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

Tue Dec 13 01:26:14 UTC 2005

Isn't this poster under moderation?

I felt sympathetic for her at first, since it seemed that she was
sincere but extremely confused.

However, this post, with the long portion at the end consisting of
rearranged pieces of
http://www.matzkefamily.net/doug/papers/mitfinal.html
but apparently without any explanation or attribution appears to
violate the norms of acceptable behavior of the ExI list.

- Jef

On 12/12/05, Anna Tylor <femmechakra at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>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(r)
> 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(r) Premium right now and get the
> first two months FREE*.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>