Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
Dear MarkCC. Thank you for paying attention on my crackpottery article. I like your comment. Very like. ==. You say: Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that we see - and e and π won't change. =.. Now Euler's equation plays a role in quantum theory. In quantum theory there isn't constant firm quant particle. The Pi says that a point-particle or string-particle cannot be a quant particle. The Pi says that that quant particle can be a circle and it cannot be a perfect circle. If e and π belong to quant particle then these numbers can mutually change. Doesn't it mean that Pi ( a circle ) can be changed into sphere? Doesn't Euler's equationcosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain this transformation / fluctuation of quant particle ? You say: What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot really exist in the world we live in. =. But this 'a fundamental relationship between numbers and shapes on a two-dimensional plane' can really exist in two-dimensional vacuum. All the best. socratus. ==. On Mar 5, 9:57 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" wrote: > Euler's Equation Crackpottery > Feb 18 2013 Published by MarkCC under Bad Math, Bad Physics > > One of my twitter followers sent me an interesting piece of > crackpottery. > I debated whether to do anything with it. The thing about > crackpottery > is that it really needs to have some content. > Total incoherence isn't amusing. This bit is, frankly, right on the > line. > ==. > Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature. > a) Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality. > Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'. > Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics". > ' . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo > da Vinci's Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo's statue of David' > 'It is God's equation', 'our jewel ', ' It is a mathematical icon'. > . . . . etc. > b) Euler's Equation as a physical reality. > "it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, > and we don't know what it means, . . . . .' > ' Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence' > ' Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?' > 'It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process > using physics.' > ' Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum > physics ?' > My aim is to understand the reality of nature. > Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality? > To give the answer to this. question I need to bind Euler's equation > with an object - particle. Can it be math- point or string- particle > or triangle-particle? No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which > says me that the particle must be only a circle . > Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and > therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories. > These two theories say me that the reason of circle - particle's > movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi). > a) Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves > ( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1. > We call such particle - 'photon'. > From Earth - gravity point of view this speed is maximally > . From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally. > In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no > charge). > b) Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum > ( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis. > In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves > ( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c. > 1. We call such particle - ' electron' and its energy is: E=h*f. > In this way I can understand the reality of nature. > ==. > Best wishes. > Israel Sadovnik Socratus. > > ==. > Euler's equation says that . It's an amazingly profound equation. > The way that it draws together fundamental concepts is beautiful > and surprising. > But it's not nearly as mysterious as our loonie-toon makes it out to > be. > The natural logarithm-base is deeply embedded in the structure of > numbers, and we've known that, and we've known how it works > for a long time. > What Euler did was show the relationship between e and the > fundamental rotation group of the complex numbers. > There are a couple of ways of restating the definition of that > make the meaning of that relationship clearer. > For example: > > That's an alternative definition of what e is. If we use that, and we > plug into it, we get: > > If you work out that limit, it's -1. Also, if you take values of N, > and plot , , , and , ... on the complex plane, as N gets larger, > the resulting curve gets closer and closer to a semicircle. > An equivalent way of seeing it is that exponents of are rotations > in
RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information
I have before claimed that the computer is a good example of the power of semiosis. It is simple enough to see that the mere construction of a Turing machine confers upon that machine the ability to recognise all computations; to generate the yield of such computations. In this sense, a program (the source code) is a sequence of signs that upon acceptance brings the machine to generate some corresponding yield; a computation. Also, the intention of an entity behind sign origination has nothing whatsoever to do with the acceptability of that sign by some other entity, much less the meaning there taken for the sign. The meaning of a sign is always centered upon the acceptor of that sign. wrb -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:00:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 3/6/2013 4:18 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote: > > "I just saw the movie "Beowulf", it's a pretty good movie but what is of > interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old Moore's > Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a real human > being not something a computer produced. However there is something > puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by human beings. An > innocent might think that as video is a much higher bandwidth media than > audio video would be harder to simulate than audio, but apparently that is > not the case." > > > I don't think it's that audio is harder to synthesize, I think it's just > that audio is a lot cheaper to produce the old fashioned way. If you > wanted some really unusual audio special effects it might be cheaper to > synthesize them. > > Brent > > Hi Brent, > > Nope. > > I have it from very good authority (AT&T/Bell Labs folks) that > authentic sounding speech synthesis is "a bitch". The company that I am > working for is laboring long and hard to deal with this problem. This > difficulty, BTW, makes voice recognition systems hard to implement for > authentication purposes. The fact that humans can do it very well is very > telling of the ingenuity of evolutionary systems. > Yeah, synthesized speech is one of those areas where I can see how simulation technology can really stall indefinitely. I'm repeating myself here, but back in the days of my awesome Atari 800 computer, there was a program called S.A.M. which sounded like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nqixe3WrQ Now, 31 years later, we have this: http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html Improvement in naturalism: Nil. It's gotten more boring if anything. S.A.M had more of the natural character of a computer and so was less uncanny sounding. Maybe there's better speech synthesis out there, but it seems like any real progress would be evident in any current product. Craig > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 3/6/2013 4:18 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote: "I just saw the movie "Beowulf", it's a pretty good movie but what is of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a real human being not something a computer produced. However there is something puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by human beings. An innocent might think that as video is a much higher bandwidth media than audio video would be harder to simulate than audio, but apparently that is not the case." I don't think it's that audio is harder to synthesize, I think it's just that audio is a lot cheaper to produce the old fashioned way. If you wanted some really unusual audio special effects it might be cheaper to synthesize them. Brent Hi Brent, Nope. I have it from very good authority (AT&T/Bell Labs folks) that authentic sounding speech synthesis is "a bitch". The company that I am working for is laboring long and hard to deal with this problem. This difficulty, BTW, makes voice recognition systems hard to implement for authentication purposes. The fact that humans can do it very well is very telling of the ingenuity of evolutionary systems. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Cats fall for illusions too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CcXXQ6GCUb8 -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote: "I just saw the movie "Beowulf", it's a pretty good movie but what is of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a real human being not something a computer produced. However there is something puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by human beings. An innocent might think that as video is a much higher bandwidth media than audio video would be harder to simulate than audio, but apparently that is not the case." I don't think it's that audio is harder to synthesize, I think it's just that audio is a lot cheaper to produce the old fashioned way. If you wanted some really unusual audio special effects it might be cheaper to synthesize them. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:45:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no >> signs of being a simulation, >> > > Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort of sign you're talking about and some > have said only half joking that Black Holes, particularly the singularity > at the center of them, is where God tried to divide by zero. And others > have said that the quantum nature of reality when things become very small > reminds them of getting too close to a video screen and seeing the > individual pixels > I was thinking more of the absence of some counterfactual such as someone emulating a computer which runs faster than the physical host, or some broken TV screen letting a cartoon character accidentally step out into the world. > > > If you go look at Bryce Canyon and can't tell that its more real than a >> video game, then that would be alarming. A computer can't tell the >> difference though. >> > > Could you? Even today a computer could generate a high resolution 3D image > of Bryce Canyon where you couldn't be sure if you were looking at a video > screen or looking through a window. > Not talking about windows - I'm talking about full embodied presence. If you talk about windows and images, then you are only talking about visual sense, which is only one aspect of reality. Making something that is visually similar to something is easy if you take a photo and digitize it. It's not much of a simulation either, since the computer isn't generating the image, just copying it. > > > I think that it is very likely that the quality of electronic ears will >> improve modestly but never will approach that of natural hearing >> > > And if events prove you wrong will that change your worldview? No of > course it will not because a belief not based on logic can not be destroyed > by it nor will contradictory evidence change it in any way. > Why is that a question? You're just