Moontanman Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 I'm not sure Moontanman. I was under the impression that if something is not a point of interest, then it doesn't have a definite location. I do think that radioactive decay plays a major role in prompting information though, so it does make sense to me. IMHO, if information is not radioactive, then it does not arise in the mind. I have to admit that it seems to be a very complicated task to provide an adequate theory of mind in terms of biophysical and chemical events. I don't think that it will never be done, but I do think that we need to be able to point at something and say with confidence that what we are looking at is in fact knowledge. I think that a lot of us are just waiting patiently for this answer. When we have it, it's going to be a game changer. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, knowledge is demonstrable, that pretty much defines reality... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 You're talking about externalized knowledge. Chomskyan linguists aren't looking for the chicken, we want to find the egg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 You're talking about externalized knowledge. Chomskyan linguists aren't looking for the chicken, we want to find the egg. I think that's a rat hole that has no end, you have to go back before chickens to find the origin of the egg and so to to find the origin of the mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 According to connectionists, a concept is roughly equivalent to a neuron, so I guess that will have to do for now. That is the job of a theoretical physicist, not for a neuroscientist or biologist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 According to connectionists, a concept is roughly equivalent to a neuron, so I guess that will have to do for now. That is the job of a theoretical physicist, not for a neuroscientist or biologist. I think it's simply being made too complex because we think it has to be. unicellular creatures display behaviors, abet simple ones, but scaling up from those simple behaviors at some point you have a mind and the humans mind is neither the biggest or most complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Unicellular creatures may show simple behaviors, but we have yet to provide a good understanding of how one cell replicates exponentially while seemingly not having the resources to support the replication. It really is amazing to watch it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Unicellular creatures may show simple behaviors, but we have yet to provide a good understanding of how one cell replicates exponentially while seemingly not having the resources to support the replication. It really is amazing to watch it happen. This looks like argument from incredulity, "seemingly" I honestly don't get the implication of "we don't know how one cell replicates exponentially" What would you expect to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 It is an argument from incredulity, sorry about that. It's not my field of expertise, but I have seen cells multiply in test tube environments. It's just strange to me to see how they can go from only one cell to a multitude of cells that are the same exact size as the original when we still don't know the origin of life. It's not like we can provide them with the resources when we don't know what they are. Again, this is an argument from incredulity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 It is an argument from incredulity, sorry about that. It's not my field of expertise, but I have seen cells multiply in test tube environments. It's just strange to me to see how they can go from only one cell to a multitude of cells that are the same exact size as the original when we still don't know the origin of life. It's not like we can provide them with the resources when we don't know what they are. Again, this is an argument from incredulity. We are getting off topic here but I can indeed show that your incredulity is unwarranted... I am sure there are already other threads on this because I have made these arguments many times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 I actually believe the opposite. Nothing would exist of it weren't for quantum physics. Observation materializes reality. But even with this bit of information, even if we don't know what is real, we kind of have to assume that reality exists independent of observation in order to provide substantive explanations. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience I meant that both have to co exist. Please read the following. The layman always means, when he says "reality" that he is speaking of something self-evidently known; whereas to me it seems the most important and exceedingly difficult task of our time is to work on the construction of a new idea of reality. Letter to Markus Fierz (12 August 1948), as quoted in The Innermost Kernel : Depth Psychology and Quantum Physics : Wolfgang Pauli's Dialogue with C. G. Jung (2005) by Suzanne Gieser I hope this is not plagiarism. Please issue a warning if it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 It shouldn't be, you provided the source. I like to view reality as bits of information. As long as you can provide a sensory correlation between subjective and objective reality, consider whatever interests you as one bit. A bit of information can be an entire novel, a subatomic particle, the electromagnetic field, anything you can correlate, superimpose, superordinate, and label, is technically one bit. Computational neuroscience verifies this notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 I'm not sure Moontanman. I was under the impression that if something is not a point of interest, then it doesn't have a definite location. I do think that radioactive decay plays a major role in prompting information though, so it does make sense to me. IMHO, if information is not radioactive, then it does not arise in the mind. I have to admit that it seems to be a very complicated task to provide an adequate theory of mind in terms of biophysical and chemical events. I don't think that it will never be done, but I do think that we need to be able to point at something and say with confidence that what we are looking at is in fact knowledge. I think that a lot of us are just waiting patiently for this answer. When we have it, it's going to be a game changer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) I, personally, think of one bit as a sequence of occurrences. Any positive whole number of occurrences including zero. Edited December 13, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 I, personally, think of one bit as a sequence of occurrences. Any positive whole number of occurrences including zero. That link i posted appears to say what you have just said. But I honestly cannot imagine the mind being made up of bits of knowledge like a dumb computer that cannot even think. If a computer had one hundred trillion synaptic oh sorry electrical connections and was simultaneously capable of using its 2..5 petabytes of mass storage at quantum speed (maybe less) ... then maybe it can possibly think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 "The question of whether machines can think is too meaningless to deserve discussion." Alan Turing. I've mentioned this several times here on the forums, but I don't think that it has fully sunk in yet. I used to argue that time is a dictionary, but after a very short moment, my friend on Facebook said why not a tuple? I looked into