“Logic is rooted in the social principle.” Charles Sanders Peirce
“No man can communicate the smallest item of information to his brother-man unless they have … common familiar knowledge; where the word `familiar’ refers less to how well the object is known than the manner of knowing … Of course, two endless series of knowings are involved.” C.S. Peirce
(Note: Please excuse the ego in this post. Just trying to get new ideas on the web to protect copyrights)
Is there any reason in 2008 we should be held hostage of individual knowledge, by the modern advancement of technology, complexity and computerization of our financial systems? Should, “We the people”, be treated good and bad by the history of capitalism’s evolution, at differing times through history? What is it exactly, that causes our wealth and poverty cycles? Can this question be truthfully and logically answered?
I say, “It can”, but it will take a journey you probably have not expected, to explain it. Recent readings in the field of philosophy, semantics and pragmatism have convinced me to take an alternative look at political economics, through the eyes of some of histories greatest minds, such as Socrates, Plato, Christaan Huygens, Euler, Locke, Kant, Tom Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Peirce, Veblen, Einstein, Wittgenstein, Keynes, Paul Einzig, John Nash, S. Hawking, Jaakko Hintikka, Paul Davidson and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. Veiws I held no more than three months ago are gone, having been replaced by the inductive logic in the above title, which I discovered over some three years ago, yet only worked up recently. This new logic is in line with the above thinkers, yet includes my extensions. I intend to present this below, yet only in its bare semantic form, as I believe the world needs simpler explanations than academics has thus far treated them. After a brief summary of the above thinkers, leading to my ideas, I’ll fully lay out the above mentioned tri-systems of logic and perception.
My thought is founded in a life of economics, physics and philosophic study. Through the years I’ve found Plato to be the most valuable of the ancients, even though I do like Heraclitus, and do respect Aristotle’s ethics, but as to epistemic validity, Plato wins `hands down’ to me. It’s only Plato who can fit the modern ideas of triadic logics’ semioses, as espoused first by Charles Sanders Peirce, at the turn of the end of the 19th century. Only Plato’s mind line, A, D, B, C, E offers a similar structure as laid out by Peirce, yet not fully interpreted then, as Peirce later would, yet a full interpretation of Plato, into its triadic dynamics of common grounds, the abstract scientifics of forms and archetypes, and “noesis” clearly relates very closely to Peirce’s triadic systems of semantics and pragmatics. At least I have no problem seeing the links. All one needs realize is, the forms of thought and archetypes are not the exaggerated idealisms most of academics have thought, for far too many centuries___It’s simple scientific abstractions of what Kant called the `space that moves lines’ in the mind, when using abstract thought. It’s the reality of the mind mechanics, of how simple abstraction necessarily works.
Before I proceed, I’ll give a few examples. Just imagine a room full of seats as in an auditorium. In this room sitting in one corner is you, and say 20 seats to your left and 20 in front, squared. Now, close your eyes and imagine a solid steel basketball suspended in mid-air. With your mind’s abstract imagination, move the ball up and down, then toss it to the corner left seat. Now to the further left front seat and back to yourself, and catch it, then levitate it. This is all possible in abstract imagination, but how are you moving the ball? With what? This is the profound idea Whitehead, I believe, discovered about Kant’s theorizing. Our intuitive will is actually capable of manipulating internal space___photons? Now, to make the point further, imagine a neoprene golf ball in the same scenario. Take the heavy solid steel basketball and merge/morph it inside the golf ball, without the golf ball increasing in size. That is a representation of isomorphic quantum physics, which is beyond the scope of this article, but the mind can accomplish such feats___Yet How? I’ll leave this for later, as I’m only trying to put your mind in inter-relational order, to relay the logic information of this article…
