tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post2536109245133091057..comments2024-03-27T20:51:11.303-04:00Comments on Accepting Ignorance: The Mind NodeAlrenoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-48537252297727684882008-10-27T20:31:00.000-04:002008-10-27T20:31:00.000-04:00Also, from hereNonalgorithmic processing, for exam...Also, from <A HREF="http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/><BR/><I>Nonalgorithmic processing, for example, is put forward by Penrose (1989; 1994) because<BR/>of the role it might play in the process of conscious mathematical insight.</I><BR/><BR/>An honest-to-god citation, though I have no idea what, exactly it refers to. But good for Penrose.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-22443386107053320772008-09-12T04:58:00.000-04:002008-09-12T04:58:00.000-04:00For the interested, as opposed to the hostile;Sour...For the interested, as opposed to the hostile;<BR/><BR/><I>Source?</I><BR/><BR/><I>Intuition is not supermathematical magic.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/01/conceptualism-and-intuitions.html" REL="nofollow">Actually...</A> Check out the first and last paragraphs. (The others aren't too bad either, though I'm not sure they're true.) <BR/><BR/>Intuition regularly acts like supermathematical magic. You can watch actual mathies talking like this as well, which I can quote from the emails referenced in the article above.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-26054139170499445262008-09-09T04:24:00.000-04:002008-09-09T04:24:00.000-04:00"humans can solve NP-complete problems in less tha...<I>"humans can solve NP-complete problems in less than polynomial time," which is of course completely false.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, what's the source for this?<BR/><BR/><I>I did not take detail orientation as an insult,</I><BR/><BR/>Um.<BR/><BR/><I>I guess I'm not big-picture enough.</I><BR/><BR/>So yeah, about that.<BR/><BR/><I>Now I realize that you just use 'mathy' and technical words like "prove", disconnected from their meaning.</I><BR/><BR/><I>When the supporting detail erodes away,</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, you actually thought you were arguing about the mind node?<BR/><BR/>I thought you just took issue with collection of off-the-cuff predictions. I don't give a crap about them, but I assumed you did so I humored you.<BR/><BR/>Try attacking the actual meat of the article.<BR/><BR/>Well, learn to do so, and let me know when you're done.<BR/><BR/><I>When the supporting detail erodes away, you stay latched on to your big picture conclusion and just grab another supporting detail as if they are just for decoration. That is not logic.</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently it's better than your 'logic.' <BR/><BR/>Let me demonstrate.<BR/><BR/>A:<BR/><I>As you can see, Andrix completely missed the point. This is not his fault; he's probably S, which stands for sensing, which means he deals in the details that make up the picture. My expectation that he can dilettante to intuitive is an expectation too much.</I><BR/><BR/>J:<BR/><I>INTJ</I><BR/><BR/>A:<BR/><I>According to the Myers-Briggs illustration, that J means your intuition in introverted, while your sensing is extraverted.<BR/><BR/>This is the opposite of my situation.</I><BR/><BR/>While my exact detail - the S vs N thing - was wrong, the overall conclusion was right. Andrix lacks an extroverted intuition, and yes his sensing is extraverted. (And probably hasn't developed his introverted intuition, by the looks of it.)<BR/><BR/>So I guess I'm not 'logical' enough...to be wrong, that is. <BR/><BR/>So anyway, for people who aren't obsessed with proving me wrong...<BR/><BR/>This detail;<BR/><BR/><I>When the supporting detail erodes away, you stay latched on to your big picture conclusion and just grab another supporting detail</I><BR/><BR/>is interesting, because it's sort of true. <BR/><BR/>I very often have trouble assigning words to the ideas in my head. <BR/><BR/>For instance, I can almost always describe and predict simple mechanical systems, such as those I found in my first year physics assignments. I cannot (easily) actually write down the mathematics that describe them, except in general terms. (It oscillates in a distorted sine wave pattern roughly X amplitude phase phi. I will have no idea which coefficients, and will probably forget a constant somewhere.) <BR/><BR/>This flaw of mine extends also to philosophical subjects, where I find that what I've said and what I'm trying to get at are completely different - but until someone on the outside re-interprets what I've written, I'm oblivious to the difference. <BR/><BR/>What I've also found, which had to be done through extensive testing, is that I'm not wrong. (Actually, many people are like this - they know something, are right, but can't put it into words. Incidentally, by 'extensive' I mean 'at every opportunity for something like a decade.') <BR/><BR/>When I sense a truth, even when I write it down wrong, I'm always correct given the facts that I know. <BR/><BR/>So yeah, I latch onto my big picture. I know there's a truth around there somewhere. <BR/><BR/>For instance, I finally worked out the No Infinities Principle properly, I think.