Top Down Or Bottom Up? Which Is More Intuitive? (1 Viewer)

[Monk-Eye]

"Top Down Or Bottom Up? Which Is More Intuitive?"

A computer chip has a collection of parts, individually none function as a processor of logic. Moreover, without specific physical assimilations, cognition as sophisticated selection does not exist.

The "bottom up" paradigm allows an omnipresent (infinte miniscule parts) as an eternal fundamental basis for structure and design that facilitates the mechanical, methodical account of cause and effect and intelligible order, but does so without consciousness. Moreover consciousness is derived through specific physical assimilations and their integrated sophistication.

The classic idea of creation begins with emanation from and eternal onmiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent or, what could be termed a "top down" paradigm.

A genetic character of an eternal is that it must be and become and that which is exists emulates that property.

By the anthropic principle, since sophistication of being for facility to become exists, one may attempt to convince itself that since cognition exists in the physical, then the eternal basis must therefore have cognition. Yet, without specific physical assimilations, cognition as sophisticated selection does not exist.

Under the presumption of philosophical naturalism. In a "top down" paradigm, a physical provision would need to exist apriori making consciousness possible amidst infinite disjoint, unassimilated parts presumed by the "bottom up" paradigm.

Thus is the "bottom up" or "top down" paradigm more intuitive?

 

[rathi]

Uh to simplify your post , you are asking which seems more natural

Are rocks made by combining lots of sand?

or

Is sand made by breaking lots of rocks?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Astrology Of Planets And Houses

"Astrology Of Planets And Houses"

Uh to simplify your post , you are asking which seems more natural
Are rocks made by combining lots of sand?
or
Is sand made by breaking lots of rocks?

Actually, the question is challenging whether one believes physical requirements exist amidst the void of empty space or dark matter to allow intelligence which is non-biological and, as speculated by some, an omniscient cognizant mind.

 

[MrFungus420]

"Top Down Or Bottom Up? Which Is More Intuitive?"

A computer chip has a collection of parts, individually none function as a processor of logic. Moreover, without specific physical assimilations, cognition as sophisticated selection does not exist.

First of all, cognition does not exist in anything artificial. It is:
"cog·ni·tion
n.
1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition" (From: www.thefreedictionary.com )

As a mental process it only occurs in something with a mind. Further, no computer chip, or computer, for that matter, has awareness, reasoning, judgement or intuition.

So, it looks like you are either setting up a strawman, or attempting to make yourself sound erudite through the use of impressive sounding words. Unfortunately, using them incorrectly just makes you seem bombastic.

The "bottom up" paradigm allows an omnipresent (infinte miniscule parts) as an eternal fundamental basis

A couple of points here. First of all, "omnipresent" is an adjective, not a noun. In order to make any sense whatsoever we have to know what is omnipresent, in other words, you need a noun to make a complete sentence here.

Secondly, omnipresent does not mean "infinite miniscule parts", it means present everywhere simultaneously.

for structure and design that facilitates the mechanical, methodical account of cause and effect and intelligible order, but does so without consciousness.

You can ramble as much as you want to, but this is still not a sentence. There is still no subject in it.

Moreover consciousness is derived through specific physical assimilations and their integrated sophistication.

Amazing, you know what causes consciousness. Maybe you should let the scientific community in on your little secret. I can pretty much guarantee you a Nobel Prize.

The classic idea of creation begins with emanation from and eternal onmiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent or, what could be termed a "top down" paradigm.

Ok...that almost makes sense...

A genetic character of an eternal is that it must be and become and that which is exists emulates that property.

And pure semantic codswallop...

By the anthropic principle,

Anthropic: relating to humans.

since sophistication of being for facility to become exists,

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...

one may attempt to convince itself that since cognition exists in the physical, then the eternal basis must therefore have cognition.

Why? Humans have cognition. Carbon, one of the elements that is the basis for everything organic, has no cognition.

Yet, without specific physical assimilations, cognition as sophisticated selection does not exist.

What physical assimilations?

Under the presumption of philosophical naturalism.

You really need to try to speak in complete sentences. Maybe if you were to avoid the big words that you use incorrectly anyway, you could concentrate on grammar.

In a "top down" paradigm, a physical provision would need to exist apriori making consciousness possible amidst infinite disjoint, unassimilated parts presumed by the "bottom up" paradigm.

I'm not even going to try to translate this into English. It seems to be nothing more than psuedo-erudition.

Thus is the "bottom up" or "top down" paradigm more intuitive?

Based on what you've posted, it's impossible to know. It's even almost impossible to know what you trying to say.

A word of advice, stop trying to impress with big words. Instead, try to make a cogent point.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Syntactic Entities And Lexical References

"Syntactic Entities And Lexical References"

A couple of points here. First of all, "omnipresent" is an adjective, not a noun. In order to make any sense whatsoever we have to know what is omnipresent, in other words, you need a noun to make a complete sentence here.
...
You can ramble as much as you want to, but this is still not a sentence. There is still no subject in it.

Here is a link to adnoun.

Secondly, omnipresent does not mean "infinite miniscule parts", it means present everywhere simultaneously.

You are asserting that the composite whole is not present everywhere simultaneously? It if is not, what is? An assumption is being made that the interaction of the individual parts provides a summative accountability (open or closed?).

As a mental process it only occurs in something with a mind. Further, no computer chip, or computer, for that matter, has awareness, reasoning, judgement or intuition.
.....
Amazing, you know what causes consciousness. Maybe you should let the scientific community in on your little secret. I can pretty much guarantee you a Nobel Prize.

There is an entire world of AI. When two competing algorithms based on probabilty decision exist in the same system with what certainty will you rule out self awareness?

A genetic character of an eternal is that it must be and become and that which is exists emulates that property.

And pure semantic codswallop...

An eternal must be and become, "I am, That I am", it is an innate property; that is what it does. Emulation of that property is a consequence of being intrinsic to an eternal entity.

Anthropic: relating to humans.

Somewhat, but no; it is meant as in this anthropic link. In short, cognizant beings exist ergo the foundation for existence has provisions for cognizant beings. This as opposed to cognizant beings exist therefore the foundation of existence is cognizant.

 

[rathi]

Actually, the question is challenging whether one believes physical requirements exist amidst the void of empty space or dark matter to allow intelligence which is non-biological and, as speculated by some, an omniscient cognizant mind.

Intelligence is a poorly defined term. The only beings that we consider intelligent are humans. Even then, some humans with brain abnormalities are not intelligent. Unless we have a clear criteria to work with, debate is dificult.

That said, I think there is a small posibility to replicate something like the human brain out of in-organic materials. However, there is no good evidence to support this so it is nothing more than a random hypothesis.

 

[Morrow]

Welcome to planet Earth, I salute you.

I believe I understand your post. Although I have the benefit that cognition is what I spend all of my time thinking about (how ironic). However I may be simply misinterpreting your statements as I attempt to fit them into my own framework. So if you would be willing to clarify your post using less esoteric terms, and qualifying your statements more, I would be happen to respond.