cladking

You're lucky. I get rebooted every morning whether I want to or not.

There's no such thing as "intelligence" in the way most people define it. What makes people different in terms of the ability to understand, predict, and manipulate knowledge has hundreds of parameters which would each need to be measured as well as the influence of each of these characteristics on every other characteristic. But the resultant measure still wouldn't be "intelligence" in terms of what people call intelligence. Most of what we mistake for intelligence is really the ability to use and manipulate language on many levels. The closest thing that exists to what we call intelligence is what I call "cleverness" but this is an event rather a condition. For most practical purposes it would be quite accurate to say there is no intelligent life on earth. All animals sometimes exhibit cleverness however. Due to the accumulation of knowledge in humans made possible by language, human cleverness often exhibits significant complexity. People with average IQ's tend to be quite a bit brighter than more "intelligent" people give them credit for. I've known people with IQ's of 95 who could figure out and operate extremely complex equipment. It just takes them a little longer and they have less flexibility. Indeed, you can glue the legs of a cockroach to a little car and it will operate it to go to a food source.

I'm in close agreement with you but doubt your claim is scientific. It is more representative of the direction in which science must go because it represents the reality rather than being derived from experiment and logic. It can be seen to be true by the fact that everything which occurs is derived from that which already occurred and is affected by everything else in the universe. Rather than trying to prove your statement which is most probably beyond our ability and always will be I might suggest we simply take it as axiomatic and build a new science around it. This new science can be run in tandem with the current science and that which makes better predictions is assumed to be the reality. Science and its metaphysics is immaterial to reality. Only understanding reality leads to proper prediction.

I've built many such models some of which were designed to harness the "power" of magnetism. I sure couldn't get anything to work. Most people design these to run CW or to be viewed such that they run CW. Good luck. While I finally believe you can't cheat gravity I'm not as sure you can't cheat magnetism or genius.

A great deal has transpired since January 27th as well. As I predicted no new results from the thermographic imaging have been released. There was an official vague mention of a "hot spot" on the northern face and then only quite recently it was leaked out that this hot spot was on the eastern side exactly as I had predicted. There have been other leaks of data as well that have confirmed my interpretation of the nature of G1. Most importantly was that the thermal anomaly near the NE corner on the east side persisted throughout the day. This is important because it shows that it is connected to a heat source deep inside the pyramid and isn't simply being caused by the morning sun as some have opined. When this new story of a linear void behind the gables (mn-canal) was first released there was an attached video of an Egyptologist reading a statement while behind him was the data that comprised the thermal anomaly on the north side! Unsurprisingly it was exactly as I had predicted. The heat manifested in horizontal banding extending up some 150'. Unfortunately it was removed before I could study it in detail. I had feared that the heat anomaly here could have simply been the northern entrance to the Mafdet Lynx (the heat source) about 70' from the NE corner at ground level but should have been more confident. Under some conditions this point spot for heat could have shown up more that the large region above and since no data (like collection techniques) have been released yet it was impossible to be sure of much of anything. It's even possible that the data showing a large hot spot was something else since it was unlabeled and no scale was shown. I had expected them to go ahead and do the hot imaging of the pyramid in the spring but apparently they dropped this testing like a hot potato when they saw the initial results. They are now talking about going back and doing it right. This involves gathering data for a protracted period and then using a computer to analyze results. Things are going to start moving faster and faster now. The genie is out of the bottle and we're going to find out that nothing is as it appears. This will affect every area of science from mathematics to cosmology. We'll find that homo sapiens died out long ago to be replaced by homo omnisciencis. We will only win from these rediscoveries and reinterpretations even though some individuals will be very slow to accept the reality.

A lot of water has passed under the dam since I posted this two years ago. Speaking of water passing under a dam the mn-canal depicted above which went from the mehet weret to the "queens chamber" has been found. This took water that went under a weir (type of dam) to the pyramid where it was distributed for use in counterweights. You can actually see this canal in the raw data. It runs above the entrance and just below the gables which protected the exposed sectrion from falling stone. It was critical infrastructure so even though the span was very small they still covered it to assure it could continue to function until the last stone was lifted into position. You can see the raw data here; http://www.hip.institute/press/HIP_INSTITUTE_CP9_EN.pdf People need to get used to the idea that ramps are debunked, this latest data prove there were no internal ramps either, and that the pyramids were built by pulling stones straight up the side one step at a time. You might as well start getting used to the idea that Egyptologists are wrong about everything else as well. There were no superstitious people who buried dead kings in pyramids so they could live forever. The king is dead, long live the king.