<BR/><BR/>Basically, there's a problem with infinite physical systems in that you can take infinite physical limits in them. However, the mathematics of the limit clearly make a mockery of relative space and time. <BR/><BR/>There may be specific pure-math restrictions on what limits are vaild that stop this, but crucially to my theory above, <I>I'm not, nor have ever been, aware of them.</I><BR/><BR/>But yeah, I've written that down 'wrong' a bunch of times. <BR/><BR/>You should go look at my first proof that consciousness isn't physical if you want to see bad, bad logic. (You'll have to ask me for the link.)Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-91081568661439180442008-08-29T02:34:00.000-04:002008-08-29T02:34:00.000-04:00::Present evidence that we're doing something unex...<I>::Present evidence that we're doing something unexpected.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I did that. See the prediction referenced above.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh ok, just so it's clear that you're not actually saying anything meaningful about math or physics. At first I thought you were, because you were making such specific statements, for instance "humans can solve NP-complete problems in less than polynomial time," which is of course completely false.<BR/><BR/>Now I realize that you just use 'mathy' and technical words like "prove", disconnected from their meaning.<BR/><BR/>When the supporting detail erodes away, you stay latched on to your big picture conclusion and just grab another supporting detail as if they are just for decoration. That is not logic. <BR/><BR/>I did not take detail orientation as an insult, I understand that different perspectives are valid. I took as arrogant that you leapt on my failure to see something you saw while ignoring my suggestion that your forest contains very few actual existent trees.James Andrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623383895993378048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-58802487604974684632008-08-27T23:46:00.000-04:002008-08-27T23:46:00.000-04:00That 'J' means, again that I'm right.According to ...That 'J' means, again that I'm right.<BR/><BR/>According to the Myers-Briggs illustration, that means your intuition in introverted, while your sensing is extraverted. <BR/><BR/>This is the opposite of my situation.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-35986967922339897842008-08-27T23:23:00.000-04:002008-08-27T23:23:00.000-04:00Yes, of course you see it as an insult. Naturally....Yes, of course you see it as an insult. Naturally. I do get so tired of coddling people, though. On my blog, you're just gonna have to deal with it. <BR/><BR/><I>Sorry for again shooting down the arguments you actually made, instead of the ones in your head.</I><BR/><BR/>Even if I accept that you did, this argument again avoids the argument that I actually made; that your style of argumentation seems to inherently avoid the point. <BR/><BR/><I>But that doesn't matter because you're still making the same non-point</I><BR/><BR/>Oh what was that I said? <I>"You're going to be saying that a lot until..."</I> Again, your comments about my biases would have more force if my predictions didn't keep coming true.<BR/><BR/><I>Present evidence that we're doing something unexpected.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I did that. See the prediction referenced above.<BR/><BR/><I>Why do you care about this problem?</I><BR/><BR/>You don't give a crap about why I care about this problem. I have a better question; why do <I>you</I> care about this problem?<BR/><BR/><I>Then you actually started to more clearly lay out the argument that was in your head, instead of the one you had written down previously.</I><BR/><BR/>Notice that this doesn't actually falsify my observation; that Andrix changed his behavior after I started slinging insults. <BR/><BR/>Of course, having realized this, we do note that the interpretation is clearly different, but that doesn't matter until we solve the underlying dispute about the data.