# First Causes

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Sun Sep 12 15:37:53 EST 2004

```On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:19:03 GMT, Paul Victor Birke
<nonlinear at rogers.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Dear Lester
>
>Very good!! thanks
>
>btw  the term >>delta<< more used by engineers like myself to denote any
>kind or real (or I guess supposed) change in any kind of system geometry
>  etc.  A kind of wide ranging word for the technical people.

Thanks, Paul. I'm very familiar with the delta term. I've considered
it; I've considered using the "-" notation within the cap delta. The
problem is really the substitution and confusion of notation for the
basic concept and its properties. I've seen all kinds of programmers
analyzing sentience purely in computer language notational terms, and
I've seen logicians who couldn't explain their logic diagrams and
technical propositions in plain language if their lives depended on
it. At this point I'd rather concentrate on the concepts and their
elaboration in mechanical terms and avoid any potential risk of
technomysticism.

>I should mention one of the ideas I have been working with in NNs is the
>idea of the universal set in the sense that we generally go after a
>model which if I could be simplistic here only correlates positively to
>the output.  Correctly we need to also define your >>not<< in the sense
>of finding those things that either don't correlate well or are in fact
>negative.  What you have left over is noise to complete the set diagram.
>Set = Yes + Not + noise.  Many models only use so of y output = yes +
>noise.  Anyways this is a bit off topic!

The problem I'm looking at here, though, is that there is no Yes in
the universal set. It's all Not including the noise; and whatever that
may amount to we can't really tell until after the fact. The Yes can
only be derived from from the Not through the absence of difference.

This is probably the hardest part of the idea of everything being
differences to comprehend. Most people want to go directly to some
foundational positivistic Yes and work upward from that. This isn't
what happens. What happens is that all matter is differences to begin
with, and all sentience takes differences between differences to
happenstantially arrive at whatever Yes's there may be under given
conditions.

(I'm omitting the balance of the message here because you seem to be
raising further considerations, which I'm happy to try to discuss by
themselves.)

Regards - Lester

```