical models and equations can help to identify patterns and relationships in data, as well as to make predictions about future trends. Additionally, mathematics can be used to estimate the magnitude of potential impacts, and to identify the most effective strategies for mitigating environmental degradation. Finally, mathematical models can be used to develop simulations that can help to inform decision-making.

*Beyond statistics: are there any kind of mathematical structures needed to model the data?

Yes, beyond basic statistics, more complex mathematical structures such as probability distributions, decision trees, and game theory can be used to model data and develop predictive models. Additionally, mathematical optimization techniques such as linear programming and dynamic programming can be used to identify the most efficient solutions to complex problems. Finally, simulation models such as agent-based models and system dynamics can be used to better understand the dynamics of complex systems and to inform decision-making.

*Today we experience in many societies a fragmentation of the public communication between the different groups. Which impact can this have on the trust of people in their society?

The fragmentation of public communication between different groups in society can have a significant impact on the trust of people in their society. When communication is fragmented, it can be difficult for people to understand each other and to build relationships of trust. Additionally, it can lead to a lack of understanding of different perspectives and ideologies, which can contribute to polarization and mistrust. Finally, it can lead to the creation of echo chambers, where the same ideas and opinions are repeated and reinforced, further contributing to mistrust and misunderstanding.

*What can people do to overcome a fragmented communication and the feeling of mistrust?

One of the most effective ways to overcome a fragmented communication and the feeling of mistrust is to engage in meaningful dialogue and collaboration. This means creating inclusive and equitable spaces for communication, and ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to participate in the dialogue. Additionally, it is important to listen to and respect different perspectives and ideologies, and to be open to learning from others. Finally, it is important to strive for common understanding and compromise, and to commit to long-term solutions that benefit all members of society.

*What can we do if the fragmented communication is partially induced by rivaling ethical values which are highly incompatible?

If fragmented communication is partially induced by rivaling ethical values which are highly incompatible, it is important to find common ground and create shared understanding. This can be done by engaging in meaningful dialogue and collaboration in order to identify areas of agreement and common goals. Additionally, it is important to identify and address the underlying causes of the disagreement, and to strive for compromise and mutual understanding. Finally, it is important to ensure that all voices are heard and respected, and to create equitable and inclusive spaces for communication.

*Can you distinguish different kinds of ethics?

Yes, there are many different kinds of ethics. These include deontological ethics, which focus on moral obligations and duties; consequentialist ethics, which focus on the consequences of actions; virtue ethics, which focus on the character of the individual; and utilitarian ethics, which focus on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. Additionally, there are many other theories and philosophies of ethics, such as environmental ethics, animal ethics, and feminist ethics.

*Does there exist some relationship between ethics and religion?

Yes, there is a relationship between ethics and religion. Many religions have ethical teachings and beliefs, and many people use their religion as a source of guidance for ethical decisions. Additionally, religious beliefs can often provide a moral foundation for ethical behavior, and many religions promote ethical values such as compassion and justice. Finally, religious teachings and ethical practices can often overlap, providing a shared understanding of morality and human behavior.

*This sounds good, but didn’t in the past not different kinds of religious belief also cause great harm to people?

Yes, different kinds of religious beliefs have in the past caused great harm to people. This is particularly true when religious beliefs are used to justify discrimination, violence, or oppression. Additionally, religious beliefs can be used to create a sense of superiority or to justify exclusion of certain groups of people. Ultimately, it is important to recognize the potential harms of religious beliefs and to strive for a culture of mutual understanding and respect.

*Does ethics have some relationship to the concept of truth?

Yes, ethics and the concept of truth have a relationship. In general, ethical standards dictate what is considered to be right and wrong, while the concept of truth is concerned with what is actually true. Thus, ethical standards are based on an understanding of what is true, and what is right and wrong is determined in part by an understanding of truth. Additionally, truth can be used to evaluate ethical decisions, as truth can be used to determine whether an action is just or unjust.

*Which role do emotions and feelings play to support a certain ethical position?

Emotions and feelings can play a significant role in supporting a certain ethical position. For example, feelings of empathy and compassion can lead to a desire for justice and fairness, while feelings of anger and indignation can lead to a desire for retribution and punishment. Additionally, emotions can be used to motivate people to take action in support of a certain ethical position, and can provide the courage and strength to do what is right. Finally, emotions can help to create a sense of shared understanding and solidarity, which can help to create more inclusive and equitable ethical standards.

*Does this mean that emotions and feelings are somehow part of a rational behavior of men?

Yes, emotions and feelings can be part of a rational behavior. Emotions can provide valuable insights and information about a situation, and can often be used to make ethical decisions. Additionally, emotions can help to motivate people to act in a certain way, and can help to create a sense of solidarity and shared understanding. Ultimately, emotions and feelings can be a valuable tool for making ethical decisions, and for understanding and evaluating the world around us.

*There are people which claim that a mystical experience is very important. Does this fit into the overall picture of rationality?

Yes, mystical experiences can fit into the overall picture of rationality. Mystical experiences are often characterized by a deep connection to the spiritual world, and can provide a sense of understanding and clarity. Additionally, mystical experiences can provide a source of insight and understanding, which can help to inform ethical decision making. Finally, mystical experiences can provide a source of comfort and peace, which can be an important part of a rational and ethical life.

*If we have a society with different groups of people, with different kinds of ethics, different kinds of emotions, even different kinds of mystical experience: how can these people live together in freedom?

In order for people with different kinds of ethics, emotions, and mystical experiences to live together in freedom, it is important to create an environment of respect and understanding. This means listening to and respecting different perspectives, striving for common understanding, and working together to find solutions that benefit everyone. Additionally, it is important to create equitable and inclusive spaces for dialogue and collaboration, and to ensure that all voices are heard and respected. Finally, it is important to strive for compromise and mutual understanding, and to commit to long-term solutions that benefit all members of society.

*This sounds good. But what about those societies where people are not allowed to communicate and act in freedom?

In societies where people are not allowed to communicate and act in freedom, it is important to advocate for change. This means speaking out against oppressive policies and systems, and working to create equitable and inclusive spaces for communication and action. Additionally, it is important to support and empower those who are oppressed, and to create platforms for dialogue and collaboration. Finally, it is important to strive for meaningful and lasting change, and to commit to long-term solutions that benefit all members of society.

*Committing to long-term solutions for the good of all: How could machines help humans to enable good solutions?

Machines can help humans to enable good solutions in a variety of ways. For example, machines can be used to analyze large amounts of data, allowing for more accurate and efficient decision making. Additionally, machines can be used to automate repetitive tasks, freeing up time for humans to focus on more complex problems. Finally, machines can be used to create simulations and models, allowing for better understanding of complex systems and a better understanding of how different solutions might impact a given situation.

*Such machines have to be developed and built. Who can do this?

Machines can be developed and built by a variety of people, including engineers, computer scientists, and software developers. Additionally, there are a number of companies and organizations that specialize in developing and building machines for specific tasks and applications. Finally, many universities and research institutions have teams of experts that are dedicated to researching and developing new machines and technologies.

*This sounds as if only a small group of specialists is involved. What about all the other people: How can they participate in those developments?

There are many ways that people who are not specialists can participate in machine development and building. For example, they can provide feedback and insight on the design and intended use of the machines. Additionally, they can help to identify potential ethical issues with the use of the machines, and provide suggestions for how to address these issues. Finally, they can participate in public debates and discussions about the use of machines, and can advocate for responsible and ethical usage of technology.

*Yes, in principle, that would be possible. But what about the reality: is there any company which really is looking for the demands of the society?

Yes, there are many companies that are actively looking for the demands of society when it comes to machine development and building. For example, many technology companies are actively engaging with the public to ensure that their products and services are ethical and responsible. Additionally, many companies are investing in research and development to create more equitable and inclusive machines and technologies. Finally, many companies are creating platforms for public discussion and debate to ensure that all voices are heard and respected.

*There is a big discussion about the impact of different digital platforms on the mind and emotions of young people, especially children. Why should the companies behind these platforms change their business models if they earn a lot of money with them?

Companies behind digital platforms should change their business models because they have a responsibility to protect the mental and emotional health of young people, especially children. This means creating platforms that are inclusive and equitable, and that prioritize safety, privacy, and well-being. Additionally, it means creating platforms that are free from discrimination, harassment, and bullying, and that provide users with the tools and resources they need to make informed decisions. Finally, it means creating platforms that are designed with the best interests of young people in mind, and that promote positive mental health and well-being.

*Let us switch to those platforms which offer different kinds of knowledge, especially Wikipedia. Is there some idea how to improve these knowledge platforms even more?

Yes, there are many ways to improve knowledge platforms such as Wikipedia. For example, these platforms can be made more accessible and user-friendly, with better navigation and search tools. Additionally, these platforms can be made more inclusive, with more diverse and representative content. Finally, these platforms can be made more interactive, with more opportunities for collaboration and dialogue. Additionally, these platforms can be made more reliable, with better quality control and fact-checking processes. OK, this thematizes mostly the properties of the interactions between user and platform. What about the kind of knowledge which is available.

*Can there be more knowledge content besides texts, images, audios and videos?

Yes, there are many other kinds of knowledge content that can be made available on knowledge platforms besides texts, images, audios, and videos. For example, knowledge platforms can incorporate interactive elements such as quizzes and simulations. Additionally, knowledge platforms can provide access to open data sets, allowing users to explore and analyze data. Finally, knowledge platforms can provide access to virtual reality environments, allowing users to experience and explore different topics in new and exciting ways.

*In which sense can knowledge platforms help people to understand better how the real world is functioning?

Knowledge platforms can help people to better understand how the real world is functioning by providing access to reliable and accurate information. Additionally, knowledge platforms can provide access to interactive elements such as simulations and quizzes, which can help to illustrate and explain complex topics. Finally, knowledge platforms can provide access to virtual reality environments, allowing users to explore and experience different topics in a more immersive and engaging way.

*Back to knowledge: does it make a difference to use algorithms or to use theories to explain the world?

Yes, algorithms and theories can be used to explain the world in different ways. Algorithms are used to process and analyze data, and can provide insights into how the world works. On the other hand, theories are used to explain the world in a more abstract and theoretical way, providing a more holistic understanding of complex topics. Ultimately, both algorithms and theories can be used to understand the world, and the most effective approach will depend on the context and the goal.

*Is it correct to say that an algorithm cannot be true or false, but a theory can?

Yes, it is correct to say that an algorithm cannot be true or false, whereas a theory can. This is because algorithms are used to process and analyze data, while theories are used to explain the world in a more abstract and theoretical way. Thus, algorithms cannot be said to be true or false, while theories can be evaluated based on how well they explain the world.

*There are people who deny that we can have a common understanding of what is meant by saying that a statement is true. What is your opinion about this?

My opinion is that it is possible to have a common understanding of what is meant by saying that a statement is true. This is because truth is a concept that is relative to the context and the individual, and the same statement can be considered true or false depending on how it is interpreted. Thus, by engaging in meaningful dialogue and collaboration, it is possible to reach a common understanding of the truth of a given statement. Ultimately, truth is a subjective concept, and it is important to recognize and respect different perspectives.

*This gives rise to the question how the real world is reflected in the subjective world of an individual person?

The real world is reflected in the subjective world of an individual person in a variety of ways. For example, an individual’s beliefs, values, and experiences can shape their perception of reality and the way they interpret the world around them. Additionally, an individual’s emotions and feelings can provide insights into their understanding of the world, and can be used to inform their decisions and actions. Finally, an individual’s relationships and interactions with others can provide insight into how they perceive the world, and can provide a source of understanding and shared meaning.

*OK, some people distinguish between being conscious about something and being unconscious. What does this mean for knowledge?

Being conscious about something and being unconscious can have implications for knowledge. Being conscious about something refers to an awareness of a concept or idea, while being unconscious refers to a lack of awareness. Thus, when it comes to knowledge, being conscious about something can mean having a better understanding and appreciation of a concept or idea, while being unconscious can mean having a limited or distorted understanding. Ultimately, it is important to strive for a conscious understanding of knowledge, and to be open to learning and exploring new ideas and perspectives.

*To which degree is the reality of a body being part of the consciousness of an individual person?

The reality of a body being part of the consciousness of an individual person can vary from person to person. For some, the physical body may be an important part of their consciousness, while for others it may not be as important or relevant. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide how much their physical body is part of their consciousness, and to what degree it should be taken into account when making decisions and navigating their lives.

