009c-Handed Representation logic or path

Try this:

(AW:(1 hand) = AW:(right hand) ) ≠ (AW:(1 hand) = AW:(left hand) ).

AW:1
AW:2
AW:left
AW:right
AW:hand

using the representation model above, the relationship is changed to look like this:

(right hand) = AW:(right hand) ≈ AW:(right hand);(1 hand)

= (right hand);(1 hand) = AW:(right hand);(1 hand) ≈ AW:(1 hand)

= (1 hand) = AW:(1 hand) ≈ AW:(left hand);(1 hand) = (left hand);(1 hand)

= AW:(left hand);(1 hand) ≈ AW:(left hand) = (left hand)

The actual equivalence of right and left hands isn't something that occurs "in the hand" but occurs "in awareness". In an ordinary way, we express it as: AW:(right hand) ≈ AW:(1 hand) ≈ AW:(left hand). We imply the representations (1 hand);(right hand), (1 hand);(left hand).

We use the phrase "your other right hand" and know exactly what that other hand is. The associative connections of hands to right and left hands are learned abstractions we associate to our body. Of course, mirroring screws up which hand we may intend or respond with.

Suppose instead of treating the equivalence as something between objects of awareness, we treated the equivalence as happening between the objects themselves?

(right hand) = AW:(right hand) = (right hand) ≈ (right hand);(1 hand)

= AW:(right hand);(1 hand) = (right hand);(1 hand) ≈ (1 hand)

= AW:(1 hand) = (1 hand) ≈ (1 hand);(left hand) = AW:(left hand);(1 hand)

= (left hand);(1 hand) ≈ (left hand) = AW:(left hand) = (left hand)

In this scenario (right hand) ≈ (1 hand) ≈ (left hand). And this is the ordinary way we think about the world. We think of equivalence between objects as something that takes place outside of awareness. That is, we think that our two hands are equivalent to each other as a fact of the world.

The function AW:X = X, dictates that both must be true.

There are ways to see this in action. One way is to alter your consciousness. By consciousness, I mean your general state of awareness. Whether you do this with drugs, or religious experience, or meditation, or an endorphin producing run doesn't matter. What happens is that the world changes with your awareness of it.

Correspondingly, as the world changes, so does your awareness of it.

It's nice to be able to restrict the variables we deal with in an experiment, but in reality, experience or awareness are "full" and whole. A reductionist approach is useful, but if it cannot describe the true non-reductionist experience.   This representation model is useful because it let's us symbolically work with limited or example scenarios of experience.  The model is free to be scaled up to any number of symbolic substitutions of objects. But it's important to remember that these examples are limited models and substitutions. Experience and awareness is not constrained to these subsets.

Applying the model to an artificial intelligence problem requires the objects of representation to not be symbolically represented in the model, but to be themselves objects in the model.  previous next