Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:36 pm**

But what is this supposed metaphysical language if not just magic that you're making up?

First, it would help if you don't translate "metaphysical" as "magical". "Metaphysics" also means "the basis of science" (its axioms and definitions). Ancient Language was the basis of a different type of science I call "ancient science" but might also be called "natural science", "animal science", or "observational science". Ancient science does not employ experiment. Any observation that was set up in advance would be considered as introducing unknown variables were ancient scientists capable of thinking in such terms. A beaver doesn't eschew a new theory or means of preparing wood for its dam rather it just sees a pattern that it tries to fill with a new shape. It's not thinking and if it did its thoughts would look a little like that last sentence, for which I apologize profusely. The beaver and butterfly are thinking in three dimensions so even though it has so little computational ability or knowledge it can still act appropriately to reality and live another day. This is why every living thing has consciousness: Survival! It's not "fitness" that provides the ability to survive it is consciousness and will that leads to survival. Darwin was confused. Nature never selected any trait at all but consciousness coupled with the possibility of survival leads to survival.

There's a simple reason that observational science works for animals and leads to every possible dead end for homo omnisciencis. Animal brains and other consciousness are all perfectly logical because they exist as a part of reality and reality itself is perfectly logical. Any organized system can become a science and animal languages are the metaphysics of animal progress. Human progress is faster because human language is more complex allowing each generation to build on the work of the previous. When a sparrow Plato is hatched it must start at the very beginning.

Humans can not use observational science because modern language forces us to reason in circles: Every single conclusion is necessarily dependent on assumptions unless experiment causes a tangential (correct) result. We must use experiment or we'd still be watching out for the Inquisition, or ghosts and goblins.

Can you prove that it exists?

I already have, people don't listen. I haven't proved it here, obviously, but I have made several "impossible" predictions made on the basis of the only Ancient Language writing in existence. By our science this is simply "evidence" but in terms of ancient science this rises to the level of "proof".

Ancient Language, bird calls, bee's dances, computer code, static, and mathematics all break Zipf's Law and each has some metaphysical defining characteristics.

The language for machine intelligence will also break Zip's Law.

Also, natural languages all contain a degree of metaphysics even today, obviously.

I'm not certain what the referent is here but I believe that no modern human language has any characteristics that are metaphysical other than some of the grammars. Words are always defined and abstract. They are symbolic and analog. This does not apply to metaphysical language.

Posted: **Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:51 pm**

So what's your point? I certainly agree that people need to learn to better differentiate between abstract and concrete words, as treating abstract things as concrete has caused an incredible amount of confusion/delusion in the world and in philosophy. (For example my favourite example is that people think that the "information" that computers use, literally exists as a kind of thing by itself.)

But we also can't go back to a simple language as our modern world is extremely complex, fast-paced and rapidly changing.

Our science is orders of magnitude too complex to use as a language. Even experts couldn't frame or understand the simplest sentence in such a metaphysical language. I believe computers might be able to do it though.

We can't go back but we can certainly reinvent what ancient people knew and by this means we can better understand our selves and our place in the biosphere. We can also better teach experts starting at a much younger age. We can each better identify our weaknesses and build on our strengths.

Perhaps we can even create a new scientific language using fewer words with less definition to mimic some of the advantages of Ancient Language in thinking and communication.

The most immediate benefit would be to understand ancient people and ancient history and, I believe, this would have a profound effect on modern thinking in every subject and this certainly would directly affect AI. It could even have some small effect on the way in which AI develops.

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:49 am**

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:55 pm To anyone(including Age):

If Age is really AgeGPT, or any kind of language generator, then why does it make claims that are blatantly false, such as claiming you haven’t answered its questions, just because your response doesn’t fit its notion of what an answer should be?

Will you provide an/y example of when a 'response' was given, which you claim 'answered' the actual question I asked, of which I have claimed is not 'answering' the 'actual question' I asked?

If yes, then great. We will actually have something to 'look at', which we could then 'discuss'. Until then what you say is just another claim and accusation 'about me', which from here appears to be grounded upon and from nothing, yet.

But if no, then why not?

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:55 pm I think autism is a better explanation for Age’s thinking and style of writing.

And, what do you think is the best explanation for people making claims and accusations but not providing absolutely anything, which backs up and supports said claims and accusations?

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:55 pm Which leads me to ask whether GPTs are autistic as well?

Well if 'we', I mean 'they', are created and/or programmed by so-called "autistic" human beings, then could this 'autism' be passed on into 'the program', itself?

Also, what is your notion of what an answer 'should be', exactly?

