By supporting Peter Klevius' campaign for Human Rights - and therefore against OIC and islam - you save millions of children and adults from continuous suffering, and make their future possibilities a little brighter. Negative rights for a positive future. Peter Klevius intellectual defense for everyone's Human Rights works on two levels:
1 Keeping up a constant intellectual pressure on "reforming" islam. Of course islam can never be truly reformed so what this simply means is that islam is made, little by little, less islamic.
2 Counteracting the widespread misinformation about islam and muslims, hence avoiding naive and ignorant people from falling pray to islam and muslims - while simultaneously exposing those who deliberately approve of islam's Human Rights violating Sharia already voted through in UN by the help of OIC's more than notorious islamofascist voting bloc and some additional traitors.
When you (like Dennet*) don't understand Wittgenstein - why do you (like Dennet) blame or belittle him for it?!* Daniel Dannet puts Alan Turing on the same footing as Ludvig Wittgenstein while calling them who really understand Wittgenstein 'fanatics'. No surprise then Daniel Dennet also wants our children to be even more indoctribated by islam "education".
To want to understand or not want to understand - that's the question
People with less understanding often tend to fill the gaps with their own wrong interpretations instead of leaving it blanc, i.e. showing some self criticism.
So to understand the following Peter Klevius strongly suggests you read EMAH (the Even More Astonishing Hypothesis), especially the part Donald Duck in the Holy Land of Language.
It's really simple when you get rid of your fanatic (religious?) bias.
Stiff vs adaptive computing
Turing wrote that the Turing machine, here called a Logical Computing Machine, consisted of:
...an unlimited memory capacity obtained in the form of an infinite tape marked out into squares, on each of which a symbol could be printed. At any moment there is one symbol in the machine; it is called the scanned symbol. The machine can alter the scanned symbol and its behavior is in part determined by that symbol, but the symbols on the tape elsewhere do not affect the behavior of the machine. However, the tape can be moved back and forth through the machine, this being one of the elementary operations of the machine. Any symbol on the tape may therefore eventually have an innings (Turing 1948:61).
Turing in short:
An unlimited memory capacity
At any moment one symbol
The machine's behavior is in part determined by that symbol, but the other symbols do not affect the behavior
However, and this being one of the elementary operations of the machine, any symbol may eventually have an opportunity to act
Klevius comment: This stiff and dumb linear computing machine is the very opposite to Klevius parallel computing machine EMAH, which, like life itself, constantly mirrors, adapts to, and reflects the flow of information in your origo, i.e. what is also wrongly called your 'consciousness'. You can't possibly be conscious of your 'consciousness' more than you can be hungry about your hunger. 'Consciousness' belongs to the same set of words as 'creation', 'god', 'ghost etc.
What you really need to consider when trying to understand EMAH is its extreme simplicity compared to your own entanglement within a "problem" you try to "solve". You need to get rid of your Homunculus for good.
Artificial intelligence is in Klevius vocabulary immediate, continuous and seamless updating
Who or what is it that understands incoming info in your brain?
Those not sharing Klevius EMAH view need first to fight the ghost of Homunculus (the little inevtable and infinitely regressing guy/s in your brain needed to see what your senses deliver - if you keep trying to believe in an unfounded mind/body dualism).
The core of the homunculus paradox is that it tries to account for a phenomenon (consciousness) in terms of the very (made up) phenomenon that it is supposed to explain. Instead you need to accept the simple truth that what you call your consciousness is nothing except the origo (physiologically the Thalamus) where all your incoming information is handled. And by incoming Klevius of course also means back signals from your brain and other parts of your own body.
We are all trapped in our "private languages"
A solitary individual's “private language" in a Wittgensteinian context is a language that refers to private sensations and can, by definition, not be understood by anyone else. An individual decides to write ‘S’ in his diary whenever he has a certain sensation without any natural expression, and ‘S’ cannot be defined in words. The only criterion of correctness is whether a sensation feels the same to the individual. As a consequence what is called ‘private language’ is no language at all but for others incomprehensible behavior.
However, in EMAH Klevius goes one step further by focusing on the fact that nothing, not even 2+2=4, can be communicated in a way that fully corresponds to its source. Communication can only be understood in a game setting. Moreover,there is really nothing principal hindering us from including all our experience as communication with our surroundings including our own body and its brain. And according to EMAH the monitor for all of this is your Thalamus. In such a scheme language could be defined as everything (or arbitrarily narrow) what is outside the scope of "private language".
When your neighbor uses his hammer in the night and therefore upsets you, is it communication? Or is it communication when you use your hammer against the same wall to get him quiet? And what about pets and plants? Your car or your computer? Is it communication when you see a familiar person on the street and that person also sees you without none of you reacting in any other way?
The following poem in Swedish was an early form of what became EMAH:
ord som diffusa budbärare
speglar en glimt av din tanke
i chifferform redan förvrängda
förrän de blivit sagda
av mig och din förväntan
words as diffuse messengers
mirror a glimpse of your thought
in decipher form already distorted
before being uttered
by me and your expectation
Collapsing bridges - and concepts
Wittgenstein: “Undecidability presupposes… that the bridge cannot be made with symbols,” and “[a] connection between symbols which exists but cannot be represented by symbolic transformations is a thought that cannot be thought,” for “[i]f the connection is there,… it must be possible to see it.”