Next, I’d like to take up Descartes’ synthetic doubt, as that’s clearly all it was, yet it still has many major philosophers arguing over him. The separation of mind and body is the greatest piece of meditation non-sense I’ve ever come across, that’s been put across as something rational to think about, when there’s actually no rationality there___possible. Just think about it, how would one think without a body/brain to store perception’s necessary actions for mind to think? Where would the physical given of thought rest without the necessary brain’s memory storage areas, as we know these physically exist in the brain, which modern medicine’s neuro-scientific tests have proven, to think with? What is a mind without a brain? Do you see my point yet? One way or the other, it’s pure meta-physical nonsense, and this is not to criticize metaphysics, per say, as I have nothing against people’s desired beliefs. There may be some separation between brain and mind functions, as I do admit this also, but there’s no total or real separation, as one can’t function without the other. Just think about it again, “What’s a mind going to think about, without any physical reality? Zero? Nothing? Na da?” The black zone got no thoughts___period! So, let the skeptics have their non-sense…
Now, let’s look at someone more sensible like Huygens and Euler, the great mathematicians of early probability logic and combinatorics/calculus/algebra formula simplifications, since they didn’t delve into the synthetic metaphysical as far as Descartes did. Without the foundations of modern math resting on these two giants, and the three Arabic actuators and transmitters, Al-Khwarizmi, Avicenna, Biruni and others’ additions to the Greeks, Persians and Egyptians, we’d all look rather foolish. Yes, maybe others would have come along, but that’s pure speculation, and Huygens’ probability laws would be highly prejudiced against such views, IMO. Without Huygens and Euler, we may never have had a genius like J. Gibbs inventing statistical probability mechanics and vector mathematics, then Maxwell would have been put off for years, as well as Boltzman, Planck and Einstein, then where would we be? Some may say better off, but that’s naive. From Huygens and Euler I’ve been able to use X/X for representing completely new understandings of universal entropy and equilibrium, which works extremely well for economics central choice axiom(SCM, which requires extensive dynamic updating), and logic’s central choice axiom, of indifferent necessity choice___More on this later when I get up to Hintikka and Pietarinen.
I do have a scientific method to my madness, believe it or not, and it’s stated in the first quote at the beginning of this paper, “Logic is rooted in the social principle.” Charles Sanders Peirce. As a matter of fact, all my thinking is grounded in Peirce’s thought and logic processes, especially his classification architecture, along with my 40 years experience working in logic tables, but I do give credit to many other greats of history, especially those mentioned in the second paragraph. Plato, Paine and Hamilton figure greatly in my reasoning of sorting the realities involved between the “Semantic Web”, and the “Pragmatic Web” evolving into a “Knowledge Web”, or S-Web -> P-Web -> K-Web, as per Pietarinen. IMO, Plato and A. Hamilton are the two earliest greatest economists, as I have mentioned in previous posts, and America’s democracy may not even have been possible without Paine’s contributions to the S-Web and P-Web, of the times, which has greatly contributed to the nation’s and the world’s long march toward a possible and desired universal non-violent liberty. Barach Obama put it best, “The creed written into our founding document declares our destiny”. Without the work of Tom Paine, we may never have had a country to enjoy such privileges, as his pamphlets were read aloud in many towns, by a town crier, since many could not read. This is one of history’s greatest examples where the semantic web(if I’m allowed to be so liberal with meaning) contributes to the pragmatic web of our and the entire world’s reality, and it was all greatly made possible by one man, yet most of academics wants to forget the greatness of this powerful common man, of “Common Sense”. I can’t. I give him the credit due, yet without the perspicacious mind of Hamilton to follow, we’d have been a sad economic basket-case. BTW, you’ll find much the similar semantic style in the “Federalist Papers” where written by Hamilton(Plubius), as used by Paine.