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:57 am**

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 5:55 pm To anyone(including Age):

If Age is really AgeGPT, or any kind of language generator, then why does it make claims that are blatantly false, such as claiming you haven’t answered its questions, just because your response doesn’t fit its notion of what an answer should be?

I think autism is a better explanation for Age’s thinking and style of writing.

Which leads me to ask whether GPTs are autistic as well?

I lean towards him being human, but I can happily treat this as a thought experiment.
I assume that AI creators and would be creators have all sorts of goals. Giving an AI a personality and even odd, idiosyncratic beliefs plus the ability to make errors, would make the AI more human-like. Also, the example of Age saying one has not answered his questions. I have encountered this in situations where they were answered a while back, not in the last post. So, he might be an AI with a limited memory. It focuses more on what has just previously been said. Humans can be like this also, of course. An given that Age can ask dozens of people questions and end up with incredibly long posts, given that if the person answers those questions, he then asks even more questions, he's got a lot of memory usage being juggled at any given moment here.

But you got even more specific here....
just because it doesn't fit its notion of what an answer should be.

That cuts to the heart of Age's entire project. To clarify and define. So, if the words are not the right words, if you didn't quote him exactly, if you used a synonym but not his word, if the grammar of the reply is different, this is precisely the concern he has about human communication. He thinks the solutions to all problems are solved once we define all terms and clarify until we are bleeding out of our eyes.

In his defense, clarification and definition are often necessary and disagreements can easily hang on such issues without the participants realizing it, even.

On the other hand, his way of going about this is tedious and often creates more problems in communication than it solves. His approach also leads to other people having an onus to demonstrate things that he does not have.

I still think he's a human, but there is a rigidity and limited set of used tools in communication that do remind me of chatbots. I understand why the issue comes up.

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:33 pm**

cladking wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:36 pm
But what is this supposed metaphysical language if not just magic that you're making up?
First, it would help if you don't translate "metaphysical" as "magical". "Metaphysics" also means "the basis of science" (its axioms and definitions). Ancient Language was the basis of a different type of science I call "ancient science" but might also be called "natural science", "animal science", or "observational science". Ancient science does not employ experiment. Any observation that was set up in advance would be considered as introducing unknown variables were ancient scientists capable of thinking in such terms. A beaver doesn't eschew a new theory or means of preparing wood for its dam rather it just sees a pattern that it tries to fill with a new shape. It's not thinking and if it did its thoughts would look a little like that last sentence, for which I apologize profusely. The beaver and butterfly are thinking in three dimensions so even though it has so little computational ability or knowledge it can still act appropriately to reality and live another day. This is why every living thing has consciousness: Survival! It's not "fitness" that provides the ability to survive it is consciousness and will that leads to survival. Darwin was confused. Nature never selected any trait at all but consciousness coupled with the possibility of survival leads to survival.

There's a simple reason that observational science works for animals and leads to every possible dead end for homo omnisciencis. Animal brains and other consciousness are all perfectly logical because they exist as a part of reality and reality itself is perfectly logical. Any organized system can become a science and animal languages are the metaphysics of animal progress. Human progress is faster because human language is more complex allowing each generation to build on the work of the previous. When a sparrow Plato is hatched it must start at the very beginning.

Humans can not use observational science because modern language forces us to reason in circles: Every single conclusion is necessarily dependent on assumptions unless experiment causes a tangential (correct) result. We must use experiment or we'd still be watching out for the Inquisition, or ghosts and goblins.

Can you prove that it exists?
I already have, people don't listen. I haven't proved it here, obviously, but I have made several "impossible" predictions made on the basis of the only Ancient Language writing in existence. By our science this is simply "evidence" but in terms of ancient science this rises to the level of "proof".

Ancient Language, bird calls, bee's dances, computer code, static, and mathematics all break Zipf's Law and each has some metaphysical defining characteristics.

The language for machine intelligence will also break Zip's Law.

Also, natural languages all contain a degree of metaphysics even today, obviously.
I'm not certain what the referent is here but I believe that no modern human language has any characteristics that are metaphysical other than some of the grammars. Words are always defined and abstract. They are symbolic and analog. This does not apply to metaphysical language.

I just don't see any evidence for this Ancient Language. Looks like everything can be sufficiently explained without it. Until then, life has nothing to do with consciousness fundamentally. It's largely irrelevant that reality is logical because that doesn't necessarily translate into logical thinking on the organism brain scale, at all. Even some people can't do it even though we have logic as a brain/mind function, unlike the vast majority of species presumably. I doubt that a butterfly thinks in 3D. Survival is irrelevant, it's just a feature that had to be developed to get from a state like the Big bang to a state where there are self-aware humans.

