If intelligence were to evolve to be more efficient than emotions, would emotions still have any evolutionary purpose? — MonfortS26

A bacteria or virus or slime mold can be described as efficient, but they are evolutionary dead ends unless they evolve into something more complex. The purpose of both emotions and intellect is for us to become more creative and evolve greater complexity and not simply efficiency.

I've seen things about the fractal being key to our concept of beauty, but I've always thought it was superstition. Do you have any type of source that you could include that would say the same? — MonfortS26

I don't know of any single website that covers everything I've said, but a search engine can turn up quite a few different ones that can. Recently it was demonstrated that classic literature is multifractal which is a fractal within another fractal. Unfortunately the mathematics for expressing these things are new and underdeveloped at this time because they don't obey classical logic and mathematics. Its actually part of what I do is developing the mathematics using a metaphorical approach.

Every classic work of art whether it be a painting or a work of music has turned out to express a fractal dragon equation. The symmetries are complex and academics are only beginning to understand it, but even humor has been quantified for the first time in recent years.

Beauty is both demonstrable and quantifiable. Already the music industry has an algorithm which can predict exactly how much money they will make on a song and within twenty years computers will be powerful enough to apply the same kind of mathematics to anything. You might as well claim gravity is an illusion.

Not a chance.

Beauty can't exist without an experiencer to experience it. Art, music and fractal dragon equations are all just data in the great objective whatever. — intrapersona

Awareness and consciousness are not the same things. We might not believe a dog is conscious in any human sense of the word, but certainly they are aware and have their own standards for beauty which can be considered merely an appreciation for symmetry. A healthy dog, for example, has better bilateral symmetry making them a more attractive mate.

So are you saying that emotion responses are differential and logical responses are integral? — MonfortS26

The two overlap, but for the most part that's true. A small child's attachment to their toy will become more abstract and intellectual over time and, sometimes, our abstract thoughts become more emotional. Thoughts without emotions and vice versa are simply a contradiction in terms like having a body with no cells or a mind without a brain.

So it sounds like the key to an accurate intuition is exposure? What do you mean by differentials? — MonfortS26

Differentials compare differences, integrals compare similarities. Its easier to observe something like an engine misfiring by comparing differences in how it sounds over time, while its often easier to tell if two objects are the same thing by comparing their similarities.

Our emotions change over time. A small child might think their favorite toy is the most wonderful thing in the world only to grow up and embrace bigger and better things. They might be frightened by dogs, only to learn to love them over time. etc. The same with our intellect because nothing ever stays the same forever and our thoughts and feelings don't even come close by our standards.

Is it the most accurate way of processing information though? — MonfortS26

Differentials provide greater precision rather than accuracy. Accuracy is hitting closer to the bull's eye, while precision is hitting the same area more consistently. By combining both our brain can first try to hit the general area and then take its time improving on accuracy. Someone may startle us while relaxing on the couch with our emotional response of fear being our first response that could save our life if its a burglar, while our more abstract intellectual recognition that its a friend would allow us to improve the accuracy of our response.

Emotions provide the fastest and most efficient way to process information. Using emotions our neurons can organize both individually and collectively by merely searching for what's missing from this picture and comparing elaborate patterns they generate collectively. Brain waves are much faster than synaptic responses and by taking their differentials and comparing patterns for what's missing our neurons can organize and respond to anything as rapidly as possible. For example, the visual centers of the brain are organized around looking for what's missing and by doing so our neurons can shift their focus, attention, and responses more rapidly than we can do consciously.

A shadow, for example, is the fastest, most efficient, and most reliable way for them to tell if another animal is moving and, while our neurons are not that bright in and of themselves, they can easily decide to prompt us to run for our lives. In fact, the a tiny electrical current across the heart is enough to inspire fear and you could say emotions are the language of our cells.

The self-evident truth only asserts itself within the silent void, thus, justifying itself and providing its own proofs and truths never requiring anyone to defend it when our own silent voice speaks loudest. Thus, the finger pointing at the moon is never to be confused with the moon itself nor is harmony to be confused with our actions and reason.

I believe that the key to being genuine in life lies in your intuition. Intuition is the core of who we are as a person and everything else is just whatever our intuition chooses to perceive us to be. The way to live in the present is to be in touch with your intuition.

