studiot

Three have been some very recent discoveries about this, that were shown on the BBC recent new series 'Human', that I found fascinating.

Because you equated truth with belief by saying If what I believe can be called true in some way then God exists for some folks (not me though). I also disagree with this statement that that all facts are verifiable. It is to do with knowledge and, surprisingly, belief. The are no known full analytical solutions to the Navier Stokes equations so it is believed that none exist. A simpler example might be something nearer home to you. What is the land area of Greenland ? There must be a land area and it must therefore be a fact. But the value is unknown, because we can't verify it, so we have a best estimate, but you will only find the word estimate in the best tables of 'facts'. I didn't think of the morning star v evening star about the two bodies bit. Thank you for that +1

You are talking about the difference between fact and something called belief, not something called truth. Otherwise you have just proved the truthful fact of the existence of God. So facts are immutable but can change ? How does that work ? In the light of the rest of your post please consider this picture then state the subject of the picture (which surely is a fact ?)

So have you, or anybody else, identified any difference between truth and fact ? I think I may have one

What do you think about my points re time? What is the most populous country in the world ? It used to be China but apparently it is now India. What was the area of the United States a) Before Alaska was acquired ? b) After Alaska was acquired ? Were these not facts at one time but not another ?

Do we all see the same questions on this site ?

Unlike chalk and cheese I do not know of any universal hard and fast distinction between truth and fact, only that the distinction is very blurred. This was why I started the thread. It is clear from all the responses in this and other threads that there are nearly as many interpretations as there are thinkers. I myself, do not have a clear distinction. So I have tried to have a reasonable conversation with each member, as they put their own version, in the hope that I might learn something. I have yet to find a resolution. I was indeed having a reasonable discussion with @Gees, given that they are rather delicate. But no I do not agree with everything they said either. Perhaps that is why members are trying out different examples, to see how they fit with personal interpretations.

Too hard for me guv.

How is this not in direct contradiction with Sounds a bit like the biblical denial by Peter to me.

I have underlined the difference between Gees' post and one in another thread where the poster feels they can lay down the law on just about everything and carries on with complete disregard for the insights of others.

So what's all this procedural v symbolic nonsense ?

Do you really think it a good idea to drive other members away ?

I've seen many ways to think in my lifetime. I myself am best described as the observer of my mind/ brain. Virtually since I was born I've been sitting back watching my thoughts and trying to understand them. I can't even get this right, though. My translation fails often because symbolic cognition can’t parse procedural statements correctly. I’m not claiming special knowledge; I’m describing a mismatch between two cognitive systems. I’ve spent my life observing my own mind trying to bridge that gap, and I still fail at it regularly. What is disturbing to myself and others is the way you keep contradicting yourself. I have underlined a persistent contradiction on your part, whereby you keep insisting that there are only two ways to think and then write what is underlined.

Have you been at the tequila ? None of the above is true. Why do you think all those enormous wind farms are offshore just above sea level ? There are no mountains on Shetland, yet it is the windiest place in the UK. There are huge solar farms in the Sahara, with electricity being exported to southern Europe.

ha - you missed one. 😃

I expect this will fall on deaf ears like most of the other things I have told you but I will try anyway. There are more ways to think or forms of thinking that you appear ready to admit. Much of my thoughts are in pictures, not words or procedures. So I can and do picture a whole scene or concept at once, without words or workings though it. If I want them both of these come later. I also expect that there are other ways of thinking; Mozart thought in music for instance, which I can't do. We had a long thread about this a while back, with many contributions. Pity I can't find it at the moment.

This is just hand waving, not 'ontology', whatever that has to do with your example. I am not asking for the maths of this, but you need to substantiate this statement, by stating what allowed states ? These are not positions in the wire. (actually, not even in the wire since free charge resides on the surface of a conductor). Please get your physics ducks in a row if you want to make claims about them.

Copilot doesn't think !