The next two important men in my evolution are Peirce and his student T. Veblen, and I might mention why all these men I’m crediting are as great as they are___They were all of great eclectic inductive intellects and had other wide ranging interests, as well. That’s why such others not on my list are not credited, as they are all particularists, and I choose the universalists over the particularists, as the mind works best outside-in, first, and not inside-out, first, as many may want, i.e., induction over deduction. Though Aristotle and Kant make my list, as does Wittgenstein, as he was the first to mention “diachronic logic”, which plays a very important place in the history of logic. Though I’d roughly formed tri-chronic logic from reading Peirce, I fully grounded it after reading about Wittgenstein’s diachronic logic in Pietarinen, just last month, and then developed it further to include tri-spatial perception. Pietarinen’s statement, “semantics is parasitic on pragmatism over time”, or there abouts, also greatly contributed to the grounding abilities for my own tri-systems of thought. So, I thank all these great minds whose shoulders I stand on, and especially thank Wittgenstein for his clearness of logic views, even if at times, a bit over-strict and omniscient. Jaakko Hintikka also plays heavily in my thinking as he also is a lifelong student of Peirceian thought, and was the main professor Pietarinen studied and looked up to, as near as I can tell. Hintikka’s thought is profound, especially as relates to working on founding further logic progress on a proper method of scientific questioning, which is exactly what Peirce stated, more than 100 years ago. I also think his modal logic is more sound than Kripke’s, as to S-5, which I will later show how to prove with better social grounding, as per Peirce, using Euler through Einstein and Hawking. Our scientific progress is in the proper formation of the questions, just as Socrates stated in Plato’s works.
I am going to be controversial and state that John Locke’s “blank slate mind” is true, and not only for how we are born, but as is through-out our lives. That’s right___the mind is a blank slate. It has perception and logic agents and self-agency, but as to content, it draws all content into itself, from either outside or inside, from brain state agents and memory storage states, by way of the passive and active will, which is no more than our instinctual intuitive spirit, most likely housed in the reptilian brain stem, and connected from its three lobes, to the three lobe cerebellum, by the trigeminal nerve, which branches into the two halves of the brain___the mind/brain connections. BTW, both my wife and C.S. Pierce have and had trigeminal neuralgia, a very serious nerve injury, thus I’ve studied this function extensively, as my wife has suffered with it for over four years. Further I’ll state the most controversial idea of all, rationality does not exist in the mind___rationality is a brain state agent, most likely in the cerebellum, and must always be inducted/inferred into perception. This is the great mind/body problem solved, iff one simply realizes the entire agency of self must have two a priori agents, in order for one to question, and the other to answer___Reason asks the questions, and logic answers___In other words the mind answers the brain, and all reason and logic must be inducted/inferred in. If this doesn’t make sense, I don’t know what does.
Now, how does perception and logic function? Most would think, and most do think that logic, the knowing agent, does the thinking___Well it does do most of the higher order thinking, but not all by self-choice. If we first look at perception, we can better understand the knowing agent of epistemic logic. Just as Peirce stated, “Logic is rooted in the social principle”, and I couldn’t agree more. We know the common ground of being is the natural given___by this I simply mean we all see a tree, a bird, a house, a person or whatever, of the real ground of nature and man. When we first open our eyes from birth this perception process starts, is neutral/passive, and unstoppable if our eyes are open, and then stores these images in the memory storage areas of the brain, for later retrieval by the will. This is the natural common ground of all brain and mind states. It comes from both bio-nature and geo-universe as the equilibriated ground of all beings. I don’t think anyone would argue with the balance of the universe and nature___I sure can’t make that any better, and neither do I for a minute think anyone can, in its pre-human natural state. The problem with logic, looked at in perception, only starts with man first digging his way into Earth’s crust. This is where reason first starts questioning perception, and logic is necessarily required to answer___it’s just the dialogical necessity of brain/mind mechanics. So, when there’s conflict with nature, recognized by perception, reason and logic, brain and mind, must start co-operating to resolve the differences and dis-agreements of perception, as all logic is, is proper knowing___Proper Seeing, i.e., basic a priori perceptual instinct. Whether perception and logic are individual epistemic agents or not is beyond my ability to fully know, without self-deception entering the equation, even though I’ve studied all the models of perception and logic from all the different schools of epistemic philosophy, and my inner self-investigations. I see no reason why perception can not be logic, as a singleton. There’s just nothing else needed for the mind to know, as knowing is simply seeing the total triadic picture of tri-chronic logic and tri-spatial perception, which I’ll explain shortly. To me, it’s just logically necessary for perception to honor nature’s natural equilibriums, if it’s going to respect itself, and be responsible to finding the scientific truth of the agents and world epistemic agency, through the final semantics and pragmatic equilibrium, in future total knowledge, or our “ought” models of. If the will feeds perception/logic the proper images and ideas, true/false, good/bad, reason and logic dialogically can do their job, though logic does, at the same time, have the central choice to be dishonest___the Trickster element. But, if one is trying to be scientific, and abide by the method of responsibility and honesty to self-truth, perception/logic will by necessity, just as Hintikka has tried to prove with modal logic, yet unsuccessfully, so far, IMO, function necessarily honestly, when sense and reason ask it to do so___first order math and logic has never failed me yet, and I don’t expect it to. Yet with these pieces of information, and what’s to come, Hintikka may be able to prove his S-5 modal logic better.