Anyone disagree? — MonfortS26

Harmony neither acts nor reasons and the idea that you can be "out of touch" with your own intuition is self-defeating.

No man is an island nor might he become the measure of all things lest he first embrace virtue as its own reward and wonder as the beginning of wisdom. For any of us to be aware we have but to graciously accept our own awareness, to appreciate beauty and humor we must first embrace them in ourselves, to have a friend we must first be a friend, to be human we must first open our hearts, to live we must first choose to truly live, and to actualize our full potential we must first become invulnerable in our vulnerability by surrendering to our higher power or greater truth, thus, slaying the beasts of our nightmares naked and completely unashamed. Our feet shape the path as the way shapes our feet and, when we no longer make distinctions between who we are and what we are doing, the two become far greater than any mere sum of their parts. Whether you wish to call that enlightenment or self-actualization is up the individual as far as I'm concerned.

Attention Walmart shoppers, special on personal relationships on isle seven!

Believe it or not, there has been a new phenomenon of people shopping at Walmart for one night stands. The sad truth is that, while money can't buy happiness, it certainly helps to avoid misery and, while relationships can't guarantee happiness, when they work they can extend your lifespan. One study concluded that those who nurture contentment over ambition tend to fare better in the long run in spite of Hollywood promoting such ideals as fighting the good fight and that love should be all about finding that perfect match.

The very idea that you can comprehend a "thing" in itself without a context defies all the physical and rational evidence and is along the lines of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. All the evidence points to the human mind and brain being a self-organizing system that we cannot draw lines in the sand and demonstrate where the individual and their environment begin and end because a context without any content is simply a contradiction in terms.

In over ten years of asking if anyone knows the simple distinction between a lynch mob and a democracy I have yet to hear the correct answer from even academics. In fact, over half of them have admitted to being suspicious of the common dictionary despite having no clue that it merely contains popular definitions. According to the National Science Foundation one in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth and, without evidence to the contrary, I've always assumed there's nobody in charge around here. Sometimes the brightest lights are left on when nobody is home and whether you teach people philosophy or not will make little difference if they prefer to spend all their time arguing over the definition of stupid and who is the better example.

The media objectifies anything that sells with, notably, male movie stars selling more tickets than females and "The Rock" who is a famous body building professional wrestler turned movie star being among the highest paid actors. In fact, the biggest money maker in mass media is football where men in tights, cups, and face masks fight over who gets to play with their balls. Its not patriarchy that is the problem, but money doing all the driving and nobody steering. Hence, the reason women's high heels increase in height the closer one gets to a major urban center where money becomes more important.

Me, I don't watch violent sports where people get paid to kill and cripple each other and I refuse to support any number of extremes where money is obviously doing all the driving, but that's a personal choice.

Are you putting forth a radically hard-determinist perspective? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, this is a recursion in the law of identity where an up without a down is impossible because a context without significant content is impossible. We share the ground beneath our feet which can feel more real and solid because its karma is so humble it is compatible with a larger number of dimensions or karmic universes with juxtapositions becoming as important as flow dynamics. It is our evolving relationship with the infinite world around us that defines who we are and wish to become as our faith in our memories and awareness changes over time. Everything becomes much more metaphorical with at least four rudimentary metaphysics applying at different times.

In technobabble, what I'm proposing is a rather unusual metaphoric Socratic-Taoist scalar variation on John Wheeler's "Participatory Anthropic Principle" where who or what is being created or doing all the creating goes down the nearest convenient rabbit hole or toilet of your personal preference. It can also be much more poetically described as becoming as beautiful outside as in whenever we embody the harmony of poetry in motion no longer making distinctions between who we are and what we are doing. The complication with such perspectives is they introduce nonlinear temporal dynamics and frequently I joke with people that, "A Jedi feels the force flow through him when he is regular" which is a reference to the fact that nonlinear temporal dynamics require greater personal integrity whenever our lives seem to take on a life of their own.