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-46453903450993434082008-08-24T06:51:00.000-04:002008-08-24T06:51:00.000-04:00"We know a bunch of postulates are true. (We make ...<I>"We know a bunch of postulates are true. (We make mistakes sometimes, which doens't detract from my point.) How?"<BR/><BR/>For third parties: Again, I don't see how this is so difficult to see. </I><BR/><BR/>Probably because you said:<BR/><I>Fact: The Riemann Conjecture is, as of right now, unprovable. Yet, <B>we have come up with it.</B> How?</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry for again shooting down the arguments you actually made, instead of the ones in your head. I guess I'm not big-picture enough.<BR/><BR/>But that doesn't matter because you're still making the same non-point that I rebutted but you're confusing something else for proving, namely 'knowing'.<BR/><BR/>You assert as a fact that we 'know Riemann is true, without a proof. What does this 'know' mean? It doesn't mean 'proven'. More people know the Pythagorean theorem than know the proofs. Let some kid check it a thousand times and they'll believe it, but they won't have a proof.<BR/><BR/>When you heard of the four color problem did you intuit that it was correct? or did you play with sketched out maps trying to find a counterexample? When you gave up and accepted it, did that give you proof?<BR/><BR/>How hard would it be to write a program that tests a given postulate in a variety of ways and if it passes, declares the postulate to be probably true?<BR/><BR/>Where is the magic?<BR/><BR/><I>I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was faith. You made that connection all by yourself. All I did was suggest that it wasn't based on evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>Re-read the backlog. My not-faith, not-wrong, not-axiom was in response to your one-two-three.<BR/><BR/>Not based on evidence? You seem to be having trouble showing any evidence that intuition is super mathematical magic. I think you have the burden of proof here.<BR/><BR/><I>You need to add at least, 'because nothing is supermathematical' or else simply say outright what you did above.</I> <BR/><BR/>Odd, because I don't take that as an axiom. I could accept an NP-oracle if we had one. It just so happens that there is no evidence for one, and I have no indication that one is possible with our physics.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>'Intuition is not supermathematical magic' is the kind of statement that usually leads into 'instead, X is.' Just by convention.</I><BR/><BR/>Heh, so I either accept your model of intuition, propose some other super mathematical magic, or you you say I'm taking it's impossibility as an axiom. Nice.<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, you effectively communicated that. You can just read it again, especially the part about 'figure out how it isn't'</I><BR/><BR/>So you're asking me to just change my state of mind until I agree with you, and then you talk about being evidence based? The baptists tell me I need to read the bible with faith, wanting to believe.<BR/><BR/><I>While it may seem to be 'evidence based' it is no longer vulnerable to evidence. </I><BR/><BR/>Umm, yes it is. Present evidence that we're doing something unexpected. Such as proving unprovable theorems, or solving NP-complete problems in P time.<BR/><BR/><I>The mind node is primarily a problem, not a solution. Specifically, it is a non-determinism machine. </I><BR/><BR/>Well ok, then why is it relevant?<BR/>I mean, you delve into nifty stuff and spiffy stuff, why? What are you trying to explain?<BR/>or<BR/>Why do you care about this problem?<BR/><BR/><I>Last time I got Andrix to solve the problem - again that N means I have difficulty naming it - it was by slinging insults.</I><BR/><BR/>Funny, as I recall I had said you needed to clarify your definition a post or two prior. You insulted me for asking for clarity. Then you actually started to more clearly lay out the argument that was in your head, instead of the one you had written down previously.<BR/>Sadly, you're still patching the holes I predicted in my first post. (and the circularity keeps coming back.)<BR/><BR/>INTJJames Andrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623383895993378048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-90221508950023012912008-08-21T00:16:00.000-04:002008-08-21T00:16:00.000-04:00Comment edit hack:But...but... I am elitist. It's ...Comment edit hack:<BR/><BR/>But...but... I am elitist. It's not an insult.<BR/><BR/>Your apology is accepted.<BR/><BR/>I have to admit it makes me suspicious, because your actual data was valid. I do come off badly, often.