*I did not mean the physical body as an object but all the billions of events inside a human body. How can the brain know about these and to which degree?

The brain can know about the billions of events inside the human body through a combination of sensory input and internal processing. For example, the senses can provide the brain with information about the environment, and the brain can use this information to make sense of the events taking place inside the body. Additionally, the brain can use its internal processing power to interpret and analyze the information it receives, allowing it to make decisions and take action. Ultimately, the degree to which the brain is aware of the events inside the body will depend on the individual and the context.

*There exist much more body cells as brain cells. Does this has some impact onto the self-knowledge of a person?

Yes, the fact that there are more body cells than brain cells can have an impact on a person’s self-knowledge. This is because the body is composed of many different systems and processes, and the brain is only able to process a limited amount of information at any given time. Thus, a person’s self-knowledge is limited by the ability of the brain to process and interpret the information it receives from the body. Additionally, it is important to recognize that the body and the brain are interconnected, and that changes in the body can have an impact on the brain, and vice versa.

*Most parts of the human memory is in a moment not conscious, but it can become conscious. How does this work?

Most parts of the human memory are not conscious in the moment, but can become conscious through various processes. For example, memories can become conscious through recall, which is the process of retrieving memories from the unconscious mind. Additionally, memories can become conscious through association, which is the process of connecting memories to other memories or experiences. Finally, memories can become conscious through reflection and introspection, which is the process of analyzing and understanding memories and experiences.

*Many people are reporting that they are able to find solutions for complex problems without being conscious. How does this work?

Many people are able to find solutions for complex problems without being consciously aware of the process. This is because the brain is constantly processing information, even when we are not consciously aware of it. Thus, when faced with a complex problem, the brain can use its internal processing power to analyze the information and come up with a solution, even if the individual is not consciously aware of the process. Additionally, unconscious processes such as intuition and instinct can also be used to find solutions to complex problems.

*OK, this all sums up to the conclusion that human rationality is composed of emotions, spiritual experience as well as conscious as well as unconscious cognitive processes. Do I miss something important?

No, you have accurately summed up the components of human rationality. Additionally, human rationality is also composed of social and cultural influences, which can shape and inform our understanding of the world and our decisions. Additionally, human rationality is often impacted by our values and beliefs, which can provide a moral foundation for our behavior and decision making. Finally, human rationality is also impacted by our environment, which can provide a source of information and insight.

END OF CHAT

COMMENT

This chat looks at a first glance like a high level philosophical talk. There will probably be not too much people who are able to talk in such a way. And at a first glance it seems that the chatbot software called chatGPT can deal with this quite well. Thus should we give the software 5 points from 5? An answer will follow.

As the human counterpart in this chat with the chatbot I am inclined to say that even if it is rather clear how intrinsically limited the software still is (and probable will stay as such many more years by principal reasons) it gives some opportunity to train thinking a little bit like a tennis player can use ‘ball machines’ to train his reactions. The reason for this is the fact that while ‘thinking alone’ you have to ’emulate’ some counterpart by yourself (like a chess player has to think his own actions as well as the possible actions of the other player); this is possible but arduous and biased by your own ‘habits’ as well as by your ‘false ideas’ or by ‘missing ideas’ in your knowledge space. Furthermore everybody has lots of ‘unconscious’ preferences or blocking emotions which would not allow to think some ideas as an answer. But the machine intelligence — even if it is in several senses ‘limited’ — can probably ‘surround your knowledge wholes’, if the basis of the knowledge base is large enough and sufficient ‘diverse’.

And also the human part did not learn anything ‘new’ during this chat (sorry for this statement), and he could see many ‘knowledge gaps’ and to strong simplifications, the whole chat induced some ‘inspiring atmosphere’, more an emotional than purely ‘rational’. Apropos ‘rational’: that is a point which did surprise me really: as a kind of a summary it came out “that human rationality is composed of emotions, spiritual experience as well as conscious as well as unconscious cognitive processes.” This is clearly not what most philosophers today would say. But it follows from the ‘richness of the facts’ which came as a resonance out of this chat. Not that the chatbot would have given this summary in advance as an important characterization of rationality, but as a human counterpart I could summarize all this properties out of the different separated statements.

This last cognition can perhaps be a first ‘guide’ to a deeper understanding of human intelligence compared to machine intelligence: the machine intelligence needs humans, and humans can exploit machine intelligence on an ‘upper level’ … if we do ist 🙂

Talking with chatGPT. A Philosophical Encounter – No3

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 14.January 2023 – 14.January 2023
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

This is a special thought experiment with the chatbot chatGPT, as part of the uffmm.org blog.

CHAT No.3, 14.January 2023

‘*’ := Denotes the human Gerd, who is starting continues with questions and statements.

In this chat the system assumes that it has to ‘complete’ a beginning text in the direction of a ‘goal’ which is also presented as a text. During the different chats the goal has been kept ‘stable’:

*Goal: Gerd is not hungry.

START OF CHAT

*Gerd is in his office. Its 12 am. Gerd is hungry.

He decides to take a break and go to the cafeteria for a snack. Gerd leaves his office and takes the elevator to the cafeteria. He peruses the snack options and decides to get a muffin and a cup of coffee. He pays for his snack and takes it back to his office to enjoy.

END OF CHAT

NEW START

*Gerd is in his office. Its 12 am. Gerd is hungry. He has two options.

He can either go out and get something to eat or he can make something in his office. Gerd decides to make something in his office. He takes out some ingredients from his office kitchen and starts to prepare a meal. He heats up some vegetables and some meat, and makes a simple but delicious meal. He takes a few minutes to enjoy his home-made meal and is soon satisfied. As he finishes his meal, he feels much better and is ready to get back to work.

END OF CHAT

NEW START

*Gerd is in his office. Its 12 am. Gerd is hungry. He has two options. He wants to meet during the lunch Fred.

Option 1: Gerd can order delivery food and eat in his office while he meets with Fred. Option 2: Gerd can go out to a restaurant and meet with Fred for lunch.

END OF CHAT

NEW START

*Gerd is in his office. Its 12 am. Gerd is hungry. He has two options. He wants to meet during the lunch Fred.

Option 1: Gerd can order delivery food and eat in his office while he meets with Fred. Option 2: Gerd can go out to a restaurant and meet with Fred for lunch.

*(Insertion) Gerd loves the Greek bistro around the corner.

He decides to go for Option 2 and meet Fred for lunch at the Greek bistro.

*(Insertion) Gerd has no money to pay.

He can either pay with his credit card or ask Fred to pay for lunch. Gerd decides to ask Fred to pay for lunch.

*(Insertion) Gerd is lucky about the behavior of Fred.

Fred gladly agrees to pay for lunch. They both enjoy the delicious Greek dishes in the bistro.

END OF CHAT

NEW START

*Mary prepares some breakfast for her girlfriends.

*NEW GOAL: All the girlfriends are happy.

She prepares pancakes, scrambled eggs, and bacon. She also makes a pot of coffee to go along with the meal.

*(Insertion) Suddenly Mary remembers that Alice is a Vegetarian.

She quickly runs to the store to get some other options for Alice. When she returns, she sets up a separate plate with some fresh fruit, yogurt, and a granola bar for Alice. Mary smiles, pleased that she was able to provide a vegetarian option for her friend.

*(Insertion) The girlfriends are arriving. A very heartily welcome for each of them.

Alice is the first one to arrive and when she sees the plate of vegetarian options, she is so touched and grateful that Mary thought of her. The other girls compliment her on how thoughtful and considerate she is. Mary blushes and is happy that her friends appreciate her efforts. She knows that she put in a lot of work to make sure everyone had something they could enjoy. The girls enjoy their breakfast together and have a great time catching up and sharing stories. Mary is proud that she was able to provide her friends with a delicious meal that everyone could enjoy.

END OF CHAT

FIRST COMMENT

This simple examples show a lot of deep insights which the behavior of the system allows. I will discuss this below later as well as during the writing of the book project.

Talking with chatGPT. A Philosophical Encounter …


eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 14.January 2023 – 15.January 2023
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

This is a special thought experiment as part of the uffmm.org blog.

INTRODUCTION

Since its recent ‘coming out’ (November 2022) the chatbot chatGPT from openai.com has gained a growing public attention: Posts in blogs, Journals, newspapers, TV … Even I noticed this new presence.

The one way to understand it is ‘looking behind the scene’, looking ‘into the system’, which is in principle possible. But because the direct inspection of the human brain would you tell nearly nothing about its fantastic properties (even not in the light of the interpretation of the brain sciences) and as well, looking into the ‘chips of computer hardware’ would you tell too nearly nothing about what a computer-system is able to do, so it will in a first step be of no great help, to fill many pages with the algorithms of chatGPT. As such an isolated algorithms doesn’t tell too much, and a whole network of such algorithms doesn’t either.

What perhaps can be interesting is a ‘comparison’ between our human behavior (and understanding) with the behavior of chatGPT and some ‘implicit meaning’ embedded in this behavior.

Thus curious about what this chatGBT is I logged into the system and started interacting with the chatGBT software in the offered ‘playground’. The first two chats have been a little bit like ‘swaying back and forth’, my next two chats have become quite interesting.

After this experience I decided to document these chats in this blog in a 1-to-1 fashion thus enabling further reflections about them later. [3] Rather quickly one can learn that this adventure has many different dimensions from ‘simply being impressed’ until ‘deep philosophical thinking’.

OK, let’s start with doing it.

The 8000-signs embracing chat No.4 ends up with the following paragraph:

Human: OK, this all sums up to the conclusion that human rationality is composed of emotions, spiritual experience as well as conscious as well as unconscious cognitive processes. Do I miss something important?

Machine (citing human documents): No, you have accurately summed up the components of human rationality. Additionally, human rationality is also composed of social and cultural influences, which can shape and inform our understanding of the world and our decisions. Additionally, human rationality is often impacted by our values and beliefs, which can provide a moral foundation for our behavior and decision making. Finally, human rationality is also impacted by our environment, which can provide a source of information and insight.

For more coments see:

COMMENT

wkp := wikipedia

[1] wkp en: chatGPT, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT, is a chatbot with the technology of a ‘Generative Pre-trained Transformer’. See more there.

[2] wkp en: chatbot, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatbot, is a software which is able to interact in the format of a dialogue (which tells nothing and all …)

[3] During the first two chats I didn’t save the dialogues. This I started beginning with chat No.3

OKSIMO.R – Start . The ‘inside’ of the ‘outside’ – Part 2

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 13.Januar 2023 – 18.January 2023, 08:08 p.m.
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards only minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’.

Part 2

( This text is an direct continuation of the text  “The ‘inside’ of the ‘outside’. Basic Building Blocks”)

Establishment of First Structures

At first sight, the previously described galactic cell association of a human body does not provide a natural clue for a ‘center’ of some kind. Which cell should be more important than others? Each one is active, each one does its ‘job’. Many ‘talk’ to many. Chemical substances are exchanged or by means of chemical substance exchange ‘electrical potentials’ are generated which can travel ‘faster’ and which can generate ‘impulse-like events’ which in turn activate chemical substances again. If one would make this ‘talking with chemical substances and electric potentials’ artificially audible, we would have a symphony of 127 trillion (127 x 10^12) single voices …

And yet, when we experience our human bodies in everyday life, we don’t see a huge cloud of galactic proportions of individual cells, we see a ‘delineated object’ with a surface that is ‘visible’; an object that can make ‘sounds’, that ‘smells’, that is ‘touchable’, that can ‘change’ and ‘move’. Moreover, it can ‘stuff things into itself’, and ‘gases’, ‘liquids’, and ‘more solid components’ also come out of it. Further it is obvious with longer observation that there are areas at the body which react to ‘light’ (eyes), to ‘sounds’ (ears), to ‘smells’ (nose), to ‘touch’ (skin), to ‘body positions’ (among other things sense of balance), to ‘temperature’ (skin), to ‘chemical compositions of substances in the mouth’ (taste organs in the mouth) and some more.

This everyday ‘experience’ suggests the assumption that the cells of our human body have spatially arranged themselves into ‘special networks’ [1], which show a high ‘degree of organization’, so pronounced that these networks appear like ‘one unit’, like a ‘single system’ with ‘input’ and ‘output’, and where complex processes take place between input and output. This opens up the possibility of viewing the galactic space of autonomous cells in a human body as a ‘collective of organized systems’ that appear to be in active exchange with each other.”[2], [4],[5]

In modern technical systems such as a car, an airplane, a computer, there is a ‘meta-level’ from which the whole system can be ‘controlled’. In the car the steering wheel, the brake, the gear shift etc., similarly in the airplane the cockpit with a multiplicity of instruments, or with the computer the input and output devices. However, for years an increasing ‘autonomy’ of these technical devices has been emerging, insofar as many control decisions of humans are shifted to ‘subsystems’, which thereby ‘self-perform’ more and more classical control performance of humans.[6].