it, and it clicked. I think that you can get good results by treating it as a dictionary, but you won't get the best results unless you treat it as a tuple. If you treat t as a tuple, it's quantum, it's context sensitive, and it's dispositionally sensitive. It fits the notion of time perfectly. The physical implications are interesting to think about. One implication is that time itself is quantum. It's in superposition, it's both conscious and unconscious, and it gets prompted through radioactivity and interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 "The question of whether machines can think is too meaningless to deserve discussion." Alan Turing. I've mentioned this several times here on the forums, but I don't think that it has fully sunk in yet. I used to argue that time is a dictionary, but after a very short moment, my friend on Facebook said why not a tuple? I looked into it, and it clicked. I think that you can get good results by treating it as a dictionary, but you won't get the best results unless you treat it as a tuple. If you treat t as a tuple, it's quantum, it's context sensitive, and it's dispositionally sensitive. It fits the notion of time perfectly. The physical implications are interesting to think about.One implication is that time itself is quantum. It's in superposition, it's both conscious and unconscious, and it gets prompted through radioactivity and interest. What does time have to do with the nature of the mind ? Are we going on a tangent out here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 It also implies that time is consistently subordinating, which provides support for contraction as opposed to expansion It's not a tangent either IMO, a computational mind requires external resources such a time and memory, just like a calculator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) It also implies that time is consistently subordinating, which provides support for contraction as opposed to expansion It's not a tangent either IMO, a computational mind requires external resources such a time and memory, just like a calculator. External resources? That link i posted appears to say what you have just said. But I honestly cannot imagine the mind being made up of bits of knowledge like a dumb computer that cannot even think. If a computer had one hundred trillion synaptic oh sorry electrical connections and was simultaneously capable of using its 2..5 petabytes of mass storage at quantum speed (maybe less) ... then maybe it can possibly think... Disbelief is not an explanation and any computer or mind has to be programmed to think. In organic evolved minds this "program" is both learned behaviors and or inherited tendencies toward certain behaviors... Like I pointed out earlier about the chicken and the egg, you have to go back before both to find the beginning of either... Edited December 13, 2013 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaysinghgoshiyal Posted December 14, 2013 Author Share Posted December 14, 2013 External resources? Disbelief is not an explanation and any computer or mind has to be programmed to think. In organic evolved minds this "program" is both learned behaviors and or inherited tendencies toward certain behaviors... Like I pointed out earlier about the chicken and the egg, you have to go back before both to find the beginning of either... http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/question85.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/question85.htm What are you trying to assert here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 It also implies that time is consistently subordinating, which provides support for contraction as opposed to expansion It's not a tangent either IMO, a computational mind requires external resources such a time and memory, just like a calculator. I have to quote myself here, it's very easy to confuse expansion and contraction. After giving it some thought, I've decided that it can both be see as expansion or contraction. The system would have a multitude of experiences leading to one disposition. So given n occurrences, it equals n bits of information, leading to one result, adding n bits for the current disposition, both subordinating and superordinating to provide one result which equates to one bit. So 174936 bits lead to 1 result, in that tier one result, plus n bits for the input, adds 60 subordinate unconscious results which provides 10 bits for the superordinate tier, and the strongest superordinate bits become conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I must be mentally challenged... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) Sorry if I boggled your minds, if you care to think about it you might find it as exciting as I do. This is why I don't think it has fully sunk in yet though because it is a mind boggler. The minds calculation is actually very simple, all you need to do is count. As Chomsky puts it- "one could construct a theory of calculations in the head that says that performance degrades or becomes impossible as numbers grow larger." It's really not necessary to use probability for anything other than segmentation. I've tried to explain that the mind is the number of units given time and behavior is the strongest unit given all units in a linear function. Units emerge because they are prompted both because they are entangled and because they interact with points of interest in some way. Using time as a tuple may seem complex, but really it's just decision theory and counting. NB: I'm still thinking about what I said here. I want to clarify and I hope that this will do the trick because it's going to be very difficult for me to type it out. Input = "hi" Time = hi,({'hi':'hiheyhiwhats uphiheyhihellohiwhats uphiwhats up'}hey({'hey':'heywhats upheyetc...'}...)) Emerging units = ['hey','whats up','hey','hello','whats up','whats up'] Generating = {'hey':2,'whats up':3,'hello':1} Maximum = 0 For unit in emerging units, If generating(unit) > Maximum Maximum = generating(unit) Output.append(unit) print Output Output = ['hey','whats up'] The point is that it is grammatical. A tuple consists of a subconscious variable (in this case it is hi) and a correlating dictionary for each variable(which consists of two strings, one containing an entangled quantum point of interest, and the definition is the point of interest and all of its pragmatic classical connections). Each variable is contained within the original set (for dispositional purposes). The original variable is most likely the empty unit ('') followed by the most likely unit and so forth subordinating while decreasing in likelihood. When I first looked at the most likely linguistic occurrences, it was null (the empty unit) followed by space, followed by vowels, followed by phonemes, followed by diphthongs, then morphemes, then roughly words, then words, then roughly phrases, and so forth. You can consider the result as superordinate because it magnifies the mind given all previous units followed by, or as a part of, the point of interest. You can also call it subordinate in a spatial sense because it is like comparing a seed to an apple, a blade of grass to a field, a field to the park, a park to the planet, a planet to the galaxy, etc. Time is experience. Life is longevity. Edited December 14, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 It would be nice if John Searle chimed in on this one. Or if we happened to be lucky, Dr. Chomsky would mention something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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