<BR/><BR/>And if you could give me some criticisms with meat, I would appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>Be warned that I'll probably argue with you. I expect you to be able to defend your criticisms. Something Myers and Briggs noticed about INTP is that we're intellectual chameleons - our arguments don't map straightforwardly to our beliefs, so I may argue even when I agree.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link. It had at least one interesting thing on it, plus I like knowing how stuff works.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-60656791179195240272008-08-21T00:05:00.000-04:002008-08-21T00:05:00.000-04:00I want to apologize for my insulting remarks, all ...I want to apologize for my insulting remarks, all I was saying before is that you could use a softer tone in these comments. <BR/><BR/>I came here through a blog post on the Brood Crumb.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-78431105572257134522008-08-20T23:24:00.000-04:002008-08-20T23:24:00.000-04:00We have solved nothing. I asked for a source to su...<I>We have solved nothing. I asked for a source to support your claims, I can look up Riemann and NP, but what I learn there does not support the gobblydegook you are putting out.</I><BR/><BR/>My problem here is that I'm expecting too much. First, some background.<BR/><BR/>The Myers-Briggs test does not compare favorably to the experimental correlations as compared to the Big Five, discovered by analysing linguistics. (This makes sense, because it has too much symmetry: there are exactly 16 types arranged in very neat geometrical relationships.) However, it seems to be a good illustration. A painting rather than a model.<BR/><BR/>I test as INTP. That N is intuitive, which means I'm a big-picture person, and I often don't know exactly what details I'm even noticing. <BR/><BR/>In this case, the problem has nothing to do with the details of Riemann. The problem is how Andrix responds to my arguments. <BR/><BR/>As you can see, Andrix completely missed the point. This is not his fault; he's probably S, which stands for sensing, which means he deals in the details that make up the picture. My expectation that he can dilettante to intuitive is an expectation too much.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately this is also an example of the kind of event that played out in the comments on my post on academia. When I start slinging insults, they treat me better. Last time I got Andrix to solve the problem - again that N means I have difficulty naming it - it was by slinging insults.<BR/><BR/>I just don't want to do that again. So, basically I'm waiting to see if Andrix will accidentally figure this out on his own.<BR/><BR/><I>The computational requirements to prove something, if it is provable, bear little to no connection to the computational requirements to find it.</I><BR/><BR/>This is not what I'm talking about. <BR/><BR/>What you seem to be saying is;<BR/><BR/>"To write down a postulate is very different than to be able to prove it."<BR/><BR/>What I'm trying to say is;<BR/><BR/>"We know a bunch of postulates are true. (We make mistakes sometimes, which doens't detract from my point.) How?"<BR/><BR/>For third parties: Again, I don't see how this is so difficult to see. Perhaps it is, of course, I might not know. I Accept my Ignorance. <BR/><BR/>However, if you want to interpret it that way, you can. If that's your agenda.<BR/><BR/>The same results could be achieved by assuming I'm a kind of person that I'm not, a kind I'm sure you're familiar with. This assumption is not falsified by the rest of the comment.<BR/><BR/>This, that you can spin a statement into stupidity, is true of most writing. I don't make a particular effort to block it first because it's so common that I can safely expect that everyone who wanted to can learn to read the author's intent instead of the alternatives. Everyone who doesn't want to probably isn't reachable anyway. Second, because it's bloody difficult to erase possible spins from writing. It's just not worth it. <BR/><BR/><I>It is not faith, it is not wrong,</I><BR/><BR/>(Laughter)<BR/><BR/>Okay..okay...yeah...oh wait<BR/><BR/>(Laughter)<BR/><BR/>I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was faith. You made that connection all by yourself. All I did was suggest that it wasn't based on evidence.<BR/><BR/>The reason this is funny is because if I wanted to, I could use tendencies like this to lead you around by the nose. You would believe about me whatever it is I want you to believe about me. I wouldn't have to lie either - I could call this 'misleading around by the nose.' <BR/><BR/>(Incidentally this is a real problem for me. As you can see here, I do it by accident. I actually have to be very vigilant to stop myself from manipulating people like this.) <BR/><BR/><I>We simply do not do anything remotely like anything math says we can't do.