saying "I can't prove you wrong now, so my only hope is that you will be some day." > > > the Google search algorithm has not improved in 20 years. >> > > Bullshit, Google did not even exist 20 years ago! > You're right! I don't know why I was thinking 1993, but I was remembering that it improved dramatically a couple years after it came out and has plateaued ever since, until recently when it seems to have begun eroding. You got me there, I was absolutely wrong about it being 20 years. I should have said 16 years. > > >> Considering that Evolution has been working on it for nearly 4 billion >>> years it's very crappy technology indeed, we've been working on it for less >>> than a century and already we're producing things that do better in some >>> ways than what Evolution came up with. One instant from now (from >>> Evolution's timescale) we will have things that are superior in EVERY way. >>> >> >> > Or it could be that we are one instant away from having things which >> will exterminate the biosphere. >> > > Could be. > > > That we have such a short history of success should not be cause for >> enthusiasm. >> > > I'm not sure if "enthusiasm" is the correct word. Machines that are > superior to people in every way is not good news for those who don't want > biological human beings to become extinct sometime in the next century. > Whether we can become the machines or not is the question. I don't know why anyone would care if they are biological or not, as long as whatever the are is at least as good. > > >> Chemistry is based on physics and It would be easy for me to change the >>> chemistry of your brain, and if I were to do so you would experience >>> ENORMOUS differences in consciousness; and when you report changes in your >>> conscious experience I can detect changes in your brain chemistry. >>> >> >> > That's all inference and correlation >> > > And thus using Weinbergian logic if changing X always changes Y and > changing Y always changes X that proves that X and Y have nothing to do > with each other. > It proves that we can infer they are correlated. If Rush Hour always happens around sunset, does that mean that we can make the Sun go down by causing a traffic jam? > > > I can't see the chemical in my brain. I see no crystals, no molecules, >> > > And thus using Weinbergian logic that means that chemicals and molecules > have nothing to do with your ability to see. > That's not what I said. You are only able to see your assumption that chemicals and molecules cause an effect which seems like consciousness. I am saying that chemicals and molecules already are consciousness and that the effects that they cause and the causes which sometimes effect them, are human qualities of consciousness. > > >> > So will there be a difference in the chemistry of my brain should I >> decide to think about something infuriating or
A holographic mind is possible if each neuron is a monad.
A holographic mind is possible if each neuron is a monad. Each monad is a windowless mental unit that has indirect perceptions of the perceptions of all of the other monads in the universe. Perceptions are states of knowledge acquired indirectly, since each monad is windowless, by means of the dominant monad of the mind, but from the point of view of a each monad. Leibniz uses the phrase "reflected by each monad". Hence the idea of holography comes to mind. For a more complete descri;ption see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/ Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/6/2013 "Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous." - Albert Einstein -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 3/6/2013 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote: "I just saw the movie "Beowulf", it's a pretty good movie but what is of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a real human being not something a computer produced. However there is something puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by human beings. An innocent might think that as video is a much higher bandwidth media than audio video would be harder to simulate than audio, but apparently that is not the case." A small point. The human ear + brain is actually a better statistical decision engine than the eye + brain. Making good CG sound requires that the human ear be fooled... hard to do... -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: MGA is back (on the FOAR list)
I understand where you are coming from in MGA now, Bruno, and again there is nothing wrong with your reasoning, but in that your initial assumptions are not the universe that we live in. Let me give you a thought experiment that might give you a sense of where I see the assumptions jump to the wrong conclusion. Suppose Alice didn't have an energetic particle to save her logic misfire and she ended up confusing her own name with Alison. Nobody tried to correct her use of her own name, so people assumed that she has begun using a new name, or that one of the two names was just a nickname. As she went about her business over the next several years, opening new accounts and receiving mail as Alison, she had essentially lost her old name, except for the very closest family members and government records which retained unambiguous reference to Alice. Now suppose a more catastrophic event happens with many of her logic gates. Every name that she has ever heard is now switched in her memory. Instead of Romeo and Juliet, her star-crossed lovers are Pizza-Foot and Sycorax. Instead of Charlie Brown and Snoopy, she remembers those characters as Baron Von Slouchcousin and Pimento. The stories are otherwise in-tact of course. The function of the characters is identical. As the brain parts keep failing and then coming back online, all of the content of history and fiction have become hopelessly scrambled, but the stories and