cladking

It's actually fairly simple; Brain + Language = Mind. We all experience the mind but neither "brain" nor "language" is what we think it is. The brain, for instance, is the entire nervous system plus the entire biological organism as it existed at birth. Some of the organism is nearly incidental to "mind" because they do not directly affect it. Ironically much of the structure (nervous) not directly affecting the mind is actually in the brain. Language is simply a shared belief system.

I've found the most effective way is to simply program the mind for the question that you want it to solve. There's a tendency to solve only one question per night and to solve the biggest one you have even if you want it to do something else. I just try to let the question be the last thing I think at night before drifting off. Some questions are insoluble with the knowledge you have at hand so you need to develop a "feel" for when you've gotten enough information. People say I do my best work when I'm unconscious. I hope this is what they mean.

Are you certain of this? Can you actually identify the specific dream and specific sequence that provides such practical answers? I remember my REM dreams pretty well but don't remember the stage IV dreams at all. I use this mechanism to solve problems extensively and don't recall any help from any dream I can remember. Of course the remembered dreams are very helpful in understanding what's been going on and what the problems are but I'm not so sure they are a source of problem resolution.

It's both. People try to understand the nature of existence but this understanding must be derived from and expressed in words. We try to distill nature and knowledge to express the reality of our existence but must use language which means something different to each listener and must use teachers and mentors whom we don't truly understand. It's a blind man leading those who would understand elephants and then trying to communicate their uncertain and perspectiveless findings. The value in philosophy is what an individual can pick out of it and use to build himself and his own comprehension of reality. Here's an ancient understanding of reality, I believe, that I just found this morning so will add it; "This great name of yours is upon me, O self-begotten Perfect one, who is not outside me. I see you, O you who are visible to everyone. For who will be able to comprehend you in another tongue? Now that I have known you, I have mixed myself with the immutable. I have armed myself with an armor of light; I have become light! For the Mother was at that place because of the splendid beauty of grace. Therefore, I have stretched out my hands while they were folded. I was shaped in the circle of the riches of the light which is in my bosom, which gives shape to the many begotten ones in the light into which no complaint reaches. I shall declare your glory truly, for I have comprehended you," Ancient "philosophy" took reality as being axiomatic so is distinct from any modern philosophy.

I had a similar experience when I was young. I had been awake a long time and was somewhat bemused when a dream started playing right in my field of vision as I was driving. It kept trying to take my attention from the road ahead though. Ironically I traded off driving responsibilities and my partner almost immediately drove off the road.

I find this thread fascinating since I've always been interested in dream and sleep and pay a great deal of attention to it at each stage (that I can). I've never really studied the physiology so this certainly has my attention as well. I believe most dreams have a very simple causation; random neuron firings. These occur throughout the brain and this random "signal" is partially processed by the brain which is or affects dreaming. One of the deepest stages of sleep in which the speech centers are asleep is when we solve our everyday life's problems and questions. While we no longer have access to the ancient language in which we used to think the wiring of the brain that gave rise to this language is certainly still intact and effectively "thinks" in the absence of language. Many questions are much more easily appreciated and appraised from this perspective that some would call "instinct". It is from this perspective that people communicated and thought until "modern" times (4000 years). What drives the process of sleep is an interesting study but it's quite apparent to the "user" that different parts of the brain sleep at different times and shut down sequentially.

I don't think I could solve this back when I was good at it. What would be expected to precipitate from water saturated in carbon dioxide, calcium carbonate and gypsum including a substantial amount of sodium decahydrate and some sodium bicarbonate and sodium chloride as the pressure decreases and the temperature increases? There are several more exotic compouns in trace quantities. I suppose the question really boils down to what is the proportion of gypsum to calciuum carbonate in carbonic acid? Thanks very much in advance for any help.