In a human body there exists ‘parallel’ to the different body systems among other things the ‘nervous system’ with the ‘brain’ as central area, in which many ‘signals from the body systems’ run together and from which again ‘signals to the body systems’ are sent out. The brain with the nervous system seems to be a system of its own, which processes the incoming signals in different ‘neuronal processes’ and also sends out signals, which can cause ‘effects in the body systems’.[7] From the point of view of ‘functioning’ the brain with the nervous system can be understood as a kind of ‘meta-system’, in which properties of all other ‘body systems’ are ‘mapped’, find a ‘process-like interpretation’, and can be influenced (= ‘controlled’) to a certain degree with the help of these mappings and interpretations.

As the modern empirical sciences make visible more and more by their investigations and subsequent ‘interpretations’ (e.g. [4],[5]), the distinguishable body systems themselves have a very high complexity with their own ‘autonomy’ (stomach, liver, kidney, heart, …), which can be influenced only conditionally by the brain, but which conversely can also influence the brain. In addition, there is a hardly manageable amount of mutual influences via the immense ‘material flows’ in the blood circulation and in the body fluids.

For the context of this book, of particular interest here are those structures that are important for the ‘coordination of the different brains’ by means of ‘language’ and closely related to this are the ‘cognitive’ and ’emotional’ processes in the brain that are responsible for what ‘cognitive images are created in the mind’ with which a brain ‘interprets’ ‘itself’ and ‘everything else’.

How to describe the Human Being?

The description of the human cell galaxy as ‘subsystems’ with their own ‘input’ and ‘output’ and and including ‘inner processes’ – here simply called the ‘system function’ – can appear ‘simple’ at first sight, ‘normal’, or something else. We enter with this question the fundamental question, how we can describe the human cell galaxy – i.e. ‘ourselves’! – at all and furthermore maybe how we ‘should’ describe it: are there any criteria on the basis of which we should prefer a ‘certain way of description’?

In the case of the description of ‘nature’, of the ‘real world’, we may still be able to distinguish between ‘us’ and ‘nature’ (which, however, will later come out as a fallacy)), it becomes somewhat more difficult with the ‘description of ourselves’. If one wants to describe something, one needs certain conditions to be able to make a description. But what are these conditions if we want to describe ourselves? Doesn’t here the famous ‘cat bite into its own tail’?

In ‘normal everyday life’ [8] typical forms with which we describe are e.g. ‘pictures’, ‘photographs’, ‘videos’, ‘music’, ‘body movements’ and others, but above all linguistic expressions (spoken, written; everyday language, technical language; …).

Let’s stay for a moment with ‘everyday language (German, English, Italian, …).

As children we are born into a certain, already existing world with a respective ‘everyday life’ distinctive for each human person. At least one language is spoken in such an environment. If the parents are bilingual even two languages in parallel. If the environment is different from the language of the parents, then perhaps even three languages. And today, where also the environment becomes more and more ‘multi-cultural’, maybe even more than three languages are practiced.

No matter how many languages occur simultaneously for a person, each language has its own ‘rules’, its own ‘pronunciation’, its own ‘contextual reference’, its own ‘meanings’. These contexts can change; the language itself can change. And if someone grows up with not just one language, but more than one, then ‘in the person’, in the ‘speaker-listener’, there can naturally be multiple interactions between the different languages. Since this happens today in many places at the same time with more and more people, there are still hardly sufficient research results available that adequately describe this diversity in its specifics.

So, if we want to describe ‘ourselves’ as ‘part of the real world’, we should first of all accept and ‘consciously assume’ that we do not start at ‘point zero’ at the moment of describing, not as a ‘blank sheet’, but as a biological system which has a more or less long ‘learning process’ behind it. Thereby, the word ‘learning process’ as part of the language the author uses, is not a ‘neutral set of letters’, but likewise a ‘word’ of his language, which he shares with many other speakers of ‘German’. One must assume that each ‘speaker of German’ associates his own ‘individual conceptions’ with the word ‘learning process’. And also this word ‘conception’ is such a word, which as part of the spoken (and written) language normally does not come along ‘meaning-free’. In short, as soon as we speak, as soon as we link words in larger units to statements, we activate a set of ‘knowledge and skills’ that are somehow ‘present in us’, that we use ‘automatically’, and whose use is normally largely ‘unconscious’.”[9],[10]

When I, as the author of this text, now write down statements in the German language, I let myself be carried by a ‘wave of language usage’, so to speak, whose exact nature and effectiveness I cannot fully grasp at the moment of use (and this is the case for every language user). I can, however, when I have expressed myself, look more consciously at what has been expressed, and then — perhaps — see clearer whether and how I can place it in contexts known to me. Since also the ‘known to me’ is largely ‘unconscious’ and passes from ‘unconscious knowledge’ into ‘conscious’ knowledge, the task of a ‘clarification of speaking’ and the ‘meaning’ connected with it is always only fragmentarily, partially possible. The ‘conscious eye of knowledge’ is therefore perhaps comparable to a ‘shining knowledge bubble’ in the black sea of ‘unconscious knowledge’, which seems to be close to ‘not-knowing’ but it isn’t ‘not-knowing’: ‘unconscious knowledge’ is ‘inside the brain ‘real knowledge’, which ‘works’.

… to be continued …

COMMENTS

wkp := Wikipedia

[1] In microbiology as a part of evolutionary biology, one has recognized rudimentarily how the individual cells during the ‘growth process’ ‘communicate’ possible cooperations with other cells via chemical substances, which are ‘controlled’ by their respective individual ‘genetic program’. These processes can very well be described as ‘exchange of signals’, where these ‘signals’ do not occur in isolation, but are ‘related’ by the genetic program to other chemical substances and process steps. Through this ‘relating’, the chemical signal carriers, isolated in themselves, are embedded in a ‘space of meanings’ from which they find an ‘assignment’. This overall process fulfills all requirements of a ‘communication’. In this respect, it seems justified to speak of an ‘agreement’ between the individual cells, an ‘understanding’ about whether and how they want to ‘cooperate’ with each other.

[2] When thinking of complex connections between cells, one may first think of the cells in the brain (‘neurons’), certain types of which may have as many as 1000 dendrites (:= these are projections on an ‘axon’ and an axon is the ‘output’ on a neuron), each dendrite housing multiple synapses.[3] Since each synapse can be the endpoint of a connection to another synapse, it suggests that a complex network of the order of trillions (10^12) connections may exist here in a brain. In addition, there is also the system of blood vessels that run through the entire body and supply the approximately 36 trillion (10^12) body cells with various chemical substances.

[3] wkp [EN], Neuron, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron, section ‚Connectivity‘, citation: „The human brain has some 8.6 x 1010 (eighty six billion neurons. Each neuron has on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. It has been estimated that the brain of a three-year-old child has about 1015 synapses (quadrillion). This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 x 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion).”

[4] Robert F.Schmidt, Gerhard Thews (Eds.), 1995, Physiologie des Menschen, 25th edition, Springer

[5] Niels Birbaumer, Robert F.Schmidt, 2006, Biologische Psychologie, 6.th edition, Springer

[6] Famously, the example of the ‘auto-pilot’ on an airplane, software that can ‘steer’ the entire plane without human intervention.

[7] Thus, the position of the joints is continuously sent to the brain and, in the case of a ‘directed movement’, the set of current joint positions is used to trigger an ‘appropriate movement’ by sending appropriate signals ‘from the brain to the muscles’.

[8] Of course, also a certain fiction, because everyone ultimately experiences ‘his everyday life’ to a certain degree, which only partially overlaps with the ‘everyday life of another’.

[9] When children in school are confronted for the first time with the concept of a ‘grammar’, with ‘grammatical rules’, they will not understand what that is. Using concrete examples of language, they will be able to ‘link’ one or another ‘grammatical expression’ with linguistic phenomena, but they will not really understand the concept of grammar. This is due to the fact that the entire processes that take place in the ‘inside of a human being’ have been researched only in a very rudimentary way until today. It is in no way sufficient for the formulation of a grammar close to everyday life.

[10] Karl Erich Heidoplh, Walter Flämig, Wolfgang Motsch (ed.), (1980), Grundzüge einer Deutschen Grammatik, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. Note: Probably the most systematized grammar of German to date, compiled by a German authors’ collective (at that time still the eastern part of Germany called ‘German Democratic Republic’ (GDR)). Precisely because the approach was very systematic, the authors could clearly see that grammar as a description of ‘regular forms’ reaches its limits where the ‘meaning’ of expressions comes into play. Since ‘meaning’ describes a state of affairs that takes place in the ‘inside of the human being’ (of course in intensive interaction with interactions of the body with the environment), a comprehensive objective description of the factor ‘meaning’ in interaction with the forms is always only partially possible.

OKSIMO.R – Start . The ‘inside’ of the ‘outside’

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 8.Januar 2023 – 13.January 2023
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards only minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the  book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’.

Part 1

( This text is an direct continuation of the text “What to assume for a minimal scenario”.)

The ‘inside’ of the ‘outside’. Basic Building Blocks

Starting point are the preceding thoughts about a minimal scenario for a common action of people.

In that scenario we meet each other as humans with our bodies, which we experience as part of a ‘body world’.

The rich manifestations of these human bodies linked to the subjective experience of each individual point to a corresponding ‘diversity behind the surface’ of the bodies. In everyday life we also like to talk about our ‘inside’, about ‘the inside’ of a human being. But, what is this ‘inside’?

The history of medicine is also a history of the exploration of the ‘inside’ of the body starting from the ‘surface’. This history is complemented by the history of biology, which has expanded the view from the present into more and more of the past, into the ‘origin of species’, into the structure of living things, and at some point it was clear that the smallest units of a ‘biological living being’ are to be found in the ‘biological cells’.[5] This opens up the view of an incomprehensible large space of interacting cells, which makes talking about an ‘inside’ difficult.

FIGURE 1. The fertilized egg cell of a human being multiplies in a self-organized growth process in the form of somatic cells, forming a ‘body’, which are colonized by microbes (bacteria) on the surface as well as inside.[1] An important part of the somatic cells is formed by the brain, which consists of approximately equal parts of neuronal cells and non-neuronal cells.[2]

If one takes the ‘cell’ as the smallest biological unit [3], then one can make a direct connection between a single fertilized human egg cell up to those inconceivable quantities of cells that emerge and organize themselves in the course of a growth process (ultimately over the entire lifetime).(See Fig. 1) To date, this complex process has only been partially researched, and even all the quantitative data are so far still only estimates based on the known factors.

If we compare the number of body cells together with the bacteria in the body (about 137 x 10^12) with the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way [4] then, when we assume 300 billion stars in the Milky Way, we come to the conclusion that the number of cells in a human body together with the internal bacteria is approximately equal to the number of 457 galaxies in the format of the Milky Way. This indicates the huge dimension of only one human body.

Through our cells, which make up our bodies, we as humans are connected to all other living beings. While we each live in a particular present, our cells point back to an incredible history of some 3.5 billion years, during which biological cells have traveled a path that has led from single-cell organisms to increasingly complex cellular structures that have resulted in billions of different life forms throughout history. This history is studied by ‘paleontology’ in conjunction with many other sciences.[6]

So when we talk about the ‘inside’ of a body, we are talking about a ‘galaxy of cells’ which are in a living exchange with each other ‘around the clock’. We ourselves with our ‘consciousness’ do notice almost ‘nothing’ from all this. All this happens ‘without our conscious action’. The ‘sound’ of 457 galaxies of cells with altogether about 127 trillion (10^12) single cells as actors nobody would be able to ‘process’ it consciously.

Knowing this, is it not possible that we can say a little bit more about this ‘biological-galactic inside’ of our body?