Different schools of thought emphasis different things. Since your avatar is Wittgenstein I'd recommend contemplating the metaphoric language of nature in something like the Tao Te Ching or I-Ching. You can buy books like 360 Tao or whatever that will even provide different interesting things to contemplate for every day. Words only having meaning in specific contexts lending everything a more recursive metaphorical flavor that can sometimes make a serious difference. In Asia they spit out metaphors and hang them all over the walls sometimes just messing with each others heads. Anything you like that is seriously metaphorical is a good start and the idea is just to not let yourself get stale and try to keep engaged in the subject. :)

Technology is part of the same self-organizing system that we call the universe. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and we gotta invent technology because its built into the very fabric of existence itself where everything revolves around what's missing from this picture. For example, both a black hole and the neurons of our brains can convey any mass, energy, and information with the highest efficiency of anything their size precisely because everything obeys a simple, yet subtle, fractal systems logic that should be capable of even reconciling Relativity and quantum mechanics.

It is self-organizing and the next generation manufacturing and soft-ware and other developments are already beginning to organize around self-assembly. Soon, chips will routinely have twenty radios built right into them and be capable of talking to one another just like bacteria. Some have already claimed that the internet itself is coming alive. Rainbow Warriors often call it Childhood's End or compare modern civilization to going through puberty and about to metamorphose into an adult species. A Theory of Everything and Nothing is coming and the world will never be the same again.

The history of western democracy from the original Athenian democracy and Rome right up into modern times is people fighting for their freedom only to then turn around and sell it to the highest bidder. The more successful a democracy, the more assuredly it becomes an empire like the US which has a military equal to the next six or seven largest combined, ostensibly, all of "defense" purposes. Of course, we retain at least the symbolic vestiges of freedom so we can carry on the tradition. Conan O'Brien does a great comedy routine where he has his staff record hundreds of news channels where the talking heads all spout the same exact B.S. verbatim for the entertainment of the mindless masses who all insist that the government and mass media they call evil lie to them for their own protection.

Hence, the reason that the most advanced and integrated democracy in the world became Nazi Germany. Its sort of a schizophrenic way to organize a country but, again, it beats getting nothing. What the future holds is self-organizing systems that will make even western democracy appear tame in comparison.

You seem to be on some kind of tirade against classical logic. But this has nothing to do with what I asserted, namely that Gödel's theorems don't assume classical logic and that classical mathematics is not a subset of intuitionistic mathematics (where mathematics A is a subset of mathematics B iff all theorems provable in A are also provable in B). I have no intention of defending classical logic here, nor, for the matter, did Gödel in his incompleteness paper. — Nagase

Classical logic is enormously useful and I have nothing against it, but I also have nothing against other types of logic either because they are all context dependent as far as I'm concerned. What is logic and what is a joke simply depends upon the context which is why the US government has finally come out and admitted that they have classified a few jokes as "Vital to the National Defense". When is logic no longer logical? When it contradicts the evidence or itself. When is a stupid joke no longer just another stupid joke? When its more useful than anyone's stupid ideas about reality.

Mortality is whatever the individual or group decides to call moral. If it were otherwise, people would not be debating which morality is superior. Even a lynch mob can call themselves moral.

Unfortunately, I can't understand how your reply has any bearing on what I said... — Nagase

Quantum Cognition might be a good example. When sociologists applied quantum mechanics to some of their studies they discovered it could answer some of their most puzzling results and created the field of Quantum Cognition. A popular example is what they call the "Sure Thing" experiment where they offer people a 50-50 chance to either win $200.oo or lose $100.oo and such simple odds heavily stacked in their favor are something anyone can understand. Even if they lose a few rounds, they'll usually continue to play knowing the odds are in their favor. However, the minute they were not told the results of the last round they tend to stop.

According to classic logic it makes no sense because the odds are so heavily stacked in their favor they should keep playing. However, according to quantum mechanics without information on the last round they cannot predict the next. The context is determining everything with Monty Hall of Let's Make a Deal being another good example of related fuzzy logic.

After contestants choose from among three doors he often shows them a booby prize behind one of the two remaining doors and then offers them a chance to trade the original door they choose for the one they haven't seen yet. According to classical logic it makes no difference because the odds are merely 50-50, however, fuzzy logic says otherwise. According to fuzzy logic your first choice was between three doors and, therefore, more likely wrong than trading between the two remaining ones which is something contestants today are well aware of. The context is determining the law of identity including which type of logic is more useful.