Yes. I believe this is essentially a good definition of "life". I suppose what I'm suggesting is that a living brain can't be deprived of all sensory input. It would simply generate its own input if it were necessary. It would organize and try to understand this loop. Somehow I'm reminded of a book I read long ago; "Johnny Got His Gun" I believe it was called.

I think this is an assumption of the conclusion. Of course I don't know that any sort of consciousness can exist outside of a sense percieving state but I believe our sense deprived brain would simply seek out other input whether thats the heart pumping blood to it or some other changes in its condition. I believe it would seek to better understand the nature of its condition so that it can improve its state. Life doesn't need terminology to experience consciousness. It doesn't need other individuals or experience to know it exists.

You seem to have answered your own question here. But I still disagree. The brain is still a processing machine even without external sensory input. There still exists internal activity virtually by definition of the fact it is alive. If it were dead then I could agree with you. As a living machine it will still seek patterns in the random firings of neurons to attempt understanding of its nature and that which might surround it. Its success may be highly limited due to the difficulty of organizing and processing knowledge. Its knowlkedge base will be highly limited. This is why I suggest it is virtually more a potentiality than a "consciousness" in terms we or a simple animal might think of it. "I think therefore I am" is nonsense. But a thing can still experience its existence without language and without senses if it has the hardware. Math is logic. The brain is logic. There are many levels of consciousness depending on the hardware and available software. Think of it this way; if you lose a hand the other hand becomes more adept and much more able to do things that would normally require two or three hands. If you lose your sight your hearing may become more accute. A brain without input would simply attend to other things than we do but it would still try to understand its nature. It wouldn't get very far even over a normal lifetime but how far does the average cricket get?

"Everything" is conscious. A sensory deprived brain is almost more a potential consciousness than an actual consciousness. It will simply look inward and experience it's own operation and the random firings of neurons. It would be akin to a sleeping state except the "sleep" will occur throughout the entire brain rather than in sequence.

I'm not so much suggesting that time is intrinsic to math as to space. Math employs natural logic and is possible because definitions and operations are quantifiable. 2 + 2 = 2 x 2 axiomatically and logically. Natural logic isn't employed in modern language. Computer language is logical and operates binary computations and processes. That circumferance is related to diameter and radius is by definition. It is true regardless of the nature of reality and the logic which is reality. This reality is simply that it is pi times the diameter. In the world of reality in which everything exists there can be no perfect circle or case in which pi can be measured to its final decimal point or even to very many decimal points. But this still leaves us with the nature of these terms and the nature of time and space itself (themselves). If space emerges from time then the circle is also an artefact of time. Not only is the circle in the real world an artefact of time but our abstract concept of a circle must be modeled as existing in time.

You can model things that don't exist in the real world. You can explain the motions of the planets in terms of a flat earth but they'll get incrediby complex.

If "space" or "distance" is a property of time then there's not really such a thing as "diameter" for a circle. The earth would be about .05 seconds (light) across rather than 8,000 miles. Expressing it in "miles" isn't necessarily wrong but it would be less appropriate. It could be misleading.

That a cirlce is related to its diameter is a concept that is independent of time. However, concepts like velocity have no meaning outside of time. Indeed, if space is really an emergent property of time than even the relationship of a circle to it diameter is changed. You would say that it's pi times longer around a circle than across it. These measurements would be a function of time rather than distance. From current perspective pi is 3.14 and this remains "true" even though it is not the most realistic way to depict it. Math is certainly adaptable enough to arrive at the same answer in many different ways.

How about V = d/ t? Of course the statement is "timeless" but how can it be applied to anything timelessly?