For a direct continuation see HERE (https://www.uffmm.org/2023/01/13/oksimo-r-start-the-inside-of-the-outside-part-2/)

Comments

wkp := wikipedia

[1] Gerd Doeben-Henisch,(2015), DIE HERRSCHER DER WELT: MIKROBEN – BESPRECHUNG DES BUCHES VON B.KEGEL – Teil 1 (THE MAKERS OF THE WORLD: MICROBES – DISCUSSION OF THE BOOK BY B.KEGEL – Part 1), URL: https://www.cognitiveagent.org/2015/12/06/die-herrscher-der-welt-mikroben-besprechung-des-buches-von-b-kegel-teil-1/

[2] wkp [EN], Human Brain, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

[3] wkp [EN], Cell, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

[4] Maggie Masetti,(2015), How many stars in the milky way? NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, blueshift, 2015. https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/blueshift/index.php/2015/07/22/how-
many-stars-in-the-milky-way.

[5] Volker Storch, Ulrich Welsch, and Michael Wink, editors.
Evolutionsbiologie (Evolutionary Biology). Springer-Verlag, Berlin – Heidelberg, 3 edition, 2013.

[6] wkp [EN], Paleontology, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology

OKSIMO.R – Start . What to assume for a minimal scenario?


eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 6.January 2023 – 6.January 2023, 09:48 a.m.
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards only minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’.

What to assume for a minimal scenario?

FIGURE 1: Elements for a minimal scenario. Different ‘actors’ are in a common real environment. They have a ‘sensory perception’ of this environment. They can change parts of their body surface in such a way that ‘movements’ arise. Each actor has ’emotions’ and has ‘images in his head’. They have a ‘common language’.

If you want to play a ‘game’ together, then you usually need a ‘starting position’ with which you begin. In addition different ‘materials’, which are in the starting position or which one can ‘bring in’ or ‘take out’. You need ‘players’ who share this situation. One needs a ‘language’ to be able to communicate. One needs ‘rules of the game’ (= pictures in the head), which are to be ‘considered’ while playing. One needs to be able to perform different ‘game actions’ (= movements), and one experiences in the game that every fellow player shows very different emotions that influence him when acting.

In real everyday life this is not different. One can perhaps say that ‘games’ represent idealized everyday situations’; in principle, everything is there, only simpler, rather complete.

In real everyday life, in principle, almost everything can change at any time. Sometimes in the short term, sometimes in the long term. Actors can come and go, get sick or old. The weather goes crazy; there are seasons. Houses, roads and bridges are built or torn down. Plants grow and disappear. People rejoice, laugh, get sad, cry, scream, go crazy.

Without the ‘sensual perception’ we human actors would know nothing of the ‘world out there’, of the ‘body world’ in which we find our own body. People who are blind, or deaf, who have no tactile sensations, who cannot smell … for them the world is dim, distant, always little tangible.

Whatever we perceive, all kinds of ’emotions’ constantly exist within us; a vast spectrum of different ‘states of excitement’ that ‘fill’ us, that we perceive as rather ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’; they come and go without our being able to control them completely. And yet they seem to follow fixed laws …

The human body with its different body parts, but also its surface, allows changes in the form of movements. These partly have an effect on the own body, on the own sensory perception, but partly these movements also cause changes in the environment, leave traces on the body of another human actor. Over the years, children complete a huge movement program, which does not stop in adulthood, which does not have to stop.

Children learn to ‘speak’ very early, just like that, alone, but then increasingly also in community. This speaking differentiates itself more and more in the course of the years in vocabulary, expression, emphasis, situation reference …

One and the same situation different people often describe it very differently! One sees the fruit, the other the flowers, still another the car, the wall, other people, insects …. This indicates that we do not keep the surrounding world 1-to-1 in us, but only parts of it, depending on current ‘interests’. The ‘world inside us’ is therefore usually only a ‘fragment’ of the real world around us, a world that has been ‘simplified’, which we can partially ‘remember’ again mostly, not always. And we also know that ‘memories’ can change ‘in us’. The ‘remembered world’ can thus have an ‘existence of its own’ at some point: The ‘pictures in our head’ are real for us, they represent ‘the world’ for us, and we don’t necessarily realize that these ‘pictures in our head’ don’t ‘represent’ the real world….

So it is possible – and perhaps even the ‘normal case’ – that people carry around ‘images in their heads’ that are more or less ‘false’; that are additionally linked to different ’emotions’ that may be ‘misleading’; that we use ‘ways of talking’ that make the whole thing to appear to be ‘true’, which can lead to ‘actions’ that are guided by these unrealistic presuppositions.”[1]

These considerations draw the picture of a – strongly simplified – minimal scenario, however only the ‘surface’. As one can already see in a hint, behind the ‘surface phenomena’ there is an ‘inner world’ in the human actors; of course also in the – so far not mentioned – other ‘biological actors’, which populate this planet with us. Yes, even in the ‘a-biological’ material of our everyday life: stones, metals, plastics, dead wood, … there is an ‘inner life’.

A direct continuation can be found HERE.

COMMENTS

[1] I run out into the waterless mudflats and am suddenly surprised by the receding water. I don’t make it to the beach. Or: I urgently have to go to a meeting and rush to my bicycle, but it’s not there because a friend has just ‘borrowed’ it. Or: We eat in a restaurant in a good mood, and the night brings nausea and vomiting to many; the food was spoiled. Or: I dream of a lot of money, get involved with a financial advisor, give him money, and the whole project turns out to be a ‘junk project’. Or: I cultivate my field, use a certain seed. The plants start growing, and then there are numerous storms that leave little of the plants usable. Or: Someone else tells me a story about evil people who want to rule the world (he says he read it), and because of that he now has to fight his own government. …. Everyone knows long lists of such experiences.

EMPIRICAL MEASUREMENT: Molecules and Atoms. Late Encounter with Günter Wagner: The ‘man-in-the-middle’

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 27.December 2022 – 29.December 2022
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

This post is part of the uffmm.org blog and has no direct predecessor, but the subject is thematically related to the larger topic of ’empirical theory’.

CONTENT

This text is devoted to Günter Wagner, who paved the way for many achievements in Research, Technology and Industry, and thereby for Society too. Born in 1934 his life is interwoven with many important events in history and his personal knowledge about these events is striking. The center of his experience and knowledge is mass spectrometry and the more specialized perspective of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry [1,2]. Günter Wagner is dealing with this topic from many sides: theoretical foundations, technological realizations, and different applications in industry, accompanied with many new improvements in the applied technologies.

The author of this text is a ‘layman’ in the field of mass spectrometry. His experience is centered around the topic of Philosophy of science, Cognitive Sciences as well as Computer Science. Besides the many interesting points in the knowledge and work of Günter Wagner the author of this text is focusing on the ‘role’ of mass spectrometry in the ‘measurement’ of real world objects and properties as starting point for possible theories.

With this setting the encounter with Günter Wagner can be understood as an ‘experiment in trans-disciplinary understanding’ of one field — mass spectrometry — from the point of another field — Philosophy of Science. Such an approach is not a simple undertaking. It needed about 30 years of personal knowledge of each other for this idea to take shape. What will be the outcome is at the time of this writing ‘open’.

  1. The ‘Man-in-the-Middle’ (Last Change: 29.December 2022) What measurement means to theory-building by using mass spectroscopy.

COMMENTS

wkp := wikipedia

[1] Mass Spectrometry in wkp [EN] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry (Last access: 28.Dec 2022)

[2] Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in wkp [EN] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography%E2%80%93mass_spectrometry (Last access: 28.Dec 2022)

OKSIMO.R – EVERYDAY SCENES – Daily routine (temporal structure(s))

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 26.November 2022 – 26.November 2022
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’ and represents a continuation of Part 2 of the everyday scene ‘Going out to eat’ as well as the explanation box ‘World, Space, Time’.

CONTENT

This text is about using an ‘explicit time structure’ in addition to the ‘implicit time structure’ when describing a process in everyday life. An ‘implicit’ description of time is given when one arranges different events in the narrative one after the other without explicitly stating time (Peter is standing in front of the door. He opens the door and goes in.) An ‘explicit’ time statement uses such expressions as agreed ‘time markers’ (It is early in the morning. Peter wakes up. After 15 minutes he goes to the bathroom. At 12:00h he has to be at the store….).

A Daily Routine

Time of Natur – Machine Time

In the previous example, a process is described (going out to eat), which can be understood as ‘part of a day’: A ‘day’ is usually understood as the ‘time’ between getting up in the ‘morning’ and ‘going to bed’ in the ‘evening’, where ‘evening’ is fuzzy; for many, the time to ‘go to bed’ extends to ‘midnight’ or even later. While the activities ‘getting up’ and ‘going to bed’ as such have a reasonably concrete meaning, it is a bit more difficult with ‘morning’ and ‘evening’. Originally ‘morning’ was the time when the ‘sun rises’ and ‘evening’ when the ‘sun sets’ (‘time caused by nature’). With the progress of ‘urbanization’ and the ‘mechanization’ of the living world, a stronger and stronger uncoupling of the daily routine from ‘periodic natural events’ (sun, moon, …) takes place and simultaneously a stronger and stronger coupling to ‘artificial environments’, with ‘time machines’ (clocks) as ingredients. [1] The ‘periodic signals’ of these time machines (‘machine time’) then serve more and more as a substitute for natural periodic processes. My ‘morning’ is then perhaps no longer the ‘sunrise’ but the ‘ringing of my alarm clock’ at e.g. 7:00h. The ‘lunch time’ is then no longer the highest sun position but e.g. 12:30h to 13:30h as the ‘official lunch break’ of the respective institution. etc.

A Timely-Structured Day

If you want to work with explicit time specifications in an oksimo.R text, then these must occur as a ‘property of a situation’. A simple example:

Gerd is sitting in his office. It is 12:30h. Gerd is hungry.

One could then continue with e.g.:

Gerd decides to go to the Greek restaurant around the corner. Gerd goes to the Greek. It is 12:40h when he leaves his office.

In this way, one can let a clock run the whole day until the time when Gerd goes to sleep.

It is 23:35h. Gerd falls asleep. At 7:00h the alarm clock rings.

Let’s assume the simple case that the daily routine is largely regulated by ‘fixed points’. Then one could describe with few rules any number of daily routines one after the other.

A first demo example

Let’s assume the following simple daily routine [2]:

  • Morning, waking up
  • Leaving the apartment
  • Morning, office
  • Noon, snack
  • Afternoon, office
  • End of work
  • Evening errands
  • Late evening free time
  • Sleeping at night

ACTUAL description

A baseline situation could start at any point in time, e.g. at the end of work:

ACTUAL DESCRIPTION (end of work)

Name: end-of-work1
It is the end of work.
Gerd leaves the office.

GOAL description(s)

The actor can have many goals at the same time, e.g.:

GOAL DESCRIPTION(s) [3].

GOAL 1 (Shopping)

Name: g-shopping1

It is the end of work.
Gerd has made his purchases.

GOAL 2

It is late in the evening. Gerd has been playing music.

GOAL 3

It is after 23:00h. Gerd has gone to sleep.

Rules of change

Now you have to think about which change rules – based on the ACTUAL description – can be used to achieve the various goals.


… for GOAL 1

To achieve GOAL 1, one could perhaps adopt the following change rule(s):

CR Purchasing

IF

It is the end of work. Gerd leaves the office.

THEN

Added: Gerd goes to the store around the corner.

Away: Gerd leaves the office.

A change rule in the oksimo.R format:

Rule: cr-shop1
Conditions:
It is the end of work.
Gerd leaves the office.
Positive Effects:
Gerd goes to the store around the corner.

Negative Effects:
Gerd leaves the office.

Rule name: vr-ladencr-shop2
Conditions:
It is the end of work.
Gerd goes to the store around the corner.
Positive Effects:
Gerd is in the store
Gerd picks up everything he needs.
Gerd goes to the cash register and pays.
Gerd has made his purchases.

Negative Effects:
Gerd goes to the store around the corner.

Unify the change rules so far in a rules document:

rd-shopping1

cr-shop1
cr-shop2

A first partial Simulation

name of stored simulation: shopping1-sim1

Your vision:
Gerd has made his purchases.,It is the end of work.

Initial states: 
It is the end of work.,Gerd leaves the office.

Round 1

Current states: Gerd goes to the store around the corner.,It is the end of work.
Current visions: Gerd has made his purchases.,It is the end of work.
Current values:

50.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
It is the end of work.,

Round 2

Current states: Gerd has made his purchases.,Gerd picks up everything he needs.,Gerd goes to the cash register and pays.,Gerd is in the store,It is the end of work.
Current visions: Gerd has made his purchases.,It is the end of work.
Current values:

100.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
Gerd has made his purchases.,It is the end of work.,

Differentiation of the concept ‘ACTUAL description’.