An example such as someone getting a head transplant might be extreme, but that's the whole point of my insisting everything is context dependent. If we didn't have extremes like quantum mechanics nobody would be debating these issues.

And I'm saying that no question is begged. If I say "If John is decapitated, then he will die", I'm not "begging the question" as to whether John was decapitated or not! — Nagase

A doctor has already successfully transplanted the head of one monkey onto another. The quality of life wasn't great, but it lived. For me, everything is literally and figuratively context dependent. If I say, "She's hot!" I could be talking about anything from a good looking woman to an overheating car engine and not only words, but mathematical axioms only have demonstrable meaning in specific contexts.

Generally, "provable" means roughly follows from the axioms by acceptable rules of inference. — Nagase

Yes, but my own view of everything being context dependent means the axioms can also be treated as root metaphors and how you interpret them simply depends upon the context. That's the only way the law of identity can consistently go down the rabbit hole and would mean you can interpret the mathematics either metaphorically or axiomatically with which one is more useful or appealing simply depending upon the context. The mathematics would still have to be self-consistent and prove to be at least statistically nontrivial, but proof takes on an entirely different meaning when it is context dependent.

But Gödel's theorems do not state "classical logic is true". They state "if we assume classical logic and some other conditions, then there are some mathematical theories which are incomplete and can't prove their own consistency". In other words, they are of the form "if A, then B". Clearly I don't need to establish "A" in order to prove "If A, then B"; I can show that, if John is decapitated, then he will die, without thereby showing that John was decapitated! — Nagase

I never said it proves classical logic true, merely, that it begs the question of whether it is true or not by assuming the position that it is true.

That doesn't answer my second question, which I repeat here for the sake of completeness: if A is a subtype of B, does it mean that every theorem provable in A is also provable in B? — Nagase

That's a tricky question and, as I keep saying, I'm not a mathematician and even they don't have the foundations of the mathematics complete as of yet. My own view is with everything being context dependent it depends upon what you mean by provable in any given situation.

Look, here's the fact of the matter: Gödel's theorems do not assume classical logic is true. They are about classical logic. If your logic contains conditional reasoning, then Gödel's theorems will be provable within it. — Nagase

You cannot prove something is true without somehow demonstrating it is true! Conditional reasoning or otherwise, you must assume if nothing else that we can make clear distinctions between true and false! Godel's theorem is based upon the rules of classical logic in that, at the very least, the law of identity and noncontradiction must apply to any proof. You can play around with variations on the excluded middle all you want, but the essential nature of the logic remains the same.

Question: what is the subtype relation? More to the point, if type A is a subtype of type B, does it follow that every theorem provable in type A is also provable in type B? — Nagase

I'm not a mathematician and those that I've read about claimed the foundations are incomplete. That said, subtypes of the overall symmetry will always express a four fold symmetry or supersymmetry that can be expressed as root metaphors or axioms. In physics, a four fold supersymmetry should be expressed in everything observable and can be thought of metaphorically as infinite dimensions or universes all converging and diverging within the singular void and making it impossible for us to perceive anything less than a four fold symmetry in anything clearly discernible. Such a scenario could only be proven statistically by classical standards, but even if it can never be disproved it would mean everything must express four fold symmetry and so you can use eight dimensions and a singularity or 16 or 32 and so on depending on how much accuracy is desired.

And my assertion is that the theorem does not beg the question you're saying it begs, namely that classical mathematics is true, because it does not assume classical mathematics; rather, it is about classical mathematics. To put it more forcefully, it's possible to prove the theorem using as a background logic intuitionism, so it obviously doesn't assume any classical theorem. As for being useless outside of classical mathematics and with limited physical applications, yes, obviously, nobody (except maybe Penrose and Hawking) said anything to the contrary. — Nagase

The foundations of Intuitionistic mathematics have yet to be fully developed and, as far as I can tell, they first need to be expressed as a systems logic along the lines of what I've described. That mathematicians are beginning to express things like Godel's theorem in Intuitionistic terms merely means they are working on the problem and not that they have left classical logic and mathematics behind as of this date.

