Argument: All is One through Spatial Recursion/Isomorphism

[Arising_uk]

Yes! Which precisely why all physicists are going "hoohaa!" about us living in a simulation. ...

Er!? No, a few physicists are considering whether this might be the case and a lot of computer science nerds are into it. But it might just well be how metaphors from science move as once upon a time it has been, elements, humours, vibrations, fluids, pressure, electricity, etc, etc, now computers.

Either the universe is a simulation or we have completely mistaken the structures of our own minds (which are computers) for the structures of reality. ...

Or it could be an emulation? Or it could just be Kant's critique of what Reason can say and we have no idea.

Either way. We are creating artificial minds because we can define how our own minds work.

...

Well so far we are really just automating certain functions as we're a long way from having any definition of 'mind'.

[Logik]

Yes! Which precisely why all physicists are going "hoohaa!" about us living in a simulation. ...

Er!? No, a few physicists are considering whether this might be the case and a lot of computer science nerds are into it. But it might just well be how metaphors from science move as once upon a time it has been, elements, humours, vibrations, fluids, pressure, electricity, etc, etc, now computers.

You are stuck in a philosophical mode of reasoning. No scientist cares IF the universe IS an ACTUAL computer or IF the world is a Bag of Cheese Curls.
Science cares about what the universe DOES. Science cares about what HAPPENS in the universe.

Computation is about INVENTING LANGUAGES. SO that we can say things we couldn't say previously.

When we, humans, discover some new phenomenon - previously unseen. SOMEBODY has to invent the language to describe that damn phenomenon.
HOw do you describe something for which you have no language? You INVENT language.

But they aren't describing the phenomenon. They are describing their own experience OF the phenomenon.

They are describing HOW the phenomenon behaves. They aren't describing what the phenomenon did when you prod it with a stick.
They are describing what the phenomenon did when you lick it. OR when you hit it with a hammer.

Philosophers keep making this ontological error. There is no such thing as "ontology". There is no such thing as solid ground. It is turtles all the way down. Everything we know about everything in this universe is about system dynamics, interactions and behaviour.

Either the universe is a simulation or we have completely mistaken the structures of our own minds (which are computers) for the structures of reality. ...

Or it could be an emulation? Or it could just be Kant's critique of what Reason can say and we have no idea.

ANd in EITHER way we wouldn't give a shit. Because Kant absolutely rejected the notion that we have direct access to reality.
We only have access to our experiences of reality and so all we can ever describe, say or express is what we experienced.

Not what reality IS.

Computer science is about taking your EXPERIENCE (that concept which is in your head) and DESCRIBING IT. In a language that is deterministic, lossless, perfectly reproducible, unambiguous, internally consistent and it works on a damn machine!

Models! That is all logic is. LEGO for your mind and a tool for self-expression.

That is what ALL language is!

Either way. We are creating artificial minds because we can define how our own minds work.

...

Well so far we are really just automating certain functions as we're a long way from having any definition of 'mind'.

Same philosophical error. Science is the very process of defining mind! How can you define something you do not understand?
Are you sucking your thumb?

You can't define mind. First you EXPERIENCE mind. Then you define artificial mind in computer language. Then you see if artificial mind is the same as real mind. Then you iterate and you make artificial mind better and better.

When there comes a point where there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between real-mind and artificial-mind then you can say that you have have defined mind.

The mistake philosophers make is that they think you are supposed to define "mind" in English. NO. You are supposed to define it through re-creation.

Definition is replication!

[Arising_uk]

...
You are stuck in a philosophical mode of reasoning. No scientist cares IF the universe IS an ACTUAL computer or IF the world is a Bag of Cheese Curls.
Science cares about what the universe DOES. Science cares about what HAPPENS in the universe. ...

My! What an absolutist you are. Some do some don't and some want to know if the world is actually a Bag of Cheese Curls.

Computation is about INVENTING LANGUAGES. SO that we can say things we couldn't say previously. ...

And yet you're still just saying it in 1's and 0's with + or - a few volts.

When we, humans, discover some new phenomenon - previously unseen. SOMEBODY has to invent the language to describe that damn phenomenon. HOw do you describe something for which you have no language? You INVENT language. ...

Generally the physicists use mathematics I thought?

But they aren't describing the phenomenon. They are describing their own experience OF the phenomenon.

They are describing HOW the phenomenon behaves. They aren't describing what the phenomenon did when you prod it with a stick.
They are describing what the phenomenon did when you lick it. OR when you hit it with a hammer.

Philosophers keep making this ontological error. There is no such thing as "ontology". There is no such thing as solid ground. It is turtles all the way down. ...

You're telling a philosopher this? Not read Kant then?

Everything we know about everything in this universe is about system dynamics, interactions and behaviour. ...

Everything used to be about Gods, then it was about elements, then it was about music, then it was about fluids, etc, now it's about 'computers'.

ANd in EITHER way we wouldn't give a shit. Because Kant absolutely rejected the notion that we have direct access to reality.
We only have access to our experiences of reality and so all we can ever describe, say or express is what we experienced.

Not what reality IS.

