[extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out

[Anna Tylor]

>>Tue Nov 15 17:55:51 MST 2005 Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:

>>that publication was so ill-formed that some other members of this list 
>>were, in private emails, saying I should not respond to a "kook" as in, 
>>someone passing off ideas that can never in fact be reduced to 
>>practice,and whose noise does not help anyone make actual progress.

After reviewing the document, although it may not be
written in a formal matter, I can only see two major
problems with the document. (Besides grammar and
spelling)


>>and most of the time when untrained humans think they
>>have ideas that are of use to the trained, they are not in fact of any
>>significant use - to the point that the cost of the time to listen to
>>and comprehend the idea dwarfs any potential benefit to the trained
>>individual.

Tesla, Newton and Einstein where therefore, untrained.

>>Note the emotional accusation: by asking people instead of looking
>>things up yourself, you know you're being irresponsible.  This is
>>almost never actually the case - the *answerer* may know of this
>>alternate path, but *you* did not.  However, you know it now - and you
>>might want to use it a lot, before you try to describe what it's like
>>to use it a lot.  There are enough people who really do use it a lot,
>>who will be insulted (or worse) by inaccurate depictions of what it's
>>like to use it a lot (and thus to be one with the Internet).

You are absolutely right.

>>I believe that you are on the path
>>to a much clearer document.  Perhaps it would work if you collected
>>your thoughts, rewrote the work, then went away from it for a day or
>>two (to clear your short term memory of thoughts associated with it)
>>then reread it, looking for ways to restate things even more clearly.
>>(In this case, any understanding located solely in your short term
>>memory would be lost - but that's a good thing, since it lets you
>>identify many of the confusing points in your wording, and you still
>>understand your thoughts well enough to restate them.)

That's exactly what I did, thank you.

>>Quite a lot of people on this list would take the
>>existence and use of such things as obvious and granted:

Maybe some take it as the obvious, I guess I apprehended it a completely 
different way

Anna



A model of mind-body is proposed: a potential ideal of
computational leverage

Mechanisms that are based upon primitive properties
of the universe (such as space, time, and number of
dimensions) derived from modern physics consistency
arguments.

The ideal solution for unlimited intelligence would
require a sparse, high dimensional spacetime
(unrestricted locality) and a formalized observer
mechanism (mobile observer framework based on a
superset of inertial frame properties).
This solution simultaneously addresses the
semantical issue of unrestricted locality by
maintaining a space/time metric but by going
beyond the non-locality constraints of 4D physical
implementation layers.

A nonphysical mind really does exist:
It should be amenable to study in the
same fashion as other physical theories that
deal with indirectly observable phenomena.

Since humans are intelligent as well as conscious,
they can predict computational theory to the key,
requirement for a solution to the mind-brain puzzle.
Such a theory must address the representational
issue of information versus knowledge (or knowing).

The problems.... vision and language,
dynamic motion control, and cryptography, far exceed any conventional
computing machine ability.
Future scalability lrestrict's  how to powerfullly design or build.

The reasons:
ordinary human intelligence may be a prerequisite
to understanding consciousness.
These strategies for providing extraordinary computing
resources might also provide insight concerning
computational processes with properties suitable
for consciousness. It is possible that systems that
exhibit the self organization required for human
"real intelligence" (nothing artificial about it),
may exhibit consciousness.

Physics must ultimately develop a solution for human
"real intelligence", because it represents an
evolutionary, complexity increasing informational
process. This process must not violate what
physicists know about the evolution of the
complexity of the universe.

The question: Consistency frameworks form the
physical foundation for multiple observational
viewpoints or different "Points of View".
Formally defining the interaction between
the observer and the "action or thing being observed"
is part of understanding the observation process.
Historically, scientists have prided themselves
in their belief that true science occurs when the
observer does not participate or disturb an act of
measurement. Unfortunately, quantum physics
measurements depend on how a question is asked or
what question is asked. If an experiment asks
particle questions then the results are particle
answers. If an experiment asks wave questions
then the results are wave answers. Likewise in
relativity, asking how much "energy" is in a system
is dependent on the observer's velocity and
acceleration.

The main idea stated in Einstein's relativity:
principle was that "all inertial frames are
totally equivalent for the performance of all
physical experiments."[18] In other words,
no matter where you are in space or what
speed you are traveling, the laws of physics
must be the same.
The laws define the possibility that all
actions as well as the process of observing
those actions are from any vantage point.
One major outcome from relativity was experimental
proof that the speed of light is constant no matter
how you measure it, and no matter what speed you
are traveling. In fact, mass, energy, distance,
and time have changing values depending on
one's speed.

Facts:
1) Consistency is more primitive than
conservation laws of energy/mass, or space and time
2) Consistency requires light to follow locally
"straight line" geodesics (curved spacetime)
3) Consistency mechanisms behave as superluminal
synchronization primitives
4) Consistency mechanisms interact outside normal
excluding illegal time loops
5) Increased dimensionality increases degrees of
freedom
6) These ideas appeal to researchers studying the mind
and consciousness because certain biological[20],
psychological[21], parapsychological[22],
and meditative research[23] strongly suggest
that these properties are exhibited by the mind.

An interesting point to note concerning computational
leverage mechanisms is that they deal with cosmological
issues such as the framework of spacetime and the
structure of the universe, and are thus, "outside
the box" of what is normal day-to-day physics.
This is not surprising given that the evolution
of the mind (both collectively and individually)
deals with many of the same issues (information,
complexity, and energy) as the evolution of the
universe.

Conclusion:
Modern physics theories that are based on observer
consistency arguments have already defined many
possible avenues for computational leverage based
on indirect measurement and extraordinary views of
space and time. These models of sparse
hyperspacetime form a consistency backdrop for
all possible events and all possible observer
interactions. Consciousness may be a direct
consequence of a dualist model of the mind-brain
based on these consistency and computational
leverage mechanisms. If the dualist model of the
mind exists outside normal spacetime, then the mind
is akin to a "Godel machine" that is capable of
stepping outside of our normal spacetime limits.

_________________________________________________________________
Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® 
SmartScreen Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
  Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.