we have statement S

a structural data type
that we interpret semantically as a computable specification for an observation

what is its value?

this statement S cannot be specified without a past negotiation process
because it must use a common language

an interpretation of reality in _meaningful_ language

#$^^%%%%^%%^$%%$$#%%@#@!#$#@%%%%^%%^&%%

mathematicians are known to make statements without much justification

one of the great things about neural nets is that they easily separate many patterns

seeing a pattern does not imply establishing it
and unexplained phenomena are the strange fruit science feeds off

science is the verification of statements S
making the observations
establishing confidence in prediction

technology gives value to our predictions
by allowing us manufacture and manipulation of our reality

i see the value of technology

On Jul 21, 12:49 pm, galathaea veawb.coop> wrote:

Only when it can be reduced right back down to an irreducible and
sensory level of perception, i.e. checked through non-contradoction
AND by a direct link to sensory evidence.

NO sensory evidence means its been invented inside your mind, e.g.
your god and the Kantian mystical non-sense.

Michael Gordge

On Jul 20, 11:49 pm, galathaea veawb.coop> wrote:

galathaea wrote:

Interesting observations.

As I see it, no statement is meaningful or has value without
understanding of its context. "John has brown hair" has no value to us
unless we know who John is, and that there is some basis for thinking...

In article <1185025808.288917.95400@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" yahoo.com> wrote:

!! On Jul 20, 11:49 pm, galathaea veawb.coop> wrote:
!! > we have statement S
!! >
!! > a structural data type
!! > that we interpret semantically as a computable specification for an
!!...

On Jul 22, 1:32 am, "Michael A. Clem"
wrote:

Dopey Kantian piffle, the answer to the question:

WHAT are the perceptions and conceptions of and about?

Is the foundation of all of man's knowledge, its called *existence.*
You cant have a perception unless some THING is already existing to
perceive.

You cant be conscious unless there is something to be cnscious of.

Existence and NOT your state of mins, IS therefore the one and only
fundamental axiom of ALL of man's knowledge and the purpose of reason
- YOUR aware and working MIND - is to IDENTIFY and INTEGRATE what it
is that the claimed existence, exists as, WITHOUT contradiction.

You have to identify and then elimintate the contradictions to find
truth from fiction, to find right from wrong, to fond good from bad,
to find the real from the imagined, why?

Michael Gordge wrote:

Michael Gordge wrote:

On Jul 21, 6:21 pm, galathaea veawb.coop> wrote:

On Jul 22, 1:28 pm, "Michael A. Clem"
wrote:

Thats because you cant without contradiction, unless of course you are
a mystic or Kantian.

Randaphobic / Kantian retardation. The *it* must exist before your
perceptions of *it* and then non-contradictory identification of the
*it* comes next.

You dont have to know that a tree is called a tree, all that your
perceptions can tell you is, that it exists as something totally
different to a cat.

You call one *it* a tree and you call the other *it* a cat.

They cant both be called trees or cats and they both cant be where the
other is at the same time.

A is A