joigus Posted July 31 Posted July 31 What about the principle of least action, of which the speculations section offers so many examples? I think that should play a role in the standard model of the mind.
Phi for All Posted July 31 Posted July 31 16 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: So you believe ChatGPT is worse at answering the question than you. That's a strawman, unless you can point to where I claimed an explanation of mine is better than yours. 16 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: It gives answers that don't conform to the truth that you know with certainty? I've seen it many times, yes. We had to make a rule about using ChatGPT to support scientific statements. It will give AN answer, and it may be wrong. In this thread however, the problem is more a lack of clarity. You're making a scientific speculation, and your language program is giving me vague hype about how good your idea is, and how firmly based in the foundations of science it is, and how you'll be using only the best data so your objectivity is maximized. And NONE OF THAT tells me specifically how you convert talent into efficiency by using the speed of light squared. It doesn't tell me the answer to what units you're using for psychological energy. Do you see where I'm coming from with this? ChatGPT is assuring me you know what you're both talking about, but it won't give me the clarity I'm asking for.
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, joigus said: What about the principle of least action, of which the speculations section offers so many examples? I think that should play a role in the standard model of the mind. Why do we need to invoke the principle of least action? What does it represent and interact with to form a framework?
dimreepr Posted July 31 Posted July 31 8 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: So you believe ChatGPT is worse at answering the question than you. It gives answers that don't conform to the truth that you know with certainty? Do you think ChatGPT understands the truth of humanity more than that of an ant? What is it that you know/understand with more certainty than an ant knows about being an ant? IOW, An AGI can have knowledge of every single action you make; but it will never understand what it feels like to be you, when you're having a wank... 😇
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 9 minutes ago, Phi for All said: That's a strawman, unless you can point to where I claimed an explanation of mine is better than yours. I've seen it many times, yes. We had to make a rule about using ChatGPT to support scientific statements. It will give AN answer, and it may be wrong. In this thread however, the problem is more a lack of clarity. You're making a scientific speculation, and your language program is giving me vague hype about how good your idea is, and how firmly based in the foundations of science it is, and how you'll be using only the best data so your objectivity is maximized. And NONE OF THAT tells me specifically how you convert talent into efficiency by using the speed of light squared. It doesn't tell me the answer to what units you're using for psychological energy. Do you see where I'm coming from with this? ChatGPT is assuring me you know what you're both talking about, but it won't give me the clarity I'm asking for. You don't seem to even understand the framework. What is your educational background? 4 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Do you think ChatGPT understands the truth of humanity more than that of an ant? What is it that you know/understand with more certainty than an ant knows about being an ant? IOW, An AGI can have knowledge of every single action you make; but it will never understand what it feels like to be you, when you're having a wank... 😇 I don't even know what your point is. We are not talking about subjective experience here, we are talking about a framework.
Phi for All Posted July 31 Posted July 31 5 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: You don't seem to even understand the framework. What is your educational background? Strawmen and ad homs instead of just answering the questions? You don't seem to understand why units are important in relativity, or why I'm having trouble with converting talent to efficiency using the speed of light squared. I think you can see why I'm skeptical of using language AIs to speculate in science.
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 If you don't understand by now, you will probably never understand. The physics terminology is there so that you can tie two groups of scientific works together into a unified framework.
dimreepr Posted July 31 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: What is your educational background? What makes you think that's relevant? IOW you can rationalise an illogical argument, but it can only be an excuse...
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: What makes you think that's relevant? IOW you can rationalise an illogical argument, but it can only be an excuse... I ask because he honestly doesn't seem to understand.
dimreepr Posted July 31 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: I ask because he honestly doesn't seem to understand. What is it you think, you understand better?
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 The main ideas are all mine, I think that makes me quite proficient at understanding the post. Of course, I might not be the biggest expert once people start reading it, the same way Einstien might not have understood all the consequences of his own theory immediately after publishing.
Mordred Posted July 31 Posted July 31 (edited) Considering there isn't a single equation used. How is there any usefulness to begin with its simply hand waving conjecture. Even correlation functions that do not involve any cause and effect would be something you should look into. Least then you can compare statistical studies. You might consider looking into some of the works with regards to the mind by Sir Roger Penrose least he is applying actual physics. Edited July 31 by Mordred
dimreepr Posted July 31 Posted July 31 1 minute ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: The main ideas are all mine, I think that makes me quite proficient at understanding the post. Of course, I might not be the biggest expert once people start reading it, the same way Einstien might not have understood all the consequences of his own theory immediately after publishing. What you lack is the proficiency for making other's believe what you do... OTOH Einstein was very good at explaining his idea to virtual idiots...
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 3 minutes ago, dimreepr said: What you lack is the proficiency for making other's believe what you do... OTOH Einstein was very good at explaining his idea to virtual idiots... What is there to believe? It's a framework. It is true that experts might be able to fill up the framework better than I can but the point is that the framework is my idea.
dimreepr Posted July 31 Posted July 31 4 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: What is there to believe? It's a framework. It is true that experts might be able to fill up the framework better than I can but the point is that the framework is my idea. That doesn't make it right...