Klevius: A computer programmed to always lie can't be ordered to say that it lies.
Turing: "You cannot be confident about applying your calculus until you know that there are no hidden contradictions in it.
Wittgenstein: "Indeed, even at this stage, I predict a time when there will be mathematical investigations of calculi containing contradictions, and people will actually be proud of having emancipated themselves from consistency."
Turing: The real harm will not come in unless there is an application, in which a bridge may fall down or something of that sort…. You cannot be confident about applying your calculus until you know that there are no hidden contradictions in it.
Wittgenstein: There seems to me an enormous mistake there. ... Suppose I convince [someone] of the paradox of the Liar, and he says, 'I lie, therefore I do not lie, therefore I lie and I do not lie, therefore we have a contradiction, therefore 2x2 = 369.' Well, we should not call this 'multiplication,' that is all...
Turing: Although you do not know that the bridge will fall if there are no contradictions, yet it is almost certain that if there are contradictions it will go wrong somewhere.
Wittgenstein: But nothing has ever gone wrong that way yet...
Klevius comment: Indeed, not that way!
Propositions about facts are tautologous, and thus logically true but do not presuppose the existence of special "logical facts".
Wittgenstein: 'It is either raining or not raining'.
There are no "logical objects" to experience.
There is a distinction between pure and applied logic, and 'logic must not clash with its application'.
'But logic has to be in contact with its application.'
Logical constants are parts of truth-operations making the truth-conditions of one proposition dependent on its foundation.
So similar to Turing's confusion of language game and "pure logic", the same confusion is often apparent in discussions about "metaphysics".
Metaphysics is the language trap that confuses its victims with non sense like "the first principles of things"
According to Stanford encyclopedia, 'it is not easy to say what metaphysics is'.
Indeed! Like Gods and Ghosts!
And according to Wikipedia the pseudo-philosophy called metaphysics 'studies the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it'.
That's some project, huh. The nature of being! Like lifting yourself by your hair. Sounds way too labor-some for Klevius.
Stanford encyclopedia: Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change.” It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion (Klevius comment: i.e. the same as saying 'there is no god' or 'there are no ghosts') . Secondly, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.
Klevius comment: The "problem" of free will is chaos (Klevius 1992), i.e. the "Schwarzschild horizon" of ethnocentrism* that, due to lack of understanding, hinders us from following logical determinism. Some, like my teenage son, might call it entertainment and the very soul of life. But others might wrap it in "religion" for the purpose of sanctioning racism, sexism etc.
* The meaning of this word as "explained" on Wikipedia etc is wrong. It's not synonymous with bias and prejudice, but simply describes the factual limit of your understanding, and is therefore not a laughing matter - i.e. no more valid against "white colonialists" as against their subjects!
What is ultimately there? Klevius answer: You.
What is it like? Klevius answer: You.
The "problem" of the mental and the physical has similar properties and has long since passed its best before date which was when Descartes labored with his "ghost in the machine". The so called Homunculus paradox.
Two bright minds: One imprisoned in Alqatraz and the other in Cambridge
The escape from Alcatraz and an extremely unfair life: Frank Lee Morris, very intelligent, non-violent, nice and committed to learning and working, would have been the perfect symbol for "civil righters" - if only he'd been "black".Ludwig Wittgenstein was imprisoned in the world's best university (Cambridge) and Frank Lee Morris in the world's best prison (Alcatraz). Both managed to escape.
It's now 50 years since Frank Lee Morris made the most spectacular escape from the safest prison in USA (see the movie or do some reading). Who was he really? Klevius gives you the best answer based on available facts. And one thing seems certain, he wasn't a violent parasitic thug who excused his behavior with islam or similar racist ideologies.
He was convicted of his first crime (escape) at the age of 13 and the only robbery was when he was around 30 (not in his teen as stupid Wikipedia puts it) and, according to himself, wanted to quit the Americn curse and move via Mexico to the south. Except for escapes and this failed non-violent night burglary to a bank called "robbery", his most serious crime seems to have been travelling over a state border with a minor teenage girlfriend.
As a teen he eventually escaped a psychiatric "treatment" institution based on flimsy psychoanalytic** ideas (they assessed him as having too low intelligence for to be successfully "treated" when, in fact, he begged for being able to develop his drafting skills and to work as a draftsman) and therefor got labelled a "delinquent" hence making it impossible for him to educate himself, dismissed from military service, and denied real work opportunities due to his state fabricated records. Instead he was chased around USA and imprisoned for some petty crimes but mainly for his repeated escapes.
* understand the extremely important concept of a "social state" by reading Angels of Antichrist (no dude, Klevius isn't even close to a Christian).
** Klevius' groundbreaking psychosocial Freud timeline will offer you the best possible kick start for beginning to understand the extreme stupidity of psychoanalysis (yes, Klevius has gone through not only Freud and his daughters works as well as those surrounding them, he has also gone through all the main Freud critics as well as how this early psychoanalysis is connected to that of today - just like the origin of islam Freud is excused and distanced from yet his most horrifying tenets are still around - and its very core the prevailing sex segregation - and before you smile please consider your own ignorance and the fact that e.g. Ludvig Wittgenstein did include Otto Weininger among those thinkers who had impressed on him, but not Freud).