information are undamaged. Star Wars takes place in Egypt. Queen Elizabeth was named Treewort and lives in the trunk of a 2003 Mazda but otherwise the succession of the British throne is clearly understood. As luck would have it, the problem with her name interpreter was mirrored by a problem in her output modules, which translates all of her twisted names into the expected ones, effectively undoing her malfunction as far as anyone else is concerned. There is no problem for her socially, and no problem for her psychologically, as she does not suspect any malfunction, and neither does anyone else. Who is the British monarch? Elizabeth or Treewort? Is there a difference between the two? It comes down to exploring the reality of proprietary vs generic, or qualitative vs quantitative identity. In math - all identities are generic and interchangeable. A name is not a name of what is being named (which is a real and unique natural presence), but a label which refers to another label or variable (which is not a presence but a figure persisting by axiom-fiat). Using this quantitative framework, all entities are assumed to be built up from these starchy mechanical axioms, so that a name is simply a character string used for naming - it has no proprietary content. When a computer does do proprietary content, it doesn't look like Harry or Jane, it looks like ct168612 - now that means something to a computer. If it can be assumed that the label matches some serial number or address, then it is a good name. In no case is the computer able to value a name in any other way. It has no way of knowing if Buckingham Palace is a better place to live than in the trunk of an old car, as long as the digits fulfill the same functional role, they are the same. In reality however, maybe nothing is 'the same'? Maybe there aren't any shortcuts or simulations which can make something which is not us into us? Craig On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:37:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi, > > > I have promised to let you know when I explain the MGA, actually a new > version, in the FOAR list of Russell Standish. > > Well we have begun two days ago. Sorry for this delay. > > Note that MGA has already been explained in this list. > See for example: > http://old.nabble.com/MGA-1-td20566948.html > > Feel free to participate on the FOAR list, if you have still problem > with it. > > You might should, as it is a subtle point, and I am just progressing > on it, notably through such discussion. > > Best, > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information
I should have added that the context sensitivity of the relationship between sign and action is pure subjectivity. Any context able to evaluate itself will conclude that its actions are a direct consequence of choice taken by that context; i.e. values. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:48:19 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote: Craig: The mistake you make is clearly stated in your words: ".doesn't mean that they communicated with judgment." You are anthropomorphizing. The value is no more nor no less than the action taken upon signal acceptance. That's ok, but it means there is no value. There is simply action. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: Messages Aren't Made of Information
Now we are getting some place. Exactly. There is simply action. Contexts react to sign. Nothing more. Nothing less. The complexity of action is open ended. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:48:19 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote: Craig: The mistake you make is clearly stated in your words: “…doesn’t mean that they communicated with judgment.” You are anthropomorphizing. The value is no more nor no less than the action taken upon signal acceptance. That's ok, but it means there is no value. There is simply action. Craig wrb From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:27 PM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:07:00 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote: The fact that a machine can act in a discriminatory based upon some signal (sign, information) input is demonstration of value judgment. Only in our eyes, not in its own eyes. It's like telling a kid to say some insult to someone in another language. The fact they are able to carry out your instruction doesn't mean that they communicated with judgment. Just as there is no *in* in a machine, so to there is no *in* in a biological organism; they both, machine and organism, But there is an 'in' with respect to the experience of an organism - only because we know it first hand. There would seem to be no reason why a machine couldn't have a similar 'in', but it actually seems that their nature indicates they do not. I take the extra step and hypothesize exactly why that is - because experience is not generated out of the bodies associated with them, but rather the bodies are simply a public view of one aspect of the experience. If you build a machine, you are assembling bodies to relate to each other, as external forms, so that no interiority 'emerges' from the gaps between them. are forms that treat other forms in certain proscribed ways. You cannot demonstrate otherwise. Sure I can. Feelings, colors, personalities, intentions, historical zeitgeists...these are not forms relating to forms. Craig wrb From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:37 AM To: everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:53:31 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Let´s say that what we call "information" is an extended form of sensory input. What makes this input "information" is the usability of this input for reducing the internal entropy of the receiver or increase the internal order. The receiver can be a machine, a cell, a person or