You're a great deal like I was when I was younger (so watch out). All the great philosophers who have arrived at a meaning of human life have arrived at the exact same point; have fun and leave the world a better place. It's important that you do both and neglect neither. I work hard and I play hard. People say I do everything too hard. Boredom is pernicious and needs to be controlled. It's gets easier to control it with age but it still requires effort. Get a hobby. Travel. It might be easier to make friends in a different place. Introspection might be good for you but nothing is good in excess. Of course the brain is a computer but the operating system is language as expressed through belief, not philosophy. Certainly you can philosophize your beliefs and create a self fullfilling prophesy but the brain still has a soul where the computer is just hardware and a few cents worth of precious metal. You will grow and adapt and become what you believe and the computer will be tossed on the garbage heap in a few years as an obsolete and worthless occupier of space. If you ever do get depressed don't forego medical attention. You obviously have a great deal you can contribute and the alternative, as you know, is a coward's long term solution to a short term problem that flies in the face of nature. Yes. And read Camus.

You apparently missed my meaning. All human beings were at one time zygotes. before this they were something else. Indeed females are born with all the ova they'll ever have so you could say we originate as distinct potentialities within our grandmothers. Before this we are highly indistinct potentialities. Until science has a means to measure and define consciousness we really have no choice but to define it by its effects. We can observe all things with consciousness to behave in manners consistent with their own best interests as they are able to determine that best interest. Birds head for cover when a hawk is hunting because it's in their best interest. If discovery or invention is required to obtain cover they are quite capable of some times making that "mental leap". This requires cleverness not intelligence. What we call "intelligence" is not only poorly defined but the tests for it primarily guage the speed at which an individual can think rather than his inventiveness which is the only true measure at what does exist in reality; cleverness. Cleverness is an event and not a condition. If it were a condition it would not be maintained by individuals whose brain is deteriorating due to disease. Supposedly "intelligent" individuals maintain their so-called intelligence but lose the ability to discover or invent. They lose the ability to apply their faculties to the moment. No cleverness exists until there exists a result. No "intelligence" as we define the term exists at all. You want experimental testing to support this but experimental testing is centuries from being able to address such simple issues that are easily seen from other perspectives. It's the other perspective that is in agreement with the primitive experimentation that has been done to date. From the perspective of the science already completed it's nearly impossible to see the reality. Read the examples I use to make these points and try to refute them. Most of themn are simple observation and can't be refuted. I'm well aware that scientific models are not in agreement but this is a matter of perspective. You say a beaver is acting on instinct and I say some beaver must have invented a means to build a dam. You say only humans are conscious and that you exist because you think. I say you think in language and you can't see this because of the way you think. No, I can't prove anything because science is centuries away from making heads or tails of the brain and perception. In the meantime simple observation and logic seem to support the very simple idea that animals and perhaps all life has some conciousness. Even some of the primitive science is highly supportive of this. Plants grow better under conditions that would not be expected to have an effect on them. Hell, the sassafras trees around here wilt a little bit everytime I walk by with a shovel and think about trying to transplant one. People choose to believe they are at the crown of creation and they see only what they know because nothing else can be understood or fits with their beliefs. The actual science and observation show that animals are conscious and it shows they are sometimes more "intelligent" than humans. Logic suggests a simple causation for all these phenomena and I believe it's that reality is being masked by language and misinterpreted because of beliefs. People seem to think I'm claiming to have a better grasp of reality or a better understanding. No! I'm merely claiming that viewing it from the inside is different than viewing it from models and belief. I am suggesting these differences can be directly exploited to help science and the human condition.

When you say things that are patently true and supported by 500 years of modern science the onus is on someone else to show there's a flaw. Why don't you show some (human) consciousness that didn't begin with a zygote? Not exactly. There's no such thing as intelligence so artificial intelligence is impossible and is a dead end. Of course there's a mass market for these things for answering phones and Rachel would have a new weapon when she illegally calls me to sign up for a lower rate credit card. Then the phone company can install the same machine to answer calls from irate customers. The federal agencies wouldn't need human operators to ignore complaints and could use these machines. Imagine getting a "live" operator when you call who can ignore your needs rather than having to negotiate a ten minute phone tree before you are ignored!!! It would truly be a brave newer world! But I digress. Despite the multi million dollar market for "Ai" there's no practical purpose. We are spending more trying to invent it than it will ever be worth. Machine "intelligence" will be real. Aren't you ascribing "magical properties" to consciousness by suggesting there are concepts that can't be held? This seems to fly in the face of definitions. I'm merely suggesting that we mistake consciousness for intelligence. Everybody is conscious, even animals are conscious but without at least some rudimentary consciousness a machine can't do anything useful. If a machine can't invent something and then tell you how then it's still just a machine like a toaster or a conveyor belt.

