Understanding FSRC via Deep Learning

[Veritas Aequitas]

Many do not understand my concept of FSRC [Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition {knowledge}]; instead they condemned it based on their ignorance, limited knowledge and a triggered defense mechanisms by an existential crisis.

Since deep learning is now in vogue I will try to explain my concept of FSRC in terms of deep learning; I am not hopeful the point will get through.

Note the image below on how AI is able to detect the image as that of a photographer.



What AI detect of the above image is basically billions of pixels, something like this;


It is only via an iterative learning process [via million or billion of iterations of continual improvements guided by selected criteria] that AI is able to produce the result 'photographer'.



Similarly for humans, all-of-reality is something like this;


and it is only via some sort of 13.77 billion years of physical processes and organic deep neural learning process via a 3.5 billion years of iterative processes that we humans could output reality as follows and all whatever is real in it;



Btw, this image itself is a resultant of the physical and organic deep learning itself. There is no absolute mind independent ontological substance within reality.


My point:
The deep learning neural network is an analogy for my embodied human-based FSRC.
Whatever is reality cannot be a pre-existing reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
The point opposed the p-realists' claim that there is an absolutely independent reality that exists regardless of humans.

It is critical to understand why p-realists are so ideological stuck and dogmatic that they are unable to breakthrough the evolutionary default to understand the above anti-realists [Kantian] perspective of reality. This is a psychological issue.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Herein are some clues on how deep learning works.
https://youtu.be/f0Y0ILHwwaM?t=155

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

Many do not understand my concept of FSRC [Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition {knowledge}]; instead they condemned it based on their ignorance, limited knowledge and a triggered defense mechanisms by an existential crisis.

Yah, yah snore.

I think the comparison with deep learning could be a way of understand you FSRC model, which is actually fairly common. I think most people would refer to it as the methodology, epistemology and models of a field of inquiry. But fine, I don't think your original term, FSK, is problematic. I don't like the new term, for reasons I expressed elsewhere, but I can accept it. And I think it's a fine idea and not a rare one at all, that each field of inquiry has it's approach and this is how we get knowledge out of various fields. That's not controversial, at least, to me.

But your comparison with deep learning needs to be fleshed out. You mention your FSRC. You assert that it's like that with us and not just machines. But you don't, here, explain how. So far it's an assertion.

(and by the way I don't think Atla, PH, and FDP disagree with the basic idea that of frameworks, methodologies, epistemologies in fields of inquiry. It's how you apply this, how you use the word objective and some other applications and claims you make while using that term that they object to.

Anyway, the main point is, hey, flesh this out. Take, for example, a specific field - history, physics, detective work, whatever - and show how deep leaning is a strong analogy for what actually happens there.

[FlashDangerpants]

You don't need machine learning to find the analog of the KFC. The theory is nothing more than putting things into lists, and arranging them with the mostests at one end and the leastest at the other. It's a sorting algorithm using manufactured values pulled from thin air.

Here's all the diagram you need



After sorting an incomplete set of thigs using a pointless bullshit scoring system, you award yourself a medal for creating a near peer to science and move on to do more stupid shit that serves no purpose and resolves zero controversies.

[Atla]

I finally finished my KFC, that tells us how dense someone is [it uses deep learning].

It seems to be broken though.. the scale goes 1 to 10, people who get 2-3 are pretty sharp and people who get 8-9 are like really dense. The KFC almost always works, but for VA it gives a score of 12.66..
But 10 is the theorethical maximum, the score can't go any higher. I checked and checked and just can't find a bug. I don't get it?

[Iwannaplato]

Also I think the sensory system and the learning systems seem conflated in the OP. On can't fully separate these out, but I think the issue needs to be dealt with. Humans don't see pixels and while FSKs can certain influence what one senses, even a wolf child (raised by wolves) who doesn't have anything like the FSKs we discuss here will not see a batch pixels. So, senses and learning need to be teased apart.

And then learning, which can be include all sorts of conditioning, tacit learning and so on, need to be separated out from the use of frameworks and methodologies at a conscious level.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also I think the sensory system and the learning systems seem conflated in the OP. On can't fully separate these out, but I think the issue needs to be dealt with. Humans don't see pixels and while FSKs can certain influence what one senses, even a wolf child (raised by wolves) who doesn't have anything like the FSKs we discuss here will not see a batch pixels. So, senses and learning need to be teased apart.

And then learning, which can be include all sorts of conditioning, tacit learning and so on, need to be separated out from the use of frameworks and methodologies at a conscious level.

