Leaderboard

I completely agree with @TheVat. The idea of 'truth' makes no sense if we do nor relate to an objective reality. Our scientific theories are about something. And they can be wrong, or true, in their (limited) domain. The earth never was flat, we know that. A majority believing that is was (is) may have reasons to think so, but it is, and was never true. For me the expression 'my truth' makes no sense: the word 'truth' implies that it is claimed to be the case for everybody. We dis-cover reality. Maybe not as it is, but as a map of reality. If we behave according to the map, e.g. find our way to the Eiffel tower, and we get there, then the map was 'true'. There may be much left out from the map, but the map expresses at least some true aspects of reality. Science is not just a 'narrative', as many post-modernist philosopher liked to say.

This is the dominant definition of truth in the past century - that truth is by definition statements that correspond to an objectively determinable state of affairs in the world. The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are – to the facts. This idea can be seen in various forms throughout the history of philosophy, but it really got serious traction with folks like G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell. So you're in pretty good company, and I would say the correspondence theory has generally been adopted by scientists. 8 billion people may entertain myriad beliefs but those cannot gain the status of truth, or true statements, unless they correspond to objectively determined facts. E.g. "I see the light is red," is subjective, but "Anyone who measures the light finds its wavelength to be 650 nm," is true because it does not change due to variations in human perception, i.e. it corresponds to a fact external to a particular perceiver. Beliefs can change. "The earth is flat" was a belief that eventually was shown not to match the reality. So it was never true, because the earth has always been an oblate spheroid. The truth has not changed with respect to the earth, our beliefs have. Now our beliefs correspond better to the fact that the earth is round. But the truth was always what it was - in that sense, it is objective, because it doesn't "care" what we believe. The epistemological goal of humans is to improve our perceptions and measurements and inferences from them to get closer to the truth - the objective reality outside our heads. Were this not the case, no one would bother with science or philosophy and we would bow to chaos. To reiterate, there is no such thing as "my truth." Truth, by its definition at least since the Enlightenment era, is that the truth is out there in the world and not something that only corresponds to one person's belief system. I keep hammering on this because I see many people veering towards solipsism (as Moon mentioned) and the incoherent notions of personal truth or alternative facts. If it's personal, and only personal, then it's an opinion or a belief or a conjecture or a feeling. Not a truth.

The second half of my previous post addressed that, I hope. Truth claims are revised, as more data is available, no one disputes that. This doesn't alter basic word definitions. Just the degree of correspondence between our statements and reality. If I say "the morning star and the evening star are both the planet Venus," there is always the chance, however remote, that aliens are just projecting an image there, hacking the signals from space probes we sent, etc. Per Quine et al, we have a web of beliefs based on empirical data, that lead us to assign that scenario a low probability. If we reach the point of colonizing Venus, that will certainly strengthen the probability of the Venus as planet assertion, with a flood of new data and first-hand experience. The semantic point, as I understand the philosophers of science, is that "Venus is a planet" will be as true as it ever was, because it is either true or it is false. The truth value of statements, WRT to physical reality, doesn't change. It is our expectations that may change. An ancient Egyptian would assert "Venus is a planet" has low truth value. We assert that it's high.

It is academic training in Marxism. I studied Applied Mathematics and Computer Science in the university, but classes in "Marx's theory" were required. The "theory" professors thought I did well, as shown on the lines 13, 22-24, 29, and 37 of my transcripts.

I want to make this a life long journey into making a general purpose artificial intelligence (AGI) using my knowledge and ability. I would like to track my journey on here to keep me motivated. Thank you for your time.

Yes, scientific theories are models, the map and not the territory, and sometimes we have multiple maps that show different aspects of the territory, or which are sometimes not easy to interpret. But that does not mean there is no territory, or that we can make up our own ideas about it.

Yes, the Lentz warp drive is potentially interesting. However, as the author of this review paper mentions, unless someone can demonstrate the feasibility of each stage in the entire life cycle - and I would add steerability to this list -, we still don’t know whether this is actually physically realisable or not.

Anton does a good job of explaining the science in the papers he uses, I would have to check out his content from other sources if it was something controversial.

