Popcorn Sutton

What do you mean pathfinding? I can extend the metaphor somewhat to what my program currently does. And who is we? I agree with self-learning, I think emotions will emerge on their own (it's pragmatics), memory is a given, lets leave language out of this (the concept isn't properly defined), and purpose is reducible to an initial occurrence. If you want to work together, I know a lot of code, and I do know of a way that we can literally work on the same file at the same time so if you're open to that, then I'm going to have to teach you the vocabulary I use. I said that the problems will become evident when you have the interpreter up because even if you have a complete, unified theory worked out for how it should work, Python is another language in itself. You have to learn it. And doing code is a lot of trial and error. A lot of the time, you'll know that you have the right line of code, or a line that works well for your purposes, but you need to figure out where it goes (and it needs to be exactly in the right place or else the whole system will fail). If you don't have it in the right place, and you don't make it explicitly state exactly what it is doing, then you could accidentally change something thats perfectly fine. And often, to have it print out everything that it's doing is just unreasonable. I've taken about a decade to work out a theory of how to get a program to acquire language, and luckily I've had the opportunity to work with some serious geniuses and highly intellectual people to help flesh out the details. It wasn't until a year ago that I started learning Python, and I've overcame a lot of problems since then, but now, after having solved the language problem (whatever, I'll ambitiously say that the problem has been solved in my eyes. I got some great functional code and vocabulary to help me with the process, vocabulary that you simply cannot find in a dictionary), I need to move on to the next part (getting it up on the internet). This part makes me sigh. It doesn't have to do with language, it has to do with building an interface and all the other jargon associated with it that I am not equipped with. The reason I use Python is because it's simple. I've heard too many stories of people facerolling using C and C++, but I've never tried using them, I just know that Pythons syntax is A THOUSAND times easier to understand. Also, you don't have to define every variable (and this is absolutely crucial for my method). As for the post above this, I think he's wrong. I don't think he is an expert on this topic for multiple reasons. But, the main reason is that he says "calculate all the possibilities and then judge them picking the best one". Chomsky has expressed enthusiastically for a very long time that language is infinite (I don't agree, but for all intensive purposes, sure). Conceptually, it is infinite, and to calculate all the possibilities is like calculating EVERY SINGLE NUMBER THAT CAN POSSIBLY EXIST. You can't do that, it's far too inefficient. This is why I make the distinction between possibility and probability. The input can almost be anything possible, but the output is always probable. Introspect about this and ask yourself, is the behavior I just did probable? I cannot accept no for an answer, because if you say no, then you acknowledge the existence of chaos, and there is absolutely, positively, no evidence for chaos. There is no such thing as random. DNE (does not exist). You can't compute random. Even the people who have made these so called "random number generators" know that they're not random. If you want to work with me, you need to understand and accept these things.

same

Well since it's in speculations now, I will speculate (one of my favorite things to do). Spooky interactions are the result of an interaction between the poi and the npoi (point of interest and next point of interest). Even if there is a length between them and objects connected to each, they are still essentially the same, empty, point. If one acts directly on a poi, and hence, giving it mass, if the mass is not already within the knowledge, then the mass will get connected to the npoi. If the mass is in the knowledge, then the poi will become the npoi (essentially skipping over the mass connected to the poi) and hence, traveling through space, and also traveling through time. When the poi becomes the npoi, then the process of segmentation continues, in which case, if the poi is not in knowledge, it will reduce itself to something that is in the knowledge, and then become the npoi again (in which case it skips the distance again), repeat the process until the poi and the npoi have no length, in which case they assume their original state (the empty sequence, gravity, the mind, time). When the poi and the npoi have no length, then time is essentially frozen for those particular sequences and no computations can be taking place. This is an extremely efficient process for fully reduced units, however, when the process is performed on large datasets, the computation becomes slower. I should also add that in every case, if the poi is directly influenced by input, the npoi is put into the knowledge before it becomes a part of time, so the npoi is one fully merged unit while the poi is empty. Then the process of segmentation occurs to find what is currently in the knowledge that is connected to the npoi. I should also say that radiation is probably what makes these things recognizable and that it probably requires a membrane.

Problem fixed For me at least

Yesterday

I am no longer receiving email notifications and I haven't changed my settings. I might not even be able to see the answer to this post.

Yea be my guest. I'm wondering why I'm not getting notifications right now. Theyre not being sent to my email.