Finally, to wrap this all up, here is the technical explanation of tri-chronic logic and tri-spatial perception. I’ll take the hardest unsolved problem in philosophy, morality, and prove its social scientific validity. I’ll also prove the necessary validity of the axiom of choice. I’ll further still prove the equilibrium axiom, X/X. All will be proved with tri-system Peirceian thinking, semantics, pragmatics and future empirical probability models of. Morality is based on the inter-subjective pre-personal analyzing of self in relation to other, in self-reflection. This requires deep self-reflective reasoning and logic semantics and dialogues. This is private language, just as Wittgenstein described it, and not accessible to outside investigation, but we all know we do just this, yet a first basis outside knowledge of this process can be represented by my wife’s quote; “Morality is as you see others morally see you.” That is an entirely objective observation of personal judgment, yet still a private language. Thus, we must observe a larger function of morality, in society, to have something tangible to, at the least, use primitive logic and math(least and greatest magnitudes) on. This is where we must use Peirce’s social principle of logic, which exhibits itself in our habits, which are publicly obvious and scientifically observable, thus mathematizable, even if with primitive math, as it’s all I need for this short paper. Everyone knows primitive maths are convertible to higher order Jevons, Peirce and Keynes’ probability maths and logics.
So far, we have a Wittgensteinian diachronic process we can install in the perception/logic agent, and have the separate epistemic agents of reason and logic dialogue about. The reason it’s diachronic is I’m using two different time periods of social moral action, and two different spatial areas___past and present. The reasoning agent also has access to the perception/logic agent. They function as the agency of brain/mind cooperation/transduction, even when reason, passions or any sense agent may be in conflict with perception/logic. In order to make this model a tri-chronic process of both logic/perception, we’ll need a three time-place event. Thus the model I’ll install in perception/logic is “past-present-future”, which is both time and place triadic specific, thus tri-chronic and tri-spacial. With a model of “was, is and ought” we can clearly see the dynamics of social moral function. First, I’ll have to convert/update morality to logic by simply renaming it in two ways, “The greatest comparative good for all concerned”, i.e., as to health and security”, and Plato’s “Best order of things”. Using these two simplicitors allows us to compare periods and places of moral social history, by using a simple Cartesian graph of +’s and –‘s on an x, y, c graph. Let the diagonal axis c, be the universal and natural balances of ground given system’s qualities, and the vertical axis x, be quantities, of man based moral actions. Also let the horizontal axis y, be time and place. That should be simple enough for explanation.