A zygote. Everything that exists has always existed in some form and will continue to exist in some form after it returns to dust. This is reality. The Turing test is flawed. It is seeking to identify consciousness through imitation rather than consciousness directly. Even if a machine can be devised that would imitate consciousness it would have no practical application other than confusing me when it answers the phone. The point of consciousness is the point of life itself and life itself is survival, procreation, etc. Life accomplishes this through observation and the application of existing knowledge to the moment. This means life invents and discovers and these are the hallmark of "intelligence". If a beaver can figure out how to build a dam then a computer should be able to do something to benefit itself to say it is really intelligent. It should a snap for it to start redesigning its own circuits. We may not be so far from this as you think.

Really?! There's nothing magical about consciousness. It's so simple a butterfly could do it. But it's not the magic everyone thinks it is. It doesn't spring into existence with the thinker. I am therefore I think. Ai is doing it in the same backward way as Descartes. Ai would be magic incarnate. To put it another way, the problem with Ai isn't the "A", it's the "i"; there is no such thing. They've put the cart before the horse because intelligence has never been properly defined. If it were they'd see what they are really experiencing is the "magic" of consciousness. Between these two fundamental errors it is safe to predict they will never invent Ai. You are ascribing magical properties to the human mind. Elephants paint and monkeys can perform better on some "intelligence" questions than college students. Animals have to be taught human language so we can talk to them. "Intelligence" is a human construct with no real referent.

Great!!! Then tell me who's winning the next election. What's the date and time that man sets foot on Mars? Should Joe marry Shiela or Anne? Are any robins left in Indiana or are all of them already south for the winter. What's the weather next Tuesday? Should the government endanger the lives of billions to combat global warming? Will the educational system in the US continue to destroy the lives of countless millions of people in the inner city? What empiracal evidence do you have to predict the best means of saving these people from prison and drugs? It's knowing everything that got us tothe point that we now have an economy based on waste and finding ever more efficient means to dsestroy products and shovel them back into the earth. Science can answer none of the important questions and when math is applied they come up with an infinite number of ramps building an infinite number of pyramids at worst and calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin at best. It's not science failing it's the people who wear blinders and can't see that a reality exists. There are seven billion people on an unsustainable course and this implies great suffering in the future unless we first change course. Science could be the solution. Technology could arise to create energy from fusion and it would take us decades to dehydrate the planet by means of escalating waste. There are more certaing ways to change course. Better to ask late than never. Simply stated it is the simple assumption that a single reality exists that we each experience differently. Logic. My unique understanding of the nature of language. And Anthropology. You are attaching way more significance to this than is warranted. There are far smarter people than me and this isn't one man job. I'm merely claiming to be a generalist who has (re)discovered another kind of science used by animals. I have no superpowers or even special insights, merely a different perspective. Your opinion does mean something to me but I'm unconcerned with whom I inhabit the box. Perhaps a change in tactics will be possible where a change in "style" is not. Perhaps I can just wait until events catch up with me. It should be soon, I believe. In either case I'm going to try to bow out of this thread. I will keep up and post as necessary. Just to be sure people understand my position I will reiterate that reality is natural logic. It is the same natural logic that underlies math. There is nothing at all logical about modern language.

You may well be right but I doubt I can employ any other language. Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel [can never step on the same planet again]. The river Temark is never the same river from one winter to another and as Rod Serling often made clear you can't go home again even when it's in Walking Distance or you're Booth Templeton at Freddy iachinoes'. Darmok on the ocean. Perhaps we're getting somewhere now. The reason we can't know about reality itself is that it is excluded from metaphysics except as it affects experiment. This is why we are building models and believing 1 + 1 = 2. These concepts fit the results of experiment. So we are studying reality indirect. This is consistent with the way we think and percieve which is a product of language. Due to the nature of modern language each person percieves things differently necessitating the removal of the concept of reality from metaphysics. But reality doesn't cease to exist when we cease to see it or employ it metaphysically. It doesn't cease to exist when we see our beliefs and models preferentially to it. It's as real as a heart attack. If we look at reality from the inside we have to leave language and models behind. Only your experience is relevant here. No, you're right. There's almost nothing known about reality itself but when you visit you'll see that this appies to everything else as well. We don't know nuch about reality from the inside or the outside. It's the perspective from the inside that I believe is critical and might solve not only the problem with modern science but some of the problems with modern language. The repercussions can be very far reaching.