What I presented is a very crude model.
There are loads of other elements, principles, processes involved.
I am trying, but I anticipate most who rejected my FRSC concept are not likely to understand it, see the shallow response above from FDP and Atla.

"Humans don't see pixels"
As usual, your thinking is too narrow and shallow.
It is so obvious, humans do not see pixels, e.g. those which actually exists on the your computer monitor.
But what humans are actually interacting with are really pixels on the monitors.



When one "sees" something [images, video] on the monitor, it is merely due to the changes in intensity, colors within each pixel.
As such, what is more real are the pixels and the image is less real, i.e. our visual sense has 'deceived' us to see an image from certain activities within the pixels.

In the case of reality [all there is] it is not pixels but at a base level, something like this;



I had stated there is nothing ontological real with the above soup of particles.
What is this soup of particle is subjected to the FSRC which is human-based, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Basically, there is no room for any ideological claim of an absolutely mind-independent reality; this is why Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution.

[Atla]

Also I think the sensory system and the learning systems seem conflated in the OP. On can't fully separate these out, but I think the issue needs to be dealt with. Humans don't see pixels and while FSKs can certain influence what one senses, even a wolf child (raised by wolves) who doesn't have anything like the FSKs we discuss here will not see a batch pixels. So, senses and learning need to be teased apart.

And then learning, which can be include all sorts of conditioning, tacit learning and so on, need to be separated out from the use of frameworks and methodologies at a conscious level.

What I presented is a very crude model.
There are loads of other elements, principles, processes involved.
I am trying, but I anticipate most who rejected my FRSC concept are not likely to understand it, see the shallow response above from FDP and Atla.

"Humans don't see pixels"
As usual, your thinking is too narrow and shallow.
It is so obvious, humans do not see pixels, e.g. those which actually exists on the your computer monitor.
But what humans are actually interacting with are really pixels on the monitors.



When one "sees" something [images, video] on the monitor, it is merely due to the changes in intensity, colors within each pixel.
As such, what is more real are the pixels and the image is less real, i.e. our visual sense has 'deceived' us to see an image from certain activities within the pixels.

In the case of reality [all there is] it is not pixels but at a base level, something like this;



I had stated there is nothing ontological real with the above soup of particles.
What is this soup of particle is subjected to the FSRC which is human-based, thus cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

Basically, there is no room for any ideological claim of an absolutely mind-independent reality; this is why Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution.

And indirect realism claims that the soup of particles is ontologically real and not random. Only an idiot would claim that there is no room for a mind-independent reality.

[Iwannaplato]

And indirect realism claims that the soup of particles is ontologically real and not random. Only an idiot would claim that there is no room for a mind-independent reality.

and very important in context - What VA is doing with his images is anti-antirealist.
He's saying that prior to deep learning like processes in humans,
here's what reality is really like.
That is realism.
It's a terribly supported realism - random pixels - but that is a realist model of perception.
Here's what we see before our algorithms get to work on it.

VA never notices when he uses realism to justify his antirealisms.
As he did with the 'we don't know if the star is still there' (because of realist models)
As he does in relation to other minds, because he doesn't want this to apply to just himself.

He talk about what is there beyond perception as if it exists. And further he knows what it's like.
That's realist ontology and realist epistemology. And it's indirect realism ta boot.

And as he does here.
He uses, in this thread, a kind of realism, to argue for his points. He knows what's 'really' going on prior to and beyond perception.
He's cheating.

[Atla]

And indirect realism claims that the soup of particles is ontologically real and not random. Only an idiot would claim that there is no room for a mind-independent reality.

and very important in context - What VA is doing with his images is anti-antirealist.
He's saying that prior to deep learning like processes in humans,
here's what reality is really like.
That is realism.
It's a terribly supported realism - random pixels - but that is a realist model of perception.
Here's what we see before our algorithms get to work on it.

VA never notices when he uses realism to justify his antirealisms.
As he did with the 'we don't know if the star is still there' (because of realist models)
As he does in relation to other minds, because he doesn't want this to apply to just himself.

He talk about what is there beyond perception as if it exists. And further he knows what it's like.
That's realist ontology and realist epistemology. And it's indirect realism ta boot.

And as he does here.
He uses, in this thread, a kind of realism, to argue for his points. He knows what's 'really' going on prior to and beyond perception.
He's cheating.

To me, he seems to be saying that those pixels aren't ontologically real, but exist enough anyway to serve as the basis of his FSRC or whatever process.

How can something not be ontologically real but exist?

