Mathematician relationships between variables grows geometrically as a NO:# increases.

The key ideas here of possible geometrically relationships are coherence and narrative. These are the principles that guide the organization of observations into meaningful structures and a pattern between grows variables. The mathematician commonly observes only a single case, not a pattern of covariation (when two things are related so that change in one is associated with change in the other) in many comparable cases. The are some more reasons inflation occurs, but maybe a can explain those. Moreover, the Chess Player observes simultaneous changes in so many variables that the principle of variation generally is not helpful in sorting out the complex relationships among them. The narrative story, on the other hand, offers a means of organizing the rich complexity of the historian's observations. The historian uses imagination to construct a coherent story out of fragments of data. The intelligence analyst employing the historical mode of analysis is essentially a storyteller. He or she constructs a plot from the previous events, and this plot then dictates the possible endings of the incomplete story. It is systematic in approach. You do not need to keep looking for possible threats of checkmates unsure that you have covered all the possibilities even if you actually had, nor leave the analysis prematurely. You will know when you have covered all the possibilities. This is even more critical when you are the defending party. The plot is formed of the "dominate concepts or leading ideas" that the analyst uses to postulate patterns of relationships among the available data. The analyst is not, of course, preparing a work of fiction. There are constraints on the analyst's imagination, but imagination is nonetheless involved because there is an almost unlimited variety of ways in which the available data might be organized to tell a meaningful story.

What did you have for supper last night?????

P.S. Are you playing chess or are you writing a ducumentary. Or maybe I should have just stayed in the kitchen where I belong. ;)

maybe a "hop soup";)

I found the "mathematician relationships" bit interesting.

So, in essence, while the opponent is taking all my pieces, I'm constructing a narrative about it?

The Queen met her sad fate a dark night, as she was secretly visiting the Bishop. A wild, bloodthirsty Knight jumped over the helpless Pawns and ate her alive. Meanwhile, on the other side of the board...

I've actually done this once, with a friend. The effect was very humorous, but I'm not so sure it helped me play any better.

In this topic, without attempting any dogmatic definition, I have accumulated a number of cinematographic examples that are calculated to aid the mathematician or the storyteller ‘technique-conscious’. I add my page ..http://www.neografixpr.com/chess/index.shtml

........that, those signposts are useful; to anyone modest he or she cannot see his own way with this topic some clarity.

History is, by and large, a record of what people did, not what they failed to do. These are factors that influence a person's ability to recall examples that fit into the four cells 8x8 of the CHESSBOARD. In the Story teller the drama unfolds actors’ personal involvement with the actions being observed enhances the likelihood of bias. "Where the observer is also an actor, he is likely to exaggerate the uniqueness and emphasize the dispositions origins of the responses of others to his own actions. It is because the observer assumes his or she owns actions are unprovocative, clearly understood by other actors, and well designed to elicit a desired response. Statistical measurement of co. variation is known as correlation. Two events are correlated when the existence of one event implies the existence of the other. Variables are correlated when a change in one variable implies a similar degree of change in another. Correlation alone does not necessarily imply causation. When the actor does not respond as expected, the logical inference is that the response was caused by the nature of the actor rather than by the nature of the situation. For example, people remember occurrences more readily than nonoccurrences. Because all the pieces of chess except the pawn are non-directional (they can move and attack up and down, left and right). Even if analysts follow these admonitions, there are several factors that distort judgment when one does not follow rigorous scientific procedures in making and recording observations. Mathematics is stilling part of the all scenario. For example, two events might co-occur because they have a common cause, rather than because one causes the other. But when two events or changes do cooccur, and the time sequence is such that one always follows the other, people often infer that the first caused the second. Thus, inaccurate perception of correlation leads to inaccurate perception of cause and effect. Indeed, an observer interacting with another actor sees himself as determining the situation to which the other actor responds. We may consider all the four possible shapes of number’s configuration generated from turning around one shape in steps of 90 degrees, to be one shape for the analysis. T shape map choreography is the same for us whether that T stands right, turned left or right to lie horizontally, or stands on its head. If this shape can be castled by a piece in one orientation, it can be castled by the same piece in the other orientations provided that the approach of the piece to the map is from the same relative direction. No piece is able to make the cast in some orientations of the shape and not in the rest. What about the homey pawn compiles into a journey chess program scenario? It is a directional piece that can move and attack only directionally? The expression adaptive complexity should not be used when referring to chess formations, because of the informational exiguity of a 64 square board is not in the yellow pages. Luckily, we have shown that the pawn can provide only a one square cast. And the one square map has, but one form however you rate it. But still chess geometrical formations are adaptive in the sense of being good for attack and defense, and providing players with very resourceful continuations of the game, therefore enjoying the preference of players and appraisals in the literature. Although I refer to some Chess Geometrical Formations maybe for being adaptive, the numbers mutate in t own frequency dials thru the “WIDE WEB.” I'm conscious that their adaptiveness; is not as complex and "fine-tuned" as the one displayed by living organisms (nor could it be, since the chess "world" is a board with 64 squares and up to 32 pieces inhabiting it, contrasting with the billions of molecules of a living organism?). A memory item, or portion of an organism's neurally-stored information, identified using the abstraction system of the observer, whose instantiation depended critically on causation by prior instantiation of the same memory item in one or more other organisms' nervous systems. A meme is the least unit of NET information relative to a selection process that has favorable or unfavorable selection bias that exceeds its endogenous tendency to change."...Any inherited information for which there is a favorable or unfavorable selection bias equal to several or many times its rate of endogenous change.” ("Sameness" of memory items is determined with respect to the above-mentioned abstraction system of the observer.) The Queen met her sad fate a dark night, as she was secretly visiting the Bishop. A wild, bloodthirsty Knight jumped over the helpless Pawns and ate <<“her alive>>.” Meanwhile, on the other side of the board . . .