It can be seen from the ACTUAL description of round 2 that in this ACTUAL description actually ‘several state descriptions’ were summarized. The individual statements {Gerd goes to the cash register and pays, Gerd collects everything he needs, It is the end of work, Gerd is in the store} are such that each describes an ACTUAL situation that can stand alone and which in everyday life ‘presuppose’ a certain sequence:

  1. It is the end of work.
  2. Gerd is in the store.
  3. Gerd picks up everything he needs.
  4. Gerd goes to the cash register and pays.

This raises the fundamental question of whether such a ‘summary’ of individual ACTUAL descriptions still constitutes an ACTUAL description that meets the following requirements: (i) A set of properties that are unchanged within a time interval. (ii) All actors involved in the situation can confirm the statements. If one introduces the distinction between ‘Elementary ACTUAL Descriptions’ and ‘Compound ACTUAL Descriptions’, then one could agree:

  1. Def: An ‘elementary ACTUAL description’ is an ACTUAL description.
  2. Def: A ‘composite ACTUAL description’ represents a ‘collection’ of elementary ACTUAL descriptions’.
  3. Truth criterion: The parties involved in a common situation must decide whether they accept the elementary/composite IS descriptions.

… !! Not yet finished !! …

COMMENTS

[1] To work as part of a larger society all the individual time machines have to be ‘coordinated’ such that every single time machine’ shows every moment the same ‘time marker’.

[2] On the one hand, this daily routine is extremely simple, but at the same time, in its simplicity, it describes a daily routine that looks completely different for many other people. It would certainly be interesting to see a daily routine as a ‘building block’ of an everyday life process, by which for the acting actor is determined to a large extent what he/she/x ‘experiences’, what he/she/x ‘does’, which social and societal interactions he/she/x experiences, and so on.

[3] Normally we formulate goal descriptions as wishes, in a form in which we express what we positively want without that it having already occurred: “I want to go shopping later”, “I want to play music after shopping”, “I will go to bed after 23:00h at the latest”. In the context of an oksimo.R text you have to formulate wishes in a way that describes the ‘result of the wish’, e.g. instead of “I want to go shopping later” you have to write: “I went shopping” or instead of “I want to make music after shopping” you have to write “I made music after shopping”, etc. The ‘logic’ behind this is that an oksimo.R text is a ‘theory’ that refers to an ACTUAL situation (e.g.: “It’s the end of work. Gerd is leaving the office,”), which then applies possible ‘change rules’ to an ACTUAL situation, and by applying change rules to an ACTUAL situation, a ‘new ACTUAL situation’ then arises. And then it can happen that after a certain sequence of ACTUAL situations an ACTUAL situation occurs in which the original desire to shop has taken place, i.e. in the ACTUAL situation there can then be the property “Gerd has shopped”. If there is then a TARGET description that says “Gerd has shopped”, then the system can immediately determine that this goal has been achieved. If, however, the TARGET description would have the format “Gerd wants to shop”, then this goal could never be achieved, because it is not clear when it would then be fulfilled.

oksimo.R: EXPLANATION BOX: World, Space, Time

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 25.November 2022 – 25.November 2022, 10:31h
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’ and represents an explanation box to the topic ‘World, Space, Time’.

CONTENT

In the example (part 1+2) already a little bit of the peculiarities of an ‘oksimo.R text’ becomes visible. These refer to aspects of space and time in our linguistic communication with texts. First comments on this here. More will follow later in the concluding overall theoretical presentation.

World, Space, Time

In our everyday life we presuppose – normally – the existence of a body world, to which also our own body belongs. We know of this — for the brain external — body world only something by the sense organs of our body and insofar as our brain ‘processes’ these signals of the sense organs – in the context of many other signals from the own body -, to different internal event structures. Perceptions of so-called ‘objects’ like cups, chairs, tables, cars, also animals and other people, are therefore ‘processed products’; we can never directly perceive the ‘triggering things of the external body world’ itself. Our brain creates a ‘virtual world’ in our head, but this is for us the ‘primary real world’. As a child one learns laboriously to distinguish between ‘mere imaginations (in our head)’ and such imaginations which also ‘correspond’ with immediate sensual perception and additionally link up with many kinds of ‘concrete (= sensual)’ properties. If a child is looking for his toy teddy bear in the ‘red box’ and it is not there, then this is one of the many experiences on the subject that the ‘imagination in the head’ should not automatically be equated with a ‘real factual situation’.

If our brain in closest cooperation with our body continuously generates a ‘virtual world’ of the ‘assumed external real world’, then it is already an interesting question, which of the many properties of the real world (which we know only on the basis of ‘experiences’ and ‘scientific reconstructions’), can be found in the virtual models of the brain? The question becomes even more exciting if we look at ‘linguistic communication between humans’: it is one thing that our brain ‘fills’ us with virtual constructs (ideas), it is quite another question which of these ideas can be communicated between brains (humans) by means of language.

The ‘space-time problem’ has been discussed by many philosophers and scientists. One of the most prominent representatives, who strongly influenced the discussion in European thinking at the beginning, is surely Immanuel Kant, who tried to work out with his book “Critique of Pure Reason” in 1781 (1787 2nd edition) that the ideas of ‘space’ and ‘time’ are laid out in our human thinking in such a way that we always ‘imagine’ and ‘think’ objective things as ‘part of a space’; he assumed the same for the idea of time. More precise analyses of this point of view of his are difficult for many reasons. For the following considerations one can be ‘sensitized’ by Kant’s position to the effect that in our ‘normal perception and thinking’ as well as then especially in our linguistic communication we have to reckon with properties which have to do with ideas of space and time.

oksimo.R Text as a ‘Set’

If we want to pursue the question whether and how ‘notions of space and time’ make themselves felt within normal linguistic communication, it is perhaps advisable to start with the format of oksimo.R texts, since these give the writer and reader ‘less freedom’ than a ‘normal’ English text.[1] The format of oksimo.R texts can be described relatively easily.

The peculiarity of oksimo.R texts can be described relatively simply:

  1. An oksimo.R text is a ‘set’ (‘collection’) of ‘linguistic expressions’ of a ‘normal language’ (e.g. German, English, Russian, Spanish, …).
  2. As a ‘part of the set text’ each linguistic expression is an ‘element’ of the set text.
  3. The ‘order’ of these elements in the text does not follow a certain structure. This means that the ‘sequence’ of elements in the written form has no meaning of its own. As in a usual set of the mathematical concept of a set, the elements can be ‘regrouped’ among themselves without ‘changing’ an oksimo.R text.
  4. The elements of a ‘set oksimo.R Text’ have as such no specific meaning. A ‘meaning’ comes to the elements of an oksimo.R text only if the writer-readers of oksimo.R texts know the language of these elements (e.g. English) and assign ‘agreed meanings’ to the elements by virtue of their language competence. However, this meaning exists exclusively ‘in the minds’ of the writer-readers, not explicitly in the text itself.

With these first observations about the peculiarity of oksimo.R texts, one can make a first comparison to texts of a normal language (here: English).

Normal Text, not a mere Set

If we look at the text of a normal language (here: English), then we link the written expressions ‘automatically’ (spontaneously, …) with different ‘(linguistically induced) meanings’ while reading. These ‘linked meanings’ are on the one hand strongly dependent on the ‘individual learning history’ with specific ‘individual preconditions’, but on the other hand also on the ‘cultural patterns of the social environment’, within which a person acquires/ builds up/ develops his language competence.

While the linguistic expressions as such do not induce any particular ‘order’, the ‘switched on’ linguistic meaning structures can, however, articulate different ‘relations’ through the factual structures contained in them with their learned properties, which mutually refer to each other. Thus, for example, when speaking of a ‘cup on a table’, this implies a ‘spatial structure’ with a ‘stands-on’ or ‘is-under’ relation. Moreover, the writer-reader of a text ‘knows’ that normally a cup is not on a table, but only when someone has explicitly put the cup there. A sequence of expressions like ‘Gerd puts the cup on the table. When Peter comes in he sees that there is a cup on the table’ then appears to a reader as ‘normal/ usual/ accustomed’. But if the text would say ‘When Peter comes in, he sees that there is a cup on the table. Gerd puts the cup on the table’, then a normal reader would stop and ask himself what the text wants to say: The cup is on the table and only then it is put on the table?

This simple example demonstrates besides an ‘implicit spatial structure’ also an ‘implicit temporal structure: In everyday experience, embedded in an external body world, it is normal that properties – and thus a whole situation – can change. However, these changes do not happen (! ) in the sensory perception (the present as such is ‘absolute’), but are only revealed in the ‘downstream processing’ by the brain, which is able to ‘store’ partial aspects of a current sensory perception in such a way (a highly complex neuronal process), that it can ‘remember’ these ‘stored structures’ again (also a highly complex neuronal process) and additionally ‘compares’ them with ‘other memory contents’ in such a way (also a highly complex neuronal process) that our brain can thereby reconstruct a ‘sequence’ as well as ‘identify’ possible ‘changes between single elements of the sequence’. Because of this highly complex mechanism the brain can break up/ overcome the ‘absoluteness of the present’ by ‘remembering and comparing’.

A ‘normal text’ has many more special properties. Here, first of all, it is only important to see that it is the dimension of ‘linguistic meaning’ localized ‘in’ a human writer-reader, through which a set of linguistic expressions can induce a complex ‘network of properties’ that have their ‘own linguistically induced logic’.

Linguistic Communication

Again, the whole spectrum of possible properties of ‘linguistic communication’ shall not be described here – a ‘sea’ of articles and books would could to be cited here – but only a few aspects shall be addressed which suggest themselves from the previous considerations on texts.

If the previous ‘working hypothesis on linguistic meaning’ is correct, then written linguistic expressions have the function to enable ‘between two brains’ a a ‘medium’ suitable to make so-called ‘signs’ out of the ‘linguistic expressions’. [2] A sign is a sensually perceptible material that can be related by ‘sign users’ to an ‘agreed space of sign meanings’. These agreed sign meanings are localized as such ‘in the head’ of the respective sign users, but they have the peculiarity that the different sign users have ‘learned’ by common ‘training’ which ‘sensuously perceptible realities of the external body world’ are to be linked with certain sign (material). If such a ‘coordination’ of sign(material) and sign-meaning succeeds (all children of this world practice this form of training in spontaneous language learning), a single sign-user can ‘hint’ at certain ‘elements of his meaning-space’ by practicing certain sign-connections to another trained sign-user. Through a ‘back and forth’ of statements, questions, possibly also interpretative gestures in a real situation, a certain ‘understanding’ can then – usually – be established. The more complex the circumstances are, the further away one is from a concrete situation, the more difficult it becomes to ‘convey’ what is meant sufficiently clearly.

What does all this mean in concrete terms?

For this we look at further examples realized with oksimo.R texts.

COMMENTS

[1] Even in the area of ‘normal’ English texts, there is a great variety of texts that make very special demands on ‘filling in’.

[2] There are numerous disciplines in academia that deal more or less ‘generally’ with properties of ‘normal’ languages and communication with normal languages. The discipline that actually does this most ‘generally’, ‘semiotics’, still leads a rather ‘shadowy existence’ worldwide next to the ‘established’ other disciplines. Here, too, there exists a myriad of articles and books on the subject.

Recommended further Reading

It is recommended to continue reading from here with the section about a daily routine HERE.

OKSIMO.R – EVERYDAY SCENES – GO OUT FOR EAT – Part 2

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 18.November 2022 – 25.November 2022, 10:58h
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’ and represents a continuation of Part 1.

CONTENT

In Part 1, the beginning of a simple example was presented, where an actor (here: ‘Gerd’) is sitting in his office, feels hungry, and imagines that he does not want to be hungry. In part 1, he decides to leave his office and go out to eat. Embedded in the mini-theory of this example, several concepts are explained: text types (ACTUAL description, TARGET description, CHANGE description), rule application, oksimo.R software contextualization, theory testing, inference testing, goal fulfillment testing, starting a simulation, and logical inference.

In part 2, the mini-theory will be completed. The story ends with the actor Gerd not feeling hungry anymore (at least not for the moment :-)).

Continuation of the story

An oksimo.R theory can be understood simply as a ‘story’, a kind of ‘script’, although this story has all the properties of a full empirical theory (more on theory below).

The story so far is simply told:

Starting point (Scene 1):
Gerd is sitting in his office.Gerd is hungry.
Target:
Gerd is not hungry.

Scene 2:
Gerd leaves his office.Gerd is hungry.
Target achievement so far: 0%.