That's nice, but I still don't see how that answers my question. Is classical mathematics a subtype of intuitionist mathematics? Yes or no? If yes, what is the meaning of "subtype", here? Clearly it's not the subset relation, because we know that classical mathematics is not a subset of intuitionist mathematics. So what is it? — Nagase

"Intuitionism is based on the idea that mathematics is a creation of the mind. The truth of a mathematical statement can only be conceived via a mental construction that proves it to be true, and the communication between mathematicians only serves as a means to create the same mental process in different minds."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

Hence, most certainly classical mathematics can be considered a subtype of Intuitionistic mathematics. My own belief is that everything is context dependent making even what is mental or physical a matter of the situation and, for example, the mind and brain have already been demonstrated to substitute for each other at the most fundamental level of their organization for increased efficiency and error correction. They express the particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics which, for me, is simply another way of saying the display extreme context dependence or are "yin and yang".

I quite frankly don't see how you could give this reading to what I said. What does it mean to say that classical mathematics is "commutative"? Some classical theories (Peano Arithmetic) have an axiom stating the commutative of certain operations, others do not (non-abelian groups). So what?

In any case, I repeat: if your problem with Gödel's theorem is that it allegedly claims that every mathematical theory is incomplete, then you have no problem with Gödel's theorem at all, since it does not claim that every mathematical theory is incomplete.

But how does this answer my question about the inclusion relationship between classical and intuitionist mathematics? Is there any such relationship? If yes, how should we characterize it? — Nagase

My assertion is that Godel's theorem begs the question and is demonstrably useless outside of classical mathematics and limited physical applications.

Categorization is part of the confusion because there is no way to characterize or categorize Indeterminacy. Calling something like quanta random or a joke meaningless or insisting a shadow has no properties is merely another way of saying we can't define them as anything other than false or context dependent. Clearly shadows, for example, exist and calling them false can only have limited usefulness when they can be more broadly defined as context dependent and sharing their identity with photons.

The way around the issue is to use a systems logic where even its own axioms and identity go down the proverbial rabbit hole into Indeterminacy, thus, displaying context dependence in everything which can be established statistically as factual in some contexts and metaphorical or a personal truth in others. Which, is something only Intuitionistic mathematics can do as far as I know, not being a mathematician myself.

As I mentioned in my last post, Gödel's theorems apply only to recursively axiomatized theory which contain enough arithmetic. By recursively axiomatized, I mean that the set of axioms of the theory should be decidable by an algorithm. By "contain enough arithmetic", it means that the theory should have enough arithmetic to capture the primitive recursive functions (or, as we know nowadays, the theory should contain Robinson's minimal arithmetic). Any theory that fails these two requirements will not be subjected to Gödel's theorems, and thus may be complete (though it's not automatically complete! The theory of groups clearly fails them, but it's incomplete, since it doesn't decide whether a group is abelian or not). — Nagase

Quantum mechanics are noncommutative and you are merely arguing that classical logic and mathematics must be commutative and Godel's theorem is classical.

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't understand what that means or how it answers my question. What you appear to be saying is that a classical theorem should be "compatible with the physical evidence and statistically demonstrated to be valid" before it is accepted as true. But this has nothing to do with relations of inclusion between intuitionistic and classical mathematics. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the intermediate value theorem was shown to be "compatible with the physical evidence and statistically demonstrated to be valid". Then we would have to accept a theorem of classical mathematics which is not a theorem of intuitionistic mathematics. On the other hand, suppose that we could somehow show that it is "compatible with the physical evidence and statistically demonstrate to be valid" that every total function from R to R is continuous. Then we would have to accept a theorem from intuitionism that is false in classical mathematics. Either way, though, there wouldn't be any inclusion relation between them, so that none would be a "subtype" of the other. — Nagase

As best I can tell you are confused over the central issue. Classical logic proving internally consistent, yet, contradicting the physical evidence means all classical truths are context dependent and become a jokes in other contexts. The law of identity itself is going down the nearest convenient rabbit hole or toilet of your personal preference and what is classical mathematics or Intuitionistic mathematics also becomes context dependent.