I'm taking about AI with language capabilities. That is where my research has focussed mostly and that is where I've seen the most success. I meant the interpreter for python (IDLE). I use 2.7 and I'd like to work with others. Soon I'll have an open source program on the internet in hopes that it will lead to a TOE. The ultimate goal is something different. In my experience, in this area of study at least, and this could be generalized to all behavior (even that of the universe), the simplest assumption is to assume that everything is 2 dimensional (not that any clear distinctions can actually be drawn between dimensions). 1d = a point on 2d, 2d = a surface, 3d = y(2d), 4d = penetration of 2d. I think thats how things work. I think its a matter of amplitude and frequency. But subjective time is different, its well known that we have access to the past.

Ok guys, it seems that this became a little more controversial than I expected. I don't want to put myself on the line for this one anymore. My friends cousin killed himself, that is what prompted me to post. I'm not accepting the burden of proof on this one.

I'm not trying to demean anyone. I'm bring straw manned here. All I did was profess an observation I made. I never claimed that it was true or held for everyone.

I think the are pragmatic, based on circumstances. There are often social circumstances that cause these attributes to arise.

maybe it will help them understand that they are not the only ones? It's therapeutic to know that plenty other people have done the same thing.

I said that there was almost certainly sexual activity between the siblings.

this effect is like the effect you see when you put a flame to the middle of a piece of paper and just let it burn a circle into it. The burn hole will start small and then expand outward. Space must have an enormouse amplitude and time is probably the extremely high frequency of space.

Don't straw man me. I didn't say it was sibling rivalry.

Well, linguistically, audacity is vacuous, which can be seen as fallacious and could prompt emotional response. People are people, psychology is suffering from the same problem linguistics was suffering from before I called them out on it, and that is categorization (labeling). Psychological attributes are materialistically undefined and therefor irrelevant. If I were to give a material definition to audacity, it would be a unit of knowledge, which is extremely difficult to point to an object that equates to this concept. Even if we did find the object that equates to this concept, it would probably be some kind of sound that caused it to take shape, which means that it only arises within specific contexts, probably around specific words or phrases. I don't know enough about Ophiolite to say what would have prompted that specific word. She (?) Also overgeneralizes when she says I offended science (which may also be ad hominem). I'd also like to point out that I have seen the burden of proof being thrown around viciously. The burden of proof is on all of us.

I do also believe that your previous post was fallacious, and if it were up to me, I wouldn't use fallacies. And I don't like having to point them out, so please, make sure youre not being fallacious before you post. Thanks for refining my ontology. I really appreciate this community.

Well, for topics involving psychology and methods of psychiatry, I'm inclined to make a statement because it is within the realm of my reality. I can't stand to hear stories of people attempting or committing suicide. It breaks my heart. If I can do anything to help people understand this behavior, then the risk of putting myself out there is far less than the benefit it may have. Maybe its not research, and if you don't want me to call it that then fine. My research involves other things, and to me, there seems to be a pragmatic regularity in all cases that I know. This is why I suggested that we put disclaimers on the possible side effects of experiences. You blow up at a mcdonalds and start screaming obscenities because they havent given you your drink, then you might have anxiety associated with that event that lingers for a while. Same goes for other experiences, some of which may literally cause you to want to die. The context that one is exposed to is probably not reducible to chemicals or chemical imbalances (unless the chemicals equate to the knowledge of the experience). And causing a stroke may seem to have beneficial therapeutic effects, but by doing so, you are putting their life in danger. Even if they don't realize they had a stroke, they may have had a series of minor strokes (which seems to be the case with anti depressants). Again, I'm no expert in psychiatry, but I have studied the brain extensively, and I have made computational models that, I think, replicate neural processes very well. The point is that behavior can be prompted with the right input.

An epic moment in my life was when I first said to myself "do you understand that you are standing under.... [something so absolutely humongous and mysterious that it gives you the extreme desire to live when you realize it's there]?" Just a heads up lol

This is almost all word salad to me. Thanks for providing all the links. I'll look at them asap Well folks, the conclusion I'm at after reading aol the links is this. Space and time are different, space is like its being printed, time is the collection of all prints, and you can, for all intensive purposes, say that these prints are two dimensional. In regard to the fraction link, it says that all parts are equal, and I think that it also implies that they are literally equal parts of the same substance, and to further the speculation, they are indeed equal no matter which 2d surface they are printed on regardless of their position in time. Maybe the solidified, recognizable substances are actually penetrations in the 2d surface of these prints, while the tension of impacting the surface causes them to take an efficient shape. I can't help but ask where the bubbles started, and the answer, as I speculate, is that some force acted upon an equal substance causing it to take shape. Even if the substance has no length

Easy

antidepressants give you a stroke, I'm pretty sure of that. I've known enough cases of anti depressants being prescribed shortly before the person had a stroke to make this suggestion. Please, consider my suggestion, and don't prescribe them. If they do block the reuptake of chemicals, then they cause a blockage. Well, if you have common sense, then you'll know that if a pipe is clogged, water won't travel through it. Well, if there is enough pressure on the pipe (because of this blockage), then the pipe will rupture.