</I><BR/><BR/>Note for future reference that the statement 'intuition is not supermathematical magic' is a very different statement than the one above. <BR/><BR/>You need to add at least, 'because nothing is supermathematical' or else simply say outright what you did above.<BR/><BR/>'Intuition is not supermathematical magic' is the kind of statement that usually leads into 'instead, X is.' Just by convention. <BR/><BR/>Regardless, see below, as the response is the same. <BR/><BR/><I>I'm saying there is nothing that we actually in fact do that is at all beyond what we should be expected to be able to do. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, you effectively communicated that. You can just read it again, especially the part about 'figure out how it isn't'<BR/><BR/>Consider that humans may in fact not have thought of everything. The appearance of pure math is not the fact, nor the proof, of pure math. <BR/><BR/>While it may seem to be 'evidence based' it is no longer vulnerable to evidence. <BR/><BR/>For instance, see below.<BR/><BR/><I>The mind node is a non-solution in search of a problem.</I><BR/><BR/>No, that's a completely different argument. We're talking about intuition here...or, I guess, were talking about it.<BR/><BR/>The mind node is primarily a problem, not a solution. Specifically, it is a non-determinism machine. <BR/><BR/>For third parties:<BR/><BR/>This, incidentally, is a good example of Andrix doing things that make me say, "Oh not this again." <BR/><BR/>If you know what it's called, do let me know. <BR/><BR/><BR/>A final note. Why am I putting notes to third parties in this comment? Technically, aren't I signalling Andrix not to read them, yet simultaneously putting them in a comment meant for him?<BR/><BR/>The first thing is that I would be thinking them anyway. It's very difficult to correct problems in thinking by telepathy, so I write it down.<BR/><BR/>The next is that if Andrix wants to know what kind of impression he's actually leaving, it's right there. If he wants to have a normal conversation - where I pretend I'm not thinking all this, as per the conventions - he can do that too. This way he at least has the option, rather than me trying to decide for him. <BR/><BR/>Third is that I do often get random third parties reading my threads, which I know because people like Runtime randomly show up. I want to leave them notes, and I have to put them somewhere, and here follows logically for those third parties. <BR/><BR/>Finally, this all serves as auditing material for me as a philosopher. The more candid things I write, the more easily you can audit my thinking and figure out what kind of errors I'm prone to make, so that if you do adopt some of my philosophy, there's less danger of adopting mistakes as well. <BR/><BR/>Even if you don't adopt, you can use the error data to make repairs and form your own theories.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-78103525399965774192008-08-19T13:45:00.000-04:002008-08-19T13:45:00.000-04:00It might have something to do with that post about...It might have something to do with that post about me.<BR/><BR/><I>Oh not this again. We solved this already. You can figure it out on your own; in future, do.</I><BR/><BR/>We have solved nothing. I asked for a source to support your claims, I can look up Riemann and NP, but what I learn there does not support the gobblydegook you are putting out. <BR/><BR/><I>Fact: The Riemann Conjecture is, as of right now, unprovable. Yet, we have come up with it. How?</I><BR/><BR/>By the fact that proving a conjecture and finding it are two entirely different things. Which I stated before, and you ignored. That fact is what makes you not-even wrong.<BR/><BR/>The computational requirements to prove something, if it is provable, bear little to no connection to the computational requirements to find it.<BR/>IIRC, Godel had a statement which he proved was unprovable, but it was not horrendously difficult to construct.<BR/>Indeed we can talk about statements that are true but impossible to prove, but there is no similar notion of a conjecture which cannot be expressed.<BR/>What would that even mean?<BR/>It's fairly trivial to write a program that will output all possible conjectures in a given language, and in finite time it will output all conjectures under a finite length. (possibly including some true but uinprovable ones.) Granted this will be exponential time relative to the lengths of the outputted conjectures, but at the lengths of conjectures we're talking about that hardly matters. <BR/><BR/><I>::Intuition is not supermathematical magic.