Chomsky gives a linguistic lecture
is
"minimum structural distance" actually noncommutative?
Chomsky says you're really trying to find out what's going on in the person's Mind....
But this is done by the Pineal Gland via the Spirit, shen and the Yuan Qi. What is going on in someone else's mind is Reflected Holographically - and so the meaning is "transduced" or "transposed" by the Pineal Gland via the Emptiness itself. What we perceive as external reality ALREADY exists internally in our own bodies.
Chomsky claims that dance and music in primitive aboriginal groups have
"no function at all"
But he doesn't mean that in a pejorative sense. He means it in a mystical sense. He says the "whole conceptual system is there" even if they don't have the words for it. Brilliant.
There has to be some other process in evolution beyond natural selection; Darwin didn't like that, so they debated it. I think the answer, in all these cases, has to be that these things are kind of piggy-backing on systems that are already there for some reason. ...
Arithmetic could be piggy-backing on the system that's already there. But what about music. There is some interesting work, trying to show that the basic properties of musical systems are similar to the structural properties of linguistic systems. Quite interesting work on that. Maybe that will come out.
Yes Noam Chomsky - Maybe it will come out!!
we have to find a way to think about thought that is not language dependent and that's very hard to do.
Hey Noam - I have a hint for you. LISTENING is THINKING!!!
listening, and note taking require us to make inferences, which are partly based on information the author or speaker has not supplied.
It's called "Logical Inference." It's what Socrates taught with his "Know Thy Self" motto. Only the real secrets were covered up by Plato. So when we listen to our self then the "author" disappears since the I-word is not self-referential as Dan Zahavi emphasizes.
try to make sense of our experience in a coherent way....[Bertrand] Russell pointed out, the only thing were confident about is our immediate experience....This science forming capacity, which children use to make sense of the world, which primitive tribes use, it's a different one, which is also trying to make sense of the use of language. For example for a child in a Piaget type experiment...the child will automatically set up an invisible contact between them. There's gotta be some invisible mechanical thing that is causing them to interact. Because that's just the way we see the world.
In fact that's a major event in the history of science - was when Newton showed that it doesn't work! Demonstrated what was called the "mechanical philosophy" - the assumptions about the nature of the world made by every great scientist - Galileo, Descartes Huygens, everyone and Newton himself believed it. That's why he discovered it's an absurdity - that no person of any scientific understanding would pay attention but it happened to be true: That you can't have a mechanical universe! that you have what he and others regarded as an Occult Property - Action without Contact. It "can't happen" [ according to scientific understanding]. Our intuitive understanding of the world happens to be Different then the way the world appears when we apply our scientific understanding to it. That was a wrenching moment - in fact it changed the whole nature of Science.
Post-Newton it changed. It took a long time to sink in.. We give up the hope of understanding the world. We just try to understand theories about the world. Which is totally different. You get apparent contradictions, like Hume who understood this, pointed out that Newton's greatest achievement was to show that there are mysteries which we will never comprehend. He was referring to things like Action without Contact - Interaction without Contact.
aka Action At a Distance.
aka O at a D.
But what about music. There is some interesting work, trying to show that the basic properties of musical systems are similar to the structural properties of linguistic systems. Quite interesting work on that. Maybe that will come out.
In the seminal work "Pomset logic: A noncommutative extension of classical linear logic" Retor\'e introduced Pomset logic, an extension of linear logic with a self-dual noncommutative connective. Pomset logic is defined by means of proof-nets, later a deep inference system BV was designed for this extension, but equivalence of system has not been proven up to now. As for a sequent calculus formulation, it has not been known for either of these logics, and there are convincing arguments that such a sequent calculus in the usual sense simply does not exist for them. In an on-going work on semantics we discovered a system similar to Pomset logic, where a noncommutative connective is no longer self-dual. Pomset logic appears as a degeneration, when the class of models is restricted. This will be shown in a forthcoming paper.In the current work we define a semicommutative multiplicative linear logic, which is multiplicative linear logic extended with noncommutative connectives (not to be confused with very different Abrusci-Ruet noncommutative logic). We develop a syntax of proof-nets and show how this logic degenerates to Pomset logic. However, a more important problem than just finding yet another noncommutative logic is finding a sequent calculus for this logic. We introduce decorated sequents, which are sequents equipped with an extra structure of a binary relation of reachability on formulas. We define a decorated sequent calculus for semicommutative logic and prove that it is cut-free, sound and complete. This is adapted to "degenerate" variations, including Pomset logic. Thus, in particular, we give a (sort of) sequent calculus formulation for Pomset logic, which is one of the key results of the paper.
[PDF] A self-dual modality for non-commutative contraction and duplication in the category of coherence spaces
two inverse linear (iso) morphisms:“duplication” from (flag A) to ((flag A)<(flag A)) and
“contraction” in the opposite direction—where< is the self dual and non commutative …[PDF] arxiv.org
calculus for non commutative contraction andduplication. This logical calculus could be defined as an extension of the calculus of structures with deepinference (roughly speaking, internal rewriting)
Proof nets through the lens of graph theory: a compilation of remarks
denoted by '<'whose particularity is to be non-commutative and self-dual. Its system of proof
nets extends the MLL+ Mix correctness criterion–“there is no (undirected) cycle using at …arxiv.org
Pomset logic: a logical and grammatical alternative to the Lambek calculus
POMSET LOGIC, issued from a particular denotational semantics or categorical
interpretation of linear logic known as coherence spaces. In addition to the multiplicative …
But what about music. There is some interesting work, trying to show that the basic properties of musical systems are similar to the structural properties of linguistic systems. Quite interesting work on that. Maybe that will come out.
No comments:
Post a Comment