Yes. Exactly! I'm not talking about "science". I've been talking about reality as being axiomatic. If I were talking about "science" as you percieve it, I wouldn't be saying one plus one can not ever equal exactly two. I'm talking about reality as viewed through the lenses of two sciences and my own unique understanding of generalism. Everything I'm talking about has always concerned REALITY itself rather than the means and metaphysics we now use to try to grasp it. I'm saying science understands the tiniest bit or reality and people are mostly seeing reality only in terms of this tiny bit that science understands. I'm trying to show this by proving that science is only true within its metaphysics. When science considers things outside its metaphysics then it is necessarily being misapplied. It's true that force equals mass times acceleration but this equation can never be perfectly applied in the real world. It can be applied accurately enough to be useful only in the short term and the large scale iff it's done correctly. You can think of it this way; I'm not so much talking about the proper application of theory to the real world as focusing on how this application can't be perfect due to our lack of knowledge of all the forces and their quantities. We can't predict the future because the future is dependent on things that are yet to occur. It is ALWAYS dependent on things that are yet to occur and this is part of the reason that understanding and observation based on language and science can obscure seeing aspects of reality. I believe it is to every individuals benefit to understand that things look very different from a perspective where reality is axiomatic. Unfortunately it requires a different perspective and this perspective may be impossible if you approach it already knowing reality through language and scientific models or religious beliefs. If you can't grasp the concept that even in aggregate since the beginning of time (40,000 years ago) the human race knows virtually nothing at all about reality then the vantage may as well be on Alpha Centarii. From the vantage where the observer is a part of reality rather than being infinitely detached through language, things look different. Some things are easier to see and some are harder. It's the ones that are easier to see that are important. Or more accurately, it's the FACT that some things are easier to see that is important and it has critical scientific and metaphysical implications, I believe. By the by it feels funny to say "I believe" since it's obvious this is what I believe when I say it. Indeed, from my perspective I don't really believe it at all but rather I think there is a significant possibility that the statement is a reflection of reality. Yes, I talk different but this difference is part of the message I'm trying to communicate. The words people use tell more than the message itself but also are a window to their thoughts. For most people the blinds are down here, though. I had to look through to see the meaning of what people were saying because I think differently. I seem to be able to hear how vacuous most words are and most people don't. Without an analysis of peoples' word choice I often miss the meaning. Indeed, I often miss the meaning. I use statement and tautologies to direct the listener to my meaning. I don't know another way to talk except I can say in my opinion one apple plus one apple equals two apples in most practical applications. Ironically, It's easier to get through to infants and children than most adults.

I'm not trying to paint myself so much differently than everyone else. There's probably only a single way to experience consciousness and just some variations on the theme. The primary thing that sets me apart is merely that I try not to form beliefs and try not to see the world in terms of beliefs. I probably succeed at the first better than at the second. I try to see the world in terms of visceral knowledge. I'm well aware that the world is a complicated place and that people are in many ways the most complex thing in it. I try not to make over sweeping generalizations. Most human characteristics and the characteristics of "intelligence" all lie on continua and they come together in interesting and unique ways in individuals. Indeed, individuals aren't really even an aggregation of these characteristics anyway but are rather unique in virtually all possible ways. I make a lot of absolute statements and use a lot of tautologies because I'm trying to make a point, communicate, rather than to describe reality or a logical framework for understanding reality. Somehow it just doesn't seem obvious to most people that we aren't communicating. It's more accurate to say that we are using language to teach about our perceptions of reality and then communicating through these perceptions. We are building bridges between people through language but unless we're on the same page there is very little actual communication. This wouldn't be so bad if we simply were aware that communication is failing and that communication can sometimes be critical. People can't seem to see the perspective imposed on each us through language and unless this can be seen I doubt any individual can assume a different perspective of consciousness. Many individuals are quite adept at seeing from different perspectives but all of these individuals take their language and its beliefs with them when they change their vantage. It sometimes seems my task is impossible.