Next, let me state that morality can be time and place mathematically compared, as a social function over history and place/space. The functions are “greater good” and “best order”. Now, just ask, “Was woman treated better or worse in the past, compared to the present, and how might she be treated in the future, as based on a non-violent liberty function, and a future model of “ought?” This can be easily graphed with history’s existing database of facts and figures, thus mathematically axiologizing morality, in general terms, as to personal treatment. I’ve graphed this out elsewhere, and it’s a no-brainer___Woman was treated mathematically worse and more unfair in the past compared to today, and most likely will be treated better still in the future, "iff", the ought model holds for “greater good/best order”, which logic can accomplish, if it wishes, once the copula of the semantics web and the pragmatic web are breached, which this math and model does, by the linking copula being the inductive math proofs. The math works, for this model of tri-chronic logic and tri-spatial perception, and produces its proof by linking subjective sematic evolutional sense and actions, with objective pragmatic mathematical observations and facts. Also, other concepts such as responsibility, epistemic security, epistemic truth can be plugged in, in place of morality, to socially prove logic’s extended function mathematically, rationally and empirically___The Triadic Proof___X/X=1+E.(E is extension)
Next is the axiom of choice. Without the axiom of choice, the excluded middle in most logics, we couldn’t install a “was, is and ought” model in intuitive perception/logic, and we couldn’t use our basic natural instinctual a priori primitive logic to do the tri-chronic logic and tri-chronic perception semantical dialogics necessary to even describe this model’s function, yet I just have. Even though I’m only using diachronic logical math to do the actual graph’s pragmatic outputs, I could not have reasoned it out dialogically without the extended capacities of my Peirce type thought processes, therefore, the axiom of choice(and/or inductive intuitive included middle) is absolutely necessary in extended type logics, or un-restricted inter-relational first order logics, as Hintikka has stated, to solve society’s present complex problems. For, without scientific tri-chronic and tri-spatial models of logic and perception, we are intellectually handicapped, un-necessarily so. Peirce, Hintikka and Pietarinen are correct, and modern linguistics and logic studies are in need of serious updating, to the old, tried and true, Peirceian wisdom-visions___wisdom logic.
Next is the equilibrium axiom, X/X and also X/-X=1+EE, representing infinity divided by and to the true fundamental infinitesimals of total state space decay. The first formula comes from Euler, yet I’ve found a mathematical method for proving its value and validity, for economics and physics, if not many other fields of study, in an entirely new way. If we take Einstein’s formula E=MC^2, and convert it to E=F^tdC^2, where F is finity, and td represents total universal finite decay to its final state, if taken far enough over universal time and space, as per Stephen Hawking’s 10^137 years for total universal radiation decay, we are left, according to physics’ conservation law, “Matter and energy can never be destroyed, only converted”, then we have a final elemental matter/energy product/substance, of e/m waves, or photons, in the absolute entropy state of X/X equilibrium, which actually extends to X/X=1+E at absolute zero. This just happens to be an absolute scientific theoretical fact___Oxymoron? No. Just run a theoretical universal model backwards, with Whitehead’s 9 categorial obligations of quantum wave motion, and you have the reforming(Plato’s forms and archetypes of thought) of a new universe, iff, far enough out in infinity wave motion is most near still, then by the laws of quantum physics, it is thus required to be hydrodynamic___The Prime Mover. In order to understand total re-forming of X/X=1+EE(extension/entanglement) matter/energy, one only needs the known laws of quantum motion from random motions to uniform motions, and std. model physics laws, as they always apply to the entire universe, of all known and possibly knowable models. The implications for this are profound for physics’ models of our universe, but I’ll leave that for another time…
None of these three ideas, plus many others not mentioned, would have been possible without the extentions of dyadic logic and perception, to triadic logic and perception, or tri-chronic perception/logic, however you want it. The final word is that logic/perception can just as easily function triadically, just as Charles Sanders Peirce long ago tried to inform the world, and not only can it___It does!
Perception Is Seeing/Knowing/Wisdom…
How can I state this simply? Perception is nothing more than seeing, understanding and knowing, in its barest, and in it most essential states___It is pure mind. What is its barest state architecture and mechanics? Let’s speculate an answer. We know it produces geometrical representations, so it’s a geometricizer. We know it produces 3-D representations, so it’s a dimensionalizer. We know from Einstein the universe has four fundamental forces, so there’s two more, as these two may be represented as electro-magnetic and gravitizing. The next two forces are the strong and weak nuclear forces, and could easily fill the necessary positions of perception’s most complex quantum mechanics isomorphic friction and ergodicity, to further help the geometricizer and the dimensionalizer form representations, then we’d have a fully working mechanical perception system, self-sufficiently functioning. Of course, this is just a model, but it’s a highly possible model. Just close your eyes and picture a triangle, a square, a circle, etc., and watch how quick they form, and how quick you can resize them, or zoom them, then picture a red `72 GTO and try doing the same thing, without changing images. Use the same image and resize and zoom in and out with it. Is it as easy as the triangle, etc.? Why? Why not?