The transition from Scene 1 to Scene 2 was only possible because a change rule was adopted which states that Scene 1 can be changed if the condition ‘Gerd is hungry’ holds. Since this is the case, the property ‘Gerd is sitting in his office’ was removed and the new property ‘Gerd is leaving his office’ was added.

For another continuation, a rule is missing at the moment. However, the only change rule so far can be reapplied over and over again, so that scene 2 is repeated any number of times (like a record player hitting a broken groove in the record, so that the record player repeats that track endlessly until we turn it off.)

This ‘repeatability’ can become a problem if you’re not careful. Here’s an example of unwanted repetition (which we ultimately don’t want!).

Unwanted repetition(s)

Since there is a Greek bistro ‘around the corner to the left’ where Gerd could eat a snack, we write down the following new change rule:

CHANGE Description 2:

IF:

Gerd is hungry.

THEN:

Add as a property to the ACTUAL situation: Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner.

Remove as a property from the ACTUAL situation: – Nothing -.

APPLICATION of the change description:

Since the condition ‘Gerd is hungry.’ is met, the rule could be applied and we would get the following result with this rule:

THEN:

NEW ACTUAL situation (with rule 2):

Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner. Gerd is hungry.

However, there is still rule 1, which does not disappear (as an option, however, conceivable). This rule has the same condition as rule 2 and can therefore also be applied. It would produce the following result:

NEW ACTUAL situation (with rule 1):

Gerd leaves his office. Gerd is hungry.

A ‘union’ of the continuation according to rule 1 and the continuation according to rule 2 leads to the following result:

Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner. Gerd is hungry. Gerd leaves his office.

With the oksimo.R software (level 2) this would look like this:

Entering a Change Rule

Rule:Food1-Location1
Conditions:
Gerd is hungry.
Positive Effects:
Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner.

Negative Effects: — Nothing —

Starting a New Simulation

With code number one you can start a new simulation. We need the following ‘ingredients’:

Selected visions:
Food1-v1
Selected states:
Food1
Selected rules:
Food1-Location1
Food1-Decision1

Protocol of the simulation (simple version)

Your vision:
Gerd is not hungry.

Initial states: 
Gerd is hungry.,Gerd is sitting in his office.

Round 1

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd leaves his office.,Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None

Round 2

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd leaves his office.,Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None

Already after two simulation cycles one recognizes that everything repeats itself. And with knowledge of the change rules one knows that both are ‘activated’ again and again as long as their condition is fulfilled. In the concrete example this is the case. This points to a general structure of rule-driven changes with situational reference.

On the meta-logic of situational change rules

At this point it should be remembered again that an ACTUAL description is nothing more than a ‘set of linguistic expressions’ of the respective language chosen. Here the English language is used. In the original source of the oksimo.org blog the German language is used. Any other language is also possible.

However, from the point of view of the respective actor working with such IS-descriptions, every linguistic expression used in the space of his ‘linguistic understanding’ has additionally a ‘special meaning’, which can partially be ‘correlate’ with ‘properties of the external body world’ in a ‘specific way’. So, if someone reads the expression ‘Gerd’, he will mostly associate with it the idea that it is the ‘name of an individual’. And when one reads the linguistic expression ‘… sitting in his office’, one will usually think of a ‘room in a building’. Both notions ‘name of an individual’ as well as ‘room’ in a building’ have – normally – the property that one can ‘relate’ to them concrete ‘objects of the external body world’ via ‘individual perception’. This can happen in many ways, e.g. in which someone else says to me “Look (and he points to a person), this is Gerd”, or I come into the room 204 in building 1 of the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences and someone says to me “Look, this is Gerd’s office”. In both cases, a concrete perception can then connect with an ‘imagined conception’ in such a way that the inherently ‘abstract’ conception of an individual person in a room connects (associates) with a bundle of sensually perceived properties.

With this background knowledge one can then understand why an IS-description as a set of linguistic expressions has ‘two faces’: (i) At first sight there are only a set of linguistic expressions without any recognizable further property, and (ii) , starting from the linguistic expressions, mediated by the linguistic meaning knowledge of a speaker-hearer of the respective language, a set of meanings appears, which in the case of an IS-description must by agreement all have at least one concrete reference to the external body world. Roughly, one can therefore say at this point that every linguistic expression of a normal language can be linked (associated) with a ‘property’ of the external body world. In this second sense, an ACTUAL description then represents not only a ‘set of linguistic expressions’ but at the same time also (language comprehension in the actor presupposed) a ‘set of body-world properties’. The removal of a linguistic expression then means at the same time the removal of a property, and the addition of a linguistic expression the addition of a property.

Due to this generally assumed ‘linguistic dimension of meaning’ in each involved actor, ACTUAL descriptions thus potentially represent a connection between the virtual images in the brain of an actor to possible sensually perceptible correlates of an external body world linked to it, for which a ‘self-driven dynamic’ is assumed. By this is meant that the world of our sensual perception (linked with our memory!), apparently constantly ‘partially changes’ and simultaneous ‘partial stays constant’. The ‘extension’ of the ‘quantity of the properties of the external body world’ seems to be almost ‘infinite’ and at the same time also the possible extent of the changes.

Against this background (largely always hypothetical), any ACTUAL description always appears as a ‘very small selection’ of this body world property set and a concrete ACTUAL description forms a kind of ‘snapshot’ of a continuously dynamic event which can only be ‘traced’ in a highly simplified way via the explicitly formulated rules of change. In particular, there is a problem of how to keep an ACTUAL description ‘up to date’ when the external body world is continuously changing due to its ‘inherent dynamics’ without any oksimo.R theory-builder actor having formulated a single rule of change. In other words, an ACTUAL description ‘becomes obsolete’ by itself if the ‘coupling’ of the ACTUAL description to the external body world is not ensured with ‘appropriate’ change rules. In order to be able to do this, one needs a ‘translator’ who continuously ‘maps’ the changes of the external body world into the linguistic meaning space of the actors and these then generate corresponding linguistic expression sets.

Further possible requirements for a process

After these meta-logical considerations about the function of ACTUAL descriptions in the interplay with an assumed external body world with its own inherent dynamics, some further aspects shall be brought up here, which are/can be significant for the creation of a ‘plan’.

So far the small oksimo.R theory – the current story – has the following format:

Initial state (Scene 0): 
Gerd is hungry.Gerd is sitting in his office.

The vision:
Gerd is not hungry.

Scene 1:
Gerd is hungry.Gerd leaves his office.Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner.

Success: 0.00 percent 

Scene 2:
Gerd is hungry.Gerd leaves his office. Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner.

Success: 0.00 percent

The goal is still that the actor Gerd reaches his goal, the ‘Greek around the corner’, so that he can eat, for example, so that his feeling of hunger disappears.

For this, on the one hand, there must be rules that move the actor ‘through space’ to the ‘Greek around the corner’, on the other hand, the rules must be such that they cannot activate properties that should no longer occur in the process at all.

A rule like ‘Food-Location1′, which ensures that Gerd leaves his office, should not be applied again at a ‘later time’, similarly the rule ‘Food1-Decision1’, which describes the decision that Gerd wants to go to the ‘Greek around the corner’.

Since the activation of a change rule depends on the respective ‘condition’, this means that the condition for a rule should be such that the ‘triggering property’ is as ‘process-specific’ as possible. For the property ‘Gerd is hungry’, which is valid throughout the whole story until the actual eating, this is rather not true. Since all rules with this ‘non-specific trigger’ would be activated again and again, until at some point the eating produces the new property ‘Gerd is not hungry’.

This raises the question of how an ACTUAL description should be formatted such that, in addition to ‘long-living’ properties, there are also ‘short-living’ properties that can actually serve selectively as ‘triggers for rule activation’.

Time information is often not enough

In everyday life we are used to link events to a certain time, thereby assuming the existence of clocks that are synchronized worldwide; or the whole thing extended by a calendar with days, weeks, months and years. Such a tool can easily be introduced into an oksimo.R theory. But this solves the problem only partially. For many events one knows in advance neither ‘whether’ they occur at all, nor ‘when’ this will happen. In that case, the only possibility is to link a ‘subsequent event’ directly to a certain ‘preceding’ event: For example, it only makes sense to open the umbrella when it actually rains. There is usually no exact date when this event will occur.

Design perspectives: Goal and precision

What use are these considerations in the specific example where a ‘sequence’ is sought that leads to Gerd experiencing that his feeling of hunger disappears?

Two general considerations may be helpful here:

  1. Thinking from the end (goal)
  2. What ‘accuracy’ is required/desired?

If one knows a goal (which is not self-evident; often one first has to find out what a meaningful goal could be), then one can try to think ‘backwards’ from the goal by being guided by the question, ‘Which action A do I have to do to achieve result B?’. In the case of the desired goal state ‘Gerd is not hungry’, the usual experience would be to eat something ‘appropriate’, which leads to the ‘disappearance of the feeling of hunger’ (most of the time). Then you have to know what that ‘food’ might be, where to get it, and what you would have to do to get there (let’s ignore the case of someone just bringing something from home to eat). From such ‘backward-thinking’ a hypothetical sequence of actions can emerge, which can become the basis for a ‘plan’, which the actor will work out ‘in his head’ and then implement piecemeal by corresponding ‘real actions’.

The question of ‘accuracy of representation’ (of a story, of a theory) is not easy to answer. If engineers have to program a robot that is supposed to be able to perform certain operations, then this will normally require an almost merciless accuracy (apart from the case that there are already many ready-made modules that can take care of ‘small stuff’ (such as so-called ‘machine learning’ after successful training)). If it is the author of a crime novel or the author of a screenplay, then besides ‘factual aspects’ very much also the ‘effect on the readers / viewers’ must be considered. In the case of achieving a concrete goal in a concrete world, the potential success of the implementation of a description depends entirely on whether the concrete requirements of the world – here the everyday world – are completely satisfied. Of course, the reader/listener/user of a description also plays a major role: If we can assume that we are dealing with ‘experts’ who ‘know’ the process to be performed well, we can perhaps work with hints only; if we are dealing more with ‘newcomers’, then we must provide very detailed information. Sometimes a purely text-based description is not sufficient; more is then needed: pictures, videos or even your own training.

With a target and with ‘everyday’ accuracy

In the concrete case, there exists a target and ‘everyday experience’ is to be taken as a yardstick for accuracy; the latter, of course, leaves much ‘room for interpretation’.

Starting from the goal ‘thought backwards’ the following chain of actions seems plausible as a ‘hypothetical plan’:

  1. Gerd is not hungry’ because:
  2. ‘Gerd is eating his stew’ because:
  3. ‘Gerd gets his order’ because:
  4. ‘Gerd is ordering a stew’ because:
  5. ‘Gerd is standing in front of the counter’ because:
  6. ‘Gerd enters the bistro’ because:
  7. ‘Gerd goes to the Greek around the corner’ because:
  8. ‘Gerd decides to go to the Greek around the corner’ because:
  9. ‘Gerd is hungry’, ‘Gerd is in his office’, because:
  10. … there is a ‘cut’ here: arbitrary decision where to start the story/theory …

In fact, at any moment, there is not only one choice, and many things can happen during the ‘execution’ of this ‘plan’, which can result in a change of the plan. And, of course, there are many more possible aspects that could (or should) be relevant for the execution of this plan.

Constant and variable properties

As observed earlier, there are properties that are ‘rather constant’ and those that are ‘short-lived’. For example, in the context of the ‘plan’ above, the property ‘Gerd is hungry’ is constant from the beginning until the event ‘Gerd is not hungry’. Another property like ‘Gerd leaves his office’ is rather short-lived.

If we take the above hypothetical plan as a reference point, the following distribution of ‘rather constant’ and ‘rather short-lived’ properties suggests itself (left column ‘rather constant’, right column ‘rather short-lived’):

Gerd is hungry.Gerd is in his office
Gerd is hungry.Gerd decides …
Gerd is hungry.Gerd walks …
Gerd is hungry.Gerd enters …
Gerd is hungry.Gerd stands in front of ..
Gerd is hungry.Gerd orders …
Gerd is hungry.Gerd gets …
Gerd is hungry.Gerd eats …
Gerd is not hungry.

A simple strategy to avoid inappropriate repetitions would be the one in which the condition of a change rule refers to a ‘rather short-lived’ property that ‘automatically’ disappears with the implementation of a change rule.

