 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Thanks again, and if you quote the particular sentence (no need for red letters as far as I can tell), then I can know which words I wrote as a question about math was the particular question where no was the answer offered to that particular question.
This follow example is an example of your words followed by my response to those words in particular:
Math in itself is not a pre-existing idea in reality.
When I read words like that my idea from those words involved me thinking that you think I think that math "itself is" "a pre-existing idea in reality," which I is not my idea, so my question then is to ask if I am correct in thinking that you think that I think that math exists before it was an idea, or some other thought, in other words, along those lines, which are thoughts I do not think.
I think that math is an invention, a tool, a way of perceiving, so there is no way, in my view, that math can exist without someone perceiving, and then as perception is used by the inventor, that inventor invents an accurate way to perceive, so Math is the word used to label that which I am calling math now, which is this inventive way to improve the accuracy of perception.
1. Invention
2. Discovery
Even if a perceptive being discovers, or stumbles upon, math, there is yet a process not discovered whereby the original perceptive being who originally invented math did so, and left math there to be tripped over, or discovered by someone else. I'm not saying that two perceptive beings can't invent math in different places at different times, all I am saying is that there is a difference between invention and discovery.
1.
Invention is necessary in order for there to be discovery
2.
Discovery happens as a result of perception, including the discovery that it is possible to invent better was to discover new things to perceive.
I discovered English language, if I can use the word discovery in this way effectively, so as to distinguish the difference between the way I stumbled upon English language, and the way I invent sentences in English.
I invented that sentence above, but I used English, and English was not my invention.
If someone has invented a way to use math to represent English language, then my guess is that that is a new invention, but it isn't so much a guess as a demonstrable fact, so long as the perceptive being demonstrating the fact is not resorting to deception.
Someone who may have discovered a way to connect math to English may have stumbled upon it, and then that person makes a false claim of having invented it, when there was a previous inventor, and the person discovering it is taking credit where credit is false.
My inventions of these arrangements in English, experiments, whatever, don' t often work, so the concept of being misunderstood is appearing to be understandable in that light. I am not an effective inventor of English symbol arrangements.
Use of statistics for deception is not what I meant - it's kinda trivial compared to what we talked about in music thread, don't you think?
I don't think that deceptive use of statistics is trivial. Have you heard about personality tests, and "mass marketing"?
The word trivial is, to me, a word describing how I can enjoy the weather when it is within the range of 65 degrees to 110 degrees, so it is trivial for me to speak of bad weather within that range. Yes, I can say, you may not like the weather, but to me it is a trivial matter.
A personality test can be improved, not perfected, with the use of statistical data, as statistical data can sample the behavior of mankind much in the way that "The Wisdom of Crowds" works. How big is the crowd when there is any case of The Wisdom of Crowds at work? If the Crowd is every human being that has ever lived then that is 100 percent accurate as being every single measure of each individual making up the Crowd, in any case whatsoever, but it is impractical, or unworkable to measure the whole Crowd, to know with 100% accuracy, so leaving 1 out, leaving out 1 measure, introduced that measure of potential error.
Sampling a larger number of the whole can improve the accuracy of the statistical data, and those improvements can be measured. Statistical data can be used to improve the accuracy of statistical data, at least that is how I understand statistics to work dynamically. A representative sample of the whole can generate statistical data and a value of accuracy placed upon that data can then be tested over time with the results used to reach the goal of the data, and over time the data used to reach the goal creates statistics, proving the fact of either reaching the goal or failing to reach the goal, and that data can then be used to improve the process of gathering the statistics, failures show up as failures, while successes show up as successes, over time, and if the concept is a personality test, the end result is an improved, but not perfect, tool used to reach the goal of those doing the testing, or mass marketing.
I don't know if my arrangements of symbols works, and I may never know.
"We almost at a complete agreement here. Just change 'can cause' to 'causes' (undoubtedly, inevitably, inescapably, immediately) and that's it."
I think that you have improved the arrangement of symbols, so we are in agreement in that case.
Less effective:
>>> the process of lying can cause the liar to be victim to their own lies
More effective:
>>> the process of lying causes the liar to be victim to their own lies
I think that is proven to be true with the use of statistics as a means of reaching the goal of deception, such as mass marketing. I think that deceivers are deceived themselves since they actually cause the statistical data to become what it becomes and they are then deceived into thinking that their victims deserve what they get.
I've actually heard a person claim that they are doing their victim a favor by stealing from the victim, something along the lines of helping the victim realize how vulnerable the victim is in fact.