The world of academic and analytic philosophy has long assumed knowledge to be more complex than simple perception, but is it Really? When we travel back to Socrates’ dialogues in many of Plato’s works, we find knowledge to be admittedly no more than perception, so let me see if I can convince you it is no more than simple/complex perception, and nothing more. In recent years Jesse Prinz has written, “Beyond Appearances: The Content of Sensation and Perception”, which entirely agrees with my ideas of perception, and that is that all sense and perception can be represented entirely in perception. This is also in agreement with Socrates ideas, and many recent epistemologists, especially many female epistemologists. So why has the academic world so exaggerated the simple Ockham’s razor?
The most recent global debate is about “reification”, which isn’t really being related to perception, but since all knowledge applies to perception, it easily fits as a starting point of discussion. If we reify all our social and cultural belief systems, then why not apply reification to perception? I am going to. Due to the debate between the Bachtin Circle and the Habermas Groups, and others, centering attention on reification of each’s ideas, I’ll extend the debate to the reification processes that affect the perception and epistemological debates. All the differences over the last 2400 years are due to nothing but turning abstract speculations into pseudo-concrete beliefs, which is none other than reification, and is no more than the original abstract speculations, whether of Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Habermas, Chompsky or others. It’s all classed as reification, if not fully grounded in logic, math and empirical experimental evidence.
Omniscient abstract speculations are no closer to the truth than was ancient mythology, as it can easily be refuted. Just try to think of something concrete, subjective or objective, that is not, or can not be represented in perception___I say it’s not possible, whether cognition, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, objects or any senses___We only know it all in perception, and we can know it no other way, just as Jesse Prinz has so aptly shown, and Socrates so long ago stated. All perception is inductive mechanics, either from the outside world first, then from memory storage areas second, and nothing more than inducted, deducted and transducted, back and forth between our perception and brain agents, by imaginations, epiphanies, metaphors, analogies, intuitions, hypotheses, or whatever else one wishes to induct into the total processes of abduction, as Peirce so long ago stated, and named it.
Perception___You want ground? Look at it. It’s the first universal ground of stars, galaxies, planets, moons, plasma clouds, etc., and second Ol’ Mother-Earth, nature, Mother-Wit and Common Sense___That’s it___That’s all… These grounds hold the original first matters, motions, mechanics, maths, geometries, equilibriums, ergodicities, isomorphicities, dimensions, greatest and least magnitudes, combinatorics, balances, best orders of things, what-ever___What more could we ask A-Priori logics, maths and laws to be founded in…? “You perceive the Firsts___You quench your Thirsts…” We realize we induct these in first, passively and necessarily, if we but open our eyes, and 90% of the perception/knowledge/wisdom battle is already won. The rest follows first inductions, and only final inductions will solve the, yet unsolved, universals and particulars…
The above isn’t to suggest perception is not a complex organ, as it is the most complex organ in the entire body. When one realizes all sense and intellectual mind functions must take place within perception, and also realizes the number of sense, reasoning and logic agents within the brain/mind complex, plus the entire differential/integral isomorphic actions of all these agents, sometimes functioning simultaneously, one quickly realizes the true power of perception___No number of computers on Earth can compare. This is one of the reasons Peirce had so much trouble developing a workable dialogical interpretation of said processes. Just think, the only man in the world, at the time, embarking on an entirely new path of triadic understanding, interpretation and exposing his scientific findings to a world of settled reified beliefs___Sort of like the American Indians finally coming to the realization, after it was too late, they had to trade their bow and arrows, for guns. No more difficult task exists than developing out of settled beliefs and habits of the given social contract, as the Indians prove, yet he achieved it, but only to be fully interpreted 100 years later, when all he was trying to accomplish was a new interpretation of simple and complex perception, and really little more.