Photons provide a similar example because what appears to be a shadow in a well lit room can become a faint blob of light in a dark one even though it is identical in every other respect other than the changing context.

Actually he was a physicist by formation. In any case, you may do whatever you like, but the point is that scientists don't often proceed in the way Feynman describes, and that's not how science generally progresses.

Again, you're misunderstanding the theorems. The theorems are conditional in nature, i.e. they say that "under this and that circumstances, this result follows". In Gödel's case, the circumstances are (i) classical logic, (ii) recursively axiomatized theories which (iii) contain a modicum of arithmetic and (iv) are consistent. So the theorems are, if (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) hold for a given theory, then the theory is incomplete and can't prove its own consistency. There are many theories for which (i)-(iv) don't hold, and the theorem is silent about those (for instance, (ii) fails for the theory of the natural numbers, (iii) fails for Presburger arithmetic, (iv) fails for the inconsistent theory; these theories are all complete, trivially so in the last case). Given that the intuitionists also accept conditional reasoning, it follows that the theorem is valid also in an intuitionist setting.

I don't understand the relevance of the above, since nothing I said contradicts or is even remotely connected to that.

Regardless, I'm still curious about your notion of "subtypes". You said that classical mathematics is a subtype of intuitionistic mathematics. I took that to mean that every theorem of classical mathematics is a theorem of intuitionistic mathematics, i.e. classical mathematics is a (proper?) subset of intuitionistic mathematics. But then that doesn't seem to follow, since, e.g., the intermediate value theorem is a theorem of classical, but not of intuitionistic mathematics. So, is there any other way of understanding this subtype relation? — Nagase

The idea that any theory is demonstrably incomplete is the heart of the matter. For me, a context without significant content or any content without a significantly greater context is an oxymoron along the lines of a statistic of one. What is incomplete defines what is complete just as you cannot have an up without a down, a back without a front. What Godel showed is that it is incomplete by the standards of classical logic and the principles of the excluded middle and noncontradiction. What he did not do is take it that next step further and show how logic itself is context dependent as quantum mechanics suggests. What is a joke and what makes sense is merely a question of the context.

Intuitionistic subtypes are metaphors meaning the subsets of classical logic must also be treated as metaphors if they are to be compatible with the physical evidence and statistically demonstrated to be valid.

I would say that that Feynman quotation is incredibly naive in our post-Kuhnian age, but no matter. Gödel didn't assume that classical mathematics was "true"; rather, his result is about classical mathematics. An analogy: Gödel's theorems suppose that the theory in question is recursively axiomatizable. That does not mean that it "begs the question" as to whether all mathematical theories are recursively axiomatizable, which would be plainly false. Rather, it is a theorem about such theories.

As for classical and intuitionistic mathematics, well, classical analysis proves the intermediate value theorem, which is not provable in intuitionistic mathematics. On the other hand, it seems that every total function from R to R in an intuitionistic setting is continuous, something that is clearly false in the classical setting. So one does not seem to be a subset of the other (unless they're inconsistent, in which case they're the same). — Nagase

Kuhn is merely another historian giving his personal interpretation of history in the name of science and philosophy. I'll take experimental evidence over the word of a historian or even the consensus of the scientific community any day.

Godel used classical logic to formulate his theorem and, by the standards he used, if he was not asserting his theorem was true, than he was asserting it was false!

Mathematicians have already demonstrated that all of classical mathematics and causal physics can be fully represented using any number of simple metaphors or analogies such as asserting everything is merely composed of bouncing springs, balls of string, or vibrating rubber sheets for all I know. Another study similarly concluded they can be fully represented using only two dimensions. In other words, all of causality and causal mathematics are demonstrably based upon what I like to call "Cartoon Logic", that is, the logic of small children who will pick whatever explanation sounds good to them at the time or happens to contradict reality less. The implication is clear that mathematics and logic are merely pragmatic conventions just as quantum mechanics suggest our concepts of reality are.

If beauty is inherent in nature, how do you account for individual taste?

You understand that symmetry is just a surrogate for genetic fitness. So what then is inherently special about symmetry? If there were a unsymmetrical being capable of appraising beauty, it would undoubtedly find it's own brand of asymmetry beautiful.

