Re: If someone just took a minute to listen to me

On Mar 22, 8:52 pm, theman <genericjoe2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:56 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>



I am very impressed.

What follows has significantly more content than what has been
exchanged in the past.

I am hoping this allows for the foundation of a discussion on a few of
the topics you raise.

Before going any farther, I see many criticisms that aren't direct,
and I've devised a little test to determine if they are direct or
indirect.

The test is, how many ideas does this criticism apply to?

For example, one could criticize Einstein's original 1905 SR paper
because:

a. we could argue the ideas were borrowed from somewhere else
or
b. there were no cites in the paper

neither applies... if I have issues they are on physics level with SR,
these issues of citation are pre-physics issues...


Well, all I'm saying those are examples of something you could say
about an idea regardless of what it actually is.

In that sense, they aren't direct criticisms.


But these criticisms could apply to thousands and thousands (or
millions) of ideas.

No matter what idea I am defending, those criticisms apply.

The criticisms that apply to just one idea are very direct.

The Problem as you have it, this is not really the problem, the
problem is one of unification (QM with GR in a theory of gravity), but
it is also one of dealing with rampant complexity in modeling and the
issues of exponential expansion...

Conjecture:
Wikipedia is not a real source, cite a real source to back your
claims...

Indirect.

Not in the least, wikipedia is cited in your paper, it is both, it
fails to be a scholarly source in any context, thus it should not be
used in a scholarly paper if thats what one wants...

Also made references to the Principia and Monadology.

I could cite them, but I'm making general comments about 300 year old
texts.

The specifics of those texts is less important, and more perplexing
come from a different era, than the generally understood spirit.

Besides, any wikipedia topic I mentioned has a bibliography.



And regardless of leibniz having some of the same ideas you have to
show how those go farther or take us in a different direction then we
are going in...

The argument for taking it farther is pretty clear:

A. Leibniz's ideas from the 1700s required computers
B. In the year 2008, computers exist

not what was meant, the issue of going farther is are you going beyond
what is currently thought about...


Ok. I understand.

My argument for taking it farther is Step 2.


Yes congrats you can make an argument for digital philosophy an area
that is unproven and is still riddled with holes as evidence by Ray
Kurzweil's work and its failure to take into account present research
in neuroscience, and the fact that it sweeps most problems under the
rug...

Accepting the present research in neuroscience leads to the "Hard
Problem of Consciousness".

You wouldn't be sweeping that under the rug, now, would you?

Learn about the issues in digital philosophy, in Kurzweil's case,
being more of transhumanist he in fact sweeps the issue under the
rug... read his work...


I agree.

In Cahill's process physics, time is somehow supposed to give rise to
space and matter.

I don't think that solves the problem either.


Yeah your statement about computers being able to go farther is not a
new idea look at Wolfram, or just look on the web their are many who
have come to the same idea and have fallen short... long before you...

Indirect.

The more powerful computers become, the more likely Leibniz's ideas
will realize.

not really the only way that happens if there is a direct benefit to
using his ideas, you have not proved that nor cited sources to do
so...


QM is begging for new ideas.

Maybe dusting off older forgotten ideas that coincidentally are
claimed to have anticipated QM are what we need?



you are merely trapped in well understood snares there is no science
here....

Hypothesis:
Why would you want to express the idea of figure a mathematically, you
just say we should that isn't a reason...

Physics currently expresses relative space, time, and matter
mathematically.

Relative space, time, and matter is part of Figure A.

We're doing the same thing. Just differently.

Yes your adding an irrelevant middle man, already been over that...


In brane mechanics, our perceived three dimensions occupy one brane.

In another, hidden brane, gravitons occupy other hidden dimensions.

My "middle man" is the link between those dimensions.

You'll deny there needs to be a link.

But some people have been thinking about these things.

Neuroscientist John Smythies has written some relevant papers.

I think I should probably use his paper as a cite in mine.

Thanks for the help in realizing that.



Step 1:
Why would you build a model of the world that doesn't work, thats a
waste of time to do that intentionally...

ignoring code... since its just a "proto-hypothesis" worthless

Indirect.

Directly applies to your idea...


It applies to any conjecture.

It's a subjective value judgment that places all worth on hypothesis
and theory and none conjecture.



The idea of absolute and relative matter is a rip-off of others
philosophy... this is nothing new,

Indirect.

You may specify indirect as much as you wish, it really is a
meaningless classification for a critique of a particular paper, where
obviously all comments are directed at the said paper...


The comments are directed at whether or not the idea of monad is new.

In the abstract I said "inspired by a wide variety of ideas, including
Leibniz's Monadology."

You're criticizing the uniqueness of one aspect of the paper, an
aspect I've conceded is quite old.

It doesn't criticize the idea itself.



not to mention you have failed to
quantify absolute matter and what makes some object absolute or not...
and what test we can perform to verify some objects state as absolute
or not...

The model is not falsifiable in step 1.

Doesn't matter, one must define ones terms.... you have not...

What terms?

Any terms are defined mathematically.

Absolute matter is defined in the code.

It starts with:

"define class absoluteMatter as custom"

and ends with:

"enddefine"

I defined the terms in the mathematics (the code) which you chose to
ignore.



"Before a relative hydrogen atom exists in the computer world, an
observer has to exist there too."

Hmmm... well thats not a new idea there is already a formal area of
study dealing with putting observers in a model... go look into it....

That's the type of information I'm interested.

What fields in particular?

Process Physics?

Look it up on line observers in models its not hard....


I have looked it up online.

Depicting an observer as mathematical complexity resulting from simple
laws seems to be the innovation of Process Physics.

If there are others, you'll have no problems supplying information
about them. Such as their names.