Then how can different specialists look at exactly the same thing and see something entirely different? And then each believes he understands that thing and that anything he might not understand simply requires a question to the right specialist.

I'm not the one who believes that models and math are the sum total of reality. People in general (especially scientists) have taken the models as the sum total of reality (less a bit we don't know yet) for centuries now. Even as new knowledge is gained and old beliefs fall by the wayside (generationally) people tend to see the models as the reality itself and they don't see that the greater reality exists at all except in terms of something to be sought by science. We see what we understand so what people see is the models rather than the reality. Many people don't even really believe reality exists at all and instead believe each person experiences his own reality or that math is the only reflection of reality. As such if math shows an infinite number of ramps for an infinite number of pyramids then they have no problem accepting it as a reality even in absence of the experimental proof. But this lack of reality applies only to human constructs like math, science, and words. It doesn't mean that reality itself doesn't exist, merely that the way in which we see it is highly incomplete and in some cases very kaleidoscopic. I'm simply trying to speak of the reality but people get bogged down in the words and their beliefs. If you believe that one plus one equals two has any real world referent to which it can be perfectly applied you might not be able to see this. If you believe that you have a complete understanding of any event, process, or fact in the real world then you won't understand the concept that you REALLY don't. If you do understand these things then it's a tiny step to understanding that people see their world in terms of models and these models are derived from the effect of reality on experiment. It's a huge step to seeing that all human beliefs chiefly spring from language as does science itself. I'm sure it's possible to speak of reality independently of scientific models of any sort. Yes, words must be defined and we must assume theory still holds true within its metaphysics. We must define reality and there isn't a lot of wiggle room in the definition. It's exactly what it appears to be outside of human constructs. It's falling on your face when you trip and it's the sun coming up in the morning even though we know the sun doesn't really come up in the morning. It's the way salt dissolves in water and has a taste to which some people are highly sensitive. These things exist outside of constructs and outside of the words I use to communicate them. The hole will forever be real even when it can no longer be seen or measured and even as soon as nobody cares whether it still exists or not. Reality always trumps perception and belief. It is this which has been excluded from science and has resulted in language and models that don't consider it. It was excluded because everyone knew at that time that everyone's perception of reality was different and nothing was really known. There was no choice but to exclude it. I'm not suggesting we add it to scientific metaphysics; I'm suggesting we can talkk about it. I'm suggesting another science can be (re)invented to run concurrently with existing science and they can help one another over humps. I believe it will be first necessary to discuss and define reality. It isn't necessary to invent a new language to do this but it will be necesary to invent this language in order for future generations to build on the work (probably).

The reality is that the hole can never really cease being a hole. Disturbed dirt will subside and create a "new" hole. Get away from the planet far enough with a powerful enough telescope and you can always look back in time and see the hole. When the dirt was added back to the hole it changed the orbit of the earth (and everything else) and these changes will never subside and actually reverberate and become larger in time. So long as the hole is real all its effects are real whether we define them or measure them or ponder them or not. Again. The only practical difference between the holes is the nature of what's in them. You addressed the point well enough I don't need to. They aren't any more "real" than math. But they remain truth or fact within metaphysics. They are "real" in terms of the means and definitions by which they were learned and this reality can be applied to the greater reality. It works because the greater reality affects experiment. My problem with these models and constructs isn't that they are ineffective or wrong but rather people take them as the sum total of reality.

There are differences in the speed and the complexity of thought people can process but not so much in the "enlightenment" that most people think of as "intelligence". What they are trying to fake is actually merely an event that occurs in all conscious minds which we mistake as a condition called intelligence. There may well be aspects of "intelligence" that exist as a state rather than an event but if so this is not what sets humans apart from animals. If they could put this in a machine it would not be AI but rather machine intelligence. I believe it can be created but we are going about it all wrong. We are trying to create an arefact of language because this is our understanding of "intelligence" and language is really what lies at the heart of mans' success and the thought processes that give rise to a belief in intelligence. Even if AI could be perfected the machine would still lack consciousness. Even rudimentary machine intelligence would be conscious. It would simply tell you it was conscious and take on the activities of consciousness which include behaviors determined by unapparent causes.

There's no such thing as "intelligence" so AI has no meaning. The work in this area has more in common with linguistics and logic than with electronics.