Please stay on topic, or at least slow down a little. I cannot speak for the others, but I sure am having trouble following your train of thought sometimes.

Since this is an uncommon situation for me (usually I am the one confusing other people), I ask you either to clarify what you just said, or to be so unambiguously chaotical in your next reply so that there is no doubt that you don't want anyone to understand you.

The interesting thing is that the sentences you write make sense in isolation. "Correlation does not imply causation"; true. "The board has 64 squares and up to 32 pieces"; I hear ya. But I, for one, am having trouble making out the big picture of what you say.

Maybe you should start your messages with a table of contents. ;-)

hey Turing, i can hardly belive anyone could read that topic to the end. i ADMIRE u as i understand u've done it:) congratulations!;)

Reading the letters is not where the problem is. :)

i understand that reading and understanding a text are two completely different things. but reading such a long post is as hard as understanding it. why? simple. both are infinitely hard;)

And this comes from a guy who thinks a black hole is easy to get hold of. (Sorry, all others, internal joke.)

Yet to calculate is not in itself to analyze. A chess-player, for example, does the one without effort at the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a some wat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of droughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The attention is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed, resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers." When the going gets tactical, the computers get going.

A chess grandmaster holds in memory the significance of between 50,000 and 250,000 patterns of chess pieces. Grandmasters don’’t play by thinking analytically or logically; they play chess intuitively. They rely on the very rapid, pattern-recognition abilities of their subconscious. This is also how zoologists identify thousands of different insects, how botanists identify thousands of flowers, and what doctors refer to as ““clinical judgment.”” The word Golem has a clear Hebrew origin. It only appears once in the Bible, in verse 16 of Psalm 139, which pays homage to That who knows everything. Golem is the first word of the verse, used by the psalmist to refer to himself as a still shapeless mass, lacking structure, in his mother's womb. Its meaning could therefore be that of 'embryo', or with an ampler meaning, 'homunculus' (Staehlin, 1978, 178). We find here another interesting parallel, in this case with the tradition of alchemy and with one of the most mysterious aspects of Goethe's Faust.

The most basic board analysis is simply to sum the points each side possesses on the board. In general we use the scale where one pawn is equal to 100 points, and then a knight or bishop is worth around 300 points, a rook 500 and a queen 900. These scores are very open to tweaking. Indeed, many programs increase the scores for the pieces slightly. Using this method means that the finest score difference possible is one centipawn or one hundredth of a pawn score. Although the destruction of order always prevails in a system in or near thermodynamic equilibrium, the construction of order may occur in a system far from equilibrium. The static evaluation function is normally called from the quiescence search as soon as a position is quiescent, that is to say, quiet. There is no point searching to 15-ply depth if you just actively search out positions with terrible pawn structure, or weak king safety. In short, an equilibrium is characterized by an absolute minimum of free energy and a consequent maximization of entropy." Let us again restrict ourselves to an isolated system, that is, one cut off from its surrounding environment and into which no new energy or matter flows. Complexity itself, however, is insufficient to demonstrate the direction of evolution, at least not biological evolution. Not all species have become increasingly complex: sponges, roaches, spiders, and bees, among numerous invertebrates, are trapped in an endless cycle of perfected daily routines and thus have remained virtually unchanged for eons. In short, thermodynamics' second law strongly inhibits ordered structures in isolated systems. Of course, no matter how good your search is, you must also have a function, which accurately evaluates how good any board position is for each side. Consequently, the apparent contradiction between the observed universal order and the theoretical physical laws cannot be easily resolved in terms of the usual methods of equilibrium thermodynamics or even equilibrium statistical mechanics...we need to appeal to non-equilibrium systems. This means that there are no outstanding captures left to resolve, neither king is in check, no pawns look as if they are about to promote, and numerous other terms which vary greatly between programs. A mathematician relationship between variables grows geometrically as a NO: # increases. In such a system, energy states always tend to even out, at is, achieve equilibrium...