Just think about it, can any of us step above this settled concrete power of the highly established academic views? I’d just like to state my interpretation of Peirce’s views about simple and complex perception… Abduction is the interpreter/action/agent of the transductions, of inductions and deductions, as a triadic system of simple and complex perception, all the while being all three in one. The aducer/abducer is always the interpreter/perception, whether operating in sense, reason or logic, as well as are sense, reason and logic as they morph and isomorphically change and trade places, in and out of perception, the true seat of all seeing, knowing and wisdom. This is why the triadic perception of “I” is so hard to sensibly describe, with any form of critical reason or logic. The transductive “I” perception is the interpreter/translator of induction and deduction into, away from, and back to abduction, “Mother-Wit” and “Common Sense”. Abduction is the triadic repeating processes of the many transductions between induction and deduction, before final inductions into the “Public Sphere”, either by hand, pen or tongue, as there is no other possible pragmatic action into the Public Sphere, except that famous “Ol’ Induction”. Deduction, transduction and abduction only take place within the mind, yet “Ol Induction” is everywhere___omnisciently existing___when thought, used, heard or spoken…
The simple absolutely grounded proof of the above is the overly obvious empirical evidence of all the world’s empires___Rise and Falls. It’s always emergent evolutionary induction up, and devolutionary deduction down. The wealth, intelligence and growth in and up, and the wealth, intelligence and growth out and down. Also, look at the last forty years analogies of America down and China up, etc., yes, there’s been fictitious wealth growth in America, but my analogy applies to real physical and sustained growth. There’s no larger proof of good induction, and bad deduction, on the face of the Earth, and if you don’t like the analogies, I suggest you update your understandings of the “Social Contracts” and the “Public Sphere”___as you can do nothing but induct into the “Public Sphere”, even if you try to offer a deduction___the deduction must always be inducted in___First___No deduction in is possible.
Exact Intuitional Perception Induction Logic
From the earliest times of antiquity the world’s greatest thinkers have puzzled over mastering the exact mechanics and proofs of induction, deduction and intuition. As I mentioned above, Socrates/Plato came the closest, the earliest, in its clearest explication, culminating in “Noesis” and “Perception”. We next pick it up in Eudoxas, Archimedes, Appolonius, then the Arabs Diophantus, Al-Khwarizmi, Biruni and Avicenna, on into the European Continent through Adalard, DeVinci, Vives, Whewell and many, many more, yet it was Scotus and Ockham who achieved anything close to Socrates/Plato’s induction explication of mind, even though there are shortcomings in their early thought, they are still well worth the read. Socrates clearly stated knowledge was perception, thus mind was perception to him, as it is interpreted by myself and many modern epistemologists, but I must explain this deeper for you to see and accept my analysis.
I’ll first state the exact mechanics of perception/mind is the intuitive mechanics of 1st, induction/logic, 2nd, deduction/reason, and 3rd, intuition/abduction, and intuition is the same and similar mechanics as abduction, which Peirce explained through his system of semioses and signs. By substituting these three terms we can be much less complicating in the explanation of said mechanics. Ground state observations are always first state inductions, passive and active choices. Analytics of these inductions is most always, secondly, deductions of the first ground state. Thirdly, all triadic transductions of inductions and deductions is intuitive/abductive. These intuitive processes are both passive background natural state processing and active choice state processing of inductions, deductions, stored memory state inductions, deductions, and visions, metaphors, hypotheses, epiphanies, senses, intellectual memory states, of which all are transducted in and out of perception by passive and active will and intuition. Judgment acts deductively on the above said transactions, yet the over-all mechanics is conducted by our intuitional being, The “I” self of perception, and not as Wittgenstein stated, that we needn’t worry about the “I” self, yet it is the central processor of all inductions, deductions and intuitions, whether passive or active, so far more important than Wittgenstein stated. Exactly, there is no set state space where perception, or any epistemic agent must be housed, as perception agency and all its agents can transduct to all areas of each, yet most of the time all act within the over-arching perception, the head master processor of mind/brain state spaces, and may always be in perception, as my