Stack Exchange
log in

ttnphns

 Discussion between Sean_TBI_Research …

Imported from a comment discussion on stats.stackexchange.com/...
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 13:32
Build the square 8x8 matrix from this vector, by stacking it. Then compare that matrix with it transposed. You obtain the square symmetric binary matrix with 1="equal", 0="unequal". Unwrap one (any) of the two triangles (the below of diagonal or the above of it) into a column (its length is n(n-1)/2). That will be the column of your binart matrix. Then go next cluster solution, repeat likewise.
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 13:31
Your n objects are the same for all cluster solutions. Consider one cluster solution at a time. Let the vector of the (arbitrary, cluster) labels for the n=8 objects be [2 4 2 1 1 3 4 2]. (You have 4 clusters in this solution.)
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 09:07
Easy. Let V be the vector of your objects' cluster membership (labels) obtained via a clustering algorithm. Propagate the vector into the square matrix M. Then get the binary matrix B equal to M=M'. That is, transpose M and compare it with M. Vectorize (i.e, unwrap) one of two triangles of B into the column C. So this is one of the columns in your binary matrix.
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 09:07
Yes I think you should read about TURF analysis and how they implement it.
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 09:07
I think there is no formula. No "magic" formula to sort through all the combinations exist. Technical solutions may differ depending on your language, available matrix/restructuring functions, and your creativity.
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 09:07
I am not examining the link. But you could send me a copy of the article if you agree.
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 09:07
I see. OK, that will be an entirely programming (not sratistical) question/task much tied with the language and functions you are going to use. The question is how to sift all the many combinations most quickly, an that might depend programming approaches to process arrays. You task is very similar to what TURF analysis in marketing is doing, so try to find some ready solutions on that side. If k is greater than 15 or 17, all combinations may take many minutes/hours.
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 09:07
So, you extract some combination of columns from your binary matrix and you want to know how many rows in this extracted submatrix is full of 1s. Right?
ttnphns
Dec 7, 2022 09:07
Comembership confusion matrix - which count is a pair of objects - is a relation between two partitions, a 2x2 frequency table. And I could not understand your setting since I don't see a relation between partitions (columns of you data). Will you explain, in your question, in greater detail what you want to do?
 

 Discussion on answer by causative: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Nov 15, 2021 12:29
(cont.) Yes, it is also present. But it is out of your reflection. You don't say to yourself "I want it" and don't ask "Do I want it?" (Such a question would be dangerous, for it may suddenly provoke to doubt and to lose interest in the game.). You have to rely on your actions, and not on yourself, to pursuade you that you are still interested. Therefore you must realize, peripherally, that you want the ball throwing action you have chosen to perform the next second.
ttnphns
Nov 15, 2021 12:29
@Futilitarian, The basketball game is a general project and your throw is a particular, subordinate action. Though your connection with the throw appear instrumental choice (do and how to do), you must dimly understand that you want the throw. Why so? Your throw is the obvious signal to you that you want the whole game, as you are playing. During the playing, you know of your desire to participate in the game through the throws and other actions. But is there another, the primary and general desire to play the basketball, as you are playing?
ttnphns
Nov 15, 2021 12:29
@Futilitarian, just a remark. Much of the disagreement may stem from different understanding of "choice". Your's, for example limits "choice" to an action, and desire to you is, I presume, a state. I don't think a desire or a want can be a state. It is an occurence, revealing every new minute. It cannot last or linger in any other form than a memory of desire, which is different from desire. In that sense, the desire per se is indistinguishable from a (spontaneous) choice. Next, this urge is hardly distiguishable from instigation for action.
 

 Discussion on answer by Nelson Alexan…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Feb 27, 2021 15:50
On the contrary, I tend towards phenomenology, not naive realism. Your appreciation at that is mistaken.
ttnphns
Feb 27, 2021 15:50
@causative, World is phenomena, they don't need to be perceived by some thing (such as "my senses"). They just are, they exist (or happen, or open, or come into being, which is all the same meaning) as obvious/apparent, without a perceiver. There exist no things that are not apparent. Because I am sure you disagree with me on these basics, I suspect you would'n accept either (or won't understand) my arguments against your view on the role and place of "investigation" and "knowledge". So I decide to stop the wrangle.
ttnphns
Feb 27, 2021 15:50
@causative, I won't speculate of whether it is innate or is infacy learn, but definitely, for a non-infant the difference between a human or a chair in front is not a matter of investigation. It is a matter of disposition, ot set. We meet a human as having consciousness from the very beginning, we don't find it out. We find ourselves under the gaze of a mind which is a black box to us and is not objectifiable.
ttnphns
Feb 27, 2021 15:50
@causative, "The relevant fact is that we only know of the existence of other humans through the same means we know of the existence of chairs". No, your opponent said it from the beginning, that other people (as having minds) are primarily not objects (like chairs) to us. I might add to that even more strongly, the other is that "alien" which makes our own ego (subject, or internal object) possible. The notion of "likeness" is irrelevant, to me.
 