<BR/><BR/>One: So much faith from the unbeliever.<BR/>Two: See what I said above about not-even-wrong.<BR/>Three: See, this is the kind of crap I need to know in advance. This is what I'd call an axiom. </I><BR/>It is not faith, it is not wrong, and above all, it is not an axiom.<BR/><BR/>It is a conclusion based on the evidence. We simply do not do anything remotely like anything math says we can't do. if you think we do, then you misunderstand the math.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying 'math says it's impossible therefor we must not be doing it' I'm saying there is nothing that we actually in fact do that is at all beyond what we should be expected to be able to do. Nothing that a Turing machine can't do in principle.<BR/><BR/>Pretending that intuition is something a turing machine can't do, and then pretending that the things that we know one can't do are things that we can do by intuition, does not help you. <BR/><BR/>The mind node is a non-solution in search of a problem.James Andrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623383895993378048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-36981285924494105102008-08-14T05:08:00.000-04:002008-08-14T05:08:00.000-04:00First, I am elitist, so good call there.Second, if...First, I <I>am</I> elitist, so good call there.<BR/><BR/>Second, if you don't like it, you're welcome to not come.<BR/><BR/>Third, if you want to come anyway, simply saying what I'm doing is not helpful - I would like to become less annoying, but I kind of need to know exactly what I'm doing wrong so I can stop. <BR/><BR/>Fourth, I'm not a dilettante, so bad call there.<BR/><BR/>It's been mentioned before that I sound patronizing. Since I don't feel patronizing, I have no idea why this is.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-34822609328031640752008-08-12T15:47:00.000-04:002008-08-12T15:47:00.000-04:00What's with all the elitist and condescending rema...What's with all the elitist and condescending remarks in these comments? <BR/><BR/>Nothing annoys me more than some dilettante who talks patronizingly towards everyone else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-38387701224319981452008-08-08T00:07:00.000-04:002008-08-08T00:07:00.000-04:00James Andrix,"That is, using objective computation...<B>James Andrix,</B><BR/><BR/><I><B>"</B>That is, using objective computation we cannot make a Riemann conjecture. Yet, we still have one.<B>"</B><BR/><BR/>Source?</I><BR/><BR/>Oh not this again. We solved this already. You can figure it out on your own; in future, do.<BR/><BR/>Fact: The Riemann Conjecture is, as of right now, unprovable. Yet, we have come up with it. How? With what? The only way a computer as we understand them would be able to would be to guess randomly. The profile of unproven yet true conjectures does not follow a random distribution. <BR/><BR/>Computers can evolve conjectures but nothing ever 'just comes to them.' Computers have no spectrum of obviousness - it's either right there, or unreachable. Even with fuzzy logic, 'suspicion' is not really in the vocabulary of a computer, because something has to enter the suspects beforehand. (And so on...) <BR/><BR/>Note that if the Riemann Conjecture happens to be false, there are dozens of other conjectures that have been, by now, proven. <BR/><BR/>Futher thought: even if we make an AI* to your specifications, we will be able to preliminarily verify their conclusions without anything like a proof. Much like you are doing here, in fact. It seems that if this is simply normal computation, we could save a lot of conscious effort by simply opening up these processes to more conscious inspection. <BR/><BR/>*(An AI being a machine that can generate conjectures.)<BR/><BR/><I>This sounds like it's not-even-wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>You're going to be saying this a lot until you figure out how it isn't.<BR/><BR/><I>Intuition is not supermathematical magic.</I><BR/><BR/>Two responses.<BR/><BR/>One: So much faith from the unbeliever.<BR/><BR/>Two: See what I said above about not-even-wrong.<BR/><BR/>Wait, three.<BR/><BR/>Three: See, this is the kind of crap I need to know in advance. This is what I'd call an <I><A HREF="http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2007/11/first-step.html" REL="nofollow">axiom</A></I>. If I don't know that you believe this, it's not good enough for me to cite some source or another, as I'll just be begging the question. <BR/><BR/>I call this an axiom partly because it really is, (even though it pretends not to be) and because even in the pretense, arguing with it is fairly futile. Best case scenario we agree to disagree. Try to respect the fact that I'm not insane, that reasonable people can in fact come to differing conclusions on some issues. <BR/><BR/><I>But while we're on it, I don't see how this explains consciousness at all. </I><BR/><BR/>Did I claim explicitly that it did?