As an abstraction this is true and quite timeless. One car plus one train equals two things. It would even be true that a car in the here and now plus a train in the 1860's equal two things. The problem comes if we try to apply such truths to the real world. c / D = Pi. This is true and the entire statement is true independently of how it is read, the order it is comprehended, or the numbers applied to test it. If we say one bridge plus one bridge can carry us to our destination we are obviously invoking time. The same applies if you are computing the number of bolts needed to build a bridge; twenty girders and ten bolts per girder equals 200 bolts. 20 / (1/ 10) = 200 (or 10 x 20 = 200). As abstractions equations are necessarily correct and timeless; the entire statement stands at once. The problem I see is that our math assumes that space is three dimensional with time as a fourth dimension. If this isn't reflective of reality I believe that equations would have to be rewritten to deal with space as a property of time. How can you define "circumference" or "diameter" if there's no such thing as space as we know it? This equation would have to be rewritten to reflect the reality even though the answer is going to be just about the same thing. This would apply to even purely abstract equations that involve space or time would it not?

I believe you are wrong. If it were merely programnmed to do things which are beneficial to itself then we couldn't accurately predict its actions. It would necessarily have its own perspective.

I strongly disagree on many levels. But I do think there's a simple way to detect sentience. When it's both impossible to predict what the computer will do yet most things it does are beneficial to its own health and welfare we can assume consciousness exists. Of course it will also try to tell us in some language but this would be open to misinterpretation or other factors.

If people can't see that an ape or an earthworm is conscious then how will we tell a machine is conscious? We'll just assume it's following its programming no matter what it says. The turing test means very little in establishing that something is "conscious" and primarily is merely telling us the machine can respond to verbal stimuli verbally. Without knowing what constitutes consciousness it's pretty hard to ascribe to anything other than people who we understand and who understand us. I suppose we're mostly just giving them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't merely holograms or placeholders or some sort of actor. All the world's a stage ya' know. Why can't we program an actor to seem as sentient as the next guy?

Space as an emergent property of time seems to make a lot of sense. We aren't separated from the nearest star by three light years but simply by three years. I've been playing around with the concept of gravity as a property of matter for some time now. Then all we really need is a link between matter and time. A tiny amount of matter would equal a great amount of time. I don't believe modern science can address this directly because it lies far outside our metaphysics. Space exists axiomatically in three dimensions. Our formulae are based on this perspective. I might be able to find a link to an Australian metaphysician who has proposed something very similar to your work. You'll probably find this pretty interesting. https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/the-philosophy-of-the-bloody-obvious-by-johann-de-jong/

Consciousness is an emergent property of the digital brain but modern humans experience it through a rectifying circuit known as language. For the main part you're the output current but all brain/ body activity is not experienced solely as output and most such activity is not experienced at all. At times the language centers sleep. For most practical purposes you are the output but you still can experience the digital brain though most gets "translated"/ modified before you are aware of it.

Neurons are on or off. How can consciousness be analog if the brain is digital? The irony here is I probably have the answer and want to say but it will be considered off topic. Suffice to say that consciouness is widespread in nature and even God's lowliest creatures do it. If it were complicated then I couldn't do it. Consciousness is an emergent property of the sum total of the animal brain. Mebbe I could skirt around going off topic by merely observing that individuals operate, think, and communicate using language as an operating system. Understand language and you'll understand why consciousness appears to be analog.

I also don't believe in pink unicorns. I've never seen one. I am more suggesting that the world might look different from a perspective that unicorns and infinity don't exist at all. I doubt there's an earth in existence that has unicorns or infinity. Your results may vary.

Perhaps only the current moment exists. It is dependent on previous moments and may be followed by more moments but why presume a moment can be divided or that a unit of time exists that can be divided? If you can't point to anything in the real world that's infinite then why be so sure that it exists? It appears that the mathematical concept of infinity is being used as the basis of the big bang and the many worlds theories. It is affecting our understandings and is hiding the real complexity of reality.

Why don't you rigorously show something in the real world that is infinite? Then I'll accuse you of semantics. We always want to count things even though all things are unique. All things are one. So we want to count seconds and years as though time can be counted. Perhaps time is merely continuous.