Absolutely not. Unfortunately you seem hell bent on declaring yourself right rather than correctly reading what someone else has said. If you have never heard of the psychological word association test or don't know how it works, then ask don't guess. This doesn't just apply to my words I understand what you are saying here, but you are misunderstanding the model. Electrons have spin whether they are in the motor windings or not. If you chose to use the electron model here, it is not their passage through the windings that is quantised, it is their energy levels in phase space. As I have already told you, they do not jump form point to point in the real world, only from energy levels in phase space. In ordinary space the electron moves smoothly from point to point through the windings according to the intermediate theorem. Yes reality is at least partly granular or quantised; but as far as we know, Nature or reality includes both granular and continuous phenomena. Perhaps you would be happier discussing an example of a continuous phenomenon, say the hydrolysis of methyl iodide. This this continuous process takes place over a time of 10-10 seconds or thereabouts.

I'm sorry my poor typing misled you. Let me correct what I wrote. Look back and read what I wrote properly. I too was talking about cognition. I cannot accept that id a psychologist said dog then tail the neurological response you mention would be identical to if the man had said dog then buttercup. The only way your cognition process could be linear would be if you always followed dog by the same response, whatever else what put to you. This should have read You have yet to understand that I am talking about the questioning technique of word association; that is asking for the first thing that occurs to the listener after each of several disconnected words, which may be spoken or flash cards or flashed on screen. Perhaps, perhaps not. How do you account for the intermediate value theorem ? Are you suggesting that this does not apply to humans when they move through time and space ?

Thank you for that link. +1 I only have a passing interest in this question, but because I listen to others I have come across investigations like this. However I would take issue with a couple of points in its abstract. Firstly analog systems were all that were known for thousands of years. Digital ideas did not precede them. Nevertheless I would not be surprised that Nature takes full advantage of every route available. She seems to repeatedly surprise us in that fashion. Secondly both @cladking and the author seem to confuse digital and binary, seemingly regarding these terms as interchangeable. Binary is a very restricted subset of digital or discrete or granular. Like the authors of so many 'multiple choice' questions doing this runs the risk of missing at least the third choice 'none of these' or 'something else' or 'indeterminate' or 'out of range'. There are very few, if any, systems in the universe that are truly only binary. This very snappy soundbite is worthy of thoughtless journalism. If spoken seriously it is all too challengeable. Certainly so but I didn't introduce any of this stuff. But I do think that on a scientific forum flights of fancy need challenging.

I am sorry you are so set in your ways you seem unable to listen properly to others, because some of what you say makes sense. Look back and read what I wrote properly. I too was talking about cognition. I cannot accept that id a psychologist said dog then tail the neurological response you mention would be identical to if the man had said dog then buttercup. The only way your cognition process could be linear would be if you always followed dog by the same response, whatever else what put to you. Actually there is much debate in scientific circles as what is digital and what is analog and what is something else entirely. There is also evidence that your neural processes are digital. But no one actually knows the answer to this question. Well yes humans (and other animals) do go in for parallel processing. The management of your body requires an incredible number of parallel paths. But well done for recognising that parallel processing is another form of non linearity. You could gain much insight by expanding your focus instead of trying to shoehorn it into one or two preconceived notions.

This is indeed a characteristic of linear structures. But it is also a characteristic on non linear structures. For instance A then B then C then D then E then F then G is linear But A then B then G then F then C then D is non linear. In each case there is a sequence of preceding and following whatevers. Any (computer) program that allows jumping, looping, branching etc is non linear and all the more useful for it.

Yes it can be linear, but it may also be branching or entirely disconnected, both of which are non linear. A fine example of non linearity would be a psychologist's word association Q & A session.

Symbolic thought is not a nonlinear physical process; it’s a type and means of representation. Harnad’s point appears to be that symbolic systems must be grounded in nonsymbolic systems (icons and categorical detectors). That’s exactly the distinction I’m drawing between procedural and symbolic cognition. If symbolic thought is not non linear are you then saying it must be linear ? In what way must it be linear ?