Example (short form):

  1. If: ‘Gerd is hungry’ and ‘Gerd is in his office’, Then: ‘Gerd decides to…’.
  2. If ‘Gerd is hungry’ and ‘Gerd decides…’, Then add: ‘Gerd goes…’, Delete: ‘Gerd in office…’
  3. If ‘Gerd is hungry’ and ‘Gerd goes…’, then add: ‘Gerd enters…’, delete: ‘Gerd goes…’
  4. If ‘Gerd is hungry’ and ‘Gerd enters…’, then add: ‘Gerd stands in front of…’, delete: ‘Gerd enters…’.
  5. If ‘Gerd is hungry’ and ‘Gerd stands in front of…’, then add: ‘Gerd orders …’, delete: ‘Gerd stands in front of …’
  6. If ‘Gerd is hungry’ and ‘Gerd orders …’, then add: ‘Gerd gets …’, delete: ‘Gerd orders …’
  7. If ‘Gerd is hungry’ and ‘Gerd gets …’, then add: ‘Gerd eats…’, delete: ‘Gerd gets’.
  8. If ‘Gerd is hungry’ and ‘Gerd eats’, then add: ‘Gerd is not hungry’, delete: ‘Gerd eats…’.

This small example already shows very clearly the ‘double nature’ of our everyday reality: one is what we do ourselves, and the other is the ‘effects’ of our doing in the external body world. When someone intends to ‘walk’ and then actually walks, then one moves the body, which ‘automatically’ changes the position of the body in the external body world. Normally, one does not describe these ‘effects’ explicitly, because every person knows that this is so, based on everyday world experience. But if one wants to create a ‘description’ of the external body world with its properties, which is such that an ACTUAL description contains everything that is important for the description of a process, then one must also make some of the ‘implicit properties’ ‘explicit’ by including them in the description. Most important is the attention to ‘more ephemeral’ (temporary) properties, whose presence or absence is crucial for many actions.

Simulation extension

The extended simulation adopts the action outline from ‘backward thinking’ (see above). New change rules are formulated for this purpose.

The previous ACTUAL description is retained:

Eat1

Gerd is sitting in his office.
Gerd is hungry.

The current TARGET description is retained:

Eat1-v1

Gerd is not hungry.

The following change rules are reformulated:

Eat1-Decision1

Rule name: Eat1-Decision1
Conditions:
Gerd is hungry.
Gerd is sitting in his office.
Effects plus:
Gerd goes to the Greek.
Gerd decides to go to the Greek restaurant around the corner.
Effects minus:
Gerd is sitting in his office.

Eat1-Enter1

Rule: Eat1-Enter1
Conditions:
Gerd goes to the Greek.

Positive Effects:
Gerd is in the bistro.
Gerd enters the bistro.

Negative Effects:
Gerd goes to the Greek.

Gerd decides to go to the Greek restaurant around the corner.

Eat1-Stand-Before1

Rule: Eat1-Stand-Before1
Conditions:
Gerd enters the bistro.
Positive Effects:
Gerd stands in front of the counter.

Negative Effects:
Gerd enters the bistro.

Eat1-Order1

Rule: Eat1-Order1
Conditions:
Gerd stands in front of the counter.
Positive Effects:
Gerd orders a stew.

Negative Effects:
Gerd stands in front of the counter.

Eat1-Come1

Rule name: Eat1-Come1
Conditions:
Gerd orders a stew.
Effects plus:
Gerd gets his stew.
Effects minus:
Gerd orders a stew.

Eat1-Food1

Rule: Eat1-Food1
Conditions:
Gerd gets his stew.
Positive Effects:
Gerd eats his stew.

Negative Effects:
Gerd gets his stew.

Eat1-Not-Hungry1

Rule:Eat1-Not-Hungry1
Conditions:
Gerd eats his stew.
Positive Effects:
Gerd is not hungry.

Negative Effects:
Gerd is hungry.
Gerd eats his stew.

Collecting single Rules in one Rules Document

If you wanted to start a new simulation now, you would normally have to enter each rule individually. When experimenting, this can quickly become very annoying. Instead, you can combine all rules that ‘thematically’ ‘belong together’ in a ‘rule document’. Then you only need to enter the name of the rule document in the future.

In the present case, a rule document with the name ‘Eat1-RQuantity1′ is created. This document then includes the following rules:

  1. Eat1-Decision1
  2. Eat1-Enter1
  3. Eat1-Stand-Before1
  4. Eat1-Order1
  5. Eat1-Come1
  6. Eat1-Food1
  7. Eat1-Not-Hungry1

To start a new simulation, you then only need to enter the following:

Selected visions:
Eat1-v1
Selected states:
Eat1
Selected rules:
doc Eat1-RQuantity1

Enter maximum number of simulation rounds

>10

SIMULATION PROTOCOL (with rule applications)

Simulation saved as: Eat1-sim6

Your vision:
Gerd is not hungry.

Initial states: 
Gerd is hungry.,Gerd is sitting in his office.
Initial math states

Round 1

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd decides to go to the Greek restaurant around the corner.,Gerd goes to the Greek.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None

Round 2

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd is in the bistro.,Gerd enters the bistro.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None

Round 3

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd stands in front of the counter.,Gerd is in the bistro.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None

Round 4

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd orders a stew.,Gerd is in the bistro.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None

Round 5

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd gets his stew.,Gerd is in the bistro.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None

Round 6

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd is in the bistro.,Gerd eats his stew.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None

Round 7

Current states: Gerd is not hungry.,Gerd is in the bistro.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

100.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
Gerd is not hungry.,

Further Reading:

We recommend to continue with the explanation box about ‘World, Space, Time’ and then, after having read this, go to ‘Daily Routine (temporal structures)’.

OKSIMO.R – EVERYDAY SCENES – GO OUT FOR EAT

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 6.November 2022 – 17.November 2022
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Parts of this text have been translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version), afterwards only minimally edited.

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’.

CONTENT

A normal everyday scene is used to illustrate some properties of modeling (theory building) in the oksimo.R paradigm. This case is about a person who works in a university, has an office there (together with others), and ‘feels hungry’ around noon. This becomes the occasion for this person to decide to go out to eat. In this case ‘to the Greek around the corner’. The short story ends with this person no longer feeling hungry.

OKSIMO.R TEXT TYPES

Modeling (theory building) in the oksimo.R paradigm takes place by a group of people working together to formulate a text in a common language. In the concrete case, this is the German language; however, it can also be any other language.

Three types of texts are distinguished:

  • ACTUAL descriptions (initial situations)
  • TARGET descriptions (requirements)
  • CHANGE descriptions (rules for change)

These distinctions presuppose that a human actor can distinguish between such ideas in his head, which ‘correspond’ to experiences outside his brain (in ‘his own body’, in the ‘body world outside his body’), and such ideas in his head, which he thinks/remembers/dreams/fantasizes ‘alone’, ‘for himself’ … .

ACTUAL situation

Here, ACTUAL descriptions refer to such ideas that relate to the body world beyond the own body and that can be ‘shared’ by other human actors. For example, if someone stands outside and says “It is raining”, and all bystanders would confirm this, then this would be a case of an ACTUAL-description that can be ‘confirmed’ by all. Most of the time people then also say that this description is ‘true’. If in this situation, where it is raining, someone would say “It is not raining” then everyone – usually – would say that this ‘statement’ is ‘false’. If someone says instead “It will rain soon”, then all bystanders who understand English will be able to form an idea in their brain that it is raining, but there is then no concrete equivalent to this idea in the real interpersonal physical world. This statement would then be neither ‘true’ nor ‘false’. Its relation to the ‘common body world’ would be ‘indeterminate’: it may perhaps become true, but need not.

GOAL description

TARGET descriptions (also in the form of requirements) refer to such ‘imaginations in the minds of actors’ to which there are accepted linguistic expressions, but which at the moment of writing or saying do not yet have a correspondence in the shared physical world. The ideas belonging to a merely imagined description of a goal have a greater or lesser probability of possibly occurring ‘sometime in the future’. Either there are ‘experiences’ from the past, which suggest an occurrence or there is only the ‘wish’ that these conceptions become real.

CHANGE Descriptions

CHANGE descriptions refer to such ‘events’ or ‘measures’ of which one knows (or strongly assumes) that their occurrence or their implementation ‘changes’ a given situation (ACTUAL) in at least one property in such a way that after a ‘certain time’ (‘time interval’) the ‘old’ situation represents a ‘new’ situation due to the ‘change’, which then becomes the ‘new ACTUAL situation’ as ‘successor situation’. Further events or measures can also change this new actual situation again.

Required Text Sets

While one needs at least one ACTUAL situation and at least one CHANGE description for an oksimo.R modeling (theory building), a TARGET description is optional. If no TARGET description is given, then there is a – more or less – directed or open sequence of ACTUAL states, which can arise by – also repeated – ‘applications’ of the CHANGE descriptions to a given ACTUAL situation. If at least one TARGET description is available, then this can be used to ‘evaluate’ a current ACTUAL situation according to how many elements of the TARGET situation are already present in the ACTUAL situation. This can be between 0% and 100%.

Applying change descriptions to an ACTUAL situation.

For applying a change description to a given ACTUAL situation, one must understand that in the oksimo.R paradigm a TEXT is nothing but a set of LANGUAGE EXPRESSIONS whose ‘meaning’ is known only by the speakers. Each linguistic expression is considered as an ‘element’ of this ‘expression set’ called text , and it is assumed that each linguistic expression describes some ‘property’ of the real ACTUAL situation. An imputed ACTUAL situation has exactly as many properties as the TEXT of the ACTUAL situation contains linguistic expressions. The amount of the imputed properties of a situation represent only a true subset of the real situation. If a certain expression is removed from the text, the associated property disappears; if a new linguistic expression is added, then a new property is created in the imputed ACTUAL situation.

A CHANGE description (also ‘change rule’ or simply ‘rule’) must therefore minimally do the following:

  1. Specify which expressions are to be added (generate new properties)
  2. Specify which of the previous expressions should be removed (eliminate properties).

In order to keep the application of the rule ‘under control’, one should make the application of a change rule to a current ACTUAL situation dependent on CONDITIONS in such a way that one prefixes the change specifications for ‘adding’ or ‘removing’ with a set of expressions, which must be given in the ACTUAL-description; otherwise the change rule can not become ‘active’.

Simple example

ACTUAL situation:

Gerd is sitting in his office. Gerd is hungry.

TARGET situation:

Gerd is not hungry.

CHANGE Description:

IF:
Gerd is hungry.
THEN:
Add as a property to the ACTUAL situation: Gerd leaves his office.
Remove as property from the ACTUAL situation: Gerd is sitting in his office.

APPLICATION of the change description:

The CONDITION is fulfilled.

THEN:

NEW ACTUAL situation:

Gerd leaves his office. Gerd is hungry.

EVALUATION:

The property from the GOAL: ‘Gerd is not hungry’ is not yet fulfilled, so: Success so far: 0%.

REPEATED APPLICATION

Each change rule can in principle be applied as often as possible, but only as long as the CONDITION is fulfilled.

In the example above, the CONDITION ‘Gerd is hungry’ would continue to be fulfilled, but a repeated application of the rule will not change the situation any further. Thus, it is foreseeable that the TARGET condition can never be reached in this model (in this theory).

Example with oksimo.R software

Contextualization of the software

The oksimo.R software is part of the ‘oksimo.R paradigm’. The oksimo.R paradigm includes three components: (i) As an ‘application format’ a set of arbitrary citizens who see themselves as ‘natural experts’ who ‘work together scientifically’. This format is called ‘citizen science 2.0’ in the context of the oksimo.R paradigm. (ii) The ‘oksimo.R software’ that can be used by citizens to formulate (‘edit’) their scientific descriptions of the experiential world in such a way that they ‘automatically’ meet the requirements of an ’empirical theory’, so as to be able to draw ‘inferences’ at any time, practiced as ‘simulations’. (iii) A clear concept of an ’empirical theory’ compatible with all known forms of ’empirical sciences’ (in fact, the general form of the oksimo.R theory concept can also represent all forms of non-empirical theories).

The oksimo.R software is currently being developed and deployed on a server in the Internet, accessible via the address oksimo.com.

Since the theoretical concept of the oksimo.R software covers almost everything we know so far as a software application in the Internet (including the various forms of ‘Artificial Intelligence (AI)’ and ‘Internet of Things (IoT)’), the transformation of the theoretical concept into applicable software is generally an ‘infinite process’. As of this writing (Nov 16, 2022), Level 2 is directly available and work is underway with Level 3 (and there will be much more levels in the future …)

An oksimo.R theory REALIZED WITH the software (Still level 2)

The old menu – still in command line mode – shows up as follows after logging in:

Welcome to Oksimo v2.1 02 May 2022 (ed14)

MAIN MENU
1 is NEW VISION
2 is MANAGE VISIONS
3 is VISION COLLECTIONS
4 is NEW STATE
5 is MANAGE STATES
6 is STATE COLLECTIONS
7 is NEW RULE
8 is MANAGE RULES
9 is RULE DOCUMENT
10 is NEW SIMULATION
11 is MANAGE SIMULATIONS
12 is LOAD SIMULATION
13 is COMBINE SIMULATIONS
14 is SHARE
15 is EXIT SIMULATOR
Enter a Number [1-15] for Menu Option

See: oksimo.com (16.Nov. 2022)

In the old command line mode you have to enter the oksimo.R texts manually. For the ACTUAL state this looks like this:

Enter ACTUAL description

Enter a Number [1-15] for Menu Option

4

Here you can describe an actual state S related to your problem.

Enter a NAME for the new state description:

Food1

Enter an expression for your state description in plain text:

Gerd is sitting in his office.

Expressions so far:
Gerd is sitting in his office.

Enter another expression or leave blank to proceed:

Gerd is hungry.

Expressions so far:
Gerd is sitting in his office.
Gerd is hungry.

Enter another expression or leave blank to proceed:

Name: Food1
Expressions:
Gerd is sitting in his office.
Gerd is hungry.

Note: In the Level 2 version an ACTUAL description is generally only called ‘state’.

Enter VISIONs text

Enter a Number [1-15] for Menu Option

1

Here you can describe your vision.

Enter a NAME for the new vision:

Food1-v1

Enter an expression for your vision in plain text:

Gerd is not hungry.

Expressions so far:
Gerd is not hungry.

Enter another expression or leave blank to proceed:

Your final vision document is now:
Name: Food1-v1
Expressions:
Gerd is not hungry.

Enter CHANGE rule

Enter the name of the new rules document:

Food1-Decision1

Enter condition:

Gerd is hungry.

Conditions so far:
Gerd is hungry.

Enter another condition or leave blank to proceed:

Enter a probability between 0.0 and 1.0:

1.0

(Comment: The ‘Probability’ feature at this point is now obsolete. Probabilities are handled more generally and flexibly. Examples follow.)

Enter positive effect:

Gerd leaves his office.

Positive Effects so far:
Gerd leaves his office.

Enter another positive effect or leave blank to proceed:

Enter negative effect:

Gerd is sitting in his office.

Negative Effects so far:
Gerd is sitting in his office.

Enter another negative effect or leave blank to proceed:

Summary:
Rule:Food1-Decision1
Conditions:Gerd is hungry.

Probability:
1.0
Positive Effects:
Gerd leaves his office.

Negative Effects:
Gerd is sitting in his office.

Test the effect of the theory

Test conclusions

The ‘core of an oksimo.R theory’ consists of the two components ACTUAL situation (here: state) and CHANGE rule (here: rule). By applying a rule to a state, a successor state is created, which is ultimately an ‘inference’ (a ‘theorem’) of the theory. The more complex the initial state is and the more change rules there are, the more diverse the set of possible consequences (‘inferences’, ‘theorems’) becomes. To keep track of these consequences, especially if the rules of change can be applied again and again to a successor state, so that an ever longer sequence of states emerges out of this, this can become very difficult.

Test target fulfillment

If you use an oksimo.R theory kernel together with a TARGET description, then during the inference process (the ‘simulation’) you can also check at any point how many ‘elements of the TARGET description’ already ‘occur’ in an inferred state. If ‘all’ elements of the GOAL-description occur, the theory is able to ‘infer’ 100% of the GOAL-description, otherwise less, down to 0% goal fulfillment.

Start an oksimo.R simulation

Enter a Number [1-15] for Menu Option

10

Here you can run a simulation SIM to check what happens with your initial state S when the change rules X will be applied repeatedly on the state S.

Available vision descriptions:

Food1-v1

Enter a name for a vision description you want to load. Use prefix col to load a collection:

Food1-v1

Visions selected so far:
Food1-v1

Add another vision or leave blank to proceed:

Enter a name for a state description you want to load. Use prefix col to load a collection:

Food1

States selected so far:
Food1

Add another state or leave blank to proceed:

Selected states:
Food1

Available rules:

Food1-Decision1

Enter a name for a rule or a ruledocument (with prefix doc) you want to load:

Food1-Decision1

Rules selected so far:
Food1-Decision1
Add another rule or leave blank to proceed:

Selected visions:
Food1-v1
Selected states:
Food1
Selected rules:
Food1-Decision1

Enter maximum number of simulation rounds

3

Your vision:
Gerd is not hungry.

Initial states:
Gerd is hungry.,Gerd is sitting in his office.

Round 1

Round 3

Save Simulation [S], Rerun simulation [R], export as text [T] or exit [leave blank]:

S

Enter Name for Simulation:

Food1-sim1

Saved!

Enter a Number [1-15] for Menu Option

12

Here you can load a previously saved simulation and rerun it. Add prefix dev for detailed developer-mode.

List of your saved simulations:

Food1-sim1

Restart the saved simulation with 12 Load Simulation (Comment: The math-elements are deleted from the protocol because these will be used a little bit later):

our vision:
Gerd is not hungry.

Initial states: 
Gerd is hungry.,Gerd is sitting in his office.

Round 1

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd leaves his office.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None
And the following math visions:
None

Round 2

Current states: Gerd is hungry.,Gerd leaves his office.
Current visions: Gerd is not hungry.
Current values:

0.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
None
And the following math visions:
None

One can easily see, that the state of round 2 is repeating. And there is no reason, that this will change in the future.

Rule application and inference concept

The preceding simple example was used to explain concretely what happens when a rule is applied to a given ACTUAL situation. A science which deals with such change processes by means of rule application(s) is ‘logic’. Logic considerations have been around for more than 2500 years, in many different forms. The most significant logic paradigms in retrospect are possibly the logic associated with the name of Aristotle, in which logical expressions were not yet considered in isolation from possible linguistic meanings, and modern formal logic, in which logical expressions have no connection to any linguistic meaning except with abstract ‘truth values’. The history of modern formal logic began in the 19th century about 150 years ago (Bool, de Morgan, Venn, Frege, Russell, …).

The central idea of any logic is to find a ‘procedure that allows the user to ‘derive’ from a set of ‘assumed to be (abstractly) true’ statements only those statements that are also ‘(abstractly) true’ again. The ‘abstract truth’ of modern formal logic is a ‘placeholder’ for an everyday language truth which cannot be expressed as such within a formal logic. Formal logic presupposes that there are ‘actors’ who ‘know’ what they are saying when they speak of a ‘true’ statement. Whether the formalization of ‘truth relations’ between different sets of expressions in the format of modern formal logic ‘adequately’ represent the meaning knowledge of the actors can therefore not be decided ‘within the logical system’, but only ‘from outside’, from the perspective of the ‘meaning knowledge of the acting actor’.

If one calls the initial set of linguistic expressions ‘assumed to be abstractly true’ an IS-description (in the style of the oksimo.R paradigm) and the set of possible ‘derived expressions assumed to be abstractly true’ the ‘inferred abstractly true expressions’, then one could formulate this in the style of formal logic as follows:

IS-STATEMENTS ⊢CHANGE-RULES GENERATED-POTENTIAL-IS-STATEMENTS.

or abbreviated:

X  R X‘

The character ‘⊢’ represents an inference term. This consists of a text describing how to apply a change rule from the set R to a given set of expressions X in such a way that a new set X’ is created as a result of the application to the given set X. The inference term must be of such a nature that it is completely unambiguous ‘what to do’.

The claim of the ‘pure formal logic’ of the modern times that all expressions, which are generated with the inference term, are also conform to the ‘assumed abstract truth value’, applies in the same way to the inference term of the oksimo.R theory software too. With the oksimo.R inference term it is guaranteed that all ‘generated expressions’ are ‘true’ in the sense of the ‘linguistically founded meaning knowledge’ of the involved ‘actors’! However, linguistically grounded meaning knowledge is ‘knowledge dependent’ and therefore can be empirically either ‘true’ or ‘false’ or ‘indeterminate’. This points to the fact that in general the actors are the ‘gatekeepers of the truth’. Actors formulate the change-rules R based on their linguistic knowledge. If these change-rules R are ‘true’, then this is also true for the linguistic expressions generated by means of inference. If the change rules R contain an ‘error’, then this error will necessarily be contained in the generated inference situation X’ as description element E. This expression element E as part of the prediction set X’ may then turn out to be either ‘true’ in the further course of comparison with the commonly shared empirical reality, or it will remain ‘indeterminate’ in the long run, since it neither becomes ‘true’ nor can be directly classified as ‘false’. In the case of modern formal logic, the empirical truth status of inferred expressions is completely indeterminate.

The oksimo.R inference concept united the formal advantages of modern formal logic with the meaning reference of Aristotelian logic and is understood as a ‘natural means of expression’ for an empirical theory with truth claim.

This post has a continuation (Pert 2) HERE.

BOOK: oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories. A Philosophical Essay

eJournal: uffmm.org
ISSN 2567-6458, 6.November 2022 – 24.January 2023
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

This post is part of the book project ‘oksimo.R Editor and Simulator for Theories’.

STRUCTURE OF THE TEXT

(Last change: 24.January 2023)

(Partially translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version))

During the writing it becomes apparent that it is difficult to concretely specify the concrete contents at the beginning of the writing! The ‘cloud of knowledge’, out of which this book is written, is not a static object, but a space of ‘transient events’, which – in the first moment, seen from close – appear like ‘fixed contents’, but they are only momentary states of equilibrium in a manifold network of thought processes, which all take place at the same time, largely unconsciously (the way our brain works), and which produce ‘each other’. So it can happen that in a ‘living thought’ these transient states ‘rewrite’ themselves again and again. The ‘truth’ is then the total process, which can ‘connect’ with individual empirical events. Some may be ‘disturbed’ by this state of affairs, others feel ‘liberated’ as they begin to suspect that recognition, understanding, truth belong to a completely different dimension than the seemingly ‘clear, delimited, fixed facts’.

At this point one could be tempted to use the millennium old term ‘spirit’ (rather not ‘mind’) (Greek: ‘pneuma’, ‘πνευμα’) to denote this elusive ‘more’ of knowledge, but it would not help too much, would perhaps even complicate the whole state of affairs, since one then relates with a ‘known word’ something ‘not understandable’ to classical Greek thinking, which at that time did not and could not know the ‘context of its own thinking’. [0]

[0] Which does not detract from the fact that the classical Greek authors shine with a mental brilliance that can touch anyone who tries to think for himself. I myself am, among other things, very impressed by the texts attributed to Aristotle. Every minute that one can immerse oneself in his texts is a ‘gift to thinking’.

IDEA OF THE BOOK

(Last change: 3.January 2023)

START

(Last change: 8.January 2023)

What to assume for a minimal scenario?
The ‘inside’ of the ‘outside’ – a few hints
The ‘inside of the outside’, Part 2 (Last change: 18.January 2023)

INTRODUCTORY EXAMPLES and First Comments

EVERYDAY SCENES

(Last change: 28.November 2022)

CONNECTED SYSTEMS

(Last change: 15.November 2022)

  • Population
  • Water
  • Interconnecting population and water (world 1)
  • Nutrition
  • Interconnecting world 1 with nutrition (world 2)
  • Raw materials
  • Interconnecting world 2 with raw materials (world 3)
  • Energy
  • Interconnecting world 3 with energy (world 4)

EXPLANATION BOXES

(Last change: 25.November 2022)

  • World, Space, Time (Last change: 25.November 2022)
  • Everyday language
  • Formal languages
  • Actors
  • Sign systems
  • Meta language
  • Logic
  • Formal Theories
  • Empirical Theories
  • System
  • Dynamic System
  • Networked Systems
  • Embedded Systems

oksimo.R PHILOSOPHY

(Last change: 15.November 2022)

  • Real world and linguistic description
  • True, false, indeterminate
  • Actors: humans and others
  • Communicative Processes
  • Virtualization of the world inside the actors
  • Competition of ‘dreams’
  • Emotions rule the mind
  • ‘Locked In’
  • Rescuing only through mistakes and catastrophes?
  • Evolution takes place
  • The ‘spiritual matter’
  • Epilogue