Computer science is about taking your EXPERIENCE (that concept which is in your head) and DESCRIBING IT. In a language that is deterministic, lossless, perfectly reproducible, unambiguous, internally consistent and it works on a damn machine!

Models! That is all logic is. LEGO for your mind and a tool for self-expression.

That is what ALL language is! ...

Maybe but is it all what thought is?

Same philosophical error. Science is the very process of defining mind! How can you define something you do not understand?
Are you sucking your thumb? ..

Ah! And this is the point I think others are trying to make to you as you appear to wish us to become your model?

You can't define mind. First you EXPERIENCE mind. ...

And what is your experience of 'mind'?

Then you define artificial mind in computer language. Then you see if artificial mind is the same as real mind. Then you iterate and you make artificial mind better and better. ...

Better and better than what?

When there comes a point where there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between real-mind and artificial-mind then you can say that you have have defined mind. ...

Or to be more accurate you have defined what you think a 'mind' should be.

The mistake philosophers make is that they think you are supposed to define "mind" in English. NO. You are supposed to define it through re-creation. ...

Actually we haven't got past arguing if there is one.

Definition is replication!

Is it? I thought that more manufacturing.

[Logik]

...
You are stuck in a philosophical mode of reasoning. No scientist cares IF the universe IS an ACTUAL computer or IF the world is a Bag of Cheese Curls.
Science cares about what the universe DOES. Science cares about what HAPPENS in the universe. ...

My! What an absolutist you are. Some do some don't and some want to know if the world is actually a Bag of Cheese Curls.

No, you don't get to play the (mis)interpretation game with this one. If you are asking the question "What IS the universe?" you are a not a scientist.
If you are asking "What DOES the universe do?" then you are a scientist.

Computation is about INVENTING LANGUAGES. SO that we can say things we couldn't say previously. ...

And yet you're still just saying it in 1's and 0's with + or - a few volts.

You are getting bogged down in the implementation details. Turing-completeness is conceptual. Turing-equivalence is what matters.

You are talking about voltages so you are already ASSUMING that a computer requires electricity to operate when it only requires energy.
Here is a computer implemented with water, NOT transistors/voltages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5WodTppevo

IF computers were made like the one in the video above, I WOULD be saying it in "1s and 0s - with + or - a few <insert some quantity for water>"

When we, humans, discover some new phenomenon - previously unseen. SOMEBODY has to invent the language to describe that damn phenomenon. HOw do you describe something for which you have no language? You INVENT language. ...

Generally the physicists use mathematics I thought?

And? Mathematics is just another language.

If you don't have a word for "blue" in English and you don't gave a formula for "electron" in Mathematics you are stack with exactly the same problem!

Unable to express that which you experience!

Everything used to be about Gods, then it was about elements, then it was about music, then it was about fluids, etc, now it's about 'computers'.

YES! That is PRECISELY how synthesis works!!! We reduced the universe down to its parts.
We discovered new things.
We invented new language to describe them
Then we found things that even our new language couldn't describe.
Then we invented new language.

Now, humans aren't as stupid as you think. We kinda noticed that new science/new discoveries ALWAYS seem to result in new language!
So you know what we did? We built a machine that speaks a Universal language.

And would you imagine? A machine that is DESIGNED to speak a universal language can be used to construct a language that describes the Universe.

One day, in the distant future, when we describe the universe using this assumedly-universal language we might find an example of some phenomenon, somewhere that we can't describe. And that would be our black swan which leads us to conclude that the Turing Machine is NOT universal.

And THEN we would proceed to invent language that can describe the phenomenon a "Universal" machine can't.

And in EITHER way we wouldn't give a shit. Because Kant absolutely rejected the notion that we have direct access to reality.
We only have access to our experiences of reality and so all we can ever describe, say or express is what we experienced.

Not what reality IS.

Computer science is about taking your EXPERIENCE (that concept which is in your head) and DESCRIBING IT. In a language that is deterministic, lossless, perfectly reproducible, unambiguous, internally consistent and it works on a damn machine!

Models! That is all logic is. LEGO for your mind and a tool for self-expression.

That is what ALL language is! ...

Maybe but is it all what thought is?

Yes! Language is the expression of thought!

Same philosophical error. Science is the very process of defining mind! How can you define something you do not understand?
Are you sucking your thumb? ..

Ah! And this is the point I think others are trying to make to you as you appear to wish us to become your model?

Lol! All you can hope for, in this universe is functional equivalence! One black box BEHAVING the same as another black box.
Do you know what is INSIDE a photon? No you fucking don't! If it looks like a photon and it behaves like a photon then it is a fucking photon!

You can't define mind. First you EXPERIENCE mind. ...

And what is your experience of 'mind'?

And you have once again asked a question that sets us up for failure.
The question "What is X?" doesn't produce any answers.
The question "What is X LIKE?" produces answers. X is like Y.

So I will not answer your question, but I will answer the question "What is your experience of mind LIKE".
My experience of mind is LIKE a Universal Turing Machine.

A machine which uses language to think.

Then you define artificial mind in computer language. Then you see if artificial mind is the same as real mind. Then you iterate and you make artificial mind better and better. ...

Better and better than what?