thats one of the beauties of GO, there is no pre-destined points or value to a stone (a piece) except the one the player gives to it.

in chess, a piece have a value and a way to move, making a bit "predecible". in GO, a stone is played with much freer and imaginative way.

the value and "ways" of the stone is compromised by the imagination, calculation and strategy of the player.

viva GO!!!!!!!!!!

get a life!

Morfinus: Not to start a flamewar here, but I suggest that in the event you don't have anything nice to say, that you say nothing at all rather than unkind things that serve no constructive purpose.

Have a nice day.

The emergent properties of social agents appear a promising methodology to achieve the mental abilities which AI strives to achieve but which traditional AI approaches lack. With cooperative agents we can work on a natural and local conceptual level - relying on their interaction to produce the complex and structured features we are interested in. Using symbolic agents we combine the advantages of the connectionist paradigm with traditional experience in logic, without the disadvantages of neural networks where concepts are hidden or the traditional approaches where programs operate on the same level they were programmed at with a Mathematician relationships between variables that grows geometrically as a NO:# increases. The cooperative agent approach has also shown early promise in numerous implementations. With an understanding of the central issues of agent autonomy, awareness, conflict resolution, and social knowledge, we hope that our future implementation will permit a modularized approach where the designer can more easily extend the system to achieve the more compelling talents of mind, one small agent at a time. We are not hypothesizing that every cognitive mechanism involving statistical induction necessarily operates on frequentist principles, only that at least one of them does, and that this makes frequentist principles an important feature of how humans intuitively engage the statistical dimension of the world. What would we be doing in there, over the course of our first trillion years - about eleven and a half days, real time? Well, with control over the substrate of our brains, we would have absolute control over our perceived external environments - meaning an end to all physical pain. It would mean an end to old age. It would mean an end to death itself. It would mean immortality with backup copies. It would mean the prospect of endless growth for every human being - the ability to expand our own minds by adding more neurons (or superneurons), getting smarter as we age. We could experience everything we've ever wanted to experience. We could become everything we've ever dreamed of becoming. That dream - life without bound, without end - is called Apotheosis

Josef, thank you for your very creative thoughts.

At its most Idealistic extreme, a panpsychist approach assumes that the values of a minimal, and ontologically primitive what-it's-likeness are exhaustively encoded by the solutions to field(?)-theoretic equation(s) of the Theory of Everything. The maths says it all. There's no need to import anything else and graft it on, or for that matter to spin anything else irreducible off. We live in a Multiverse where mathematical literalism works. The downside is we're presently not much better than medieval numerologists at deciphering the significance of the formulae. Yet like aspirant sorcerers, we know that getting the quasi-magical symbols even slightly wrong can sometimes have catastrophic practical consequences.

At its most Idealistic extreme, a panpsychist approach assumes that the values of a minimal, and ontologically primitive what-it's-likeness are exhaustively encoded by the solutions to field(?)-theoretic equation(s) of the Theory of Everything.

I really like the way you use every centence to its fullest, Josef. ;) Please explain what you mean by "what-it's-likeness".

While you're at it, please explain what you mean by "mathematical liberalism".

