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

Wed Nov 16 00:55:51 UTC 2005

>---Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>You said it was your first publication.  It is not your publication if
>>you did not play any part in writing it
>
>you are absotuly right, I should have written that this is the first time I 
>have ever posted anything.  My apologies to everyone.
>
>In regards to:

>>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.  I suspect your
>>problem may be more one of inexperience, though: as you gain experience
>>with this sort of thing, you'll recognize when you're faced with these
>>sorts of ideas, and learn why so many people correctly believe that to
>>spend much time on them is a waste of time - and, perhaps, learn how to
>>convert some of them into ideas that could result in actually
>>accomplishing something, which others would be more willing to help
>>with.
>
>Again you are right, inexperience is the problem or better yet the way I 
>communicate
>may be the bigger problem but I still thought I understood it.  Anyhow 
>thank you for
>taking the time to respond.  If you do have a few more minutes could you at 
>least look
>at what I thought I was reading and tell me if at least some of it makes 
>sense, it would be much appreciated.  These are either my thoughts or 
>comments about what I thought
>I was reading. At this point, at least you will be able to confirm that I 
>actually am a "kook":)

>A model of mind-body is proposed: a potential ideal of
>computational leverage
>>I am proposing that a computer can enhance the mind to such an extent that 
>>it becomes a new mind-body experience

>Mechanisms that are based upon primitive properties of the universe (such 
>as space, time, and number of dimensions) derived from modern physics 
>consistency arguments.
>>With the use of primitive tools, simple observation, and graphing, a human 
>>with no knowledge of existing theories could probably come up with simple, 
>>uncomplicated ideas that may benefit humans that have
>>huge knowledge and expertise.

>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).
>>Therefore the ideal solution is that
>>the human with ideas needs to contact people that can
>>help to explain some "Kook" ideas that someone may have
>>(high dimensional spacetime-being the internet) and use
>>some form of communication such as the extropy chat (observer framework).

>A nonphysical mind really does exist
>>A nonphysical mind does exist - the internet

>It should be amenable to study in the same fashion as other physical 
>theories that deal with indirectly observable phenomena.
>>It would be fun to study with people about your ideas and thougths, people 
>>that understand.

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

>The problems.... of vision and language understanding, dynamic motion 
>control, cryptography, and planning far exceed any conventional computing 
>machine ability. Future scalability limits ultimately restrict how powerful 
>a computer we can design or build.
>>The problems..How to see, talk and understand someone
>>that may not speak the same language (refering to train
>>of thought). I don't think a computer can do that yet.

>It is for these reasons that understanding ordinary human intelligence may 
>be a prerequisite to understanding consciousness.
>>I thought this was pretty straight forward

>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.
>>With today's extraordinary computing resources we are
>>provided with insight from many different point's of
>>view, making it possible for anybody to become aware and intelligent.

>Physics must ultimately develop a solution for human "real intelligence", 
>because it represents an evolutionary, complexity increasing informational 
>process.
>>Physics must find a solution on developing a human's
>>"real intelligence", by providing knowledge to anyone
>>that wishes to learn and being able to express ideas
>>and thoughts, this will only help to increase knowledge.

>This process must not violate what physicists know about the evolution of 
>the complexity of the universe.
>>Even though you can't change the laws of physics, you
>>can find ways to make people understand them.

>The question: Consistency frameworks form the physical foundation for 
>multiple observational viewpoints or different "Points of View".
>>The question: Everybody has a different point of view.
>Formally defining the interaction between the observer and the "action or 
>thing being observed" is part of understanding the observation process.
>>Isn't interaction the only way to observe each other and learn from each 
>>other?

The rest is relative probably only to me.  It's
what I like to study and thought someone might have an
opinion.  I'm using this to help me study.

Thanks again and sorry to have bothered you
Anna

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
linear time- 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.

>From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out
>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:07:54 -0800 (PST)
>
>--- Anna Tylor <femmechakra at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >I thank you for your advice,  but I didn't write that formal
> > language.  I
> > >just copied and pasted:)
>
>You said it was your first publication.  It is not your publication if
>you did not play any part in writing it.  Copying & pasting someone
>else's words does not make it "your" publication.
>
>I'm willing to believe that you made this mistake innocently (as in,
>you're new to this and didn't know any better), but watch out in the
>future.  C&Ping someone else's work and claiming it is yours - as you
>did by saying it was your publication - is stealing and plagarism, and
>many people (especially among those you'd want to read something like
>this) have very little tolerance for that.
>
>Also, it wasn't very formal language, no matter what the source.  That
>was the original problem I was pointing out.  You might also want to
>watch out for what you do pass around: 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.  I suspect your
>problem may be more one of inexperience, though: as you gain experience
>with this sort of thing, you'll recognize when you're faced with these
>sorts of ideas, and learn why so many people correctly believe that to
>spend much time on them is a waste of time - and, perhaps, learn how to
>convert some of them into ideas that could result in actually
>accomplishing something, which others would be more willing to help
>with.
>
>So...you have made a total of three mistakes here, at least one of
>which (plagarism) many people would never forgive you for.  You are
>given this chance to learn, so that you never again repeat those
>mistakes.
>
> > >But in regards to formal language you will have to debate with
> > the
> > >people I copied and
> > >pasted from..unfortunately you'll have to explain why they aren't
> > >communicating properly:)
>
>I already explained that.  Copy and paste my explanation to them (but
>don't claim it's yours!) if you want.
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling 
get-togethers. 
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*.