 Discussion on question by Deepthinker…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Aug 11, 2019 15:37
@Deepthinker101 This is how socratic discussions start :-)
ttnphns
Aug 11, 2019 12:37
for-itself xannot be created, it is unsubstantial, it is the pure negation of being.
ttnphns
Aug 11, 2019 12:37
seems to contradict himself It is difficult to get Sartre's jugglings unless one understands that for-itself is not a separate being ontologically, it lacks being; while in-itself being lacks "selfity" as a relation "for" (for-itself). From this p.o.v., knowledge is that is due to for-itself (which itself remains nothing) but belongs to in-itself, it is the presence or fact of a phenomenon; knowledge is objective.
ttnphns
Aug 11, 2019 12:37
I said in my comment, that metamorphosis with being (the upheavel) is that Being (which is all in itself so deeply and sluggishly that it cannot be a fact of something articulated - see the 1st section of BaN) suddenly becomes a fact of a particular being at hand, something which is real.
ttnphns
Aug 11, 2019 12:37
In the second passage, "nothing" means cheap, not "nothingness". It translates like: it is very easy, like a tautology, to say that being 'exists', and yet your saying brings a radical upheavel with being, since being exists (= is as a fact of "something)" only due to for-itself (the consciensness) which itself is nothing.
ttnphns
Aug 11, 2019 12:37
Sartre hated the idea that ideas of things are the internal content, copies of outer things, or that they are prototypes which become outer real things. For him, the perceived tree as perceived one is real and is out there. This is a form of phenomenologic stance which is clear of both "idealism" and "realism".
ttnphns
Aug 11, 2019 12:37
"For-itself adds nothing to the In-itself except the very fact that there is [exists] In-itself; that is, the affirmative negation". Here Sartre says that consciousness, by making itself aloof, articulates the masses of Being into the being which exists, is present (knowable). Knowledge is not our info of the there thing, it is the thing itself having been established, affirmed.
ttnphns
Aug 11, 2019 12:37
Sartre is compares his philosophy with Idealism. For the latter, consciousness is the measure of being, and this is knowledge. For Sartre, consciousness, which is pure nothing, is the establishment of the presence of being, because for-itself appears in the middle of being beyond it, as what is not. For-itself rejects itself because it is no more than nothing, which makes being possible to appear, show itself through as articulated, in the form of knowledge: "The For-itself by its self-negation becomes the affirmation of (about) the In-itself".
 

 Discussion on question by bodhihammer…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Jul 2, 2019 17:02
@Gordon, yes if course I'm familiar with the Tr. o t Ego well. Thank you much for other sources as well.
ttnphns
Jul 2, 2019 17:02
bodhihammer, Phenomenology as a method is not a strict algorithm. Rather an art, and everybody interested to try it does it somewhat differently, I expect. I'm far not an expert on Husserl (to my pity) and even Sartre - I know him bad. Sartre did not trust Husserlian reflection as a tool much and instead was trying to refine it (calling thus his version of reduction "clear or uninvolved reflection"), and he seems to have kept the "technique" secret, for I couldn't find its description anywhere.
ttnphns
Jul 2, 2019 17:02
@Gordon, why really not issue an answer based on your comments?
 

 Discussion on question by user477343:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Jan 11, 2019 09:29
@user477343, Just imagine, as a case, that God wants climate deterioration in order to move all us to live on another planet, a better one. Or speculate maybe he wants us to learn how to manage our planet better so has undertaken that climate problem. But we don't take it all thankfully, a believer would say, we suffer, object and quarrel, and curse our living in this place. This bad "interpretation" is due to our Evil side.
ttnphns
Jan 11, 2019 09:29
@user477343, I'm an atheist
ttnphns
Jan 11, 2019 09:29
...thus, God is not who produces evil, but he allows evil to exist, for his "didactic" or experimental or other reason we can't know.
ttnphns
Jan 11, 2019 09:29
@user477343. One should not confuse "bad experience" (e.g. pain) and evil. God may intend to do "bad" things which are for the good ends. Now, evil was not intended by God, it originated from the defection of one of heavenly sons, named Satan, from God once upon a time, and supported by the second alike defection later, performed by an earthly son, named Adam. The defection was a result of free will which presense God had decided to tolerate in his children.
ttnphns
Jan 11, 2019 09:29
Satan is God's son (so they aren't "peers"). Jesus is God's son only figuratively, "Son", because Jesus is that God himself, so he is the "Son" of himself (so satan is, in a sense, Jesus' son). Who punishes bad people is God, using the proxy in the form of satan who is allowed to accumulate all the evil.
 