<BR/><BR/>Admittedly, I was pretty impressed with myself when I first came up with it. However, contra both of us, it does not explain conciousness. Instead, it opens up the realm of consciousness to sytematic scientific inquiry (including philosophy).<BR/><BR/>Now we (putatively) know what it is, we can start doing experiements to figure out how it works.<BR/><BR/>Yes, you can build it out of lego if you can make a stochastic lego for the pentagon. If Chalmers is right it feels whatever the codes that are fed into it tell it to feel. If not, then first we must ask how encoding is decided for spiffy stuff. <BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/><B>Vimarsha,</B><BR/><BR/>I'm also going to answer your other comment, which somehow made it to another post entirely. (Whatever. Fine by me.) <BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm not being particularly good about my usage of 'dualist.' I'm thinking of a suggestion rather than a precise definition.<BR/><BR/>As per my post on <A HREF="http://alrenous.blogspot.com/2007/12/subjectivity-vs-objectivity-segue-into.html" REL="nofollow">subjectivity,</A> both subjectivity and objectivity can be rolled into one another. I call this concept 'existence' since it seems to fit. (Much like several varieties of string theory can be rolled into M-theory.) Post summary; either the subjective-only or the objective-only perspective works just fine, as either concept is included in the other. Note that this has some interesting implications for transphysical objects. <BR/><BR/>However, since my proof generalizes the contradiction between physics and consciousness, they must be (mostly) independent sets of rules. The fact is, everything is conscious, no matter how you want to look at it. Without a separate set of rules governing its occurrance and actions, consciousness either has no physical effects or would overwhelm everything.<BR/><BR/><I>2. external objects exist, and upon observation, they are causally coherent (this causality is beyond my individual power of imagination so it cannot be a self induced illusion - there must really be an exterior world)</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for saying it like this. I have noticed the same, and now I can state it explicitly and concisely. (Also interesting is your knowledge of Eastern philosophy, which means you know about the dreaming-God metaphor. What's his name again?)<BR/><BR/><I>They are defined as one and the same thing, seen from two different perspectives. They anticipated by millennia this conclusion.</I><BR/><BR/>As expected, processing by spiffy stuff is more efficient in some domains than processing with nifty stuff. Occasionally, hyper-efficient. Also, meditation is an effective method of scientific inquiry, which bodes well for the future study of spiffy stuff. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, it also appears that a lot of Buddhist and Hindu thought is wrong. While yes they anticipate quite a lot, they also make a lot of mistakes, and we basically have to science over it all anyway. On the other hand, I know an awful lot of Buddhist thought and I have no idea where it came from. <BR/><BR/><I>Quantum states are not physical? If consciousness is to be the same as quantum states, then it is physical in that sense.</I><BR/><BR/>Individual quantum states are not conscious. They are, considered alone, static. <BR/><BR/>More precisely, it would appear (stressing <I>appear,</I> just for you, Andrix) that the particulars of individual superposition collapses are determined by the laws of consciousness. <BR/><BR/>Most precisely, the observed distribution is a result of the in-the-moment preferences of the conscious particles guiding the exact states they decohere into. The laws of physics appear to determine the preferences, but the laws of consciousness allow choice - the electron can decide to 'try' something that doesn't look all that appealing. Since it's not appealing, they do not try all that often, and as they cannot learn, since they have no memory, every choice is exactly the same as every other choice. <BR/><BR/>If you had (6*10^23) a mole of humans, all given the exact same choice, it's very likely they would fall into a predictable probability distribution as well. <BR/><BR/>Summary; quantum particles/events are physical <I>and</I> conscious; they are transphysical. At these points of space/time, except that we have Newtonian emergent physics to compare it to, there is no purpose to differentiating the stuffs into nifty and spiffy, because they meet. (A bit like how the four physical forces unify at high temperatures.)Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-35242751899894235942008-08-07T19:39:00.000-04:002008-08-07T19:39:00.000-04:00You use the word physical when saying "Consciousne...You use the word physical when saying "Consciousness isn't physical" in a very peculiar way. Quantum states are not physical? If consciousness is to be the same as quantum states, then it is physical in that sense.H.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00914802280298201086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-22387321908827553152008-08-07T17:02:00.000-04:002008-08-07T17:02:00.000-04:00Alrenous, how can I get in contact with you over e...Alrenous, how can I get in contact with you over email?<BR/><BR/>I am debating consciousness philosophical problems with a friend over email and by reading your blog I realize we could have excellent discussions.<BR/><BR/>I hope I am not a bother to you with my request. My email is<BR/><BR/>hor ia.crist escu at gmail.com<BR/><BR/>(remove the spaces, I just don't want the email to appear everywhere)H.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00914802280298201086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-40231118980043756412008-08-03T16:54:00.000-04:002008-08-03T16:54:00.000-04:00That is, using objective computation we cannot mak...<I>That is, using objective computation we cannot make a Riemann conjecture. Yet, we still have one. </I><BR/><BR/>Source?<BR/>This sounds like it's not-even-wrong.<BR/><BR/>Having and proving are different. neither requires more than Turing completeness. (well, proving Riemann might be impossible.)<BR/><BR/>Intuition is not supermathematical magic.<BR/><BR/><BR/>--<BR/>I don't think there are any such things.<BR/><BR/>But while we're on it, I don't see how this explains consciousness at all. <BR/>What does it experience? can you build it out of lego? What do lego experience?James Andrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623383895993378048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-89219296998784903452008-08-03T12:46:00.000-04:002008-08-03T12:46:00.000-04:00It's a possible example.If you don't like it I'll ...It's a possible example.<BR/><BR/>If you don't like it I'll just use another:<BR/><BR/>The Riemann conjecture is almost certainly correct. But we cannot prove it. <BR/><BR/>That is, using objective computation we cannot make a Riemann conjecture. Yet, we still have one. <BR/><BR/>There are hundreds of possible examples.<BR/><BR/>Still, the point is that mind nodes <I>may</I> exist and if so it <I>probably</I> is there to exploit the different computation properties of spiffy stuff, one application of which <I>may</I> be intuitive math. <BR/><BR/>These would be questions for science. <BR/><BR/>However, again, the first hallmark of a good idea is that it explains new things without making old things baffling. <BR/><BR/>--<BR/>Since you disagree with me so broadly, and this is hardly the first person I've noticed this from, I wonder if there are hidden schools of thought, of which I belong to one and you another. By hidden I simply mean they lack names or central institutions.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-34368254947248905172008-08-03T11:34:00.000-04:002008-08-03T11:34:00.000-04:00For instance, NP-complete problems in less than po...<I>For instance, NP-complete problems in less than polynomial time,</I><BR/><BR/>Source?<BR/>I am certain this is wrong.James Andrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623383895993378048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-37862809854539426962008-07-31T22:18:00.000-04:002008-07-31T22:18:00.000-04:00Very awesome. I'll go add the links to Chalmers, e...Very awesome. <BR/><BR/>I'll go add the links to Chalmers, etcetera. <BR/><BR/>Would you like me to post the edits here, so you don't have to go re-reading the entire thing?Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5204863782883637837.post-1424455731101713922008-07-31T18:27:00.000-04:002008-07-31T18:27:00.000-04:00Pentagram. (!)I read through this essay once quick...Pentagram. (!)<BR/><BR/>I read through this essay once quickly hitting the internal links, and need some serious rumination in order to address specific points--but it is extremely appealing. It makes sense. My consciousness finds it very satisfying.<BR/><BR/>I'll be back.Robert Pearsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01357942424904415208noreply@blogger.com