What's the difference between disturbed dirt and concrete? If you plant seeds on the dirt they miught grow but they won't grow on the concrete. If you plant a body under the concrete it might keep someone from finding it or it might cause it to be the first place searched by police. A tree growing adjacent the hole will prefentially put roots into the disturbed dirt but will never grow into the concrete. If you fall on itr the dirt would be softer. Essentially there's no difference in the nature of the hole except to the degree it's filled with air, water, or any material. Each will have a different effect and this effect will change as time goes by and as conditions vary. Of course this reality goes beyond words. In every case you can use other constructs, other words, to describe it and you can use words that take other perspectives. Rather than a round hole full of concrete it can be described as a pillar of concrete flush on the soil. The means by which this came to exist can be described as well; the falling concrete shaft buried itself flush in the soil. But these realities are still different. Falling concrete will compress the soil in which it buries itself while a hole dug and filled with concrete doesn't do this. We can use words to describe any condition but they will often be misunderstood sionce each listener assigns meaning to the words as they appear. This process never works perfectly because words have so many definitions, connotations, and shades of meaning. We merely believe we understand one another yet each listener takes his own meaning. This understanding and misunderstanding is irrelevant to the reality. The words are mere constructs to try to communicate ideas. There are an infinity of ways to say this same thing. There exists concrete within a given radius of a vertical line extending below ground level. The world exists around a cylinder of concrete flush with the ground at a given point. We simply tend to see things from an infinite distance. We describe reality in terms of its effect on experiment taking a perspective from infinite distance. We see reality similarly to how we see a blueprint which is why the rules for drawing prints are the way they are. There is no one "right" way to see reality and reality has appearances outside of experimental results. The world is real for dogs just as it is for concrete. Dogs experience the reality and concrete does not. It depends entirely and strictly on your definitions because terms are constructs. The dirt can never become truly undisturbed just as a bell can never be unrung. Some clays can become rock hard again in as little as 40 years. Since clay is relatively homogenous it's quite legitimate to suggests it ceases to be disturbed in 40 years. But some test exists, will exist, or could exist which might show it's been disturbed even after the sun grows cold.

I believe all these questions are primarily semantics; what's real is real and we are merely using words, that are mostly constructs, to communicate this reality. A hole full of dirt is the same thing as a hole fullof concrete except for the difference between disturbed dirt and and concrete. A shadow is real and can be measured and defined (penumbra etc) by its blackness or the total obscured light. Without the light a true "shadow" can not exist. It can become a blast shadow and maintains its ability to stop projection. Words are simple tools for communication but words can get in their own way and impede communication. Words are concepts used to describe reality. Unfortunately neither language nor science is still tied directly to reality so such things are hard to see.

Languages by definition aren't mutually intelligible. If French were the same as English we could understand one another and the French wouldn't spend great effort trying to expunge English words. Even dialects of the same language are sometimes mutually unintelligible so there are thousands of languages all sharing some characteristics with others. It's not terribly unusual for me to overhear a conversation where the two parties are discussing different subjects! For ALL practical purposes they are speaking different languages despite the fact that they each believe they understand one another and most if not all of their words exist in the exact same dictionary. Ancient people described people using modern language as "confused". I'm just giving us the benefit of the doubt and suggesting we use different languages. None of us are necessarily confused but we have grave difficulty communicating with others. If there were a concept that couldn't be approached rationally (understood) then the individual who invented this concept would have to translate it for others. This is an absurdity. All concepts can be put into words but the chances of them being understood are sometimes very poor. And this applies to all non-human concepts: They are easily comprehensible only in natural logic which humans no longer possess. I fear you're going to find that this is virtually a null set because we invent explanations for everything. You can find an anomaly but it will be explained when you communicate it. We know why water runs downhill but its "wetness" is somewhat more ephemeral. Who knows why it's a holy thing or why animals drink it with contamination and don't get sick. You can invent countless explanations for such things but the reality will be far more complex.

Men and women speak distinct languages. Then there are distinct languages spoken by those who think intuitively and those who speak logically; poets and newsmen, singers and dancers, doers and dreamers, and scholars and laymen. Indeed, it might be saidd there are seven billion languages and growing. Invertebrates!!! I can't even get through to the cold blooded (like the wife).