a society for example. If the input do not produce this effect in the receiver, then that input is not information. The increase of internal order of the receiver is a symptom of an experience of being informed but they are not the same thing. It's not really even relevant in most cases. I would not call it an extended form of sensory input, but a reduction of sensory experience. Input is not a physical reality, it is a conceptual label. Consider Blindsight: I hold up two fingers and ask how many fingers? "I don't know.' Guess 'two'. This example tells us about information without tying it to decreased entropy. My two fingers are a form. I am putting them into that form, so the process of my presenting my fingers is a formation of a sign. The sign is not information at this point. It means something different to an ant or a frog than it does to a person looking at it. If you can't see, there is no formation there at all unless you can collide with my fingers. When the patient responds that they don't know how many fingers, it is because they personally have no experience of seeing it. They are not being informed personally by the form of my fingers in front of their face because they have blindsight. When they guess correctly, they still have not been informed. Only we know that the information is correct. At this point you could say that there is some decrease in information entropy of the receiver as far as we are concerned, but in fact, for the receiver themselves, they have not increased any internal order. A machine has blindsight about everything. They can be queried and produce valid responses to inform us, but they are never informed themselves. There is no 'in' in a machine, it is an organization of forms which treat other forms in a proscribed way. Forms are copied, transformed, and presented in a context that it has no experience of. My computer sees nothing that I see on this screen. It
MGA is back (on the FOAR list)
Hi, I have promised to let you know when I explain the MGA, actually a new version, in the FOAR list of Russell Standish. Well we have begun two days ago. Sorry for this delay. Note that MGA has already been explained in this list. See for example: http://old.nabble.com/MGA-1-td20566948.html Feel free to participate on the FOAR list, if you have still problem with it. You might should, as it is a subtle point, and I am just progressing on it, notably through such discussion. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Leibniz's monads consistent with holographic perception and memory
Roger, Yes Holographic content is empirically proportional to the logarithm of the memory volume. HC ~ log V whereas Shannon Information of the universe is proportional to the surface area of the holographic universe surface.(ie. the Lloyd Limit based on the Bekenstein Bound) SI ~ 10^120 (A/Ao) where Ao is the surface area of our holographic universe. So as the universe expanded from a very small surface area A the physical laws became more and more precise and deterministic. The upper limit for our universe is A=10^100* Ao Regarding monads, they must occupy the volume given the resolution of the universal hologram, which I do not recall. Monads have a volumeric density of 10^90 points/cc, or each resolution volume being 10^9 Planck lengths, a number that can be falsified. Like Indra's Jewels each monad reflects all others meaning that they are entangled as in a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). My conjecture: Liebniz had insightful contact with metaphysical structures, like the compactified dimensions of string theory, and recognized their particulate and holographic nature, somewhat the direct contact that Ramanujan or perhaps even Nostradamus had. My subjective personal evidence is a story a lady swami told me about my Siddha Yoga guru taking her back to the beginning of the universe. What she saw were colored wiggly strings.(read vibrating) The strings soon decayed into point particles. Not sure if she witnessed that. BTW I never met my guru in person. He came to me in a dream. And gave me a brief but estatic OBE (in Hindu called Shaktipat) Right after he died at an early age of 66. Gurus die young. Richard On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Physics-Vol-2/Diffraction-Real-life-applications.html > > > "HOLOGRAPHIC MEMORY [AND PERCEPTION]. > > One of the most fascinating areas of research in the field of holography is > holographic memory. Computers use a binary code, a pattern of ones and zeroes > that is translated into an electronic pulse, but holographic memory would > greatly > extend the capabilities of computer memory systems. Unlike most images, a > hologram is not > simply the sum of its constituent parts: the data in a holo-graphic image is > contained in > every part of the image, meaning that part of the image can be destroyed > without a loss of data. > To bring the story full-circle, holographic memory calls to mind an idea > advanced by a scientist who, > along with Huygens, was one of Newton's great professional rivals, German > mathematician and > philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). > > > > Few of Leibniz's ideas were more bizarre than that of the monad: an > elementary particle of existence that reflected the whole of the universe. > In advancing the concept of a monad, Leibniz was not making a statement after > the manner of a scientist: there was no proof that monads existed, > nor was it possible to prove this in any scientific way. Yet, a hologram > appears to be very much like a manifestation of Leibniz's imagined monads, a > nd both the hologram and the monad relate to a more fundamental aspect of > life: human memory. Neurological research in the late twentieth century > suggested that the structure of memory in the human mind is holo-graphic. > Thus, for instance, a patient suffering an injury affecting 90% of the > brain experiences only a 10% memory loss. " > > > Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/6/2013 > "Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous." > - Albert Einstein > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Leibniz's monads consistent with holographic perception and memory
http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Physics-Vol-2/Diffraction-Real-life-applications.html "HOLOGRAPHIC MEMORY [AND PERCEPTION]. One of the most fascinating areas of research in the field of holography is holographic memory. Computers use a binary code, a pattern of ones and zeroes that is translated into an electronic pulse, but holographic memory would greatly extend the capabilities of computer memory systems. Unlike most images, a hologram is not simply the sum of its constituent parts: the data in a holo-graphic image is contained in every part of the image, meaning that part of the image can be destroyed without a loss of data. To bring the story full-circle, holographic memory calls to mind an idea advanced by a scientist who, along with Huygens, was one of Newton's great professional rivals, German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). Few of Leibniz's ideas were more bizarre than that of the monad: an elementary particle of existence that reflected the whole of the universe. In advancing the concept of a monad, Leibniz was not making a statement after the manner of a scientist: there was no proof that monads existed, nor was it possible to prove this in any scientific way. Yet, a hologram appears to be very much like a manifestation of Leibniz's imagined monads, a nd both the hologram and the monad relate to a more fundamental aspect of life: human memory. Neurological research in the late twentieth century suggested that the structure of memory in the human mind is holo-graphic. Thus, for instance, a patient suffering an injury affecting 90% of the brain experiences only a 10% memory loss. " Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/6/2013 "Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous." - Albert Einstein -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:48:19 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote: > > Craig: > > > > The mistake you make is clearly stated in your words: > > > > “…doesn’t mean that they communicated with judgment.” > > > > You are anthropomorphizing. The value is no more nor no > > less than the action taken upon signal acceptance. > That's ok, but it means there is no value. There is simply action. Craig > > > wrb > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:27 PM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:07:00 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote: > > The fact that a machine can act in a discriminatory based > > upon some signal (sign, information) input is demonstration > > of value judgment. > > > Only in our eyes, not in its own eyes. It's like telling a kid to say some > insult to someone in another language. The fact they are able to carry out > your instruction doesn't mean that they communicated with judgment. > > > > > Just as there is no **in** in a machine, so to there is no **in** > > in a biological organism; they both, machine and organism, > > > But there is an 'in' with respect to the experience of an organism - only > because we know it first hand. There would seem to be no reason why a > machine couldn't have a similar 'in', but it actually seems that their > nature indicates they do not. I take the extra step and hypothesize exactly > why that is - because experience is not generated out of the bodies > associated with them, but rather the bodies are simply a public view of one > aspect of the experience. If you build a machine, you are assembling bodies > to relate to each other, as external forms, so that no interiority > 'emerges' from the gaps between them. > > > are forms that treat other forms in certain proscribed ways. > > > > You cannot demonstrate otherwise. > > > Sure I can. Feelings, colors, personalities, intentions, historical > zeitgeists...these are not forms relating to forms. > > Craig > > > > > wrb > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:37 AM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:53:31 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: > > Let´s say that what we call "information" is an extended form of sensory > input. What makes this input "information" is the usability of this input > for reducing the internal entropy of the receiver or increase the internal > order. The receiver can be a machine, a cell, a person or a society for > example. If the input do not produce this effect in the receiver, then that > input is not information. > > > The increase of internal order of the receiver is a symptom of an > experience of being informed but they are not the same thing. It's not > really even relevant in most cases. I would not call it an extended form of > sensory input, but a reduction of sensory experience. Input is not a > physical reality, it is a conceptual label. > > Consider Blindsight: > > I hold up two fingers and ask how many fingers? > > "I don't know.' > > Guess > > 'two'. > > This example tells us about information without tying it to decreased > entropy. My two fingers are a form. I am putting them into that form, so > the process of my presenting my fingers is a formation of a sign. > > The sign is not information at this point. It means something different to > an ant or a frog than it does to a person looking at it. If you can't see, > there is no formation there at all unless you can collide with my fingers. > > When the patient responds that they don't know how many fingers, it is > because they personally have no experience of seeing it. They are not being > informed personally by the form of my fingers in front