Step 2:
So you have absolute reality in computer memory, ok call it whatever
you want... the second set of information resides in a virtual
resource ok which is still in computer memory so I don't see a
difference. Any computer operation follows this pattern... this is
nothing new... you are forever taking information processing it and
getting a result... a new piece of information... wow... everyone
gasp....

Not true.

Every computer operation uses one set of information, the computer's
physical resource.

A computer takes some information, processes it, and stores it.

Takes it from the physical resource, manipulates, but its still in the
same resource.

You're describing information science.

I'm describing a novel modification to information science.

What you're missing is the key innovation.

No not really because any simulation run on a computer all data in the
simulation will be contained in the "physical resource"...

Yes.

I agree with this.

At least, at the present time, nothing has ever proved it wrong.

In other words, what I'm suggesting is something that has never been
done.

In fact, you believe it is impossible.

That's probably a clear indication that I've come up with a novel
idea.

The idea is, what if the monads defined in the physical resources
arrange into their own structures, like atoms, molecules, cells,
tissues, and organs, something very brain -like.

That brain is an information store.

There is a second set of information in there, in a unique resource.

It doesn't communicate with the first, it is a consequence of the
information in the first.

I thought I came up with this idea, but it's clear this is what Cahill
is going on about (and I think Leibniz before us).

So maybe I should add cites to Cahill too.

Sweet.


That's what makes this possible to take Leibniz's ideas farther.

No since its not an innovation its a non-innovation since it doesn't
describe anything, it makes a distinction which doesn't exist...

So your observer magically appears here, well there is nothing in your
paper to suggest you have any idea of how to do this or what it would
look like. Not to mention it smells like a copy of Wolframs and others
ideas...

It's a lot like Reginald Cahill's ideas with a twist of Julian
Barbour.

Cahills ideas have had a few hole put in them, read his paper on
process physics and then look for him on arxiv and you'll find a
critique of his idea... understand the idea and its problems then use
it...

Then you go all the way to awareness, so let me ask you what is that
and how does one create it? Why does the AI have to operate on a
Neural Net? have you ever looked at AGI? obviously not, or studied AI
obviously not...

I'm not talking about AI.

So why did you say it?


Because I was wrong about that.

The paper needs to be updated.

Instead of A.I., I've determined that what my paper indicates is a
truly intelligent computer program.

A program for simple laws of nature that yields complexity that can be
interpreted as the program making observations and measurements of
itself, and dare I say, experiencing itself?


AI exists because of AI code.

What I'm talking about is intelligence that appears as a result of
complexity.

nothing comes from complexity, complexity is merely a classification
and a bit of an ambiguous one at that... look at complexity theory...


Nothing comes from complexity?

Charles Darwin would disagree with you on that one.


Algorithmic based entities are not aware they will never be more aware
then your average toaster... to think they will be is a categorical
error...

You're right.

That's why there is no algorithm for intelligence.

That doesn't solve the problem


It hasn't happened yet.

We can't say it won't solve the problem for sure until we do it.


It has to arise naturally from the complexity.

Nothing arises from complexity, except complexity and a pain in the
ass when dealing with it...


Life comes to mind.


Step 3:
You need to determine the criteria for success first so you make
progress...

Step 3 is the criteria for success.

Should be first not last...


Write a memo to information scientists.

Here's the memo you would get back:

In information science, step 3 occurs after the information processing
task of step 2.

How can the task be measured for success before it is complete?



The second set of information from step 2 should be falsified by an
experiment in step 3.

So essentially you just add an irrelevant middle man to the process,
its like saying rather then looking at my math book to do my homework
I am going to generate a math book of my own and hopefully if my
generator is smart enough I'll get an A on my homework... hmmm yes
thats stupid...

But I did get an A.

Huh? still an irrelevant middle man that has not helped you make a
prediction...

Conclusion:
Implies an argument there wasn't one...

In terms of complexity, Yeah, well looking in the closet and the
toilet for your complexity won't do, go learn about this stuff you
don't know anything about and maybe you'll be able to make a
hypothesis...

Why do you need neurobilologists for this, wouldn't you be looking for
computational neuroscientists?

Maybe. Biology seems to have achieved more along the intelligence line
though...

Again look into AI esp. AGI, look at neuroscience then come back, you
don't know enough to make that claim...


Accomplished neurosurgeons have entertained my conversation with
interest.

I know from their opinion that I've got some of these ideas straight.


hmm yes you would, but wait you don't
know anything about neuroscience... so you couldn't possibly know what
you need, or even how to help yourself along... hahahaha...

Look up hidden variable theory you don't know what it is and thus fail
to identify its uses when they hit you in the face...

Leibniz's conjecture is like a theory where all the variables are
hidden.

Impossible if there are no variables then you have no theory...


True.

If the hidden variables yield the complexity of a new virtual
computer.

And if the variables of that virtual computer match the outcomes of
real experiments.

Then you have hypothesis.

The second set of information (second set of variables if you will) is
the falsifiable element.



without a flashlight you can't see anything in absolute darkness...

I agree.

But the flashlight has to exist as the result of complexity of the
monads.



The predictions are acquired from the model more abstractly than
reading the value of a variable.

thats meaning less since you have only hidden variables which is of
course just a misunderstanding of hidden variable theory...


The physical resource has only hidden variables.

The visible variables exist in virtual resources of a neural network
or something similar.


Fantastic you store information in two resources, I happen to have my
research stored in 5 resources Hard Disks, CDs, DVDs, Ram, and
cache...

Those resources are all physical similar.

Really, well DVD, and CD are, but Hard Disks use a different write
method and RAM and cache are solid state, I'd say there are some
significant differences...

But they communicate just fine with each.

In the end they are all electrons.

That's the physical resource.

The second set of information in the new virtual resource is
significantly different.
.

Loading