Our capacity to reason, our mind itself, is not the problem. Problems stem from limiting ideas, fake principles, and holding on to them as if they were true! Matematical Literalism.Matematical Literalism is possible with an open approach. You need a genuine desire to come to the truth of the matter, instead of simply trying to find confirmation for your beliefs. And preconceptions cannot help you here: they cloud your perception. You can use a concept, but you don't need to accept it as true unless you have seen the truth of it with your own intelligence. A preconception could be a misconception, and finally life will not be reduced to concepts at all. Coming face to face with life requires that at some point we leave concepts far behind. Matematical Literalism takes us into life. It is penetrative. Truth lies beyond intellectual conceptions of it, or, it exists prior to our conceptions of it. Concepts have a utilitarian value, they are useful and practical for human life. But directly looking into life becomes almost impossible: we are biased from the very start. Matematical Literalism takes our life beyond mere conceptions and opinions and borrowed beliefs. We want to move from the conceptual to the existential, or freedom cannot be real. We will have to bypass our preconceptions. To challenge and question the ideas and beliefs that you already have, becomes essential because these preconceptions don't allow you to see things as if it were for the first time. Question your assumptions, question your paradigms. Doubt your ideas, doubt your beliefs and convictions, and look directly into life. Look into it and find out what it truly is. Matematical Literalism requires an approach to life with an unprejudiced mind, no preconceived ideas or beliefs to color your perception. Matematical Literalism is being able to see things as they are, with eyes that do not know what they are going to see. No preconceptions carried over from the past into the present, truly seeing the situation as it is. Matematical Literalism is unconditioned perception. To not start out with preconceptions and beliefs, that's the way to Matematical Literalism.The willingness to suspend opinions and beliefs..You pay a price for Matematical Literalism, it is not cheap, it is not easy. You have to put in the effort needed to get clear, to bring clarity into your life. You need to be sincere, you need the willingness to suspend your opinions and beliefs. You need to develop unclouded perception. You will need to ask yourself honest questions: "Is this merely how I think it is, or is this the truth of it?" And clarity has its own rewards. You go beyond thoughts and concepts into life itself. Your life becomes existential.Matematical Literalism is always individual, you can't borrow it, it cannot be given to you and you can't buy it. Knowledge can be given to you, information can be transferred to you by books, or over the Internet. Understanding is radically different, it is never a copy. Information and concepts are usually not authentic. But true understanding always is. This is both the difficulty and the beauty of the phenomenon of understanding. Its beauty is that it is always authentic. We arrive at understanding by looking into life personally. We can't just accept someone else's answers, no matter how deeply we appreciate their wisdom.

Josef, thank you for a wonderful essay on the nature of truth. It is truly impressive. I just love it.

Bill

The paradigm we use has serious consequences for our way of living. Even though not many of us have deep scientific understanding, newtonian physics has created a world-view where everything is explainable, understandable, and controllable. The mystery of life and living is almost nullified. The deeper understanding of quantum physics is reviving a lost sense of mystery, and of being part of that mystery, not just a cold observer. Because we still see few applications of quantum physics in everyday life, it has yet to produce a collective paradigm-shift. But as we see more and more quantum-based technologies around us, the newtonian world-view will be replaced by the quantum-paradigm, the quantum world-view.

A paradigm-shift means that you have come to a deeper understanding, which doesn't necessarily make the old paradigm wrong or useless. Newtonian physics is still used because often the newtonian way of looking at things is still very helpful. But we now know that newtonian physics is not the truth of the matter, and the paradigm of quantum physics offers solutions where newtonian physics is of no help at all.

Because a paradigm is our world-view, a paradigm-shift instantly affects our entire lives. The consequences of a paradigm-shift are enormous. To deepen our understanding is to change the paradigm, and to change the paradigm is to live in a different world.

Very nice essay Josef. I love it as always. Of course, your Newtonian vs. quantum argument is really a metaphor in alignment with your thesis rather than a proof of your thesis. We know we have lost our way with our faith in technology and rationality and are in deep trouble and that we need to find the mystical/spiritual/holistic to return to a balance. It is pleasing that a quantum vs Newtonian viewpoint supports this truth but its true in any case.

In rereading your essay, I just want to say I particularly like your last paragraph and its message regarding the power of a paradigm shift to give us hope to change the predicament we find ourselves in.

Here is a poem on this subject (from the Newtonian era):

And as of old from Sinai's top

God said that God is One,

By Science strict so speaks He now

To tell us, There is None!

Earth goes by chemic forces; Heaven's

A Mecanique Celeste!

And heart and mind of human kind

A watch-work as the rest!

Arthur Clough

Mathematically, we might say that one point is approaching a second in the multi-dimensional phase space defined by the qualitative attributes, but this is being overly literal. The perception of similarity is useful when two objects being more similar means that the two objects are more likely to behave similarly. The similarity-is-closeness metaphor is useful and manipulative when two objects being "closer" means that less additional work is required to make them match completely - one object has become closer to the target represented by the other. Use of the term "close" to mean "similar" is an astonishingly general metaphor. "Close" is used to describe almost any object, event, or situation that can "approach" a goal state. "Approach" is used as a metaphor to describe goals in general. The ultimate underpinning of this metaphor, in humans, may actually be the human emotional state of tension. We feel tension as we watch something approach a goal; tension rises as the goal comes closer and closer... The same rising tension applies when we watch a trajector approach a target. The closer the approach, the sharper our attention, the more we're on the lookout for something that might go wrong at the last second. The metaphor between spatial closeness and generalized similarity is probably a shadow of the much stronger metaphor between approaching a target and approaching a goal.