How many people are actually going to hear about this? Didn't come up in my newsfeed and I'm pretty anti-trump. Kind of freaks me tf out. Agreed, I relate it more to dogmatism and sociogenic factors (ain't peer pressure the worst?) more than anything else. Will have to give this book a read myself. It sounds like it scratches the surface of the creative uses of language that tend to go hand in hand with cults. Language creation is probably the biggest part. Creating thick concepts through demonisation especially. At this point, me and you can say "liberal" in the personal context to each other, with an agreed upon definition in language that a liberal is someone who supports liberal public policy and philosophies. In Trump speak it is no different in definition to "evil asshole" and is as thick of a concept as the word "slut". In terms of cult studies, the cult of personality around Donald Trump is far more public than standard cults who tend to try to hide their worst behaviours from the public eye. Normally by the time people realise there is a serious cult in their midst or nearby, the members of that cult are highly indoctrinated and are essentially speaking their own language. I wouldn't call it their own dialect because we are talking layers upon layers of redefining terms and definitions laced into a constantly evolving narrative of victimhood and imminent danger. Trump supporters may sound like they are speaking English, but it isn't, it's Trump speak. The way we define and conceptualize corruption isn't the same as the way Trump defines and conceptualizes it. The fall into a cult is quiet and subtle. Sure the charismatic leader is always loud and bombastic but there is a gradual escalation in the rhetoric that takes advantage of a fear and anger cycle so that in the followers mind there is a slow snowball effect of thinking about the fears in the leaders terms, what to do about them and the anger the leader brings out in them because the enemy/outside/fear agitator is always personally attacking every individual follower of the leader. The thing is, from a certain perspective the process isn't very different from how social movements in general work. The differences being whether or not a single person is at the center or an idea/cause is leading a group, the second difference is that beneficial social movements are reactions to true reality but cult movements are reactions to a false/warped reality brought on by how they newly adapt their use and conceptualization of language over time within the rhetorical indoctrination process. That isn't an exhaustive list of differences but the most relevant two in my mind. I suspect the quiet rule when it comes to Trumps cultlike following has a method of action similar to how people react when people who speak a language you don't know are speaking around you or to you. Sorry went on a bit of a tangent. I do feel it is important though for people to internalise that Trump supporters should be thought of as speaking another language just for practical reasons if you happen to need to talk to any of them (friends, family etc) And definitely show them the Reich thing! That needs to be made known everywhere. They said the quiet part out loud this time. Brazen mfs. And they won't sue him most likely. People know what they are donating to Trump for at this point but they see it as trying to save Jesus from crucifixion. A big ugly orange and blond Jesus. That poor Crucifex.. I have a prediction, If Trump is convicted, he'll give some "cut the tall trees" style public remarks and we'll see a rapid escalation in co-ordinated violent crime across the USA. 😕 hope I'm wrong.

Interesting paper thanks for sharing.

Assumption from another thread that you aim for computational models running on currently available computer hardware; Any thoughts on how to get the resources needed to develop and run? Current state of the art machine learning requires quite a lot. Some old numbers from 2020; note that this supercomputer has not resulted in anything resembling AGI as far as I can tell: Reference https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/ai/openai-azure-supercomputer/#:~:text=The supercomputer developed for OpenAI,the top five%2C Microsoft says. That said, running a simple generative AI based software that generates text can be done on a consumer computer. It has nothing to do with developing intelligence but is useful in some contexts.

I was going to compare how I think to how it thinks. yeah, I am wanting ta build sort of a builder assistant while also learning as much theory as a kind to build it.

Do you remember what happened to 'Jarvis' ? ULTRON ... ( or were you serious ? )

I’m unclear what you’re planning to compare, and what “its” refers to here. Will you please clarify?

That...is a very good question! Not sure yet. Thank you for bringing that up. I was going to compare my own reasoning to its reasoning and then compare and contrast.

The opening post does not make much sense; what do you wish to discuss?

Dim said he didn't "give a shit about the truth" and we, quite evidently, have a completely different definition of truth. In my world truth is that which you can demonstrate to be true, not what you want to true or what you believe to be true. Evidently in your world the word truth is somewhat iffy depending on your belief. Truth, reality, and belief depend on the individual yet when someone on this forum asserts something as true they are expected to back up that assertion with data, evidently you and Dim are outside that parameter. No need to argue the earth isn't flat because if that is what is believed then it must be the reality... WOW, UFOs must be alien space craft, vaccines don't work because there are people who don't believe they do and... oh my goodness all I have to do is believe and I can fly, come on Tinker Bell let's fly away to never never land! Chaos rules! Everything is a we believe it to be!

It's your subjective belief, you are entitled to it, just don't try to convince others its an objective truth. Its important to me that I only believe things that can be shown to be true, what we believe quite often decides our actions if you believe something is true that is not then you risk thinking others should act or conform to those beliefs. If you believe that everyone has to believe the way you do, or at least live under laws that enforce your beliefs then you need to justify that belief. Again if what is true is not important to you then I have no reason to discuss anything with you based on your own admission that truth doesn't matter to you. Why does solipsism keep coming to mind here?

You've brought up a fascinating point about the complexity of ecosystems! You're absolutely right that traditionally, plants are considered producers and animals are considered consumers in the food chain. However, there are indeed instances where certain organisms blur these lines by exhibiting both producer and consumer behaviors. Plants like the Venus Fly Trap and other carnivorous plants are excellent examples of this phenomenon. While they primarily generate energy through photosynthesis like typical producers, they also supplement their nutrient intake by consuming insects. This unique adaptation allows them to thrive in environments where nutrient availability might be limited. In such cases, these plants can indeed be considered both producers and consumers. Their ability to generate energy through photosynthesis while also directly obtaining nutrients from other organisms challenges our traditional understanding of ecosystem dynamics, highlighting the intricate relationships between different life forms. It's moments like these that remind us of the richness and diversity of life on our planet, and how nature continually surprises us with its ingenuity. Thanks for sparking such an interesting discussion!

To get the conformal map, we use a series of transformations. First, use a Möbius transform to map the semicircle to two perpendicular lines, then compress the resulting region to a half-plane. Next, map the half-plane to the unit disk, invert it to get the exterior of a circle, and finally adjust to get the right radius. The resulting map is: ℎ(𝑢)=𝑖𝑅+𝑢+𝑖𝑅2−𝑢2h(u)=iR+u+iR2−u2 with 𝑢=𝑥1+𝑖𝑥2u=x1+ix2. This covers the main steps briefly while addressing the request.

How do we know what seeds will bear fruit, If we don't plant them?

I want to learn to speak Dansk (North German Danish) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_Sprognævn

Never bet with more than you can afford to lose... 😉