[Iwannaplato]

To me, he seems to be saying that those pixels aren't ontologically real, but exist enough anyway to serve as the basis of his FSRC or whatever process.

How can something not be ontologically real but exist?

Their necessity in the steps of an argmument calls them forth. He has an active anti-realism. He takes constructivism literally. He gets to make things real.

[Atla]

To me, he seems to be saying that those pixels aren't ontologically real, but exist enough anyway to serve as the basis of his FSRC or whatever process.

How can something not be ontologically real but exist?

Their necessity in the steps of an argmument calls them forth. He has an active anti-realism. He takes constructivism literally. He gets to make things real.

Reminds me of those QM interpretations that treat quantum behaviour as "not real", but when we look for the results, those are "real".

Then I always ask: how can something that DOESN'T EXIST, arrange the results exactly in accordance with the laws of QM? How can NOTHING affect SOMETHING, and even does so perfectly consistently?

The reply to my question is always a befuddled blank stare, and then they simply repeat their stance.

[Iwannaplato]

To me, he seems to be saying that those pixels aren't ontologically real, but exist enough anyway to serve as the basis of his FSRC or whatever process.

How can something not be ontologically real but exist?

Their necessity in the steps of an argmument calls them forth. He has an active anti-realism. He takes constructivism literally. He gets to make things real.

Reminds me of those QM interpretations that treat quantum behaviour as "not real", but when we look for the results, those are "real".

Then I always ask: how can something that DOESN'T EXIST, arrange the results exactly in accordance with the laws of QM? How can NOTHING affect SOMETHING, and even does so perfectly consistently?

The reply to my question is always a befuddled blank stare, and then they simply repeat their stance.

I did spend a long time trying to get VA to answer about the consistency of what is constructed. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally when we, alone, enter an empty room, we find not only what was there before - no zebras, collections of shells that were there, and so on - but what other people find there. He tried to defend against this way saying that the things are not necessarily the same. But that misses the point that we would still categorize them similarly, even if somehow how those atoms are not the same or it's all really a kind of sensory hallucination, we have very similar ones and this holds even across cultures. Why is there such persistance of objects, even over long periods of time, if it's really just constructivist perception working on something like a field of random pixels? Given that every object would, thus, be a bunch of random pixels, but we keep making the same things out of them. And this works across species. Put some meat in a room and your dog wolf lion, maggots, will eat that. They construct something edible out of the pixels. And it's gone when you later go in the room.

Put a rock in there and then let in the animal and it's still there after the animal comes out and you enter. Why the persistence and consistency?

I don't think this is a nail in the coffin, but he never answered it well. As always I think he doesn't take his antirealism far enough to be consistent. It's actually just a rear guard action against PH's attack on morals not being objective. OK, VA thought, I will take away your objectivism and make it something else so my morals can be objective.

[Atla]

Their necessity in the steps of an argmument calls them forth. He has an active anti-realism. He takes constructivism literally. He gets to make things real.

Reminds me of those QM interpretations that treat quantum behaviour as "not real", but when we look for the results, those are "real".

Then I always ask: how can something that DOESN'T EXIST, arrange the results exactly in accordance with the laws of QM? How can NOTHING affect SOMETHING, and even does so perfectly consistently?

The reply to my question is always a befuddled blank stare, and then they simply repeat their stance.

I did spend a long time trying to get VA to answer about the consistency of what is constructed. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally when we, alone, enter an empty room, we find not only what was there before - no zebras, collections of shells that were there, and so on - but what other people find there. He tried to defend against this way saying that the things are not necessarily the same. But that misses the point that we would still categorize them similarly, even if somehow how those atoms are not the same or it's all really a kind of sensory hallucination, we have very similar ones and this holds even across cultures. Why is there such persistance of objects, even over long periods of time, if it's really just constructivist perception working on something like a field of random pixels? Given that every object would, thus, be a bunch of random pixels, but we keep making the same things out of them. And this works across species. Put some meat in a room and your dog wolf lion, maggots, will eat that. They construct something edible out of the pixels. And it's gone when you later go in the room.

Put a rock in there and then let in the animal and it's still there after the animal comes out and you enter. Why the persistence and consistency?

I don't think this is a nail in the coffin, but he never answered it well. As always I think he doesn't take his antirealism far enough to be consistent. It's actually just a rear guard action against PH's attack on morals not being objective. OK, VA thought, I will take away your objectivism and make it something else so my morals can be objective.

It's difficult to take your Kantian antirealism far enough considering Kant wasn't even an antirealist..