investigations can not penetrate the central mechanics, absolutely positively. This is why it’s always been so hard to describe successfully, whether by abduction, cognition, logic, reason, psychology or whatever, the clearest rendition of total actions. The all self “I” can be everywhere, all at once, within either the mind or brain, and all its agents can also(Peirce’s complex sign semioses), yet we neurologically know perception to be the largest neural network of the brain, wired most everywhere. Basically, as I’ve stated earlier, the agent/tool, reason, asks the questions, and logic answers the questions, yet the complexities of the transc(i)ndence of the repeating transductions between perception agency and its agents can be quite an extended process, to achieve exact thinking results, which we induct back out into the public sphere, or store in our many memory storage state spaces. We do know where perception is physically located, but I do not know the capacities of the isomorphic photonic and other em(electro-magnetic wave/particles) motion state capacities, as to inter-changing locations within mind/perception/brain state spaces. I just know the facts of what happens, generally, within perception, and believe all agents exist in the periphery of the perception neural net, when not in use, as I can always see them when specifically ascribing them to the center of perception. We can only know we do change state spaces of agency and agents, just as Peirce described it with abduction and his semioses of signs. It’s just easier to describe the actions with the agents of logic, reason and intuition perceptionally functioning through the repeating transductions of this central triad.
Now, you may ask how do I know all this? Sixty years of study and personal experience and scientific testing of results, by myself and thousands of other authors, confirms my results. The proofs of inductions has been attested to by authors since Archimedes, with his “center of mass” induction proofs by algebraic and mathematical geometric and calculus results, to modern day inductionists such as Huygens, Euler, Bolzano, Whewell, DeMorgan, Jevons, Peirce, Einstein, Veblen, Brouwer, Keynes, Cajori, Davidson and many, many more, who proved their initial inductions with inductive results. These all used forms of empirical probability math(non-Beyesian insurance probability plus others) and actual empirical evidence to prove their inductions. I also use initial or other discovered or intuited inductions to prove all my inductions, and also accept deductions and intuitionistic math and logic, and some classical math and logic, in the interim stages of intuitive transductions, of the initial inductions and deductions, to solve scientifically for all my ideas. I lean heavily on the scientists and mathematicians of all ages and nations, to achieve satisfactorily exacting answers. As to the above mind mechanics results, it’s all in correspondence with uniting math’s many enjoyable puzzles, of its many isomorphic, morphic and ergodic maths, plus many geometries, algebras and calculi, logics, and over forty+ years of intense inner self-investigation, then uniting that with all life’s experiences, maths, logics and studies of. This is only a general rough summary of my most recent ideas, which I will elaborate on in the coming months, to show a new path into global self-understanding of economics’ realities and solutions…
Intuitional perception is the isomorphic agent between the sense agents, and rational and logical agents. Intuition can be and is both, emotional and logical mind/brain state spaces’ agent. Emotional and folk-wise, it functions fine as “logica utens” and as the scientific intellect, it functions fine as “logica docens.” Both uses are completely, eclectically, compatible. We as a human culture are bound to the necessary contractual responsibility of self, to the natural law of logical, mathematically proven, inductive intuitive liberty, “iff” we wish to survive___This is simply a logical, empirical, inductive and deductive observation…
As I’ve stated before, it all comes down to personal Choice, and I choose to install my fundamental intuitive perceptual “Self-I” in natural “Mother-Wit” and “Common Sense”. It’s simply up to all of us to choose to install the natural “Self-I” in the agent/agency we are most comfortable operating from, but we should all, foremost, realize we do have such a “free-choice”. If we wish, we may operate from our souls, spirits, emotions, compassions, empathy, ego, reason, intellect, logic or any other perceptual agent available to us___It’s entirely a matter of Choice… I only have one suggestion; that everyone install the self-operation of judgment, from one’s better nature, and install the self-operation of one’s intellect, from one’s higher nature, then maybe, we could all get along better…
I hope this makes my analogies of Peirce’s thought clearer. If not, e-mail me at: lloyd.gillespie@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment