The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Thought of a number Options
jdlaw
Posted: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:39:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 334
Points: 829
Location: USA
In case you caught my comments in the concurrent topic thread in the open category “Think of a Number,” you can now tell that I really think this topic belongs in the AI Department here at the “University of The Universe Solved.”

(Just a reminder that Neo got this all started with the link to the French Scientists who were observing the specific brain activities related to number observation)

I think those French scientists are observing, but still not differentiating between the “seeing” of numbers and the actual understanding, or fathoming the “counting” of numbers – or in other words, they are observing the same types of behaviors we see in the illustrated in John Searle’s the Chinese Room ... The hypothetical room where you put an English Speaking person given a large encyclopedia of various compilations of chinese characters including a list of proper responses. With two slots in the door to the room, a Chinese speaking individual writes down input in chinese and feeds it into one slot. The person inside the room simply takes the slip, looks up the proper response, copies it onto the back of the slip, and passes it out the other slot.




To the Chinese person on the outside, it looks like the person inside the room knows and understands what is being slipped to him through the slot. (Turing Test)

When a computer or scientific calculator accepts input and returns correct output, it has no actual understanding of the existence of an actual quantity of things.

When a brain scan reveals certain “number tuned” neurons, we may be finally arriving closer to what I would say is at the heart of volition (Searle called it “intentionality”).

The most basic “counting” (of a 3, 4 or maybe 5 things) may actually belong at the forefront of mankind beginning to actually understand the underpinnings of volition.


jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 8:06:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 334
Points: 829
Location: USA
Do animals count things? There has actually been some study of this and for the most part, science says no; animals do not count things. But others are now saying animals do count things. I think humans can recognize upto about 7 things simultaneously, otherwise we need symbols to keep track.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/03.14/01-thinking.html
jim
Posted: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:12:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 898
Points: 2,700
I think we constantly underestimate animals. The same way we overestimate our importance in the universe. I have read about parakeets with a vocabulary of 500 words, mourning behaviors, complex social patterns, and problem solving among a wide variety of species. The following article has a bit to say about counting, but I couldn't find a source study.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20040112/ai_n11438290/
jdlaw
Posted: Sunday, October 18, 2009 7:51:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 334
Points: 829
Location: USA
Now hold on tight, because this post is only going to understood by the "hard core" programmed reality folks here. For the rest of you, just go out and "wiki" most of the terminology I am going to use:

Why I say this "counting" is a big thing in the new ("neo") artificial intelligence, which we call the "embodied cognitive sciences" is because ...

"we" (those of us in this forum) are constantly discussing nothing vs something, design vs. arbitrary, chaos vs. order, and really everywhere in this forum, programmed reality vs. happen stance. This counting thing may really be the "occam's razor" elegant solution.

What is the difference between displaying a number, like a calculator does -- and actually counting or "fathoming" what a number of things is?

Page 4 of this article by William Dembski puts it nicely:

"But what exactly would we know about the intelligence responsible for that signal? Suppose all we had was this signal representing a sequence of primes. Would we know anything about the intelligence’s purposes and motives for sending the primes? Would we know anything about the technology it employed? Would we know anything about its physical makeup? Would we even know that it was physical? Our evidence for design in this case would be entirely circumstantial. We would be confronted with an effect but be unable to trace back its cause."
jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:44:51 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 334
Points: 829
Location: USA
Of course Dembski is more associated with "intelligent design" which in my opinion has very little to do with the "embodied cognitive sciences" and a lot mere to do with the political religious right wing's movement to get prayer back into public schools.

Despite strong criticisms of Debmski and his lack of any peer reviewed publications, his support of "intelligent design" theories and observations of "causation" would also support the logical existence of a purposeful (programmed) reality. To me his observations are spot on - his insistence on relating it to the bible, however, is quite a bit more sketchy.
stendec
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:46:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Hmmm, just a thought, but what is the different between "Intelligent Design Causation" and "God" (in the 'non-religious' sense of the word 'god', i.e. a supreme creator, without all the political stuff surrounding religion itself) ?
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:31:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 334
Points: 829
Location: USA
Quote:
Hmmm, just a thought, but what is the different between "Intelligent Design Causation" and "God" (in the 'non-religious' sense of the word 'god', i.e. a supreme creator, without all the political stuff surrounding religion itself) ?


It's the "faith of our fathers. The idea that we were created -- not here by happen stance. "Deity" "Supernatural"

In this Forum, it is the idea that God is the Programmer.

Found a new modern apocryphal book, I think from the 1940s called "Urantia"

Here's what wiki says of the book's origins.

To the religious faint of heart, do not bother. But Stendec has raised the "God" question in here before. Is God the Programmer? Is the Programmer benevolent? Anthropomorphic?
jdlaw
Posted: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:21:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 334
Points: 829
Location: USA
Bump!

Are you there Stendec? I'm asking you these questions. (or at least your input) None of us can really know can we?
stendec
Posted: Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:00:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Sorry, JD

I did read your post yesterday, but have been researching and became distracted.

Hmm, even I don;t know for sure whether I am really here (or there, for that matter!)

There are some interesting ideas in the book you mention, "Urantia". But it is kindof hard to follow, and there is a LOT wordage in it!

Then there's the "eternal loop" question -- if the Programmers / God created us, then who created the programmers? Such a causal infinity could be eradicated by thinking of time as a loop / hologram, with our limited lifespans being so small as to not "notice" the loop.

Enlightened or enquiring minds such as Jim's and ours, do however notcie certain 'anomalies', and this leads us to further enquiries....

jdlaw wrote:
Bump!

Are you there Stendec? I'm asking you these questions. (or at least your input) None of us can really know can we?
jdlaw
Posted: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:03:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 334
Points: 829
Location: USA
Quote:
Then there's the "eternal loop" question -- if the Programmers / God created us, then who created the programmers? Such a causal infinity could be eradicated by thinking of time as a loop / hologram, with our limited lifespans being so small as to not "notice" the loop.


Yes. Urantia even claims to have been "channeled" so there is that "transcendental" like writing style that is so annoying and hard to follow. Reminds me of "seth speaks."

IMO the answer to your causality question is that "there is no spoon." I call this the "cognitive causality" concept.

What "there is no spoon" means -- of course is that there really is nothing but intelligence. The universe would like to create full physical reality, but it is still working on that -- quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, and so forth .... We don't need causality as you normally think of it. There is no spoon. We really don't exist physically.

There is no spoon also means that my reality need only be the same as yours except at the fringes. But we chose to be here and agreed to hide ourselves from our true metaphysical existence in this physical charade (programmed simulation of reality). While we are here, it is all very real. Just as if you were inside the game. While here, it is all you have. And there are many worlds. Worlds without end. Amen.

jdlaw
Posted: Sunday, November 01, 2009 8:47:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 334
Points: 829
Location: USA
Quote:
Sorry, JD

I did read your post yesterday, but have been researching and became distracted.


By the way, what type of research? Anything related?
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v2.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.136 seconds.