 Discussion on answer by Logikal: Is a…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Aug 30, 2018 17:48
@Logical, dead hair follicles do not themselves reject anything. For them to reject hair growth, there first must be consciousness testifying the lack of hair growth, actual or potential.
ttnphns
Aug 30, 2018 17:48
@Logikal, a rejection as an external relation is possible only due to an internal lack already happened. Logical not could be the meaning of negation (as vs the meaning of just another positive labeling) when the rejected entity has ontologically negated itself partly, turning into the lack of self-identity. For example, "x is not 2" requires that, for a moment, 2 isn't equal 2. For, if 2=2 any time solidly without gap, it cannot halt being an entity to become a value-in-question for the x. Thus, x is not 2 means that x suffers from the lack of self-cogency in 2.
 

 Discussion on question by xwb: Since …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
May 15, 2018 11:14
Circular semantic reference is all right if you agree that a symbol is not a sign which redirects to its meaning as to something separate, rather, it is a system where sign and meaning exist simultaneously.
 

 Discussion on answer by Geoffrey Thom…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
May 10, 2018 09:17
Many sane notions from your side. However, central planning was (is) extremely effective to force or speed up industrialization of initially a rural economy. Moreover, combination of central regularization with private initiative is currently seen by many as more effective for nowadays than the latter alone.
 

 Discussion on question by dtech: How …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Apr 28, 2018 17:30
You wake up in the morning and first what you see (half asleep, empty head) is a tree in the window. Maybe you agree the tree is there. But what are precursors of it, of its being? the precursors that be.
ttnphns
Apr 28, 2018 17:30
Please explain what is the difference between being and existence.
 

 Discussion on question by vonjd: Sket…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 18:13
There is no principal difference (in respect to the question of free will), for me, between stirring a finger by a tick (say) and writing the sentence you have put. So it cannot be an argument. The truth is that I'm free (that isn't quite the same as free "will") even at tick, or when I jerk my arm away from very hot water.
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 18:13
which turns out to be true is more plausibly attributed... True for whom? Something can be true or false only for a consciousness; for that is not an objective state, it is a judgement, decision. "More plausibly" is likewise. "Initiating" ia also a word making sense only to consciousness, in contrast to "starting".
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 18:13
I think that you are on a right track, but only partly. You are right in that consciously experiencing yourself free makes you really free, no matter what are the hypothetical subconscious brain mechanics. But, I would say, the statement of own freedom is rather negative than positive. Not "I have a personal perspective", but "there is nothing in the (given) world, including my own personality, what/who has determined my decision".
 

 Discussion on answer by Chelonian: Sk…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 14:06
@Chelonian We don't think or perceive "with" something (which itself is outside of consciousness or soul or whatever to call it), we just think and perceive. Within a philosophical thinking, that is suffice to me. (Sorry, I have to go for today. Cheers to you, and thanks!)
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 13:07
@Chelonian Consciousness is by definition the non-physical aspect, sure. That neurons think for us is a naturalistic scientific theory and have nothing to do with philosophy proper (in my view).
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 07:37
@HWalters, pretty good. But I would yet claim these are pseudojudgements, they become "judgements" only per human consciousness of the perciever observing the machine output behaviour. Insects are too, look very "smart" from outside. Do we easily say have consiuosness like we do?
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 07:37
According to Heidegger, human is the only entity which existence implies asking about own being in the world. When machines start producing questions such as why am I here/living they probably have accuired consciousness (?)
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 07:37
(cont.) A machine can effectively simulate the behaviour which will look as if it is asking itself or is doubting, but that resemblance will be an analogy, not homology. Because machine cannot conceive of, say, 2<>2, that is, think that 2 is not identical to itself. Machine just won't work if it is instructed "suddenly 2 can be nonequal to itself", but consciousness just needs this capacity to neant (take to nothing) self-identities in order to exist.
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 07:37
@HWalters, I admit readily that machines can be much more clever than humans, can learn from zero level etc. What I've expressed is a different point. Efficacy cannot be a criterion to ascribe having or not having consciousness. The fundamental property of consciousness is an ability to question, or doubt, for oneself.
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 07:37
@Kieran, to my mind "greater than", "equal to" etc. certainly requires denial, or attenuation of self-identity. Also, when you reassign a variable a new value, you deny not a value but actually the variable: transition from Y=i to Y=ii is possible only due to denial of Y. Only consciousness can deny self-identity of things. See also philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/45193/28067. That's how I think, I may be wrong or may change my mind one day.
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 07:37
(cont.) For example, computer telling you that some output value 3 is not equal to the criterion value 2 (the one expected, "correct") actually states that 3 is another value than 2, and not that 3 is not that 2. Any "not" (that is, nonbeing) can be conceived only through somebody's consciousness.
ttnphns
Apr 17, 2018 07:37
@Kieran, that is crucial point where I think you and Chelonian are mistaken. A program "judges", "asserts" etc. not itself by per the human consciousness of its inventor. It is he/she who has translated their conscious project into machine algo, more or less successfully, but that did not make the program or the machine conscious. The reason why it is so is this: only consciousness can deny (negate). Denial lies at the core of assertion, judgement etc. Machine or neurons can't deny.