Functional identity. Real-mind can do X. Artificial-mind can do Y. Y is a subset of X. "Better" means to close the functional gap.

When there comes a point where there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between real-mind and artificial-mind then you can say that you have have defined mind. ...

Or to be more accurate you have defined what you think a 'mind' should be.

Huh? You are a mind, are you not? If I can't tell the difference between you and an AI THEN I can answer the ontological question "What is mind like?"
It's like AI (points at machine).

The mistake philosophers make is that they think you are supposed to define "mind" in English. NO. You are supposed to define it through re-creation. ...

Actually we haven't got past arguing if there is one.

Definition is replication!

Is it? I thought that more manufacturing.

More ontological nonsense. The thing in your head that makes decisions. The thing in your head that says "If it's raining then I will take an umbrella".

It's some sort of machine. We are building a machine that works like it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Elaborate why...

"pyramids", "torsion field generators", "my experience (and those around me) of ufo's/ghosts/etc.", "dousing rods", "The pyramids are synthesizers, ... empirically", "Tesla", "a torsion field generator to rip another dimension open", "tower of Babylon", etc. I 'm just surprised I didn't see "vortex", "Orgone" and "Reich" in there.

everything is "deep" when one is shallow.

Ask them for flotation pads in the straitjacket.

I can take 2 copper rods, bend them at 36 degrees with a base angle of 72 degrees, align them within the four cardinal directions in a pyramid shape of no higher than 2ft.... and cause a measurable warp in the electromagnetic fields of 120+ feet.

Angulature redirects energy, as angulature is the foundation of space.

As to the "rest", there were outside objective observers.

[Arising_uk]

I can take 2 copper rods, bend them at 36 degrees with a base angle of 72 degrees, align them within the four cardinal directions in a pyramid shape of no higher than 2ft.... and cause a measurable warp in the electromagnetic fields of 120+ feet. ...

What kind of electromagnetic field?

Angulature redirects energy, as angulature is the foundation of space. ...

You know "energy" is as meaningless as "force"?

As to the "rest", there were outside objective observers.

Were there, where did you get them from?

[planetlonely23]

It is interesting to think that when we are in the womb things seem like there isn't existence but our bodies are growing and making changes, and we are not only in one reality, also at least three the womb, the reality of your mother and finally the world outside (which contains other realities, for me not only dualism of thinking but also the universal changes that are realized without our conscious).

So beginning for our sight when we start our practical sense of viewing space and time with different perspective, we must see from what part of our inner we can determine the world. If we are not conscious of ourselves, why we are gonna have a consciousness of the world outside on different spaces? With an axonometric projection, the scale of an object does not depend on its location along any particular axis.

[Eodnhoj7]

I can take 2 copper rods, bend them at 36 degrees with a base angle of 72 degrees, align them within the four cardinal directions in a pyramid shape of no higher than 2ft.... and cause a measurable warp in the electromagnetic fields of 120+ feet. ...

What kind of electromagnetic field?

Angulature redirects energy, as angulature is the foundation of space. ...

You know "energy" is as meaningless as "force"?

As to the "rest", there were outside objective observers.

Were there, where did you get them from?

1. So what you are arguing is that dousing rods do not measure electromagnetic activity?

2. Language context problem.

3. Whoever is immediately available; random observers conducive to a more objective stance.

[Arising_uk]

1. So what you are arguing is that dousing rods do not measure electromagnetic activity?

No what I'm asking you is which electromagnetic activity did you 'warp'(whatever that means?) with your pyramid?

2. Language context problem.

So in what context are you using "energy"?

3. Whoever is immediately available; random observers conducive to a more objective stance.

Not really, knowledgeable and critical observers would be more conducive. Where did these random observers come from?

[bahman]

It seems that the isomorphism shows, on the differentiation of the self, how belonging to a team, to a service reactivated the elements of relational indifferentiation present in each one of us. Labor relations involve, in effect, an inscription in a group structured by instituted relationships that reactivate the experience we have kept from the relational games and the communicational forms present in our family histories.
For me the different degrees represent a projection of the other with the same elements but in different situations.

We are either follow chains of causality, chain of causality being a coherent set of phenomena each phenomenon has a root in all our lives experiences, or decide when there is a conflict of interest. We then cause.

[planetlonely23]

It seems that the isomorphism shows, on the differentiation of the self, how belonging to a team, to a service reactivated the elements of relational indifferentiation present in each one of us. Labor relations involve, in effect, an inscription in a group structured by instituted relationships that reactivate the experience we have kept from the relational games and the communicational forms present in our family histories.
For me the different degrees represent a projection of the other with the same elements but in different situations.

We are either follow chains of causality, chain of causality being a coherent set of phenomena each phenomenon has a root in all our lives experiences, or decide when there is a conflict of interest. We then cause.

In your structure of thinking, things might gone by themselves looking for the way where you will find things are connected between them , the causality will look for the experience of other similar situations and phenomenology will look for the intuitive form of the rationalism, but about all in this case I believe that experience doens't work without the estructures that historically have been established by civilisations and later represented socially by the different degrees with symmetries in the structure and with dualism way to think.