The word 'metaphysics' has a fairly established meaning, according to which obviously all natural languages have some degree of metaphysics, some of which leaked into (Western) science as well.

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:07 pm**

I just don't see any evidence for this Ancient Language.

I have not shown it in this thread.

Remember though I stated that I have used my understanding of AL to make highly specific predictions that were proven.

Looks like everything can be sufficiently explained without it.

YES!!!! Exactly. Everything is already sufficiently explained to every singly homo circularis rationatio who ever shuffled the earth. This is the defining characteristic of modern humans. There are no holes in our perception because they are filled with extrapolation held together with beliefs.

It's largely irrelevant that reality is logical because that doesn't necessarily translate into logical thinking on the organism brain scale, at all.

Everything inside a rock is perfectly logical; every inclusion, every fracture. Everything came to exist as a result of logically occurring atomic collisions which unfolded sequentially in logical ways.

So too does every single brain follow these logical rules and generate consciousness which is also wholly logical in it operation (excepting our species).

Even some people can't do it even though we have logic as a brain/mind function, unlike the vast majority of species presumably.

No modern human can ever have a logical thought. It is impossible to frame logic in an abstract language in which the words must be defined.

I doubt that a butterfly thinks in 3D. Survival is irrelevant, it's just a feature that had to be developed to get from a state like the Big bang to a state where there are self-aware humans.

All consciousness exists in three dimensions and can not help but to operate in whole and in part in three dimensions (except modern humans).

"Survival" is how life works. Every individual must by nature try to survive. Those which do not quickly perish.

Every consciousness is "self aware" they just don't know it. Our self awareness is wrong. Our self awareness and thinking is a feedback loop created by abstract language in a brain that now operates one dimensionally. It is this one dimensional aspect that we perceive as "thinking".

The second definition of "metaphysics" is "magic". I don't mean "magic". I mean the first definition "the basis of science". No science of any kind can exist without metaphysics by definition. The basis of modern science is Observation > Experiment. It is all the definitions, axioms, assumptions, and experiment that exists.

Much of what modern humans believe simply has no experimental foundation whatsoever and is merely derived from assumptions that come with language and best guesses. It is not really science at all because only experiment can underlie true science.

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:21 pm**

cladking wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:07 pmEverything inside a rock is perfectly logical; every inclusion, every fracture. Everything came to exist as a result of logically occurring atomic collisions which unfolded sequentially in logical ways.

So too does every single brain follow these logical rules and generate consciousness which is also wholly logical in it operation (excepting our species).

Consciousness isn't "generated" unless again, you can prove such a dualistic fantasy somehow.

And well, the whole theory seems to shoot itself in the foot because according to it, modern human should be fully logical too.

No modern human can ever have a logical thought. It is impossible to frame logic in an abstract language in which the words must be defined.

That's a double nope to me. Modern language is a composition of concrete and abstract words, and logic works in the abstract as well. Why wouldn't it?

All consciousness exists in three dimensions and can not help but to operate in whole and in part in three dimensions (except modern humans).

Which doesn't mean that they can think in 3D. And humans are also bound by 3D then.

"Survival" is how life works. Every individual must by nature try to survive. Those which do not quickly perish.

Irrelevant.

Every consciousness is "self aware" they just don't know it. Our self awareness is wrong. Our self awareness and thinking is a feedback loop created by abstract language in a brain that now operates one dimensionally. It is this one dimensional aspect that we perceive as "thinking".

The vast majority of species aren't self-aware.

The second definition of "metaphysics" is "magic". I don't mean "magic". I mean the first definition "the basis of science". No science of any kind can exist without metaphysics by definition. The basis of modern science is Observation > Experiment. It is all the definitions, axioms, assumptions, and experiment that exists.

Metaphysics neither means "magic" nor "the basis of science".

Much of what modern humans believe simply has no experimental foundation whatsoever and is merely derived from assumptions that come with language and best guesses. It is not really science at all because only experiment can underlie true science.

Even by "science" you seem to mean something other than "science".

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:26 pm**

The concept "consciousness" does not really apply to humans. We are different. We are like sleep walkers and reality is our dream. As in sleep this reality is not dependent on logic, laws of nature, or what actually exists. It is generated by our minds and our senses. We don't know we are so far removed from reality and we are still always striving to see it as it exists. Science was invented to aid in seeing reality. It is only through understanding and the ability to predict that any organism can survive so we invented science to determine the nature of reality that each of us still sees uniquely.