"I can do that, as long as you specify what you need in a more more narrow fashion. I'm not sure if that is asking too much for comfort."
I can work at it. I ran into this type of help with bear, since too often in the past, and still too often now, my replies were seen by her as attacks, and so I can work on improving my inventions of arrangements of symbols when asking for help.
Biting the hand that feeds me, is an old saying, along the lines of The Wisdom of Crowds at work, which may or may not work in this case. I may fail to convey what I mean to convey, which is the norm, not the exception.
In my view I succeed every time, with nearly 100% accuracy, otherwise I would not hit the Post Reply button, but the feedback I get should tell me something about the wide gap between what I think I write effectively and what is actually proven to be effective writing.
Case in point:
"I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. "
Why is that funny? I did not write words that say "claim your thoughts," or "know them."
I wrote, and you quoted:
"as to what your words claim to be my thoughts"
Your words are not your claims, obviously, and measurably, so that is why I chose "your word," and that is why I did not say "your thoughts."
If you see no difference, or if you don't see the point of error, then I can explain the difference, and the point of error, but that would require words to do the work, since you can't read my mind, at least you prove that you can't, to me, and I know I can't read your mind, so I have only words to read, and in this case the words are black and white.
I wrote:
"as to what your words claim to be my thoughts"
You wrote:
"I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. "
I don't either. So what is funny? The words appear to me to suggest that you think you know what I think, and much of the time those words you write that appear to suggest to me that you think what I think prove otherwise, since the words you write appear to convey thoughts, attributable to me, that are opposite of what I think, and this is a case in point.
I don't think that you think, since I'm not a mind reader, all I get is words to read, I don't get a mind to read.
1.
"as to what your words claim to be my thoughts"
2.
"I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. "
That is a case in point.
Here is another:
Math in itself is not a pre-existing idea in reality. Otherwise it would suggest a typical unjustifiable 'creator'.
Those words suggest to me that you think I think that math is pre-existing, and I don't think such things, so this is another case in point, where the words suggest to me that your thoughts are such and such.
Not this:
2.
"I find it funny that I don't ever claim your thoughts, or to know them. "
I don't know what is funny. I have not made such a claim, and that is why I chose the word words.
1.
"as to what your words claim to be my thoughts"
How much better would it be to accomplish mind reading, without the often proven case of miscommunication?
I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities.
Again, here is a case in point, I did not write, in words, that "I can read your mind..." and I know that I can't, so your suggestion, in words, appears to me to be the opposite of what applies to me, since at no time have I thought that I can read your mind, so how can your suggestion apply to me?
Let me be very clear here, with words.
I did not write anything that intended to convey to you that I feel as if I can read your mind.
Is that clear?
If I wrote, by error, words that could be misunderstood by you as you are then inspired to think that I feel as if I can read your mind, then that is my error, if that happened.
Here:
1.
"as to what your words claim to be my thoughts"
If that inspired you to write this:
"I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities."
Then that is a case in point.
Your words, your words, your words, often inspire in me the idea that you think you know what I think, in this case your words appear to suggest to me that you think that I feel as if you can read my mind, and that is opposite of what I actually think.
I think that I do not "feel" this idea, rather I think that your words prove to be the source of miscommunication, and as for your intent, to cause deception, or to convey accurate meaning, I cannot know, not unless you convey accurate meaning one way or the other.
How do you convey accurate meaning if not with words?
I am not guilty of this charge that your words appear to attach to me in the form of guilt.
This:
"I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities."
Specifically this:
"...you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot..."
Specifically this:
"...you feel..."
"...I can read your mind..."
I am not guilty, I know I am not guilty, so that is a case in point.
Your words....
"...you feel..."
"...I can read your mind..."
Your words suggest to me that your idea of what my thoughts are are opposite my thoughts, and this is a case in point.
I am not guilty of this:
"I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities."
That above is not me.
If you got that above from this:
1.
"as to what your words claim to be my thoughts"
If your words of guilt placed upon me are inspired by those words above, then I am happy to report to you that my choice of using the word words was done because I did not want to be misunderstood, and instead of being misunderstood, my word choice intended to convey my actual thoughts accurately, and effectively, and yet I failed again.
I am guilty of failing to find the right word choices.
I am not guilty of this:
I suggest that when you feel that I say that I can read your mind and whatnot - you mentally redact that and react to the message without all of those cases first. Then apply possibilities.
Those words suggest to me that someone, somewhere, is guilty of feeling as if someone can read someone's mind, and that is certainly a false claim, but I don't feel that I can read someone's mind, so I am not guilty as charged in those words aimed at me.