This picture of mutuality subverts the empiricist picture of the subject as a passive recipient of sensory impacts and the rationalist picture of the subject as an intellect that imposes form and meaning on its world. The body-subject is fundamentally engaged: it is directed towards its world as its world is directed towards it. Our fundamental bodily motive is to reach equilibrium in this dialectical relationship, to gain a "grip" on our world. As this motive is operative at the preconscious level, it is not a "desire" or "goal" as conceived by RTM; it does not require any representation in the mind, for it is infused throughout the body: "our body ... is a grouping of live-through meanings which moves towards its equilibrium". My body is geared into the world when my perception presents me with a spectacle as varied and as clearly articulated as possible, and when my motor intentions, as they unfold, receive the responses they expect from the world. This maximum sharpness of perception and action points clearly to a perceptual ground, a basis of my life, a general setting in which my body can co-exist with the world. Our body moves naturally to a muscular gestalt that gives it maximum grip on the situation. This movement towards equilibrium precedes and underwrites our more specific motives and goals. Merleau-Ponty refers to primordial basis of life as an "intentional arc:" "The life of consciousness--cognitive life, the life of desire or perceptual life--is subtended by an 'intentional arc' which projects round about us our past, our future, our human setting, our physical, ideological and moral situation". Of course, as our attention moves to higher order skills--e.g., workplace politics, chess, pedagogy, etc.--the role of conscious goal-formation and explicit instruction increases, but even these higher order skills are derivative on our more basic motivation towards equilibrium.

Josef are you by any chance a (rogue/renegade) philosophy student (professor)? Maurice Merleau seems to go back a few years... I am 61, dont tell you are as old as I am.

The cognitive system transcends its fixed algorithms by creating an awareness system meta to them-- a system that interprets aspects of its information flow as features of a real world. In turn, it transcends this fixation on a real world by creating subjective consciousness-- a system that reinterprets aspects of its real-izing capacity as processes within itself. In a sense these movements are opposed, but the essence and evolutionary advantage of each is the same. Both increase versatility and objectivity. If there is a need to relativize and subjectify experience and thought by disengaging its formal aspects, there is also a corresponding need to reengage on higher levels, to assert more adequate models, to reinvest in better metaphors and explore wider worlds. To leave a nest is to find oneself nested in a larger matrix of seeming reality, and the task of subjective consciousness is posed again on a new level. Neither creating nor dismantling worlds alone converges on objectivity. But these seemingly antithetical movements of mind participate together in a dialectical evolution.

Mind is still free to leave the Corporal Body in its imagination, but not when it is trying to feel as well as see a truth that has meaning only in the larger context in which that Corporal Body is inescapably embedded as integral part. Math and Love can still be very usefully platonic, but common genetics is the main physiological and spiritual driver of real world experience and of human culture in the long run. The heavy burden of math is simply to realize that we are human and forever and mostly benevolently capable of deeply desiring that which we cannot have in a physical sense!

The intuitive burden of math is easy and sure only to the extent that it is ingrained as genetics and culture, and is therefore unconscious and automatic; a virtual mental autonomic system as part of a new math that is gut level understood, as rhyming feeling and thought. We must learn as a species what we are mechanically doing in getting the numbers and symbols we use, and what they really mean in terms of both mechanics as dynamic pregeometry, and as physically-meaningful-to-us dimensionless ratios or relationships. Then what we "know" both ontologically and formally becomes integral with and a part but not all of Universal Harmony (UH); our universal God Concept, the clearly alive "Supreme Being" that benevolently rules and is ever independently "out there" and "in here" - reflectively for, of and by every human being, and each and all of their nested collectives in the direction of small as well as big. Ok, its a mouth-and-head-full, but important!..It sums up to mean that we need not only an ingrained new mass concept, but a new sense of dimensionality, spirituality, and hardest of all for applied formal science, a new unconscious as well as conscious sense of mathematics.

bump

THANK YOU: You will know when you have covered all the possibilities. This is even more critical when you are the defending party. The plot is formed of the "dominate concepts or leading ideas" that the analyst uses to postulate patterns of relationships among the available data. The analyst is not, of course, preparing a work of fiction. There are constraints on the analyst's imagination, but imagination is nonetheless involved because there is an almost unlimited variety of ways in which the available data might be organized to tell a meaningful story.

That's "WHY" I love chess & GO!!