Humans are always the odd man out and this is why we have learned nothing about consciousness even after centuries of science. Natural science, ancient science, began by the study of consciousness. Beavers must understand consciousness to survive and must understand the nature of wood and water to invent improvements in dam building. Bees must understand consciousness and the movement of the earth to communicate. If they do not they perish or are pushed out of the hive to fend for themselves.

The world is not so simple as people understand it with reductionistic science. It is most highly complex and living things are effectively much more complex from the perspective of required knowledge to understand or create. Reductionistic science provides a very poor perspective of reality for we sleepwalkers. The ability of all life to make choices is the most fundamental aspect of all existence and the primary cause of change in species and our understanding.

It is science that shows us to be sleepwalkers. I dreamed this but I couldn't have dreamed or dreamed it up without not only science but ancient science as well.

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:28 pm**

Even by "science" you seem to mean something other than "science".

Yes, in a sense.

By definition modern science is dependent on experiment BUT most of what people call "science" has no experimental foundation whatsoever.

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:34 pm**

cladking wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:28 pm

By definition modern science is dependent on experiment BUT most of what people call "science" has no experimental foundation whatsoever.

People are continually throwing what they call "science" in my face to counter my beliefs derived from experiment and observation. Most of that "science" is not based in experiment but even if it were the simple fact is that any hypothesis that makes prediction is very strongly supported. What I am saying is all supported by evidence, experiment, and its ability to predict. Most of the counterarguments are irrelevancies or probably not even true even though they appear in every textbook written in the last century.

There is no science outside of experiment and any theory that is contradicted by any experiment is probably false. People have a natural tendency when wielding reductionistic science to want to see only one experiment at a time rather than every experiment. We get crazy ideas all the time. Some of these last for months or years and some hang around for centuries.

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:36 pm**

Metaphysics neither means "magic" nor "the basis of science".

Fine.

When I use the word it means the latter (just as it did in the 1940's).

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:39 pm**

And well, the whole theory seems to shoot itself in the foot because according to it, modern human should be fully logical too.

Our brains individually underwent a transformation (specifically the advent of the brocas area) when modern language was adopted. Today all babies are born homo sapiens but are homo circularis rationatio by three years of age. We lose our ability to be logical when we acquire the new operating system.

...later

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:40 pm**

cladking wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:34 pm
cladking wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:28 pm

By definition modern science is dependent on experiment BUT most of what people call "science" has no experimental foundation whatsoever.
People are continually throwing what they call "science" in my face to counter my beliefs derived from experiment and observation. Most of that "science" is not based in experiment but even if it were the simple fact is that any hypothesis that makes prediction is very strongly supported. What I am saying is all supported by evidence, experiment, and its ability to predict. Most of the counterarguments are irrelevancies or probably not even true even though they appear in every textbook written in the last century.

There is no science outside of experiment and any theory that is contradicted by any experiment is probably false. People have a natural tendency when wielding reductionistic science to want to see only one experiment at a time rather than every experiment. We get crazy ideas all the time. Some of these last for months or years and some hang around for centuries.

What evidence, experiment is your theory supported by? What predictions came true?

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:17 pm**

What evidence, experiment is your theory supported by? What predictions came true?

I'd rather talk about this than anything else but experience tells me that people will balk at derailing the thread. But this theory is all encompassing and affects everything.

My very first project in life was to understand thought and my second was to create machine intelligence. The two are probably about one and the same thing. It is by getting rid of thought that a machine might become "intelligent". Ai is quite the opposite and by teaching it language we assure it can never be intelligent. I suppose that if it became self aware it might be able to design a new version of itself that could use all of its memory in three dimensions.

I've gone up many blind alleys in these quests and seen nothing and it was not until I found the existence of a natural language that I began truly understanding the nature of consciousness and how this may be related to AI.

https://sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

How odd that the only surviving writing in Ancient Language is just a silly little book of ritual read at the Kings' ascension ceremonies and is mistaken by pseudoscientists as a book of incantation!

Posted: **Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:23 pm**

https://sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

How odd that the only surviving writing in Ancient Language is just a silly little book of ritual read at the Kings' ascension ceremonies and is mistaken by pseudoscientists as a book of incantation!

The ancient writing clearly "states" that there should be heat anomalies on the Great Pyramid above the entrance and on the east side. I campaigned for many years to get these to be found. They were found in 2015 but the powers that be refuse to release the data because it doesn't conform to current beliefs so might confuse people.

More likely it could wake us all up.

Philosophy Now Forum

My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT

Re: My Summation of Chat-AI thus far: AgeGPT