Are there supposed to be fractal dragon equations inherent in the shit-stained canvas? — hypericin

Nature is filled with variety including individual tastes in everything whether we consider them beautiful or funny or ugly or whatever. Without variety evolution is a dead end.

Emergent effects are what is special about symmetry. A newborn infant will not begin imitating people for several weeks or acquire a sense of humor for months because both are emergent effects of pattern matching and symmetry.

As I said, classic works of art and music have turned out to based on fractal dragons. I know nothing about any research on crap stained t-shirts.

Consider the case of two paintings hanging in a gallery. One is the Mona Lisa; the other is simply a canvas randomly smeared with feces and vomit. A man walks into the gallery, finds the first pleasing, and recoils in disgust from the second. Then a dog walks into the gallery, sniffs them both, and finds the second to hold vastly more aesthetic interest.

Beauty is *both* in the object and in the eye of the observer. That is because it is a relation, between the properties of an object and the nature and tastes of the observer. — hypericin

All that proves is that different species focus on different aspects of beauty. A blind man might also prefer the same painting the dog does. In fact, some 80% of dogs go deaf and blind and their nose is much more important to them than other senses.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman

Godel's Theorem assumes the classic logic positions of the laws of noncontradiction and the excluded middle, that is, it assumes that everything, including mathematics and logic, are always either true or false and never equally true and false which is considered merely nonsensical gibberish. The problem is its uncompromising position contradicts observation which is why upon discovering quantum mechanics Max Planck begged his colleges to please explain the joke complaining that a sense of humor was never amongst his list of job requirements. Hence, the theorem merely begs the question of whether classic logic and mathematics are true according to their own standards when the weight of all the physical evidence says they are not.

Subtypes are the Intuitionistic equivalent of subsets in classic mathematics and Intuitionistic mathematics are about four times as complex allowing a quarter of their mathematics, or subtype, to express all of classical mathematics.

Assuming they can create self-awareness to perceive the beauty. That still is an assumption.
5 hours ago ReplyShareFlag — intrapersona

Beauty is intrinsic to nature and doesn't require consciousness to appreciate. For example, every classic work of art and music are based on fractal dragon equations. Symmetry is important and, for example, an animal's ability to detect bilateral symmetry is a way for them to assess the genetic fitness of potential mates. Hence, the reason even the smallest amongst us can appreciate beauty and music doth have charms to sooth the savage beast.

The visual centers of the brain are responsible for both our appreciation of beauty, mathematics, and our tool making capacity as well because its all based on pattern matching. Beauty is an emergent phenomenon which next generation computers will soon be capable of leveraging beyond your wildest imagination. Every classical work of art and music has turned out to represent a fractal dragon equation meaning beauty is also self-organizing and once we have that systems logic computers will be able to apply it to anything.

All very fascinating but totally beside the point. You claimed that Godel's incompleteness theorem
breaks down to you need physical evidence to prove classical logic"
— wuliheron — Barry Etheridge

It requires physical evidence to prove that classical mathematics are a subtype of Intuitionistic mathematics that are more fully expressed using a metaphoric emotional-logic, hence, Godel's Theorem can merely be considered to be begging the question and demonstrating that classical mathematics are incomplete. That would make it official that classical logic describes about a quarter of everything observable really well and another quarter to a more limited extent.

Money is doing all the driving at the point of guns. You cannot play God when the brightest lights are life on, but nobody is ever home. Fukushima and Chernobyl are two examples of people playing God with money.

No, you absolutely do not. Logicists hold that all truths within any system of logic can be deduced from logical propositions within it. Godel proved that this is fallacious. Neither appeals to external evidence physical or otherwise. — Barry Etheridge

You are using classical logic to define the meaning of classical logic. Donald Hoffman is a game theorist who spent ten years researching the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another only to conclude that if the human mind and brain had ever resembled anything remotely like reality we would already be extinct as a species. Life and all of physical reality including our minds and brains obey an analog logic where humor and beauty are indivisible complimentary-opposites that Intuitionistic mathematics can handle. By merely comparing how logic and mathematics actually apply statistically to the physical world we can learn how applicable they are whether or not they fit the classical definition of being true.