of their face > because they have blindsight. > > When they guess correctly, they still have not been informed. Only we know > that the information is correct. At this point you could say that there is > some decrease in information entropy of the receiver as far as we are > concerned, but in fact, for the receiver themselves, they have not > increased any internal order. > > A machine has blindsight about everything. They can be queried and produce > valid responses to inform us, but they are never informed themselves. There > is no 'in' in a machine, it is an organization of forms which treat other > forms in a proscribed way. Forms are copied, transformed, and presented in > a context that it has no experience of. My computer sees nothing that I see > on this screen. It reads nothing that I type here. It doesn't know what the > Everything List is - not even Google knows what it is - only that th
Re: Ectopic Eyes Experient: Supports my view of sense, Invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:39:37 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> Hi Craig, >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> > On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:27:21 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm >> >> sure >> >> the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the >> >> research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual >> >> neural pathways. How does that invalidate mechanism? >> > >> > >> > It's not that wild of a conclusion. The experiment shows that we cannot >> > assume that vision is the result of a passive process that relies on a >> > one-way path leading from light to eye to optic nerve to brain. >> >> No, it just shows that we cannot assume that the eye has to be >> connected to the optic nerve specifically. > > > Yes, but I think that's only part of what it shows. It also shows that the > brain and spinal cord have the general intelligence to recognize and > integrate the eye as an eye. It's an active system. It's not just a matter > of saying that you can receive mail at more than one address, it is that > your mail will figure out where you are living without having instructed the > post office. Agreed, it does show that. I'm not going to claim that we have algorithms as good as the brain as doing this sort of thing, but we certainly do have algorithms that show a glimpse of this type of possibility, and they have been improving steadily. Unlike consciousness, there seems to be a viable way forward in terms of self-organising, decentralised systems. We know how to build them, to a degree, and we are getting better at it. We have (possibly incomplete) view of the first principles. One simple example is genetic programming. You give the algorithm a set of primitives to build programs towards a certain goal, and we've seen, over and over again, that the algorithm is capable of finding uses for these primitives that were not anticipated by the human designer. > >> >> > The brain >> > actively shows that there is a path leading the other way as well, as >> > the >> > whole organism seeks to see through the eye. >> >> The brain is always looking for patterns in its inputs that could be >> useful. > > > a computer is always scanning its ports and slots for activity also. That > doesn't mean you can just solder a DRAM card somehwere on the motherboard > and expect to use it. Sure, but that's just a restriction imposed by the von Neumann model of computation. Other models are possible where this is possible. > >> >> >> > This shows that there is >> > sensory-motor activity going on within the micro-level of the tadpole as >> > the >> > rather under-signifyingly termed "plasticity" knows exactly what the >> > eyeball >> > is, and finds a way to use it. >> >> Or, the brain is just capable of recognising old patterns from a new >> source. > > > When you say that the brain is "just capable of recognizing", that is > already sense. You're not saying that this capability is just luck or > telepathy, you are saying that there is a particular sense interaction in > which neural tissue initiates ephaptic or other contact. It's not like the > patterns are leaking out of the eye in some formless way, it has to be > recognized that this organ as something which can be used as a sense organ > before it can get any signals out of it. This brings up the question also of > 'why have sense organs at all'? If the brain can just recognize old patterns > from new sources, why not just use anything you can touch as an eye or an > ear? Because specialisation is needed to attain things like light or sound sensitivity. >> >> >> > Try that with your computer. See what happens when you try plugging a >> > microphone into a DRAM slot or listening to your car radio through the >> > transmission. >> >> We know of many algorithms (possibly equivalent) that could be used to >> achieve something like that. They could require human assistance -- is >> this what you want me to do? -- but so do humans. This, of course, >> provided you are willing to disregard interface incompatibilities that >> are outside of the control of a normal computer. But I can't see why >> hardware without such incompatibilities could not be built. It's just >> that there isn't any incentive to do it at the moment. > > > Sure, yes. The assumption of mechanism however, should lead us to expect > that primitive organisms would be like the early machines that humans have > built so far. Just as we have no incentive - why would biology have any > different incentive? The opposite seems to be the case - human machines are > founded on a rigid, unambiguous ontology, whereas biological organisms are > founded on flexibility and ambiguous relation between generality and > specialization. I don't find this surprising at all. Human-created systems are typically built from the