There are reasons I'm posting this in theoretical physics and not in speculations, and the reasons are two things, you can investigate this claim, and, it directly relates to spooky interactions. In another thread, I mentioned an established hypothesis in linguistics called linguistic intemporality. I decided to broaden the definition because it seems to hold for behavior altogether. The hypothesis is this. Given a set of particles (lets call them concepts), if they all have the same exact shape and structure, then they are the same particle (concept) regardless of their location in space or time. The reason this conclusion was drawn was because of an experience that can be and has been replicated many times. It's based on this example though. The OP of the hypothesis was watching an episode of jeapordy one day where he noticed that the contestant wasn't playing intelligently, and the OP quickly spotted the concept that the contestant was operating on, and that concept was (a cocky, ambitious) strategy rather than intellect. Well, as soon as the contestant decided to operate on strategy, he answered the question incorrectly, to which the OP shouted an obscenity at the television (d***h***). To the surprise of the OP, the contestant reacted as if he literally was standing in the same room and just got called a d***h***. Ok, maybe its a coincidence. Well, he posted his findings and defined a clear way of investigating this hypothesis (which can be done by any average joe). The experiment goes as follows. Next time you experience a pre-recorded phenomena (such as an episode of jeapordy or a song on the radio), when you think that you relate completely with a concept being posed, talk (or yell obscenities) to the person that has been recorded and see if there is a reaction. Well, I have tested this hypothesis several times and the results seem to be statistically significant. There does seem to be a response to the stimulus on the part of the pre-recorded person as if they are indeed there listening to you even if the material was recorded years ago. This is taken as evidence for cognitive intemporality, meaning that a communication can take place across space and time if the exact same concept exists within the minds of the participants. There is a requirement for this phenomena to occur, and that is that the two participants need to have equal concepts and the communicative event must occur within the causal proximity of the concept (meaning that the concept needs to be impacted or shaped by the communicative event in some way). This hypothesis acknowledges that the future can affect the present, the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the past, but the past takes time to affect the present or future. This kind of study also suggests that the "voices" in your head are not entirely yours (which is a thesis that is growing to be accepted) and could have come from the future. It's a spooky interaction, and the reasons of why this occurs are not clear yet, but there is a group of people who have accepted this hypothesis, done the experiment, and confirmed the results. It's far from mainstream at the moment, but I have little doubt that it will come to be known as a truism over time. I have speculations on why this event takes place, but I wont speculate unless it is permitted.

I'm still trying to figure out time dilation within my paradigm. To me, it is an innate capacity of ours to conflate time and make it accessible at different points in space. This is called memory. So what is time? The best answer I have is that it is simply all the knowledge we have accumulated. That hypothesis seems to hold for our ability to recollect. Well what is time in the present? The best answer I have is that it is the conceptualization process. That is, the process of giving knowledge it's shape. Well how about the future? The future is irrelevant because it hasn't hit our senses yet. But there is a theory called linguistic intemporality that acknowledges the fact that the future can, in fact, affect the present. How does that happen? It's unclear, but it seems that alot of thought (or some at least) may actually be coming from the future. I think that the prerequisite for this interaction is exact, equal experience. That goes to say that you may share the same exact concept with someone else, and hence can communicate with that person across space and time as long as the communication is within the proximity of the concept and hence changing it's shape. I do accept most of your argument here, it doesnt conflict with my observations much, but I cannot accept the premise of infinity and there are good reasons to reject it.

Again, I cannot accept your premise of chaos, it's unwarranted. Theres no evidence for it. A long time ago I came to the conclusion that in order for things to be precisely perfect, time cannot exist, the reason is this. Death is considered an imperfection. How can you logically prevent death? Exist outside of time. Would you even exist at that point? You may, but there would be no subjectivity, so the question is entirely irrelevant. Please, I think you have some genius insight going for you, I asked a few questions in my previous post, can you address those?