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 The questions are not constructive anymore so I'm going to sign off for now.
joigus Posted July 31 Posted July 31 56 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: Why do we need to invoke the principle of least action? What does it represent and interact with to form a framework? Why indeed? And why not indeed? As long as we're just drawing analogies, I think it's a valid one. And that's what you're doing. Is it not?
TheVat Posted July 31 Posted July 31 I believe that spin - an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles - is related to human vertigo. And my framework for this belief is equally robust as KE's framework. Particles spin and after years of that incessant spinning we become dizzy if we lack the kind of talent that quantum tunnels between our ears and coordinates the vestibular molecules. PROVE ME WRONG!!! And keep an open mind!!! (it helps semicircular canals talk to each other!) 2 hours ago, joigus said: What about the principle of least action, of which the speculations section offers so many examples? 😂
joigus Posted July 31 Posted July 31 1 hour ago, TheVat said: I believe that spin - an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles - is related to human vertigo. And my framework for this belief is equally robust as KE's framework. Particles spin and after years of that incessant spinning we become dizzy if we lack the kind of talent that quantum tunnels between our ears and coordinates the vestibular molecules. PROVE ME WRONG!!! And keep an open mind!!! (it helps semicircular canals talk to each other!) Lol. You reminded me of this true story: I once met a psychoanalyst with some background in physics that wanted to learn quantum mechanics. The money was good, so we arranged some tutoring hours every week and after we had the basics covered (limitations of classical electrodynamics, classical experiments and the like) I proceeded to teach him Fourier analysis, as he had studied multi-variable calculus and such, so it seemed appropriate, rather than the more abstract operator approach. Everything had gone quite smoothly thus far. But as soon as I said "every periodic function of a real variable can be expanded as a linear combination of sines and cosines of a fundamental frequency and successive harmonics blah blah" a glint of recognition appeared in his eyes. Now I must tell you the classes were in Spanish, and "sine" in Spanish translates as seno, which also means "bosom". Cosine (coseno) would be "co-bosom", I suppose. Anyway, he blurted something to the effect of "Oh, yes, I remember from psychoanalysis, the sine represents the female, while the cosine is the male". It was then and there that I knew the word Schrödinger would never be pronounced in those sessions.
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 6 hours ago, joigus said: Why indeed? And why not indeed? As long as we're just drawing analogies, I think it's a valid one. And that's what you're doing. Is it not? 5 hours ago, TheVat said: I believe that spin - an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by elementary particles - is related to human vertigo. And my framework for this belief is equally robust as KE's framework. Particles spin and after years of that incessant spinning we become dizzy if we lack the kind of talent that quantum tunnels between our ears and coordinates the vestibular molecules. PROVE ME WRONG!!! And keep an open mind!!! (it helps semicircular canals talk to each other!) 😂 2 minutes ago, joigus said: Lol. You reminded me of this true story: I once met a psychoanalyst with some background in physics that wanted to learn quantum mechanics. The money was good, so we arranged some tutoring hours every week and after we had the basics covered (limitations of classical electrodynamics, classical experiments and the like) I proceeded to teach him Fourier analysis, as he had studied multi-variable calculus and such, so it seemed appropriate, rather than the more abstract operator approach. Everything had gone quite smoothly thus far. But as soon as I said "every periodic function of a real variable can be expanded as a linear combination of sines and cosines of a fundamental frequency and successive harmonics blah blah" a glint of recognition appeared in his eyes. Now I must tell you the classes were in Spanish, and "sine" in Spanish translates as seno, which also means "bosom". Cosine (coseno) would be "co-bosom", I suppose. Anyway, he blurted something to the effect of "Oh, yes, I remember from psychoanalysis, the sine represents the female, while the cosine is the male". It was then and there that I knew the word Schrödinger would never be pronounced in those sessions. I don't understand the equations related to spin to create a framework.
joigus Posted July 31 Posted July 31 2 minutes ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: I don't understand the equations related to spin to create a framework. Sorry. I thought you'd lost interest. The point is that one can quite freely draw analogies, but that's all it is.
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted July 31 Author Posted July 31 1 minute ago, joigus said: Sorry. I thought you'd lost interest. The point is that one can quite freely draw analogies, but that's all it is. I had to sleep. I replied shortly after I woke up. I am hoping to draw on more knowledge and creativity to rewrite the original post that my newer model got tagged to. 5 minutes ago, joigus said: Sorry. I thought you'd lost interest. The point is that one can quite freely draw analogies, but that's all it is. So more analogies is certainly part of the plan.
swansont Posted August 1 Posted August 1 1 hour ago, Knowledge Enthusiast said: So more analogies is certainly part of the plan. We’re looking for something a little more rigorous than analogies. Is there any predictive power to this framework?
Knowledge Enthusiast Posted August 1 Author Posted August 1 15 minutes ago, swansont said: We’re looking for something a little more rigorous than analogies. Is there any predictive power to this framework? Not yet. But I'm hoping it can lead to empirical research that can allow it to be predictive. 17 minutes ago, swansont said: We’re looking for something a little more rigorous than analogies. Is there any predictive power to this framework? Why can't it be in philosophy at least? It is not pure speculation, there are practical applications, and it's an imaginative integration of knowledge.
Mordred Posted August 1 Posted August 1 Even with strictly philosophical examinations one can still employ examinations involving mathematics by examining statistical based studies done in regards to any research involving the mind
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now